DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-18 are currently pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the "units" in claims 1-3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 13-18 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims are directed to a "method" in the preamble. However, rather than setting forth a series of steps, the bodies of the claims only recite programs. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Although claims 13-18 are directed to a "method," they bodies of the claims only recite a series of programs that together read on software per se. Functional descriptive material such as a computer program must be structurally and functionally interrelated with a medium to allow its intended uses to be realized. Accordingly, claims directed to software per se are not within any of the four statutory categories and are not patentable subject matter. In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1760 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See MPEP § 2106.03 for further guidance and discussion on computer-related nonstatutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “difficult” in claims 6, 12, and 18 (presented twice in each claim) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “difficult” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, although the claims state that the difficulty is due to the shape of the concrete structure, it is not clear how difficult the part or exploration must be due to the shape in order to infringe the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 and 7-11 are allowed. The closest prior art references, which are cited below, all generally teach methods for exploring reinforced concrete via radar and, more specifically, using radar waveforms to determine the positions of rebar in concrete. However, the do not teach the limitations together of a vertex invisible waveform part information acquisition unit which acquires waveform information of a waveform part of a hyperbola waveform in which a vertex is invisible from the acquired radar exploration result; a vertex estimation means holding unit which holds vertex estimation means for estimating a vertex position of the vertex invisible waveform part on the basis of the vertex invisible waveform part information; and a vertex estimation unit which estimates a vertex position of the vertex invisible waveform part on the basis of the vertex invisible waveform part information and the vertex estimation means in any reasonable combination.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Roberts, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0236309 (Reference A of the attached PTO-892) relates to estimating radar invisible regions of reinforced concrete structures.
Morita, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0230290 (Reference B of the attached PTO-892) relates to estimating radar invisible regions of reinforced concrete structures.
Okazaki, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0196873 (Reference C of the attached PTO-892) relates to estimating radar invisible regions of reinforced concrete structures.
Nishita, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0233083 (Reference D of the attached PTO-892) relates to estimating radar invisible regions of reinforced concrete structures.
Lehner, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0072813 (Reference E of the attached PTO-892) relates to estimating radar invisible regions of reinforced concrete structures.
Takamine, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2017/0269204 (Reference F of the attached PTO-892) relates to estimating radar invisible regions of reinforced concrete structures.
Jazayeri, er al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 10,234,552 (Reference G of the attached PTO-892) relates to estimating radar invisible regions of reinforced concrete structures.
Yumiko, et al., For. Pat. Pub No. JP-2020134299-A (Reference N of the attached PTO-892) relates to estimating radar invisible regions of reinforced concrete structures.
Yang, et al., For. Pat. Pub No. CN-115993583-A (Reference O of the attached PTO-892) relates to estimating radar invisible regions of reinforced concrete structures.
Barrile, et al., Application of radar technology to reinforced concrete structures: a case study, NDT & e International, Vol. 38, No. 7, 2005, pgs. 596-604 (Reference U of the attached PTO-892) relates to estimating radar invisible regions of reinforced concrete structures.
Lachowicz, et al., Application of GPR method in diagnostics of reinforced concrete structures, Diagnostyka, Vol. 16, 2015 (Reference V of the attached PTO-892) relates to estimating radar invisible regions of reinforced concrete structures.
Tosti, et al., Using ground penetrating radar methods to investigate reinforced concrete structures, Surveys in Geophysics, Vol. 41, No. 3, 2020, 485-530 (Reference W of the attached PTO-892) relates to estimating radar invisible regions of reinforced concrete structures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL VETTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1366. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL VETTER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights