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
.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims filed 06/03/2026 have been considered and entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claim 1-17)
in the reply filed on 06/03/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim(s) 18-20 was/were withdrawn by Applicant
, and said claim(s) remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species/invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
With further regards to claim 18-20, Applicant requested that upon a determination of allowability, Examiner consider rejoinder and contact Applicant’s representative to discuss. The Examiner notes that if Applicant is interested in a future rejoinder, the Examiner suggests amending the withdrawn independent claim during prosecution in view of the prior art as well as claim scope & amendments of examined independent claims as a showing of earnest & willingness to place said withdrawn claims into condition for allowance; while rejoinder thereof would still not be required, the Examiner would take it seriously under consideration and would be more likely to contact Applicant’s representative to discuss any further small amendments as necessary to place said claims into condition for allowance and eligibility for rejoinder.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s)
(IDS) submitted on 05/30/2024, 10/22/2024, & 10/09/2025 is/are in compliance
with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content, language, and/or format for an abstract of the disclosure:
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
use of phrases which can be implied (“are described herein useful to”).
Appropriate correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The title of the invention is not descriptive.
A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. This may result in slightly longer titles, but the loss in brevity of title will be more than offset by the gain in its informative value in indexing, classifying, searching, etc. The Examiner notes this objection can be held in abeyance, however, if a satisfactory title is not supplied by the applicant, the Examiner may, at the time of allowance, change the title by an Examiner’s amendment. See MPEP § 1302.04(a).
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.
MPEP § 2173.02(I) states in part: “if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is appropriate”.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 5 and claim 15,
a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art could read the limitation “wherein the at least one material characteristic includes one or more of…” with more than one reasonable interpretation including “one or more of each of a grain size, a grain structure, a grain orientation, a grain shape, a presence of a microtexture region, a size of a microtexture region, an intensity of a microtexture region, an orientation of a microtexture region, a macrotexture, dislocation content, and residual elastic compressive or tensile stresses of the material sample” or “one or more material characteristic selected from the group consisting of a grain size, a grain structure, a grain orientation, a grain shape, a presence of a microtexture region, a size of a microtexture region, an intensity of a microtexture region, an orientation of a microtexture region, a macrotexture, dislocation content, and residual elastic compressive or tensile stresses of the material sample”. As best understood by the Examiner and for the purpose of examination, the Examiner interprets the aforementioned limitation by the latter broader interpretation of selecting from a Markush grouping.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 9, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Applicant cited Yokono* et al (JP 2000131297 A; hereafter “Yokono”).
*machine translation provided by Examiner with foreign document and utilized for English citations
Regarding independent claim 1,
Yokono teaches in fig. 1-4 an inspection system (fig. 1, evaluation apparatus 1) (Title “LEAKAGE ELASTIC SURFACE WAVE MEASURING PROBE”; Abstract “provide a leakage elastic surface wave measuring probe capable of obtaining, more precisely than before, a sound velocity of a leakage elastic surface wave or various characteristic quantities of a leakage wave caused by the leakage elastic surface wave”) comprising:
a transducer (fig. 1-4, probe 21) having a concave face (figs. 3-4, face of concave portion 21e) including one or more piezoelectric elements (figs. 1 & 3-4, piezoelectric transducers 21a-21c) that operate as an acoustic transmitter and an acoustic receiver (Abstract “Piezoelectric transducers 21a-21c are installed on the transmitting/receiving surface R, and the piezoelectric transducers 21a-21c are divided into three parts, namely, a transmitting part 21b of an angled incident wave P3 for generating a leakage elastic surface wave P5, a transmitting/receiving part 21a of the orthogonal incident wave P1 and the orthogonal reflected wave P2, and a receiving part 21c of the leakage wave P4” and “transmitting/receiving part”; additional obviousness analysis provided for each piezoelectric element as transceiver);
a coupling medium (figs. 2-3, water W) filling a space between the transducer (fig. 1-4, probe 21) and a surface (surface of sample S) of a material sample (figs. 2-3, sample S); and
a control unit (fig. 1, computer 40 with drive unit 30) in communication with the transducer (fig. 1-4, probe 21), the control unit (fig. 1, computer 40 with drive unit 30) including at least one processor (processing portion of computer 40 comprising processing means 46 and control means 44) and at least one memory device (memory portion of computer 40 comprising memory 45), the at least one memory device (memory portion of computer 40 comprising memory 45) storing instructions that when executed by the at least one processor (processing portion of computer 40 comprising processing means 46 and control means 44) cause the at least one processor (processing portion of computer 40 comprising processing means 46 and control means 44) to:
cause the transducer (fig. 1-4, probe 21) to produce acoustic waves from the concave face (figs. 3-4, face of concave portion 21e) such that the acoustic waves travel through the coupling medium (figs. 2-3, water W) (see incident ultrasonic wave P3), along a portion of the surface (surface of sample S) of the material sample (figs. 2-3, sample S) (see elastic surface wave P5), and are transmitted back to the concave face (figs. 3-4, face of concave portion 21e) as surface acoustic waves (see fig. 4) (see leaky wave P4);
access data indicative of the surface acoustic waves received at the concave face (figs. 3-4, face of concave portion 21e); and
determine at least one material characteristic of the material sample (figs. 2-3, sample S) based on the data (Abstract “a leakage elastic surface wave measuring probe capable of obtaining, more precisely than before, a sound velocity of a leakage elastic surface wave or various characteristic quantities of a leakage wave caused by the leakage elastic surface wave”; ([0001] “examining the degree of deterioration and physical properties of a test piece, such as thermal embrittlement and intergranular corrosion”; [0002] “the degree of deterioration, physical properties, and the like of the test piece are examined by measuring characteristic quantities such as the frequency, amplitude, and propagation time of the leaky wave caused by the leaky surface acoustic wave”; about middle of page 8 “The degree of thermal embrittlement and intergranular corrosion of the steel material and, for example, formation of an oxide film, carburization, nitriding, decarburization, and element concentration are determined by the surface sound velocity Vs of the specimen S obtained in each of the above embodiments. The degree of such surface modification can be evaluated”).
The Examiner notes with respect to the above teachings being shown in different figures, that while the reference does not expressly show all of the above claimed features clearly in a single depicted embodiment as a single figure, either one of ordinary skill in the art would at once envisaged the
combination from the generic teachings thereof and/or specific possible choices of the structural components
thereof, or, in the alternative, it at least would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to nevertheless so combine the above features for the
purpose and combinations as proposed by said reference and as analyzed by the Examiner
including the citations and/or Examiner comments provided above in reference to the claimed features.
Pertinently, the Examiner further notes that "Combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness", see Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009). More particularly, it is Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yokono’s evaluation & control portions (see especially fig. 1) with Yokono’s water tank & scanning means (see especially fig. 2) as well as Yokono’s sensor unit (see especially fig. 3 shows details of sensor unit 21 common to the other figures) for the complementary purposes of providing means for evaluation & control with immersion scanning thereby providing better coupling, convenient maneuverability, automation, programmability, well-known transduction between electrical & acoustics via piezoelectrics, as well as display of the analyzed information. With further regards to the piezoelectric elements, either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that each of Yokono’s piezoelectric elements are transceivers, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, the Examiner takes Official Notice that utilizing transducers or receivers as both (i.e., as transceivers) is conventional in the art and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to so make each of Yokono’s piezoelectric elements transceivers for additional measurements including for convenience, bidirectionality, reduction of blind spots, better sizing of defects, and/or for better signal-to-noise discrimination.
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claim 1,
Yokono teaches wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the at least one processor (processing portion of computer 40 comprising processing means 46 and control means 44) to cause the transducer (fig. 1-4, probe 21) to generate acoustic waves at a plurality of sound path angles (see at least P3 and P1 in fig. 3).
Regarding independent claim 9,
Yokono teaches an inspection method (Title “LEAKAGE ELASTIC SURFACE WAVE MEASURING PROBE”; Abstract “provide a leakage elastic surface wave measuring probe capable of obtaining, more precisely than before, a sound velocity of a leakage elastic surface wave or various characteristic quantities of a leakage wave caused by the leakage elastic surface wave”) comprising:
transmitting acoustic waves from a transducer (fig. 1-4, probe 21) having a concave face (figs. 3-4, face of concave portion 21e) that includes one or more piezoelectric elements (figs. 1 & 3-4, piezoelectric transducers 21a-21c) through a coupling medium (figs. 2-3, water W) and to a surface (surface of sample S) of a material sample (figs. 2-3, sample S) to produce surface acoustic waves along a portion of a surface (surface of sample S) of the material sample (figs. 2-3, sample S), the one or more piezoelectric elements (figs. 1 & 3-4, piezoelectric transducers 21a-21c) operating as an acoustic transmitter and an acoustic receiver (Abstract “Piezoelectric transducers 21a-21c are installed on the transmitting/receiving surface R, and the piezoelectric transducers 21a-21c are divided into three parts, namely, a transmitting part 21b of an angled incident wave P3 for generating a leakage elastic surface wave P5, a transmitting/receiving part 21a of the orthogonal incident wave P1 and the orthogonal reflected wave P2, and a receiving part 21c of the leakage wave P4” and “transmitting/receiving part”; additional obviousness analysis provided for each piezoelectric element as transceiver);
receiving the surface acoustic waves reflected from the surface (surface of sample S) of the material sample (figs. 2-3, sample S) at the concave face (figs. 3-4, face of concave portion 21e); and
determining at least one material characteristic of the material sample (figs. 2-3, sample S) based on a property of the surface acoustic waves ([0001] “examining the degree of deterioration and physical properties of a test piece, such as thermal embrittlement and intergranular corrosion”; [0002] “the degree of deterioration, physical properties, and the like of the test piece are examined by measuring characteristic quantities such as the frequency, amplitude, and propagation time of the leaky wave caused by the leaky surface acoustic wave”; about middle of page 8 “The degree of thermal embrittlement and intergranular corrosion of the steel material and, for example, formation of an oxide film, carburization, nitriding, decarburization, and element concentration are determined by the surface sound velocity Vs of the specimen S obtained in each of the above embodiments. The degree of such surface modification can be evaluated”).
The Examiner notes with respect to the above teachings being shown in different figures, that while the reference does not expressly show all of the above claimed features clearly in a single depicted embodiment as a single figure, either one of ordinary skill in the art would at once envisaged the
combination from the generic teachings thereof and/or specific possible choices of the structural components
thereof, or, in the alternative, it at least would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to nevertheless so combine the above features for the
purpose and combinations as proposed by said reference and as analyzed by the Examiner
including the citations and/or Examiner comments provided above in reference to the claimed features.
Pertinently, the Examiner further notes that "Combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness", see Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009). More particularly, it is Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yokono’s evaluation & control portions (see especially fig. 1) with Yokono’s water tank & scanning means (see especially fig. 2) as well as Yokono’s sensor unit (see especially fig. 3 shows details of sensor unit 21 common to the other figures) for the complementary purposes of providing means for evaluation & control with immersion scanning thereby providing better coupling, convenient maneuverability, automation, programmability, well-known transduction between electrical & acoustics via piezoelectrics, as well as display of the analyzed information. With further regards to the piezoelectric elements, either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that each of Yokono’s piezoelectric elements are transceivers, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, the Examiner takes Official Notice that utilizing transducers or receivers as both (i.e., as transceivers) is conventional in the art and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to so make each of Yokono’s piezoelectric elements transceivers for additional measurements including for convenience, bidirectionality, reduction of blind spots, better sizing of defects, and/or for better signal-to-noise discrimination.
Regarding claim 13, which depends on claim 9,
Yokono reasonably teaches wherein the property of the surface acoustic waves includes at least one of a time of arrival, a time of travel, or an amplitude of the surface acoustic waves ([0002] “the degree of deterioration, physical properties, and the like of the test piece are examined by measuring characteristic quantities such as the frequency, amplitude, and propagation time of the leaky wave caused by the leaky surface acoustic wave”; second paragraph of page 3 “the reception time of each of the leaky wave”; after middle of page 3 “it is possible to accurately determine the physical properties and reception time of the leaky wave”; second paragraph of page 3 “amplitude of the leaky wave can be measured”).
The Examiner further takes Official Notice that each of time-of-arrival, time-of-travel, and amplitude are conventional measurable properties of acoustic waves when performing acoustic inspection and that time-of-arrival and time-of-travel are conventional known alternatives between absolute versus relative timekeeping, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine any of these conventional measurements with Yokono’s measuring characteristics of surface acoustic waves for determining physical properties thereby providing well-known and routine activities easily performed and understood by an ordinary artisan.
Regarding claim 14, which depends on claim 9,
Yokono teaches wherein the property of the surface acoustic waves includes a geometric feature captured in a 2-dimensional or 3-dimensional representation of a surface acoustic wave response across an area of the material sample (figs. 2-3, sample S) ([0010] “a degradation degree etc. evaluation apparatus 1 using a probe 21 according to the present invention includes a sensor unit 20 for scanning a two-dimensional plane on a specimen S, a driving unit 30, a personal computer 40, and a CRT”).
With further respect to the alternative of 3D representations, the Examiner takes Official Notice that capturing representations in 2D or 3D by acoustic inspection is conventional in the art, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine such conventional representation including that 3D representations comprise more detailed analysis and corresponding imaging particularly useful for complex parts, finding exact locations and/or sizing, whereas 2D representations are useful for simpler geometries and able to be performed simpler and faster.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2, 4, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant cited Yokono in view of newly cited Takishita* et al (JP 2001041944 A; hereafter “Takishita”).
*machine translation provided by Examiner with foreign document and utilized for English citations
PNG
media_image1.png
585
386
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
353
509
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2 and claim 4, where claim 2 depends on claim 1 and where claim 4 depends on claim 1,
Yokono teaches a transducer (fig. 1-4, probe 21) having a concave face (figs. 3-4, face of concave portion 21e) that includes one or more piezoelectric elements (figs. 1 & 3-4, piezoelectric transducers 21a-21c) operating as an acoustic transmitter and an acoustic receiver that switches between a transmit mode and a receive mode (Abstract “Piezoelectric transducers 21a-21c are installed on the transmitting/receiving surface R” and “transmitting/receiving part”)
Yokono does not teach items: 1) wherein the concave face is a single piezoelectric element that switches between a transmit mode and a receive mode; and 2) further including a mask coupled to the concave face of the transducer.
However:
It has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144.04(V)(B), Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893), and In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). In the present case, it is the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to integrate piezoelectric elements into a single piezoelectric element, the Examiner further taking Official Notice that utilizing a piezoelectric element to switch between transmitting and receiving is conventional in the art.
Legal precedent has condoned the use of particular examples of what may be considered common sense or ordinary routine practice including changes in shape, see MPEP § 2141(I) & 2144.04(IV)(B), and In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In the present case, it is the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to form piezoelectric elements into a single concave/spherical shape.
Furthermore, and factually supporting the aforementioned assertions, Takishita teaches an inspection system (see figs. 1-2; the Examiner generally notes similarity to Yokono and likewise meeting numerous associated claim limitations thereof, although omitted herein for brevity) comprising a transducer (fig. 17, probe 1I) wherein the concave face (face of spherical/concave portion of probe 1I) is a single element (fig. 17, oscillator 2) that switches between a transmit mode and a receive mode (see pulsar / receiver 21 in fig. 1) (about bottom third of page 7 as well as about bottom third of page 11 “piezoelectric”; Examiner acknowledges that Takishita does not explicitly state that the embodiment of fig. 17 is piezoelectric, however it would so be at once envisaged by an ordinary artisan) and further including a mask (fig. 17, mask 7), coupled to the concave face (face of spherical/concave portion of probe 1I) of the transducer (fig. 17, probe 1I).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute/combine Takishita’s embodiment of a singular transceiving element having a mask with Yokono’s inspection system for the expected purpose of simplifying the hardware and associated costs, including for reducing complexity of wiring and number of components such as ADCs &/or amplifiers by having a single transceiver element. With further respect to the mask, the mask simplifies the transceiver element shape by physically shielding (e.g., shielding from reflected waves to better listen to leaky wave) instead of requiring more expensive reshaping of the transceiver element or more complex signal analysis. Complementarily, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yokono’s inspection system including piezoelectric property for probe with Takshita’s inspection system comprising a probe transceiving element thereby providing an inspection system comprising a conventional type of transceiver that has the known advantages of energy efficiency, high frequency and precision, robustness and reliability, and ability to quickly switch between transmitting and receiving. The Examiner additionally notes that the Courts have ruled an obviousness analysis based on the collective teachings of the references does not depend on the order in which the references are listed in the statement of the rejection. See In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961): “In a case of this type where a rejection is predicated on two references each containing pertinent disclosure which has been pointed out to the applicant, we deem it to be of no significance, but merely a matter of exposition, that the rejection is stated to be on A in view of B instead of on B in view of A, or to term one reference primary and the other secondary.”
Regarding claim 8, which depends on claim 1,
Yokono teaches wherein the concave face (figs. 3-4, face of concave portion 21e) is a rectangular curved surface bounded by a peripheral edge, and wherein the peripheral edge of the concave face (figs. 3-4, face of concave portion 21e) operates as the acoustic transmitter and the acoustic receiver.
Yokono does not teach the alternative wherein the concave face is a hemispherical surface bounded by a peripheral edge, and wherein the peripheral edge of the concave face operates as the acoustic transmitter and the acoustic receiver.
However:
Legal precedent has condoned the use of particular examples of what may be considered common sense or ordinary routine practice including changes in shape, see MPEP § 2141(I) & 2144.04(IV)(B), and In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In the present case it is the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to shape a concave transducer face as a hemispherical shape.
Furthermore, and as supporting factual evidence of the aforementioned assertion, Takishita teaches an inspection system (see figs. 1-2; the Examiner generally notes similarity to Yokono and likewise meeting numerous associated claim limitations thereof, although omitted herein for brevity) comprising a transducer (fig. 17, probe 1I; alternatively fig. 16, probe 1H) wherein the concave face (face of spherical/concave portion of probe 1I or alternatively 1H) is a hemispherical surface bounded by a peripheral edge (peripheral edge of face of spherical/concave portion of probe), and wherein the peripheral edge (peripheral edge of face of spherical/concave portion of probe) of the concave face (face of spherical/concave portion of probe) operates as the acoustic transmitter and the acoustic receiver.
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape of Yokono’s concave face to a hemispherical surface—as factually supported by Takishita’s hemispherical shaped transducer—for the expected purpose of further focussing the sound and/or increasing intensity. Additionally, substituting/combining specifically Takishita’s embodiment of a singular transceiving element with/without a mask (fig. 17 or fig. 16) with Yokono’s inspection system for the expected purpose of simplifying the hardware and associated costs, including for reducing complexity of wiring and number of components such as ADCs &/or amplifiers by having a single transceiver element. With further respect to the mask, the mask simplifies the transceiver element shape by physically shielding (e.g., shielding from reflected waves to better listen to leaky wave) instead of requiring more expensive reshaping of the transceiver element or more complex signal analysis. Complementarily, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yokono’s inspection system including piezoelectric property for probe with Takshita’s inspection system comprising a probe transceiving element thereby providing an inspection system comprising a conventional type of transceiver that has the known advantages of energy efficiency, high frequency and precision, robustness and reliability, and ability to quickly switch between transmitting and receiving.
Claim(s) 3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant cited Yokono in view of newly cited Yokono* et al (JP 2005055200 A; hereafter “Yokono200”).
*machine translation provided by Examiner with foreign document and utilized for English citations
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 1,
Yokono teaches wherein the concave face (figs. 3-4, face of concave portion 21e) includes the plurality of piezoelectric element (figs. 1 & 3-4, piezoelectric transducers 21a-21c), wherein there is a first piezoelectric element (figs. 1 & 3-4, piezoelectric transducers 21a) that operate as acoustic transmitter and a piezoelectric element (figs. 1 & 3-4, piezoelectric transducers 21c) spaced from the first piezoelectric element (figs. 1 & 3-4, piezoelectric transducers 21a) that operate as acoustic receiver; and
wherein the acoustic waves travel in a single direction from the first piezoelectric elements (figs. 1 & 3-4, piezoelectric transducers 21a) to the second piezoelectric element (figs. 1 & 3-4, piezoelectric transducers 21c).
Yokono does not teach wherein the first piezoelectric element is a first plurality of piezoelectric transmitting elements nor wherein the second piezoelectric element is a second plurality of piezoelectric receiving elements.
However:
It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B), St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (7th Cir. 1977), and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). In the present case it is the Examiner's position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to have a plurality of each of piezoelectric transmitters and piezoelectric receivers.
PNG
media_image3.png
397
242
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
166
225
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
203
230
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, and as supporting factual evidence of the aforementioned assertion, Yokono200 teaches an inspection system (see figs. 1-2; the Examiner generally notes similarity to Yokono and likewise meeting numerous associated claim limitations thereof, although omitted herein for brevity) (Title “ULTRASONIC INSPECTION DEVICE AND INSPECTION METHOD USING THE DEVICE”; Abstract; [0001] “ultrasonic waves for investigating the degree of deterioration, physical properties, position, shape, dimensions, etc. of damaged parts such as thermal embrittlement and intergranular corrosion due to surface waves generated on the surface of the specimen and leakage waves resulting from the surface waves”) comprising a transducer (sensor unit 10) wherein the concave face (face of spherical/concave portion of sensor unit 10) includes a first plurality of transducer elements (transmitting transducer portions 30a-30d) that operate as acoustic transmitters and a second plurality of transducer elements (reception transducer portions 40a-40d) spaced from first plurality of transducer elements (transmitting transducer portions 30a-30d) that operate as acoustic receivers; and wherein the acoustic waves travel in a single direction (see arrows) from the first plurality of transducer elements (transmitting transducer portions 30a-30d) to the second plurality of transducer elements (reception transducer portions 40a-40d).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute/combine Yokono200’s embodiment of pluralities of transmitting and receiving elements with Yokono’s inspection system for the expected purpose of providing the solution to the problems of Yokono as put forth by Yokono200 including combining plurality of line segment signals and thus extracting feature values such as the maximum value and the minimum value from the signal values of different receiving transducers in each part. Complementarily, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yokono’s inspection system including piezoelectric property for probe with Yokono200’s inspection system comprising probe transmitting and receiving elements thereby providing an inspection system comprising a conventional type of transceiver that has the known advantages of energy efficiency, high frequency and precision, robustness and reliability, and optional ability to quickly switch between transmitting and receiving. The Examiner additionally notes that the Courts have ruled an obviousness analysis based on the collective teachings of the references does not depend on the order in which the references are listed in the statement of the rejection. See In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961): “In a case of this type where a rejection is predicated on two references each containing pertinent disclosure which has been pointed out to the applicant, we deem it to be of no significance, but merely a matter of exposition, that the rejection is stated to be on A in view of B instead of on B in view of A, or to term one reference primary and the other secondary.”
Regarding claim 10, which depends on claim 9,
Yokono is silent to wherein the transmitting of the acoustic waves includes transmitting acoustic waves in a plurality of directions across the surface (surface of sample S) of the material sample (figs. 2-3, sample S) at a single point.
However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that utilizing pairs of piezoelectric transceivers bidirectionally (i.e., pitch from first transceiver to be caught by second transceiver, and pitch from second transceiver to be caught by first transceiver) is a conventional activity in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine conventional bidirectional transceiving with Yokono’s inspection system and associated method for the expected purpose of reduction of blind spots, better sizing of defects, and/or for better signal-to-noise discrimination.
Alternatively, Yokono200 teaches an inspection system and associated method (see figs. 1-2; the Examiner generally notes similarity to Yokono and likewise meeting numerous associated claim limitations thereof, although omitted herein for brevity) (Title “ULTRASONIC INSPECTION DEVICE AND INSPECTION METHOD USING THE DEVICE”; Abstract; [0001]) wherein the transmitting of the acoustic waves includes transmitting acoustic waves in a plurality of directions (see arrows in at least fig. 1) across the surface of the material sample (fig. 2 & 4, specimen S) at a single point (intersection of arrows).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute/combine Yokono200’s embodiment of pluralities of transmitting and receiving elements with Yokono’s inspection system for the expected purpose of providing the solution to the problems of Yokono as put forth by Yokono200 including combining plurality of line segment signals and thus extracting feature values such as the maximum value and the minimum value from the signal values of different receiving transducers in each part. Complementarily, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yokono’s inspection system including piezoelectric property for probe with Yokono200’s inspection system comprising probe transmitting and receiving elements thereby providing an inspection system comprising a conventional type of transceiver that has the known advantages of energy efficiency, high frequency and precision, robustness and reliability, and optional ability to quickly switch between transmitting and receiving. The Examiner additionally notes that the Courts have ruled an obviousness analysis based on the collective teachings of the references does not depend on the order in which the references are listed in the statement of the rejection. See In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961): “In a case of this type where a rejection is predicated on two references each containing pertinent disclosure which has been pointed out to the applicant, we deem it to be of no significance, but merely a matter of exposition, that the rejection is stated to be on A in view of B instead of on B in view of A, or to term one reference primary and the other secondary.”
Claim(s) 5, 12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant cited Yokono in view of newly cited Haszler et al (US 6234020 B1; hereafter “Haszler”).
Regarding claim 5 and claim 15, where claim 5 depends on claim 1 and where claim 15 depends on claim 9, as best understood,
Yokono teaches determining at least one material characteristic of the material sample (figs. 2-3, sample S) based on a property of the surface acoustic waves ([0001] “examining the degree of deterioration and physical properties of a test piece, such as thermal embrittlement and intergranular corrosion”; [0002] “the degree of deterioration, physical properties, and the like of the test piece are examined by measuring characteristic quantities such as the frequency, amplitude, and propagation time of the leaky wave caused by the leaky surface acoustic wave”; after middle of page 8 “The degree of thermal embrittlement and intergranular corrosion of the steel material and, for example, formation of an oxide film, carburization, nitriding, decarburization, and element concentration are determined by the surface sound velocity Vs of the specimen S obtained in each of the above embodiments. The degree of such surface modification can be evaluated”).
Yokono does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one material characteristic includes one or more of a grain size, a grain structure, a grain orientation, a grain shape, a presence of a microtexture region, a size of a microtexture region, an intensity of a microtexture region, an orientation of a microtexture region, a macrotexture, dislocation content, and residual elastic compressive or tensile stresses of the material sample.
Haszler teaches analyzing at least one material characteristic including one or more of a grain size, a grain structure, a grain orientation, a grain shape, a presence of a microtexture region, a size of a microtexture region, an intensity of a microtexture region, an orientation of a microtexture region, a macrotexture, dislocation content, and residual elastic compressive or tensile stresses of the material sample (Title “Method For Residual Stress Measuring”; Abstract “for measuring residual stress in a metallic specimen wherein, by means of an ultrasound transducer an ultrasound entry wave having a ground frequency is introduced into a surface of the metallic specimen, the ultrasound entry wave is measured by means of an entry wave detector and the succeeding ultrasound exit wave is measured by means of a exit wave detector and the measured values of the ultrasound entry and exit wave are used to determine residual stress”; col. 1, ll. 13-20 “may also be applied to measure other mechanical or microstructural parameters such as grain size distribution or texture”; col. 3, ll. 16-43 “non-destructive measurement of parameters such as grain size distribution, texture and in particular of residual stresses”; col. 4, ll. 17-24 “can be scanned using an immersion technique”; col. 4, ll. 25-43 “immersion technique where both the transducer and the specimen are immersed in a liquid couplant; usually water”; col. 6, ll. 15-29 “The effect of mechanical or microstructural parameters on the attenuation and time-of-flight of an ultrasound wave is frequency dependent. Therefore, by selecting the correct frequency within a certain frequency range, the method according to the invention can be used for determining a chosen mechanical or microstructural parameter, such as grain size distribution, texture or residual stress”; col. 7, ll. 9-20 “aluminium plates may be placed in a known manner in an immersion tank equipped with ultrasound scanning facilities i.e. a scanning bridge, transducer manipulator, and the necessary electronics including pulsers, receivers, preamplifiers, and a digital data acquisition and processing system”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hazler’s residual stress & microstructural parameter analysis for ultrasonic immersion scanning of a material sample with Yokono’s ultrasonic immersion scanning of a material sample thereby providing increased versatility and marketability including the expected advantages of further characterization metallic specimens particularly useful for scrutinizing manufactured products including of complex machined parts.
Regarding claim 12, which depends on claim 9,
Yokono teaches further comprising selecting at least one of a frequency or a propagation direction (see fig. 3 showing direction) of the acoustic waves useful to determine a response of a physical characteristic of the material sample (figs. 2-3, sample S) (Abstract “physical properties of the test object S are obtained from the frequency, the amplitude or the like of the leakage wave P4 by receiving the leakage wave P4 and the orthogonal reflected wave P2 independently”; [0002] “the degree of deterioration, physical properties, and the like of the test piece are examined by measuring characteristic quantities such as the frequency, amplitude, and propagation time of the leaky wave caused by the leaky surface acoustic wave”; lines 7-10 of page 5 “a nominal frequency of about 10 to 50 MHz are used, but the present invention is not limited to this”).
Yokono does not explicitly teach further comprising selecting at least one of a frequency or a propagation direction of the acoustic waves to optimize a response of a grain structure characteristic of the material sample.
However:
It had been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(B) and In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In the present case it is the Examiner's position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to optimize a frequency to perform acoustic/ultrasonic testing of a sample. Similarly
Furthermore, and as supporting factual evidence of the aforementioned assertion with respect to frequency, Haszler teaches selecting a frequency of the acoustic waves to optimize a response of a grain structure characteristic of the material sample (col. 6, ll. 15-29 “ The effect of mechanical or microstructural parameters on the attenuation and time-of-flight of an ultrasound wave is frequency dependent. Therefore, by selecting the correct frequency within a certain frequency range, the method according to the invention can be used for determining a chosen mechanical or microstructural parameter, such as grain size distribution, texture or residual stress”; col. 5, ll. 20-28 “The preferred frequency range for carrying out the method of the invention, taking into account the performance of the ultrasound transducers and the sensitivity of the attenuation coefficient for residual stresses is between 15 and 35 MHz, with an optimum range extending between 20 and 30 MHz”).
Additionally, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious to try, see MPEP § 2143(I)(E). The Examiner also notes that MPEP § 2145(III)(X)(B) states “An “obvious to try” rationale may support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious where one skilled in the art is choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. “[A] person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 538, 421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).” It is the Examiner’s position that a reasonable chance of success exists for testing different frequencies and/or directions when performing acoustic/ultrasonic testing of a sample in an effort to optimize the analysis thereof, especially when associated with repeated measurements in a manufacturing environment where finding an optimal solution can have more value and be worth the additional effort.
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize Yokono’s frequency—as factual supported by Haszler—and/or propagation direction to optimize a response of grain structure characteristic of a material sample, the Examiner emphasizing that performing more optimal measurements to better determine selected material characteristics is commonsensically useful and desired in order to increase accuracy/precision and therefore make more informed decisions based on the inspections.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant cited Yokono in view of Applicant cited Jack et al (US 20230280310 A1; hereafter “Jack”).
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 1,
Yokono teaches a sensor (fig. 2-4, oscillator 21a) that transmits an acoustic wave to the sample (figs. 2-3, sample S) and receives a reflected wave from the sample (figs. 2-3, sample S) (after middle of page 5 “the orthogonally reflected wave P2 is received by the first oscillator 21a”; bottom of page 5 “a transmission / reception time t1 from transmission to reception of the regular reflection wave passing through the processes P1 and P2 is obtained”).
Yokono does not explicitly teach wherein a sensor is configured and utilized to indicate a position of the transducer relative to the material sample.
However:
The Examiner takes Official Notice that determining distance from time of flight is conventional in the art.
Furthermore, and as factually supporting evidence of the aforementioned assertion, Jack teaches in fig. 16 a sensor (sensor of transducer 50) to indicate a position of the transducer (fig. 16, transducer 50) relative to a material sample (fig. 16, test material 55) (Title “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR REAL-TIME VISUALIZATION OF DEFECTS IN A MATERIAL”; Abstract “real-time visualization of a material during ultrasonic non-destructive testing” and “(GUI) capable of showing a three-dimensional (3-D)” and “providing data regarding each defect area, such as the depth, size, and/or type of each defect”; [0133] “the distance that the transducer housing assembly 4 is offset from the test material is determined using a calibration wave” and “wave is transmitted via the transducer” and “Time of flight data is gathered” and “waves reflecting off the front surface of the test material” , and waves reflecting off the back surface of the test material. Without the need to input material properties or dimensions of the test material, the transducer housing assembly 4 is able to automatically offset by a fixed distance from the test material based on the results of the time of flight data”)
In view of the above, it would have been obvious (and more particularly trivial) to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize Yokono’s sensor (oscillator 21a) to indicate a position of the transducer (fig. 1-4, probe 21) relative to the material sample (figs. 2-3, sample S) as is conventional in the art—as factually supported by Jack’s time of flight transducer distance measurement—for the expected purpose of enabling proper automatic distance offsetting of the transducer from the material sample including for proper angling, preventing unwanted contact, and/or for optimizing the focus/delay.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant cited Yokono in view of Applicant cited Imanaka* et al (JP H10318995 A; hereafter “Imanaka”).
*machine translation provided by Examiner with foreign document and utilized for English citations
Regarding claim 11, which depends on claim 9,
Yokono does not explicitly state further comprising determining the at least one material characteristic of the material sample through statistical correlation based on the property of the surface acoustic waves.
However:
The Examiner takes Official Notice that statistically correlating surface acoustic waves properties with sample material characteristics is conventional in the art, and further notes that well-known or conventional features do not need a detailed explanation in a patent specification if they are so common that a person skilled in the art already knows them (which the Examiner alledges is the case in Yokono).
PNG
media_image6.png
219
464
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
192
233
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, and as supporting factual evidence of the aforementioned assertions, Imanaka teaches an inspection system and associated method (see figs. above, the Examiner noting substantial similarity to reference Yokono) comprising determining the at least one material characteristic of the material sample (figs. 2-3, test specimen S) through statistical correlation based on the property of the surface acoustic waves (Title “METHOD OF EVALUATING DEGREE OF DETERIORATION IN TEST OBJECT BY SURFACE WAVE”; Abstract “method of evaluating the degree of deterioration which enables the evaluation of deterioration in material such as thermal embrittlement and damage such as intergranular corrosion especially on a jobsite by a non- destructive method. SOLUTION: Ultrasonic wave is admitted into a test object S from a probe 21 to generate a surface wave P5 in the surface of the test object S. The probe 21 has a circular arc vibrator 21a and receives a reflected wave P2 directly reflected from the surface of the test object S and a leakage wave P4 attributed to the surface wave P5 by a vibrator 21a and the reflected wave P2 and the leakage wave P4 are compared to determine a sound velocity of the surface wave P5. The degree of deterioration in or damage to the test object S is evaluated by the sound velocity of the surface wave P5 of the test body”).
In view of the above, either either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that conventional statistical correlation between acoustic wave & sample properties is being performed, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Imanaka’s conventional statistical correlation of specimen sample properties & acoustic waves with Yokono’s determination of specimen sample properties of acoustic waves, thereby providing a well-known mathematical framework that can be experimentally determined, verified, repeated and improved upon with increases in signal-to-noise ratio and/or with reasonably more or varied measurements and which further has the advantages of being automatable with less or even without human insight.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant cited Yokono in view of Applicant cited Tian et al (US 20210072197 A1; hereafter “Tian”).
Regarding claim 16 and claim 17, where claim 16 depends on claim 9 and where claim 17 depends on claim 9,
Yokono teaches examining for material characteristic that are commonly associated with acceptability/rejectability of a material sample ([0001] “measuring a leaky surface acoustic wave using ultrasonic waves for examining the degree of deterioration and physical properties of a test piece, such as thermal embrittlement and intergranular corrosion”).
Yokono is silent to: (claim 16) further comprising determining whether to accept or reject the material sample based on the at least one material characteristic; and (claim 17) further comprising causing a manufacturing system to adjust a parameter of a manufacturing process based on the at least one material characteristic
However:
The Examiner takes Official Notice that it is conventional in the art to determine whether to accept or reject a material sample based on such physical properties as degree of deterioration, embrittlement, and/or corrosion, and that likewise it is conventional to adjust manufacturing system parameter(s) when inspected physical properties of a material are unacceptable (i.e., rejected).
Furthermore, and as factually supporting evidence of the aforementioned assertion of conventionality of accepting/rejecting material samples based on physical characteristics and adjusting manufacturing when inspected materials are unacceptable, Tian teaches further comprising determining whether to accept or reject the material sample based on the at least one material characteristic and causing a manufacturing system to adjust a parameter of a manufacturing process based on the at least one material characteristic (Title “MICROTEXTURE REGION CHARACTERIZATION SYSTEMS AND METHODS”; Abstract “characterization of a potential microtexture region (MTR) of a sample, component, or the like. The methods may include determining a threshold” and “potential MTR to be characterized as an actual MTR or a defect (crack)”; [0003] “rejection threshold set for crack”; [0004] “characterizing the future actual MTR as being a future rejectable MTR or a future acceptable MTR”; [0007] “correlation coefficient for the actual MTR to be characterized as the acceptable MTR”; [0009] “the method may further comprise scrapping the component when the potential MTR is characterized as the defect or a rejectable MTR. The potential MTRs may be based on calculating the microtexture level indicator or possessing at least one rejectable or marginally rejectable indication resulted from an ultrasonic crack inspection. A potential MTR may be a high amplitude spot in an area with MTR content as identified by a microtexture level indicator, a rejectable indication, or a marginally rejectable indication as defined by comparing a maximum amplitude at the potential MTR to an established threshold amplitude in an ultrasonic crack inspection, and the microtexture level indicator may comprise at least one of an average peak factor, a standard deviation of peak amplitudes, and a baseband bandwidth”; [0047] “the system 100 may be utilized to determine which regions of a component (e.g., rotor 500) may experience greater service life, which heat treatments provides greater service life for a given component (e.g., rotor 500), which components in a batch of components (e.g., a batch of rotor 500) provide greater service life, and/or which components in a batch of components (e.g., a batch of rotor 500) should be scrapped”; [0049] “By characterizing a component in this manner, a design of a component may be modified to increase a service life of the component. In various embodiments, characterizing refers to assigning a service life limit to the life limiting region of the component, or the like”; [0052]-[0053], see also fig. 8; [0065] “From this determination, a component (e.g., component 130 from FIGS. 1 and 9), may be scrapped or used in production. For example, in various embodiments, a potential MTR may be used for production if it is determined it is an actual MTR, whereas it may be scrapped if it is determined that the potential MTR is a crack or a defect. Alternatively, in various embodiments, a potential MTR may be used for production if it is determined it is an actual acceptable MTR, whereas it may be scrapped if it is determined that the potential MTR is an actual rejectable MTR. As such, in various embodiments, method 1000 may provide components (e.g., component 130) for production with a longer life span than typical components that don't utilize method 1000 for potential MTR characterization”; [0055] “The transducer 110 may be a standard single-element immersion ultrasonic transducer or a phased array transducer containing a number of elements”)
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a conventional judgement call on whether to accept or reject an inspected material sample based on a physical property inspected as well as the conventional judgement call to determine if manufacturing processes need to be adjusted accordingly—as factually supported by Tian’s acceptability/rejectablilty of cracks and defects and production/manufacturing redesigns and/or machine maintenance/service/replacement plans—for commercial advantages including determining inventory standards, machine status standards, predicting/providing longer lifespans and/or preventing/reducing defective product manufacturing to increase profits and/or reputation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Applicant is invited to review PTO form 892 accompanying this Office Action listing Prior Art relevant to the instant invention cited by the Examiner.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to DAVID L SINGER whose telephone number is 303-297-4317. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 6:00pm CT, EXCEPT alternating Friday.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, John Breene can be reached on 571-272-4107. 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.
/DAVID L SINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 25JUL2026
Prosecution Insights