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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 6 are objected.
Claim 1, claim limitations or method steps, for clarity purposes, should be separated using “;” instead of “,” at the end of each claim step or limitation. All claims should be revised accordingly.
Claim 6: centred and centre should be corrected to read as “centered” and “center”.
Appropriate action 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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 the claimed inventions are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
2019 Revised Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG): Step 1:
Claims 1-12 are directed to a directed to a method. Accordingly, claims 1-12 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
2019 PEG: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the 2019 PEG, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groupings of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea. The Examiner submits that the following underlined limitations constitute and directed toward at least one abstract idea.
Claim 1:
A method for reconstruction of a thickness profile of a part to be inspected, said part to be inspected having a first surface and a second surface,
the method comprising, at a plurality of distinct emission points, the steps of:
at a current emission point of the plurality of distinct emission points, emitting from a transducer a plurality of ultrasound firings in the direction of the first surface of the part to be inspected,
the transducer receiving ultrasound waves during a time window,
generating a plurality of basic echo signals, each basic echo signal being associated with a respective ultrasound firing, each basic echo signal corresponding to an ultrasound wave reflected by the second surface of the part to be inspected and received by the transducer,
selecting a firing from the plurality of firings, said selected firing producing the basic echo of greatest amplitude of the basic echo signals,
calculating for said selected firing a basic flight time corresponding to the time elapsed between the moment of transmission of said selected firing from the exterior to the interior of the part to be inspected and the moment of contact of said selected firing with the second surface of the part to be inspected,
calculating the coordinates of a surface contact point for said selected firing, said coordinates including an axial coordinate along a longitudinal axis of the part to be inspected and a radial coordinate along a radial axis perpendicular to said longitudinal axis of the part to be inspected, said surface contact point corresponding to the point of impact of the selected firing on the first surface of the part to be inspected,
calculating a set of potential positions of the second surface of the part to be inspected as a function of the basic flight time, the coordinates of the surface contact point and a propagation medium in said part to be inspected,
the method further including the step of calculating the profile of the second surface of the part to be inspected by joining separate portions of the sets of potential positions of the second surface calculated for the plurality of distinct emission points.
Examiner finds that foregoing underlined elements are recite: calculations that are mathematical concepts and therefore, are abstract. Also selecting is a mental process analogous to an observation/evaluation/judgment/ /organization that can be performed in the human mind, therefore are abstract.
Claim 2: further limits the abstract limitation with a mathematical step or abstract limitation.
Claim 3: further limits the abstract limitation with adding mathematical steps or abstract limitation.
Claim 4: further limits the abstract limitation with adding mathematical steps or abstract limitation with additions that are merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, or fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See prong 2 and step 2B.
Claim 5:further limits the claim with additions that are merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, or fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. . See prong 2 and step 2B.
Claim 6: further limits the abstract limitation with adding mathematical steps or abstract limitation with additions that are merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, or fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See prong 2 and step 2B.
Claim 7: further limits the abstract limitation with adding mathematical steps or abstract limitation with additions that are merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, or fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See prong 2 and step 2B.
Claim 8: further limits the abstract limitation with adding mathematical steps or abstract limitation with additions that are merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, or fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See prong 2 and step 2B.
Claim 9: further limits the abstract limitation with adding mathematical steps or abstract limitation with additions that are merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, or fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See prong 2 and step 2B.
Claim 10: further limits the abstract limitation with a mathematical step or abstract limitation.
Claim 11: further limits the abstract limitation with adding mathematical steps or abstract limitation with additions that are merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, or fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See prong 2 and step 2B.
Claim 12: further limits the abstract limitation with a mathematical step or abstract limitation.
2019 PEG: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the foregoing bolded portions are the “additional limitations”):
Claim 1:
emitting from a transducer a plurality of ultrasound firings in the direction of the first surface of the part to be inspected,
the transducer receiving ultrasound waves during a time window,
generating a plurality of basic echo signals, each basic echo signal being associated with a respective ultrasound firing, each basic echo signal corresponding to an ultrasound wave reflected by the second surface of the part to be inspected and received by the transducer,
Claim 4:
generating a plurality of interface echo signals, each interface echo signal being associated with a respective ultrasound firing of the plurality of firings and each interface echo signal corresponding to an ultrasound wave reflected by the first surface of the part to be inspected and received by the transducer
Claim 5:
the step of emitting a plurality of ultrasound firings is carried out with a sensor, the method including a step of moving said sensor longitudinally and radially
Claim 6 :
the sensor is mounted on a casing, said casing including bearing points maintained in contact with the first surface of the part to be inspected during the movement of the sensor, the sensor being centred on the casing so that the ultrasound firings emitted by the sensor during steps of emitting ultrasound firings are emitted from the centre of rotation of the casing at a constant distance from said first surface of the part.
Claim 7 :
the ultrasonic firings emitted at a respective emission point are emitted in accordance with angular scan of between 0° and 30° inclusive on either side of a straight line perpendicular to a face of the casing on which the sensor is mounted and passing through the emission point of said sensor.
Claim 8 :
which the part is a part of complex shape including variations of an inside diameter and/or of an outside diameter of said part along the longitudinal axis of said part.
Claim 9 :
applying a respective delay law for a firing of the plurality of firings emitted for the current emission point of the plurality of ultrasound firings.
Claim 11 :
in which the coordinates of the emission point are determined with a wire coder.
Examiner finds that these additions adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, or fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Amount to Significantly More Than the Abstract Idea?
The examiner finds that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, additional that do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application, because it is not that these components have a practical application, the analysis is , and a known measurement step or activity does not provide an practical application to the abstract and mental steps, here the system has a known structure (MPEP 2156.05(b)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
TILL, DE 102018119206 A1
TILL in figs.1-5 teaches:
A method for reconstruction of a thickness profile (e.g., ¶0001: geometry of an area of an object) of a part to be inspected (2), said part to be inspected (2) having a first surface (2a) and a second surface (3),
the method comprising, at a plurality of distinct emission points (1a to 1l), the steps of:
at a current emission point (e.g., 1a or 1f) of the plurality of distinct emission points (1a to 1l), emitting from a transducer (1) a plurality of ultrasound firings (S ¶0040-¶0042) in the direction of the first surface 2a of the part to be inspected 2,
the transducer receiving ultrasound waves (S) during a time window (any action can be broadly in a time window),
generating a plurality of basic echo signals (E), each basic echo signal (E) being associated with a respective ultrasound firing (S) , each basic echo signal (E) corresponding to an ultrasound wave reflected E by the second surface 3 of the part to be inspected 2 and received by the transducer (1),
calculating for said selected firing (S) a basic flight time corresponding to the time elapsed (e.g., ¶0024¶0026¶0027¶0041 fig.4) between the moment of transmission of said selected firing (S) from the exterior to the interior of the part to be inspected (2) and the moment of contact (P) of said selected firing (S) with the second surface (3 ) of the part to be inspected (2),
TILL does not specifically teach:
selecting a firing from the plurality of firings , said selected firing producing the basic echo of greatest amplitude of the basic echo signals, calculating the coordinates of a surface contact point for said selected firing , said coordinates including an axial coordinate along a longitudinal axis of the part to be inspected and a radial coordinate along a radial axis perpendicular to said longitudinal axis of the part to be inspected, said surface contact point corresponding to the point of impact of the selected firing on the first surface of the part to be inspected, calculating a set of potential positions of the second surface of the part to be inspected as a function of the basic flight time, the coordinates of the surface contact point and a propagation medium in said part to be inspected, the method further including the step of calculating the profile of the second surface of the part to be inspected by joining separate portions of the sets of potential positions of the second surface calculated for the plurality of distinct emission points.
Paradie, US6522288B1
steps of “selecting a firing from the plurality of firings , said selected firing producing the basic echo of greatest amplitude of the basic echo signals, calculating the coordinates of a surface contact point for said selected firing , said coordinates including an axial coordinate along a longitudinal axis of the part to be inspected and a radial coordinate along a radial axis perpendicular to said longitudinal axis of the part to be inspected, said surface contact point corresponding to the point of impact of the selected firing on the first surface of the part to be inspected, calculating a set of potential positions of the second surface of the part to be inspected as a function of the basic flight time, the coordinates of the surface contact point and a propagation medium in said part to be inspected” are obvious over any prior art teaching a method using ultrasound for determining precise, unknown 2D or 3D positions of an object by measuring its distances from at least three known reference points which calculates the location of a target (like a device) by measuring the time it takes for ultrasonic sound waves to travel from the target to at least three stationary receivers (or vice-versa) and it would have been obvious to combine TILL‘s method of reconstruction of a thickness profile by these prior art to teach “selecting a firing from the plurality of firings , said selected firing producing the basic echo of greatest amplitude of the basic echo signals, calculating the coordinates of a surface contact point for said selected firing , said coordinates including an axial coordinate along a longitudinal axis of the part to be inspected and a radial coordinate along a radial axis perpendicular to said longitudinal axis of the part to be inspected, said surface contact point corresponding to the point of impact of the selected firing on the first surface of the part to be inspected, calculating a set of potential positions of the second surface of the part to be inspected as a function of the basic flight time, the coordinates of the surface contact point and a propagation medium in said part to be inspected” for a high-accuracy.
However, TILL and Paradie and prior art of record individually or in combination fail to teach the method further including the step of calculating the profile of the second surface of the part to be inspected by joining separate portions of the sets of potential positions of the second surface calculated for the plurality of distinct emission points.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fatemeh E. Nia whose telephone number is (469)295-9187. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 4:00 pm.
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, Kristina DeHerrera can be reached at (303) 297-4237. 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.
/FATEMEH ESFANDIARI NIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2855