DETAILED ACTION
for
SAMPLE PROPERTY DETERMINATION
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/01/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Oath/Declaration
The Oath/Declaration submitted on 03/19/2024 is noted by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 24-25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Re: Claims 24 - 25, The Examiner suggests that Applicant amends the claims as follows: "non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitations are: means determining in claim 13, means for determining an acoustic velocity, in claim 15, means for determining an acoustic surface, in claim 16 and means for determining crystallographic orientation, in claim 21.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 13-25 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.
Re: Claims 13-23, the claim recites “an apparatus for determining one or more properties of a sample”. Applicant is reminded that: A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Re: Claims 24-25, the claim recites “a computer program that, when run on a computer, performs determining…”. However, it is unclear to the Examiner what the executable instruction are for the computer program that are being executed by a processor. The disclosure points to the following:
“As illustrated in Fig 8 the controller 900 may be implemented using instructions that
enable hardware functionality, for example, by using executable instructions of a
computer program 906 in a general-purpose or special-purpose processor 902 that
may be stored on a computer readable storage medium (disk, memory etc.) to be
executed by such a processor 902.”
Further clarification explaining what the Applicants means by “a computer program that, when run on a computer, performs determining”, it will be presumed that the “computer program” means a processor.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3, 7 and 13 -23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Re: Claims 3 and 15, claims a method with no method steps further limiting claim 1. Claim 3 states determining an acoustic velocity for each acoustic propagation direction, wherein the body of the claim is directed to the velocity of each propagation direction. Additionally, it has been held as recited in claim 1 that the plurality of acoustic velocity measurements using different acoustic propagation direction has been established for the acoustic velocity.
Re: Claims 7 and 19, claims a method with no method steps further limiting claims 1 and 13. Claims 7 and 19 states wherein the number of acoustic propagation directions used at a generation site is greater than 1, wherein the body of the claim is directed to the acoustic propagation direction. Additionally, it has been held as recited in claims 1 and 13 that at different acoustic propagation directions was established for a best fit elasticity.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Re: Claim 13, Claims an apparatus for determining one or more properties of a sample; however, the body of the claim is directed a method detailing to an apparatus. The apparatus which is being produced is not defined and the method steps are not directed to producing an apparatus. The method steps seem to be directed to the method determining one or more properties of a sample.
Claims 14-23 are indefinite by virtue of their dependencies on claim 13.
Re: Claims 13-23, There is no cited structure to support the preamble of the claim nor is there any structural relationship between the elements to support the apparatus claim.
Therefore, the claims are not further limiting as the claims fails to clearly indicate what/how the acoustic propagation directions are modified or further limited from the different acoustic propagation directions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 3, 13, 15 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by LU et al. [herein after Lu (US 5,804,727).
Regarding claims 1, 13 and 24, Lu discloses a method (Fig. 5), apparatus (Fig. 1) and computer program (170) of determining one or more properties of a sample (see abstract), involving determining, at a plurality of generation sites of the sample (Col, 4, lines 15-20), a plurality of acoustic velocity measurements (Col. 5, lines 40-45), the plurality of acoustic velocity measurements using different acoustic propagation directions (Col, 4, lines 59-60); and determining a best fit elasticity for the acoustic velocity measurements at different acoustic propagation directions at the plurality of generation sites (Col. 5, lines 62-65).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Lu further discloses a method comprising determining an acoustic velocity for each acoustic propagation direction (Col, 4, lines 59-60).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LU et al. [herein after Lu (US 5,804,727) in view of LI et al. [herein after LI] (CN 110095486).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Lu further discloses the number of acoustic propagation directions used at a generation site is greater than 1 (Col, 4, lines 15-20).
Lu fails to explicitly disclose a best fit elasticity comprises assuming a common elasticity for the plurality of generation sites while allowing crystallographic orientation to vary.
LI discloses a best fit elasticity comprises assuming a common elasticity for the plurality of generation sites while allowing crystallographic orientation to vary (see Claim 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicants invention was filed in the field of testing device for carrying load test on flexible objects, to modify Lu, to include a best fit elasticity, as taught by LI, for the benefit of predicting and avoid negative effects caused by texture for improving the material performance in other materials.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4-6, 8-12, 14, 16-18, 20-23 and 25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The Prior arts made available do not teach or fairly suggest, alone or in combination a method involving determining a set of acoustic velocity measurements at a set of generation sites of the sample, where the set of acoustic velocity measurements uses different acoustic propagation directions, the best fit elasticity for the acoustic velocity measurements is determined at different acoustic propagation directions at the set of generation sites, determining the best fit elasticity consists of assuming a common elasticity for the set of generation sites while allowing crystallographic orientation to vary, the determining the best fit elasticity consists of determining a set of numerical predictions for the acoustic velocity measurements, where the numerical predictions are a function of elasticity and crystallographic orientation of the material of the sample, and performing a fit of the determined numerical predictions against the determined acoustic velocity measurements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDI N HOPKINS whose telephone number is (571)270-7042. The examiner can normally be reached M & F 9-5 and T-TH, 6-4.
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.
/BRANDI N HOPKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855