DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-10 are pending in the present application.
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 submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 2/28/2024 and 5/2/2024 were filed. The submissions are is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 9 does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to a computer program that does not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as “data per se”) or a computer program per se (often referred to as “software per se”) claimed as a product without any structural recitations (see MPEP 2106.03).
However, this rejection may be overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below by amending claim 9 to recite:
9. (Currently Amended) A computer program comprising instructions on a non-transitory computer readable medium
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 1-10 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.
Regarding claim 1, 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 (see MPEP 2173.05(p)). In this case, claim 1 is a method claim that includes a non-destructive testing device in lines 2-13. It is noted by the Examiner that claim 9 confirms that claim 1 includes both a device and method steps.
However, this rejection may be overcome by amending claim 1 to read as:
1. (Currently Amended) A method for visualizing, in real time, a signal for the non-destructive testing of a mechanical part, the signal being emitted by a non-destructive testing device; the method comprising: providing the non-destructive testing device comprising:
an optical motion tracking system to which a reference coordinate system (R0) is tied,…
Further regarding claim 1, line 25, there is a lack of antecedent basis for the phrase “the paths of the signal”. For the purpose of examination, the phrase has been read as “
Regarding claim 2, there is a lack of antecedent basis for the phrase “the location of the augmented reality visualization device”. For the purpose of examination, the phrase has been read as “a location of the augmented reality visualization device”.
Regarding claim 7, lines 19-20, there is a lack of antecedent basis for the phrase “the paths of the signal”. For the purpose of examination, the phrase has been read as “
Regarding claim 9, 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 (see MPEP 2173.05(p)). In this case, claim 9 is an apparatus claim that includes a device as claimed.
However, this rejection (in addition to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection above) may be overcome by amending claim 9 to read as:
(Currently Amended) A computer program comprising instructions on a non-transitory computer readable medium
Regarding claims 2-6, 8, and 10, these claims are rejected for failing to remedy the rejections of claims 1, 7, and 9 above under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Debois (“Hololens for Augmented Reality NDT”, NI Labview Board, 11-13-2016, hereinafter Debois) teaches a method for real-time visualization of a nondestructive control signal of a mechanical part (see the figures, the paragraph entitled "Hololens for Augmented Reality NDT," and the summary on page 5), the signal being emitted by a nondestructive control device ("ultrasonic inspection, and NDT in general") comprising: an optical motion tracking system to which a reference frame is attached (see Fig. 4 and the reference to the video camera on page 2), a sensor holder (see the figures and the summary on page 5, which show the ultrasonic sensors that must be held in place during weld inspection in pipelines; a sensor holder is therefore considered implicitly described in the document), a rigid body (considered as elements connecting the ultrasonic sensors to the sensor holder), a sensor of non-destructive testing unit attached to the sensor holder fixedly connected to the first rigid body (see figures, the ultrasonic sensors), a computer (see overview on page 1), an augmented reality visualization device facing the mechanical part ("Microsoft Hololens"), to which an augmented reality reference frame is linked, the method comprising the following steps: moving the non-destructive testing sensor over an inspection area of the mechanical part (see figures); at the same time as the step of moving of the non-destructive testing sensor, emitting from an emission point along an emission axis and receiving the signal by the sensor (see Figs. 1-4); visualizing, on the augmented reality visualization device, a real view of the mechanical part, the sensor holder, and the non-destructive testing sensor, a 3D holographic representation of the mechanical part, the sensor holder, and the non-destructive testing sensor superimposed on the real view, (see Figs. 3-4, the paragraph titled "Hololens for Augmented Reality NDT" and the summary on page 5).
However, Debois fails to teach determining (or a computer configured to determine) a cutout of an occlusion inside the mechanical part, the cutout being centered around the emission point; determining a signal visualization surface constructed from the signal paths, this surface being located inside the cutout; visualizing a holographic representation of the cutout of the occlusion of the part and of the signal visualization surface superimposed on the real view, the occlusion being produced at least partially by superimposing the holographic 3D representation of the mechanical part on the real view of the mechanical part, the cut-out of the occlusion passing through the depth of the mechanical part in its holographic 3D representation until reaching the signal visualization surface, the signal visualization surface being a quadric that is determined so as to correspond to a mesh formed by the paths of said signals propagating in the mechanical part.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL T WOODWARD whose telephone number is (571)270-0704. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, Patrick Assouad can be reached at (571) 272-2210. 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.
/NATHANIEL T WOODWARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855