DETAILED ACTION
for
ULTRASOUND METHOD FOR INSPECTING A PART AND ASSOCIATED APPARATUS
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 03/18/2024 and 08/28/2024 are 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 11/27/2017 is noted by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 4 is 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 4, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" for example, “at least one interface echo is not more than 10:1, for instance not more than 2:1.” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
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 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Karaffa (US 2018/0328896).
Regarding claim 1, Karaffa discloses a method of determining the time delay between echoes of an ultrasound pulse emitted by an ultrasound inspection device into an object (see abstract), the method comprising: with the ultrasound inspection device in engagement with a front-wall feature of an object at a point to be measured (¶0028 ,lines 1-4), taking an ultrasound measurement (¶0030, lines 1-4), which comprises the ultrasound inspection device emitting an ultrasound pulse (¶0030 ,lines 5-9) and recording an ultrasound measurement signal (¶0034 ,lines 1-9) comprising a front-wall echo and at least one interface echo reflected by an internal or back-wall feature of the object; (¶0042 ,lines 1-8)
PNG
media_image1.png
366
618
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and determining the time delay between the front-wall echo (¶0044- ¶0045)and the at least one interface echo via autocorrelation of at least a segment of the ultrasound measurement signal which comprises the front-wall echo and the at least one interface echo (¶0052 ,lines 1-9).
Regarding claim 2, Karaffa further discloses inverting the amplitude of one of (¶0027, lines 1-6): the part of the ultrasound measurement signal having the front-wall echo (¶0028, lines 1-9).
Regarding claim 3, Karaffa further discloses the amplitude of the part of the ultrasound measurement signal having the at least one interface echo, so as to reduce the difference in the amplitudes therebetween (¶0028, lines 1-9).
Regarding claim 5, Karaffa further discloses when multiple interface echoes are present between successive front-wall echoes (¶0034, lines 1-10), the method comprises discarding at least one of the interface echoes from the signal from the autocorrelation (¶0039, lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 6, Karaffa further discloses determining from the time delay the thickness of material structure of within the object between the front-wall feature and the internal or back-wall feature, at the point of measurement (¶0054, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 7, Karaffa further discloses the front-wall feature and the internal or back-wall feature are nominally parallel (Fig. 1A and Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8, Karaffa further discloses the ultrasound inspection device comprises a single transducer (112) for emitting and detecting the ultrasound pulse (¶0054, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 9, Karaffa further discloses a deformable coupling element for engaging the surface of an object to be inspected (¶0041, lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 10, Karaffa further discloses the ultrasound inspection device is mounted on a positioning apparatus, for example a coordinate positioning apparatus (¶0025, lines 1-12).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karaffa.
Regarding claim 4, Karaffa further discloses amplitude of the front-wall echo to the amplitude of the at least one interface echo
Karaffa fails to explicitly disclose the scaling is configured such that the ratio of the amplitude of the front-wall echo to the amplitude of the at least one interface echo is not more than 10:1, for instance not more than 2:1.
The particular range/ size, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” range/size of the front wall echo used by Prior Art for the amplitude that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have been able to determine using routine experimentation based, among other things, on the type of measurements and or/ intended use, etc. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karaffa in view of Hall (US 2017/0276651)
Regarding claim 11, Karaffa further discloses which the positioning apparatus facilitates relative
Karaffa fails to explicitly disclose a translational motion of the ultrasound inspection device and object in at least two linear degrees of freedom, and facilitates relative rotational motion of the of the ultrasound inspection device and object about at least one axis of rotation.
Hall discloses a translational motion of the ultrasound inspection device and object in at least two linear degrees of freedom (¶0026), and facilitates relative rotational motion of the of the ultrasound inspection device and object about at least one axis of rotation (¶0027).
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 determining the time delay between echoes of an ultrasound pulse emitted by an ultrasound inspection device into an object, to modify Karaffa, to include a translational motion of the ultrasound inspection device and object in at least two linear degrees of freedom, as taught by Hall, for the benefit of providing a device which can analyze the ultrasound signal received by the transducer and thereby determine if there is contact between the coupling element and the surface of an object.
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