Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/693,420

ULTRASOUND METHOD AND APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Mar 19, 2024
Examiner
GRAY, FRANCIS C
Art Unit
2852
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Renishaw PLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
91%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 91% — above average
91%
Career Allow Rate
915 granted / 1008 resolved
+22.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+7.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
13 currently pending
Career history
1021
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.7%
-38.3% vs TC avg
§103
29.3%
-10.7% vs TC avg
§102
48.2%
+8.2% vs TC avg
§112
13.2%
-26.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1008 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . 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)(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. Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-10, 12-14, & 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang, (IEE, Vol 65, No. 11 November 2018, cited on Applicant’s IDS, copy provide by applicant). With regard to claims 1 & 16, Wang discloses a method of determining the time delay between echoes of an ultrasound pulse emitted by an ultrasound inspection device into an object ("In the ultrasonic pulse-echo mode, thickness is computed from the times-of-flight (TOFs) of adjacent ultrasonic echoes" into an object (workpiece), Figs. 1 & 6, page: 2145), the method comprising: i) with the ultrasound probe in engagement with a front-wall feature of the object such that the ultrasound inspection device's ultrasound axis is arranged at an angle relative to the nominal surface normal of the front-wall feature, taking an ultrasound measurement which comprises the ultrasound inspection device emitting an ultrasound pulse and recording echoes thereof ("The ultrasonic wave propagation path in thickness measurement with incident angle θ", page: 2145). ii) determining the time delay between echoes of the pulse via a time delay determination process which adjusts the time delay calculation based on the angle of the ultrasound inspection device's ultrasound axis with respect to the nominal surface normal of the front-wall feature ("the thickness measurement results of the tested workpiece could be corrected"; equation (20); "if the incident angle Θ is identified by the energy of the first reflected echo, workpiece thickness measurement results can be compensated", page: 2145). With regards to claim 2, Wang discloses comprising determining the time delay between an echo from the front-wall feature of the object and an interface echo from the internal or back-wall feature of the object (B calibration Experiment, Figs. 6 & 7, page: 2142 & 2145). With regards to claim 5, Wang discloses in which the time delay determination process (adaptive determination method) additionally takes as an input a variable relating to the nominal speed of sound (ultrasonic velocity) in the part at the point of measurement (Equation (20)). With regards to claim 6, Wang discloses in which the time delay determination process additionally takes as an input an unadjusted measure of the time delay between echoes of the pulse (t2 – t1, equation 20, page 2145). With regards to claim 7, Wang discloses in which the relative angular orientation of the ultrasound axis and said part at the point the ultrasound measurement is taken (Figs 1, 6 & 14), is chosen such that the ultrasound axis of the ultrasound pulse as it propagates through the part is substantially parallel to the nominal surface normal of the internal or back-wall feature at the point of measurement (page: 2145). With regards to claim 8, Wang discloses in which the time delay determination process comprises a compensation model for determining the extent of adjustment based on the angle of the ultrasound inspection device's ultrasound axis with respect to the nominal surface normal of the front-wall feature (equation 20 & page: 2145). With regards to claim 9, Wang discloses in which the compensation model comprises at least one matrix, at least one function, and/or at least one look-up table (equation 20 & page: 2145). With regards to claim 10, Wang discloses comprising determining at least one of the thickness of, material structure of, or speed of sound within the object between the front-wall feature and the internal or back-wall feature, at the point of measurement (equation 20 & page 2145). With regards to claim 12, Wang discloses in which the ultrasound inspection device is mounted on a positioning apparatus, for example a coordinate positioning apparatus (Fig. 8). With regards to claim 13, Wang discloses in which the ultrasound inspection device and object are provided on a positioning apparatus having at least one axis about which the relative orientation of the ultrasound inspection device's ultrasound axis and object can be changed (Fig. 8). With regards to claim 14, Wang discloses in which the positioning apparatus facilitates translational motion of the ultrasound probe in at least two linear degrees of freedom, and facilitates rotational motion of the ultrasound probe about at least one axis of rotation (Fig. 8). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3, 4, 11, & 15 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. With regards to claim 3, the prior art does not disclose or suggest the claimed “front-wall feature and the internal or back-wall feature are non-parallel” in combination with the remaining claimed elements as set forth and from which it depends. With regards to claim 4, the prior art does not disclose or suggest the claimed “time delay determination process additionally takes as an input, a variable relating to the nominal thickness of the part at the point of measurement between the front-wall feature and the internal or back-wall feature” in combination with the remaining claimed elements as set forth and from which it depends. With regards to claim 11, the prior art does not disclose or suggest the claimed “a deformable coupling element for engaging the surface of an object to be inspected” in combination with the remaining claimed elements as set forth and from which it depends. With regards to claim 15, the prior art does not disclose or suggest the claimed “ultrasound axis with respect to the nominal surface normal of the front-wall feature is determined from one or more sources independent of the ultrasound signal sensed by the ultrasound inspection device” in combination with the remaining claimed elements as set forth and from which it depends. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCIS C GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-3348. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm. 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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at 571-272-3555. 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. /FRANCIS C GRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 19, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602001
PHOTOSENSITIVE MEMBER UNIT, CARTRIDGE AND ELECTROPHOTOGRAPHIC IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601665
MEASURING METHOD OF LIQUID MIXTURE PURITY AND APPARATUS FOR MEASURING LIQUID MIXTURE PURITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601668
TESTING DEVICE AND METHOD FOR TESTING A SURFACE OF A TEST OBJECT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595998
STRAIN GAUGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596101
VIBRATING FORK TYPE FIELD DEVICE WITH COIL ARRANGEMENT TO INDUCE VIBRATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
91%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+7.5%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1008 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month