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 .
INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 22 March 2024 and 05 June 2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDSs have been considered by the Examiner herein.
CLAIM STATUS
Claims 1-15 were originally filed.
Claims 16-20 were newly added by the preliminary amendment filed 22 March 2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
INITIAL REMARKS
Applicant is reminded that in order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination, the Applicant or patent owner must reply to the Office action. The reply by the Applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner' s action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action. The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. If the reply is with respect to an application, a request may be made that objections or requirements as to form not necessary to further consideration of the claims, be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. The Applicant's or patent owner's reply must appear throughout to be a bona fide attempt to advance the application or the reexamination proceeding to final action. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section.
Should the Applicant believe that a telephone conference would expedite the prosecution of the instant application, Applicant is invited to call the Examiner.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
Claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph1:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “instructions to… obtain, select, obtain, and determine” in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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:
amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or
present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 7 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.
Re claim 7, Applicant recites, “wherein the damage maps…”. However, Applicant lacks antecedent basis for this element, thereby rendering the claim indefinite. In the interest of compact prosecution and for the purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret these limitations as being dependent from claim 6 which provides the proper antecedence.
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 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Following the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (89 FR 58128 and MPEP § 2106, hereinafter 2024 GUIDANCE), the claim(s) appear to fall into one of the enumerated statutory categories and recite at least one judicial exception, as explained in the Step 2A, Prong I analysis below. Furthermore, the judicial exception(s) does/do not appear to be integrated into a practical application as explained in the Step 2A, Prong II analysis below. Further still, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) as explained in the Step 2B analysis below.
STEP 2A, PRONG I:
Step 2A, prong I, of the 2024 GUIDANCE, first looks to whether the claimed invention recites any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes).
Re claim 15, Applicant recites the following limitations:
instructions to:.. determine one or more properties of the structure based on the measurements of the inspection acoustic excitations in the structure
These steps are directed to a mental process. The 2024 GUIDANCE expressly recognizes such mental processes as constituting patent-ineligible abstract ideas. Accordingly, these limitations can reasonably be characterized as reciting a patent-ineligible abstract idea.
STEP 2A, PRONG II:
Step 2A, prong II, of the 2024 GUIDANCE, next analyzes whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that individually or in combination integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the 2024 GUIDANCE identifies various considerations indicative of whether an additional element or combination of elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, such as an additional element reflecting an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field.
Re claim 1, in addition to reciting the above-noted abstract idea(s), the judicial exception recited in the claim is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited, namely “A system for inspecting a structure, the system comprising: one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions to: obtain measurements of preliminary acoustic excitations in a structure, the preliminary acoustic excitations in the structure generated using multiple excitation frequencies; select a subset of the multiple excitation frequencies to be used to inspect the structure based on the measurements of the preliminary acoustic excitations in the structure, wherein inspection acoustic excitations in the structure are generated using the subset of the multiple excitation frequencies; obtain measurements of the inspection acoustic excitations in the structure”, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically, these additional elements merely reflect insignificant extra-solution activity. An example such activity is a data gathering for use in a process. Here, the “obtain(ing)/select(ing)” steps merely represent data gathering as inputs to the judicial exception. Furthermore, nothing in the claim reasonably indicates that anything other than a generic computer (i.e., “computer processor”) needs to be used to carry out the abstract idea.
STEP 2B:
Step 2B of the 2024 GUIDANCE, next analyzes whether the claimed invention adds any specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that, either alone or as an ordered combination, amount to more than “well-understood, routine, conventional” activity in the field.
Re claim 15, the additional limitation(s) recited above only generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological field. Furthermore, these additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they again merely reflect insignificant extra-solution activity while only generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological field (i.e., processing of inspection data). Further still, this/these additional limitation(s) does/do not, as an ordered combination, amount to more than “well-understood, routine, conventional” activity in the field.
Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter for at least these reasons.
Re claims 16-20, these claims do not cure the deficiencies noted above with regard to claim 15, from which they depend, as they merely add further mental processing steps and/or other extra-solution activity. Accordingly, they are rejected under the same or substantially similar analysis, as outlined above.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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 1-10 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Findikoglu et al., US20200191754 (hereinafter “FINDIKOGLU”).
Re claim 1, FINDIKOGLU discloses a method for inspecting a structure, the method comprising [0065]:
generating preliminary acoustic excitations in the structure using multiple excitation frequencies [0066], [0175];
obtaining measurements of the preliminary acoustic excitations in the structure [0068];
selecting a subset of the multiple excitation frequencies to be used to inspect the structure based on the measurements of the preliminary acoustic excitations in the structure [0140];
generating inspection acoustic excitations in the structure using the subset of the multiple excitation frequencies [Fig.1A and associated text], [0077], [0086], [0140];
obtaining measurements of the inspection acoustic excitations in the structure [0069], [0086]; and
determining one or more properties of the structure based on the measurements of the inspection acoustic excitations in the structure [0073-0074], [0086-0088]
Re claim 2, FINDIKOGLU discloses the method of claim 1, as shown above. FINDIKOGLU further discloses:
wherein the preliminary acoustic excitations in the structure include preliminary steady state acoustic excitations in the structure and the inspection acoustic excitations in the structure include inspection steady state acoustic excitations in the structure [0010]
Re claim 3, FINDIKOGLU discloses the method of claim 1, as shown above. FINDIKOGLU further discloses:
wherein the measurements of the preliminary acoustic excitations in the structure include partial measurements of the preliminary acoustic excitations in the structure [0140], and the measurements of the inspection acoustic excitations in the structure include full measurements of the inspection acoustic excitations in the structure [Fig.15B and associated text], [0152-0154]
Re claim 4, FINDIKOGLU discloses the method of claim 1, as shown above. FINDIKOGLU further discloses:
wherein the measurements of the preliminary acoustic excitations in the structure include measurements of velocity responses in the structure [0167-0168]
Re claim 5, FINDIKOGLU discloses the method of claim 4, as shown above. FINDIKOGLU further discloses:
wherein selecting the subset of the multiple excitation frequencies to be used to inspect the structure based on the measurements of the preliminary acoustic excitations in the structure includes selecting the subset of the multiple excitation frequencies based on summary statistic of the velocity responses in the structure [0165]
Re claim 6, FINDIKOGLU discloses the method of claim 1, as shown above. FINDIKOGLU further discloses:
wherein determining the one or more properties of the structure based on the measurements of the inspection acoustic excitations in the structure includes:
generating damage maps of the structure based on the measurements of the inspection acoustic excitations in the structure [0092];
generating a combined damage map from the damage maps [0091]; and
determining the one or more properties of the structure based on the combined damage map [0109], [0110]
Re claim 7, FINDIKOGLU discloses the method of claim 1, as shown above. FINDIKOGLU further discloses:
wherein the damage maps are generated based on filtering the measurements of the inspection acoustic excitations in the structure [0072]
Re claim 8, FINDIKOGLU discloses the method of claim 1, as shown above. FINDIKOGLU further discloses:
wherein the one or more properties of the structure include a defect in the structure [0067]
Re claim 9, FINDIKOGLU discloses the method of claim 8, as shown above. FINDIKOGLU further discloses:
wherein the defect in the structure includes material addition, material loss, or material cracking [0067]
Re claim 10, FINDIKOGLU discloses the method of claim 1, as shown above. FINDIKOGLU further discloses:
wherein the structure includes a hollow structure, a support structure, or a moving structure [0067]
Re claim 13, FINDIKOGLU discloses the method of claim 1, as shown above. FINDIKOGLU further discloses:
wherein:
the structure includes a steel pipe section [0065], [0083]; and
the preliminary acoustic excitations and the inspection acoustic excitations are generated by one or more transducers attached to the steel pipe section [0086-0090]
Re claim 14, FINDIKOGLU discloses the method of claim 13, as shown above. FINDIKOGLU further discloses:
wherein the one or more properties of the structure determined based on the inspection acoustic excitations in the structure include pitting, corrosion, and/or cracking of the steel pipe section [0090-0092]
Re claims 15-20, Applicant recites claims of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claims 1 and 3-7, respectively. Accordingly, claims 15-20 are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claims 1 and 3-7, respectively. Furthermore, the additional generic computer components are disclosed in at least [Fig.1A and associated text], [0080]
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over FINDIKOGLU in view of Winter et al., US20080006087 (hereinafter “WINTER”).
Re claim 11, FINDIKOGLU discloses the method of claim 1, as shown above. FINDIKOGLU further discloses:
wherein:
the structure includes a steel pipe columns and steel pipe stiffeners [0065], [0083]; and
the preliminary acoustic excitations and the inspection acoustic excitations are generated by one or more transducers attached to one or more of the steel pipe columns [0086-0090]
FINDIKOGLU fails to explicitly disclose wherein the structure includes a steel plate having steel columns
However, WINTER, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a structure including a steel plate with steel columns to be inspected by an ultrasonic system [0032], [0022]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify FINDIKOGLU to include the particular structures of WINTER. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a non-destructive inspection system to determine structural integrity of items such as steel support columns (see at least WINTER [0002]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, WINTER merely teaches that it is well-known to provide ultrasonic test on steel columns. Since both FINDIKOGLU and WINTER disclose similar non-destructive inspection systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 12, FINDIKOGLU/WINTER renders obvious the method of claim 11, as shown above. FINDIKOGLU further discloses:
wherein the one or more properties of the structure determined based on the inspection acoustic excitations in the structure include pitting, corrosion, and/or cracking of the steel plate [0067]
RELEVANT PRIOR ART
The Examiner would like to make Applicant aware of prior art references, not relied upon in this action, but pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. They are as follows:
US20220291175, Chang et al. – acoustic resonance diagnostic system for detecting structural degradation
US20210237120, Croxford et al. – multi-frequency wireless sensor for non-destructive testing of structures
US20150300995, Flynn et al. – non-destructive inspection system using continuous ultrasonic wave generation
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS M HAMMOND III whose telephone number is 571-272-2215. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 0800-1700.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached on 571-272-2375. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. For more information about the PAIR system, see: https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair.
Respectfully,
/Thomas M Hammond III/Primary Examiner, GAU 2855
1 MPEP § 2181, subsection I