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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. FR2110340, filed on 09/30/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/27/2024 was considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 4 is recited as a method “as claimed in any one of the preceding claims”. Appropriate correction is required.
For purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted claim 4 to depend upon the method of claim 1, in fitting with the preliminary amendment for other similar claims.
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 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.
Claim 7 recites “The method as claimed in claim 7”, which is unclear on what method it depends, and therefore is indefinite.
For the purposes of examination, it is interpreted as “The method as claimed in claim 1”, in fitting with the preliminary amendments to similar claims.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention in each of these claims is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
“A method for detecting a defect in a region of interest within a part to be tested, said method comprising the following successive steps:
a) for a reference part identical to the part to be tested but free from defects,
a1) determining a set of resonant modes each defining:
- a resonant frequency of the reference part, considering that the modulus of elasticity of the reference part is constant, and
- a field of mechanical stresses or deformations on and/or in the reference part that are generated when the reference part resonates at said resonant frequency;
a2) selecting the resonant mode, referred to as "optimum resonant mode", that generates, in the region of interest, a maximum mechanical stress or deformation compared to the other resonant modes;
b) determining a loading mode, referred to as "optimum" loading mode, that primarily activates said optimum resonant mode, a loading mode defining at least an excitation wave, an injection zone where the excitation wave is injected into the reference part, and an output zone where an output wave resulting from the excitation wave passing through from the injection zone to the output zone is picked up;
c) carrying out nonlinear resonant spectrometry analysis based on the optimum loading mode, so as to determine a nonlinearity parameter for each of said part to be tested and reference part;
d) classifying the part to be tested on the basis of the difference between the nonlinearity parameters for the part to be tested and for the reference part.”
The claim limitations considered to fall within in the abstract idea are highlighted in bold font above; the remaining features are “additional elements.”
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis entails determining whether the claimed subject matter falls within one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claim 1 recites a process and is therefore falls within a statutory category.
Step 2A, Prong One of the analysis entails determining whether the claim recites a judicial exception such as an abstract idea. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the highlighted portion of claim 1 comprises process steps that fall within the abstract idea judicial exception. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, the highlighted subject matter falls within the mental processes category.
Individually and collectively, the steps:
“determining a set of resonant modes each defining:
- a resonant frequency of the reference part, considering that the modulus of elasticity of the reference part is constant, and
- a field of mechanical stresses or deformations on and/or in the reference part that are generated when the reference part resonates at said resonant frequency”;
“selecting the resonant mode, referred to as "optimum resonant mode", that generates, in the region of interest, a maximum mechanical stress or deformation compared to the other resonant modes”;
“determining a loading mode, referred to as "optimum" loading mode, that primarily activates said optimum resonant mode, a loading mode defining at least an excitation wave”,
“[determining] an injection zone where the excitation wave is injected into the reference part”,
“[determining] an output zone where an output wave resulting from the excitation wave passing through from the injection zone to the output zone is picked up”;
“carrying out nonlinear resonant spectrometry analysis based on the optimum loading mode, so as to determine a nonlinearity parameter for each of said part to be tested and reference part”; and
“classifying the part to be tested on the basis of the difference between the nonlinearity parameters for the part to be tested and for the reference part.”
may be performed as mental processes. Determining a set of resonant modes, selecting the resonant mode, determining a loading mode, an injection zone, and an output zone, carrying out nonlinear resonant spectrometry analysis, and classifying the part to be tested are each analysis, and may be performed as mental processes. The type of high-level information collecting and analyzing data recited in these elements has been found by the Federal Circuit to constitute patent ineligible matter (see Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016), a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind).
Step 2A, Prong Two of the analysis entails determining whether a claim includes additional elements that integrate the recited judicial exception (e.g., abstract idea) into a practical application. In view of the various considerations encompassed by the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. Based on the individual and collective limitations of claim 1, applying a broadest reasonable interpretation, the most significant of such considerations appear to include: improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)); applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)); and effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)).
Regarding improvements to the functioning of a computer or other technology, none of the “additional elements” in any combination appear to integrate the abstract idea to technologically improve any aspect of a system that may be used to implement the highlighted steps. Instead, any alleged improvement is the improvement in the abstract idea steps, and therefore not an improvement in technology (MPEP 2106.05(a).II “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.”.).
Regarding application of the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, none of the additional elements are utilized as a particularized manner of implementing the abstract idea process steps. Instead, the claim as a whole entails analyzing information (e.g. “determining”, “carrying out nonlinear resonant spectrometry analysis”, “classifying”).
The above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the claim elements reciting an abstract idea do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under Step 2B.
Regarding Step 2B, independent claim 1, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generically recited and are well-understood/conventional. Even if the independent claim recites an alleged inventive concept, said inventive concept would be an improvement in an abstract idea, and therefore not patent eligible (MPEP 2106.05: “As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty.")).
Dependent claims 2-14 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm that includes the abstract idea of the independent claims (Step 2A, Prong One). None of dependent claims 2-18 and 20 recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two), and all fail the “significantly more” test under the step 2B for the same reasons as discussed with regards to the independent claims. Claim 2 further details the determining of the resonant modes, which may be performed as mental processes or mathematical concepts. Claim 3 further details the selecting of the resonant mode, including the comparing of numerical models, which is analysis and may be performed as mental processes. Claim 4 further details the region of interest. Claims 5, 11 further details the optimum loading mode. Claims 6, 7 further details the nonlinearity parameter. Claim 8 further details the defect. Claims 9, 10, 13 further details the part. Claim 12 further details the output wave.
The dependent claims 2-14 therefore are also ineligible subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is 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.
Claim 1 would be allowable if it was rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 1, none of the prior art, alone or in combination, teaches all of the claimed limitations. The closest prior art was considered.
Johnson et al. (US 6330827 B1, provided by applicant) teaches an analogous method for detecting a defect in a region of interest within a part to be tested. Using nonlinear resonance spectrometry (Abstract; Figs. 5A-C).
Gliozzi et al. (Gliozzi a S et al. "Modelling localized nonlinear damage and analysis of its influence on resonance frequencies; Modelling localized nonlinear damage" JOURNAL OF PHYSICS D: APPLIED PHYSICS, INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS PUBLISHING, BRISTOL, GB, Vol. 39, No. 17, 07 September 2006 (2006-09-07), provided by applicant) teaches an analogous method comprising determining an optimal excitation mode (see Results p. 3899).
Donskoy et al. (US 20210156759 A1) teaches an analogous method for detecting defects (Abstract).
None of the prior art, alone or in combination, teaches the method, comprising:
a1) determining a set of resonant modes each defining:
- a resonant frequency of the reference part, considering that the modulus of elasticity of the reference part is constant, and
- a field of mechanical stresses or deformations on and/or in the reference part that are generated when the reference part resonates at said resonant frequency;
a2) selecting the resonant mode, referred to as "optimum resonant mode", that generates, in the region of interest, a maximum mechanical stress or deformation compared to the other resonant modes;
b) determining a loading mode, referred to as "optimum" loading mode, that primarily activates said optimum resonant mode, a loading mode defining at least an excitation wave, an injection zone where the excitation wave is injected into the reference part, and an output zone where an output wave resulting from the excitation wave passing through from the injection zone to the output zone is picked up
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN GEISS whose telephone number is (571)270-1248. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 4:30 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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/B.B.G./Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights