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 § 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 1-7 and 9-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention 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 non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for inspecting a molded body region, comprising:
generating a mechanical property inference model for inferring unknown mechanical property information of a fiber-reinforced second molded body region using non-destructive inspection information of the second molded body region as input by performing machine learning of known mechanical property information and known non-destructive inspection information of a fiber-reinforced first molded body region;
acquiring the non-destructive inspection information of the second molded body region;
inputting the acquired non-destructive inspection information into the mechanical property inference model,
acquiring mechanical property information of the second molded body region from the mechanical property inference model, and
performing output based on the mechanical property information,
wherein the first molded body region and the second molded body region are each obtained by molding a plate-shaped composite material with a mold,
the first molded body region and the second molded body region are obtained by molding the composite material such that a charge ratio is 10% or more and 500% or less, respectively,
wherein the charge ratio is a value obtained by calculating (S1/S2) x 100, wherein
S1 is a projected area of the composite material, and
S2 is a projected area of a portion corresponding to the first molded body region and the second molded body region in a mold cavity of the mold,
the non-destructive inspection information is vibration characteristic information or acoustic characteristic information, and a sampling frequency at the time of acquiring the non- destructive inspection information is more than 0 Hz.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Step 1: under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (Process).
Step 2A, Prong One: under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation that falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Regarding claim 1
For example, the limitation of “generating a mechanical property inference model for inferring unknown mechanical property information of a fiber-reinforced second molded body region using non-destructive inspection information of the second molded body region as input by performing machine learning of known mechanical property information and known non-destructive inspection information of a fiber-reinforced first molded body region (paras. [0016]-[0019], [0096]-[0099])” in claim 1 is mathematical calculations. The limitation of “performing machine learning” using backpropagation algorithm and gradient descent algorithm is an indicative of mathematical calculations. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical calculations, then it falls within “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 20 and 22.
Regarding claim 21
For example, the limitation of “machine learning based on mechanical property information and non-destructive inspection information of a fiber-reinforced first molded body region, wherein the mechanical property inference model infers unknown mechanical property information of a fiber-reinforced second molded body region by inputting non- destructive inspection information of the second molded body region,
wherein the first molded body region and the second molded body region are each obtained by molding a plate-shaped composite material with a mold, the first molded body region and the second molded body region are obtained by molding the composite material such that a charge ratio is 10% or more and 500% or less, respectively, wherein the charge ratio is a value obtained by calculating (S1/S2) x 100, wherein S1 is a projected area of the composite material, and S2 is a projected area of a portion corresponding to the first molded body region and the second molded body region in a mold cavity of the mold (paras. [0016]-[0019], [0096]-[0099])” in claim 21 is mathematical calculations. The limitation of “performing machine learning” using backpropagation algorithm and gradient descent algorithm is an indicative of mathematical calculations. The limitation of : wherein the first molded body region and the second molded body region are each obtained by molding a plate-shaped composite material with a mold, the first molded body region and the second molded body region are obtained by molding the composite material such that a charge ratio is 10% or more and 500% or less, respectively, wherein the charge ratio is a value obtained by calculating (S1/S2) x 100, wherein S1 is a projected area of the composite material, and S2 is a projected area of a portion corresponding to the first molded body region and the second molded body region in a mold cavity of the mold” merely describes or define the mechanical property information and non-destructive inspection information regarding the first and second regions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical calculations, then it falls within “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, none of the additional elements indicate a practical application.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for inspecting a molded body region (preamble); acquiring the non-destructive inspection information of the second molded body region; inputting the acquired non-destructive inspection information into the mechanical property inference model, acquiring mechanical property information of the second molded body region from the mechanical property inference model, and performing output based on the mechanical property information, wherein the first molded body region and the second molded body region are each obtained by molding a plate-shaped composite material with a mold, the first molded body region and the second molded body region are obtained by molding the composite material such that a charge ratio is 10% or more and 500% or less, respectively, wherein the charge ratio is a value obtained by calculating (S1/S2) x 100, wherein S1 is a projected area of the composite material, and S2 is a projected area of a portion corresponding to the first molded body region and the second molded body region in a mold cavity of the mold, the non-destructive inspection information is vibration characteristic information or acoustic characteristic information, and a sampling frequency at the time of acquiring the non- destructive inspection information is more than 0 Hz.
In Claim 20: an inspecting method for a molded body region (preamble); acquiring the non-destructive inspection information of the second molded body region; inputting the acquired non-destructive inspection information into the mechanical property inference model; acquiring mechanical property information of the second molded body region from the mechanical property inference model, and performing output based on the mechanical property information, wherein the first molded body region and the second molded body region are each obtained by molding a plate-shaped composite material with a mold, the first molded body region and the second molded body region are obtained by molding the composite material such that a charge ratio is 10% or more and 500% or less, respectively, wherein the charge ratio is a value obtained by calculating (S1/S2) x 100, wherein S1 is a projected area of the composite material, and S2 is a projected area of a portion corresponding to the first molded body region and the second molded body region in a mold cavity of the mold, the non-destructive inspection information is vibration characteristic information or acoustic characteristic information, and a sampling frequency at the time of acquiring the non- destructive inspection information is more than 0 Hz.
Claim 21: an inspection device for inspecting a molded body region (preamble); a processor configured to access a model storage unit that stores abstract idea; and
In Claim 22: a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for inspecting a molded body region, the inspection program causing a processor to execute the steps (preamble); acquiring the temperature distribution information of the second molded body region; inputting the acquired temperature distribution information to the mechanical property inference model; acquiring mechanical property information of the second molded body region from the mechanical property inference model; and outputting the mechanical property information based on the mechanical property information, wherein the first molded body region and the second molded body region are each obtained by molding a plate-shaped composite material with a mold, wherein the first molded body region and the second molded body region are obtained by molding the composite material such that a charge ratio is 10% or more and 500% or less, respectively, wherein the charge ratio is a value obtained by calculating (S1/S2) x 100, wherein S1 is a projected area of the composite material, and S2 is a projected area of a portion corresponding to the first molded body region and the second molded body region in a mold cavity of the mold.
The additional elements such as the non-transitory computer readable medium , processor, and storage unit are recited at a high-level of generality without descriptions of its specific structure/features to perform the claimed features for producing the metal processes addressed above (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Further, the additional element of “a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for inspecting a molded body region,” “An inspecting method for a molded body region,” “an inspection device for inspecting a molded body region,” and “A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for inspecting a molded body region” are preamble statements reciting purpose or intended use (See MPEP 2111.02)(II)). Further, the additional element of “acquiring the non-destructive inspection information of the second molded body region” and “inputting the acquired temperature distribution information to the mechanical property inference model” and “acquiring mechanical property information of the second molded body region from the mechanical property inference model” are insignificant (gathering data) extra-solution activity to perform abstract idea that is mathematical concepts and/or mental processes (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Further, additional elements of “outputting the mechanical property information based on the mechanical property information, wherein the first molded body region and the second molded body region are each obtained by molding a plate-shaped composite material with a mold, wherein the first molded body region and the second molded body region are obtained by molding the composite material such that a charge ratio is 10% or more and 500% or less, respectively, wherein the charge ratio is a value obtained by calculating (S1/S2) x 100, wherein S1 is a projected area of the composite material, and S2 is a projected area of a portion corresponding to the first molded body region and the second molded body region in a mold cavity of the mold” are insignificant (post-solution activity) extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Merely “outputting” a result (i.e., the mechanical property information based on the mechanical property information) is nothing more than outputting a signal or displaying result. There is established case law (electric power group for example) to prove that such a feature is insufficient extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations of the first molded body region and the second molded body region merely further define and describe the mechanical property information to perform abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not present tangible or physical elements/components and/or integration of improvements to be indicative of specific features/structure/acts, for example, how and or with what to generate a mechanical property inference model for unknown mechanical property information. This is just a processor running algorithm related to mathematical calculations. Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 20-22. Therefore, the independent claims 1 and 20-22 are ineligible.
Regarding claims 2-7 and 9-19,
All features recited in these claims are abstract ideas, as all features found in these claims are directed towards mathematical calculations steps and/or further define and describe a mechanical property information to perform the abstract idea. The explanation for the rejection of Claims 2-7 and 9-19 therefore are incorporated herein and applied to Claims 1 and 20-22. These claims therefore stand rejected for similar reasons as explained in above Claims 1 and 20-22.
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 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.
Claims 1-9 and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura. et al., (“EXAMINATION OF LEARNING MODELS AND INFERENCE OF
MANUFACTURING METHODS OF CFRP BY DEEP LEARNING USING THEIR ULTRASONIC IMAGES, SAMPE Europe Conference 2020 Amsterdam - Netherlands, 30 September 2020, pp .1-9, hereinafter referred to as “Miura,” cited in IDS dated June 21, 2024).
Regarding claim 1, Miura teaches 1 non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for inspecting a molded body region, (section 1, third paragraph: detect CFRP products with damages by using deep learning) comprising:
generating a mechanical property inference model for inferring unknown mechanical property information of a fiber-reinforced second molded body region using non-destructive inspection information of the second molded body region (section 1, third paragraph: detect CFRP products with damages by using deep learning) as input by performing machine learning (section 2. 2, paragraph 3: learning data for deep learning) of known mechanical property information and known non-destructive inspection information of a fiber-reinforced first molded body region (Table 1, molding condition of CFRP plates);
acquiring the non-destructive inspection information of the second molded body region (Table 1, molding condition of CFRP plates);
inputting the acquired non-destructive inspection information into the mechanical property inference model (Table 1, molding condition of CFRP plates), acquiring mechanical property information of the second molded body region from the mechanical property inference model (section 2. 2, paragraph 3: learning data for deep learning), and performing output based on the mechanical property information (section 1, third paragraph: detect CFRP products with damages by using deep learning),
wherein the first molded body region and the second molded body region are each obtained by molding a plate-shaped composite material with a mold (Table 1: molding conditions of CFRP plates),
the non-destructive inspection information is vibration characteristic information or acoustic characteristic information (section 1, paragraph 5: manufacturing method of CFPR could be inferred from their ultrasonic images, note that the above feature of “ultrasonic images” reads on “acoustic characteristic information”), and
a sampling frequency at the time of acquiring the non-destructive inspection information is more than 0 Hz (section 1, paragraph 5: manufacturing method of CFPR could be inferred from their ultrasonic images, note that the above feature of “ultrasonic” in section 1, paragraph 5 reads on “a sampling frequency at the time of acquiring the non-destructive inspection information is more than 0 Hz”).
Miura does not specifically teach that the first molded body region and the second molded body region are obtained by molding the composite material such that a charge ratio is 10% or more and 500% or less, respectively, wherein the charge ratio is a value obtained by calculating (S1/S2) x 100, wherein S1 is a projected area of the composite material, and S2 is a projected area of a portion corresponding to the first molded body region and the second molded body region in a mold cavity of the mold.
However, Miura teaches molding conditions of CFRP plates (see table) and the ultrasonic images of the CFRP plates were divided to the same size as the tensile test piece following ASTM standard. Therefore, the above-described claimed feature would be an obvious variation of such method. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use Miura’s testing piece following ASTM standard in order to determine the first and second molded body regions (see MPEP 2143: “Obvious To Try”-choosing from a finite number of predictable solution).
Regarding claim 2, Miura teaches all the limitation of claim 1. Miura does not specifically teach that the first molded body region and the second molded body region are obtained by molding the composite material such that a charge ratio is 50% or more, respectively.
However, Miura teaches molding conditions of CFRP plates (see table 1). Therefore, the above-described claimed feature would be an obvious variation of such method. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use Miura’s molding condition order to determine the first and second molded body region (see MPEP 2143: “Obvious To Try”-choosing from a finite number of predictable solution).
Regarding claim 3, Miura teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Miura teaches that the first molded body region and the second molded body region are fiber reinforced by discontinuous fibers, respectively (Fig. 1: CFRP test pieces).
Regarding claim 4, Miura teaches all the limitation of claim 1. Miura does not specifically teaches that the first molded body region and the second molded body region have isotropies of 1.5 or less, respectively.
However, Miura teaches molding conditions of CFRP plates (see table 1). Therefore, the above-described claimed feature would be an obvious variation of such method. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use Miura’s molding condition order to determine first and second molded body region (see MPEP 2143: “Obvious To Try”-choosing from a finite number of predictable solution).
Regarding claim 5, Miura teaches all the limitation of claim 1. Miura does not specifically teaches that coefficients of variation of basis weights of the first molded body region and the second molded body region are 10% or less, respectively
However, Miura teaches molding conditions of CFRP plates (see table 1). Therefore, the above-described claimed feature would be an obvious variation of such method. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use Miura’s molding condition order to determine the coefficients of variation of basis weights of the first molded body region and the second molded body region (see MPEP 2143: “Obvious To Try”-choosing from a finite number of predictable solution).
Regarding claim 6, Miura teaches all the limitation of claim 1. Miura does not specifically teaches that the reinforcing fibers in each of the first molded body region and the second molded body region include reinforcing fiber bundles in which Li is 1 mm or more and 100 mm or less, and Li/(Ni xDi2) is 8.0 x 101 or more and 3.3 x 103 or less, wherein Li is a length of the reinforcing fiber bundle, Di is a monofilament diameter of the reinforcing fibers constituting the reinforcing fiber bundle, and Ni is a number of monofilaments contained in the reinforcing fiber bundle.
However, Miura teaches molding conditions of CFRP plates (see table 1). Therefore, the above-described claimed feature would be an obvious variation of such method. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use Miura’s molding condition in order to determine the reinforcing fibers in each of the first molded body region and the second molded body region (see MPEP 2143: “Obvious To Try”-choosing from a finite number of predictable solution).
Regarding claim 7, Miura teaches all the limitation of claim 1. In addition, Miura teaches that the molding is press molding (section 2.1, first paragraph: autoclave pressure conditions).
Regarding claim 9, Miura teaches all the limitation of claim 1. In addition, Miura teaches that the non-destructive inspection information is image data or numerical data (Section 2.2, paragraph 3: rectangular image).
Regarding claim 14, Miura teaches all the limitation of claim 9. In addition, Miura teaches that the image (Section 2.2, paragraph 3: rectangular image) includes a waveform of vibration damping the vibration characteristic information may be numerical data such as a natural frequency, or an inspection image using a wavelet image (section 1, paragraph 5: manufacturing method of CFPR could be inferred from their ultrasonic images).
Regarding claim 16, Miura teaches all the limitation of claim 15. In addition, Miura teaches that the sampling frequency is 250 Hz or more and 50,000 Hz or less (section 1, paragraph 5: manufacturing method of CFPR could be inferred from their ultrasonic images, note that the above feature of “ultrasonic” reads on “the sampling frequency is 250 Hz or more and 50,000 Hz or less” because ultrasonic range is greater than 20,000 Hz).
Regarding claim 17, Miura teaches all the limitation of claim 15. In addition, Miura teaches that natural frequencies of primary modes of the first molded body region and the second molded body region are more than 0 Hz and 1000 Hz or less (section 1, paragraph 5: manufacturing method of CFPR could be inferred from their ultrasonic images; Table 1, molding condition of CFRP plates, note that the above feature of the above feature of “molding condition of CFRP plates” and “ultrasonic” reads on “natural frequencies of primary modes of the first molded body region and the second molded body region are more than 0 Hz and 1000 Hz or less “ because ultrasonic range is greater than 20,000 Hz).
Regarding claim 18, Miura teaches all the limitation of claim 1. In addition, Miura teaches that the non-destructive inspection information is acoustic property information (section 1, paragraph 5: manufacturing method of CFPR could be inferred from their ultrasonic images, note that the above feature of “ultrasonic” reads on “acoustic property”).
Regarding claim 19, Miura teaches all the limitation of claim 18. In addition, Miura teaches that natural frequencies of primary modes of the first molded body region and the second molded body region are more than 0 Hz and 20,000 Hz or less (section 1, paragraph 5: manufacturing method of CFPR could be inferred from their ultrasonic images; Table 1, molding condition of CFRP plates, note that the above feature of the above feature of “molding condition of CFRP plates” and “ultrasonic” reads on “natural frequencies of primary modes of the first molded body region and the second molded body region are more than 0 Hz and 20,000 Hz or less” because ultrasonic range is greater than 20,000 Hz).
Regarding claim 20, it is a method type claim and has similar limitation as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 21, it is a device type claim and has similar limitation as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 22, it is a non-transitory computer readable medium type claim and has similar limitation as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 1 above.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura in view of Nohara et al. (US 2012/0283352 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Nohara,” cited in IDS dated June 21, 2024).
Regarding claim 10, Miura teaches all the limitation of claim 1. In addition, Miura teaches that the mechanical property information is information on an Section 3.3, paragraph one: three class I having no internal defect, Class 2 having many ones and Class 3 having several ones, note that internal defect reads on “fracture”).
Miura does not specifically teach the elastic modulus.
However, Nohara teaches the elastic modulus (table 2 and 3: elastic modulus).
Miura and Nohara are both considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the similar filed of composition for a fiber-reinforced composite material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the elastic modulus such as is described in Nohara into Miura in order to obtain a cured product that is superior in mechanical strength (Nohara, para. [0016]).
Regarding claim 11, Miura teaches all the limitation of claim 10. In addition, Miura teaches that the information on the fracture strength includes the fracture strength or a rank of the fracture strength when the fracture strength is ranked (Section 3.3, paragraph one: three class I having no internal defect, Class 2 having many ones and Class 3 having several ones, note that internal defect reads on “defect of elastic modulus and fracture”).
Miura does not specifically teach the information on the elastic modulus includes an elastic modulus or a rank of the elastic modulus when the elastic modulus is ranked
However, Nohara teaches the information on the elastic modulus includes an elastic modulus or a rank of the elastic modulus when the elastic modulus is ranked (table 2 and 3: elastic modulus).
Miura and Nohara are both considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the similar filed of composition for a fiber-reinforced composite material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the information such as is described in Nohara into Miura in order to obtain a cured product that is superior in mechanical strength (Nohara, para. [0016]).
Regarding claim 12 Miura teaches all the limitation of claim 11. In addition, Miura teaches that the information on the elastic modulus or the fracture strength includes at least one of information indicating that the fracture strength is difficult to infer, information indicating that the elastic modulus or the fracture strength corresponds to a defective product, and information indicating that the elastic modulus or the fracture strength corresponds to a good product (Section 3.3, paragraph one: three class I having no internal defect, Class 2 having many ones and Class 3 having several ones, note that “internal defect” in section 3.3, paragraph one reads on “defect of elastic modulus and fracture”).
Miura does not specifically teach the elastic modulus.
However, Nohara teaches the elastic modulus (table 2 and 3: elastic modulus).
Miura and Nohara are both considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the similar filed of composition for a fiber-reinforced composite material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the elastic modulus such as is described in Nohara into Miura in order to obtain a cured product that is superior in mechanical strength (Nohara, para. [0016]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura in view of Kobayashi et al. (CN 107530934 A, hereinafter referred to as “Kobayashi,” cited in IDS dated June 21, 2024).
Regarding claim 13, Miura teaches all the limitation of claim 1. In addition, Miura teaches that the mechanical property information or the non-destructive inspection information (section 1, paragraph 5: manufacturing method of CFPR could be inferred from their ultrasonic images) of the first molded body region (Table 1: molding conditions of CFRP plates) includes at least one or more pieces of information obtained (section 2.2, paragraph one: test piece; section 3.3, paragraph one: test pieces).
Miura does not specifically teach the finite element method.
However, Kobayashi teaches the finite element method (page 5, lines 41-42: mechanical physical properties are determined by finite element method analysis).
Miura and Kobayashi are both considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the similar filed of composition for a fiber-reinforced composite material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the elastic modulus such as is described in and Kobayashi into Miura in order to provide a model for structural analysis, which can improve the accuracy of structural analysis when structural analysis is performed on an anisotropic resin molded body that is considered to be difficult to perform structural analysis ( Kobayashi, page 6, lines 18-20).
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura in view of Shimada et al. (US 5,612,495 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Shimada”).
Regarding claim 15, Miura teaches all the limitation of claim 1. Miura does not specifically teach that the non-destructive inspection information is vibration characteristic information.
However, Shimada teaches non-destructive inspection information is vibration characteristic information (col. 2, line 66- col. 3, line 5: by using the non-destructive examination device, the elastic wave is generated by the vibration excitor device in accordance with the excitation current provided from the excitation current generation device, and then the response signal from the examination target which has been vibrated by the elastic wave is detected by the response detect).
Miura and Shimada are both considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the similar filed of non-destructive examination device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the non-destructive inspection information such as is described in Shimada into Miura in order to provide a non- destructive examination device which is capable of repeatedly vibrating an examination target with a constant force, of vibrating a plurality of points on the examination target at the same time, and of easily controlling the magnitude of a strength of the vibration, a vibration frequency to be added to the examination target (Shimada, col. 2, lines 35-42).
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura in view of K et al. (US 2020/0182758 A1, hereinafter referred to as “K,” cited in IDS dated June 21, 2024).
Regarding claim 23, Miura teaches all the limitation of claim 22. Miura does not specifically teach that the temperature distribution information is a temperature distribution image.
However, K teaches that temperature distribution information is a temperature distribution image (para. [0004]: thermography).
Miura and K are both considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the similar filed of detecting in the CFRP composite materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the temperature distribution information such as is described in K into Miura in order to detect defects in the CFRP composite materials being loaded under the static and cyclic test conditions, which achieves integration of servo-controlled test system for simulating service loads on the CFRP composites and scanning system (K. para. [0011]).
Regarding claim 24, Miura teaches all the limitation of claim 22. Miura does not specifically teach that the temperature distribution information is an active thermographic image.
However, K teaches that the temperature distribution information is an active thermographic image (para. [0004]: thermography).
Miura and K are both considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the similar filed of detecting in the CFRP composite materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the temperature distribution information such as is described in K into Miura in order to detect defects in the CFRP composite materials being loaded under the static and cyclic test conditions, which achieves integration of servo-controlled test system for simulating service loads on the CFRP composites and scanning system (K. para. [0011]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
King et al. (US 11,346,751 B1) teaches that a computing system receives a request for computer-generated likelihood(s) for candidate evaluations of an industrial product set according to a measurement system analysis (MSA). The MSA comprises tests for evaluating, according to a measurement standard, the industrial product set. The request indicates a metric set representing metric(s) each quantifying an estimate of contribution to variation in evaluating the industrial product set according to the MSA. The system generates a design comprising a respective input set for each test of the MSA. The respective input set comprises setting(s) for conducting a test of the MSA. The design is designed to isolate candidate sources for contributing to the variation in evaluating the industrial product set according to the MSA.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANGKYUNG LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, LEE RODAK can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/SANGKYUNG LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
