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 statement (IDS) submitted on 11/21/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as falling to be drawn to one of the four categories of inventions provided by the statute. A “memory” or computer readable medium”, is not a process, nor a machine, nor an article of manufacture, nor a composition of matter.
Further, a claim drawn to such a memory or computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. Inre Nuijen, 500F.3d 1346, 1356-57 Fed. Cir. 2007 (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter.)
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the same selected peak" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 7 are rejected under 35 U. S. C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Djordjevic et al. (US 8291744 B2) hereafter referred to as Djordjevic.
Regarding claim 1, Djordjevic disclose a method for ultrasonic non-destructive testing to determine a curing state of a resin-curing product (column 4, lines 19 - 48), comprising:
coupling an ultrasonic transducer to the resin-curing product;
exciting the transducer with an ultrasound data acquisition unit coupled to the transducer to produce acoustic signals in the form of waveforms and collecting data;
processing the acoustic signals into data of ultrasonic parameters (column 9, lines 48 – 64); and
determining the curing state of the resin-curing product from the ultrasonic parameters.
Regarding claim 6, Djordjevic disclose (in claim 15) a system for ultrasonic non-destructive testing to determine a curing state of a resin-curing product, comprising:
a transducer configured in ultrasonic communication with the resin-curing product;
an ultrasound data acquisition unit coupled to the transducer and configured to excite the transducer to generate waveforms and capture data; and
an analyzer configured to analyze the waveforms into data of ultrasonic parameters (column 9, lines 48 – 64) indicative of the curing state of the resin-curing product.
Regarding claim 7, Djordjevic disclose a system (in claim 15) for ultrasonic non-destructive testing to determine a curing state of a resin-curing product, comprising:
a transducer; an ultrasound data acquisition unit coupled to the transducer and configured to excite the transducer to produce acoustic signals in the form of waveforms and collect data; and
an analyzer having a processor and a memory accessible to the processor, including processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the analyzer to perform operations comprising:
process the acoustic signals into data of ultrasonic parameters (column 9, lines 48 – 64); and
determine the curing state of the resin-curing product from the ultrasonic parameters.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 - 4 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.
Regarding claim 2, and claim 3 which depends therefrom, the prior art made of record neither shows nor suggests the method, wherein the processing the acoustic signals into the data of ultrasonic parameters comprises determining at least one of a speed of sound of the acoustic signals relative to a time of curing and an instantaneous peak power of the acoustic signals relative to a time of curing.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art made of record neither shows nor suggests the method wherein collecting data further comprises:
starting data capture with an initial acoustic signal as a baseline ultrasonic parameter;
measuring further acoustic signals through the curing process to determine the ultrasonic parameters relative to the baseline ultrasonic parameter; and
using the relative ultrasonic parameters for future measurements of the resin-curing product.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WARREN K FENWICK whose telephone number is (571)270-3040. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30 AM to 7:00 PM, Monday through Friday.
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, Walter L. Lindsay, Jr. can be reached at 571-272-1674. 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.
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
WKF
Prosecution Insights