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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 5 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. Claim 5 claims “The method of claim 1, wherein a single reference object is used for all verification measurements, irrespective of a size of a bolted connection to be checked via the ultrasonic measurement device.”
From reading both Claim 5 and Claim 1, it is unclear what “irrespective of a size of a bolted connection” refers to. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will not be given any weight given that it starts with “irrespective” which indicates that the previous limitation always applies.
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.
(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, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yushi Instruments (Color Waveform Ultrasonic Thickness Guage UM-5 Series Operating Manual). Hereafter, this will simply be referred to as “Yushi.”.
Regarding Claim 1, Yushi teaches:
A method of calibrating an ultrasonic measurement device comprising (Page 6, Section 3.1 teaches probe calibration procedure):
a) providing a reference object (Page 6, “Probe zero procedure” refers to a “zero block”);
b) measuring the reference object via an ultrasonic measurement device to determine reference-measurement-data representative of an ultrasonic length of the reference object (Page 7, Fig 3.1.1 teaches measuring a “zero block” to determine a thickness and sound velocity);
c) storing the reference-measurement-data (Page 21 claims the device can “save one hundred thousand thickness values”);
d) measuring the reference object with the same, or another, ultrasonic measurement device to determine verification-measurement-data representative of the ultrasonic length of the reference object (Page 6, One Point Calibration measures “the test block of known thickness”);
e) comparing a reference length of the reference object determined on a basis of the reference-measurement-data to a verification length of the reference object determined on a basis of the verification-measurement-data to obtain a comparison result (Page 7 Figure 3.1.1, the “Set Thickness” gauge give a measurement reading which is compared to the previously verified measurement);
f) and adjusting the ultrasonic measurement device on a basis of the comparison result between the reference-measurement-data and the verification-measurement-data (Page 7 Figure 3.1.1, the “Set Thickness” gauge allows the user to adjust the measured thickness value until it matches the previously verified measurement).
Regarding Claim 5, Yushi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a single reference object is used for all verification measurements, irrespective of a size of a bolted connection to be checked via the ultrasonic measurement device (Page 6, “Probe zero procedure” uses a single test block for all verification measurements).
Regarding Claim 6, Yushi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein measuring the reference object comprises determining a time of flight of an ultrasound signal between a pre-set measurement origin and a point in time when an ultrasound return signal is received (Page 4 1.4 “Specifications—Operating Principle” discloses “Ultrasonic pulse echo method,” which is analogous to time of flight).
Regarding Claim 9, Yushi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein comparing the lengths comprises determining a length difference between the length determined on the basis of the reference-measurement-data and the length of the reference object determined on the basis of the verification-measurement-data, and wherein the method comprises comparing the length difference to a calibration threshold (Page 7, Figure 3.1.2 “Set Thickness” screen allows users to adjust the measured thickness value to match the previously verified thickness value. Thus, in calibrating the device the two thickness values are compared, and then adjusted to match the verified value within the measuring resolution).
Regarding Claim 10, Yushi teaches the method of claim 9, comprising adjusting the ultrasonic device only if the length difference exceeds the calibration threshold (Page 7, 3.1.2 “Set Thickness” screen implies that if the measured thickness differs from the previously measured thickness by 0.001 mm or more, the user should adjust the “Set Thickness” value until the values match).
Regarding Claim 12, Yushi teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the calibration threshold is between ±0.00mm and ±0.02mm (Page 7, 3.1.2 “Set Thickness” screen suggests that users should adjust the display until the verified and measured values match within the measuring resolution, which is 0.001 mm).
Regarding Claim 13, Yushi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the reference-measurement-data comprises any one or more of: a waveform of ultrasonic signal determined during the reference measurement; a length of the reference object determined during the reference measurement; and a time of flight of the ultrasound signal during the reference measurement (Figure 3.1.1 discloses a length).
Regarding claim 14, Yushi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the verification-measurement-data comprises any one or more of: a waveform of ultrasonic signal determined during the verification measurement; a length of the reference object determined during the verification measurement; and a time of flight of the ultrasound signal during the verification measurement (Figure 3.1.2 discloses a length).
Regarding claim 15, Yushi teaches the method of claim 1, comprising logging when the ultrasonic measurement device was last verified and/or calibrated, and/or comprising logging a number of measurements of the ultrasonic measurement device since it was last verified and/or calibrated (Page 21 claims the device can “save one hundred thousand thickness values”).
Regarding claim 16, Yushi teaches:
An ultrasonic measurement device for determining an ultrasonic length of an object, preferably a bolt, comprising: an ultrasonic transducer (Page 4, Specifications discloses transducer);
an ultrasonic receiver (Page 4, Specifications claims it measures by “pulse echo and echo-echo method,” and thus has a receiver to interpret the echoes);
a memory for storing measurement data (Page 21 claims the device can “save one hundred thousand thickness values”);
and a controller configured to:
a) receive reference-measurement-data representative of the ultrasonic length of the reference object recorded during a first measurement of the reference object (Page 7, Fig 3.1.1 teaches measuring a “zero block” to determine a thickness and sound velocity);
b) store the reference-measurement-data in the memory (Page 21 claims the device can “save one hundred thousand thickness values”);
c) receive verification-measurement-data representative of the ultrasonic length of the reference object recorded during a later, second measurement of the reference object (Page 6, One Point Calibration measures “the test block of known thickness”);
d) comparing a reference length of the reference object determined on a basis of the reference-measurement-data to a verification length of the reference object determined on a basis of the verification-measurement-data (Page 7 Figure 3.1.1, the “Set Thickness” gauge give a measurement reading which is compared to the previously verified measurement); and
e) adjust the ultrasonic measurement device on a basis of a comparison result between the reference-measurement-data and the verification-measurement-data (Page 7 Figure 3.1.1, the “Set Thickness” gauge allows the user to adjust the measured thickness value until it matches the previously verified measurement).
Regarding Claim 17, Yushi teaches the ultrasonic measurement device of claim 16, wherein the controller is configured to measure the reference object by determining a time of flight of an ultrasound signal between a pre-set measurement origin and a point in time when an ultrasound return signal is received (Page 4 1.4 “Specifications—Operating Principle” discloses “Ultrasonic pulse echo method,” which is analogous to time of flight).
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 (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 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yushi in view of Pickup (WO 2016110682 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Yushi teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to teach comprising assigning a reference ID to the reference object and a device ID to the ultrasonic measurement device and storing the reference-measurement-data together with the corresponding reference ID and device in a database.
In a similar field of endeavor, Pickup teaches a “verification tool” (reference object) which is “stored by the ultrasonic scanner” (Page 18 4-9; Fig 5 s4). Pickup later teaches that the verification tool data can be stored “with respect to coordinate reference frame of the ultrasonic sensor” (Page 19 1-8; Fig 5 s8), implying that data regarding the measurement device is stored as well.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method as described in Yushi and the methods of storing device and reference object data as described in Pickup to assign a reference ID and device ID to the ultrasonic sensor and reference object. This would allow for accurate “registration” of the device and reference object (Page 18 11).
Regarding Claim 3, Yushi and Pickup teach all the elements of claim 2, but as previously described do not teach wherein the database is stored in the memory of the ultrasonic measurement device.
However, Yushi further teaches wherein the database is stored in the memory of the ultrasonic measurement device (Page 21, “Data Storage Function” section).
Regarding Claim 4, Yushi teaches the method of claim 1, but does not teach wherein step e) comprises: e1) determining a reference ID of the reference object; e2) determining a device ID of the ultrasonic measurement device; and e3) determining the reference length on the basis of reference-measurement-data corresponding to the combination of the reference ID and the device ID.
However, Pickup teaches a “verification tool” (reference object) which is “stored by the ultrasonic scanner” (Page 18 4-9; Fig 5 s4). Pickup later teaches that the verification tool data can be stored “with respect to coordinate reference frame of the ultrasonic sensor” (Page 19 1-8; Fig 5 s8), implying that data regarding the measurement device is stored as well.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method as described in Yushi and the method of storing device and reference object data as described in Pickup to determine the reference length by consulting a previously constructed database of references and the device that measured them. This would allow for accurate “registration” of the device and reference object (Page 18 11).
Regarding Claim 11, Yushi teaches the method of claim 9, but fails to teach comprising repeating steps d) to f) until the length difference is below the calibration threshold.
However, Pickup teaches that “the verification process may be repeated” if the ultrasonic scanner is determined to be “incorrectly calibrated” (Page 20 13-17, Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method as described in Yushi to repeat the calibration steps until the device is properly calibrated. This allows for “re-calibration” until the device is “correctly calibrated” (Page 20 13-17).
Claims 7-8 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yushi in view of Holmes (EP 3,118,618).
Regarding Claim 7, Yushi teaches all the elements of claim 6, but does not teach wherein adjusting the ultrasonic measurement device comprises shifting the pre-set measurement origin on a basis of the comparison result between the reference-measurement-data and the verification-measurement-data.
In a similar field of endeavor, Holmes teaches a calibration in which a “zero offset value” is adjusted to calibrate an ultrasonic sensor ([0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method as described in Yushi to include adjusting the measurement origin (i.e. zero offset value). This would allow the method to adjust the measurement to account for “factors other than the actual sound path in the test material” ([0020]).
Regarding Claim 8, Yushi and Homes teach all the elements of claim 7, but as previously described do not teach wherein the pre-set measurement origin is shifted on a basis of a difference in length determined on a basis of the comparison result multiplied by a constant correction factor.
Furthermore, Holmes also teaches that the device is calibrated by measuring “the speed of sound in a reference sample of the test material and then stores that value for use in calculating thickness from measured time intervals” ([0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method as described in Yushi and Holmes to include a correction factor which adjusts for the sound velocity in the material being tested. This allows for “calibrations for different materials… to be stored and retrieved” ([0019]).
Regarding Claim 18, Yushi teaches all the elements of claim 17, but does not teach wherein the controller is configured to adjust the ultrasonic measurement device by shifting the pre-set measurement origin on a basis of the comparison result between the reference-measurement-data and the verification-measurement-data.
In a similar field of endeavor, Holmes teaches a calibration in which a “zero offset value” is adjusted to calibrate an ultrasonic sensor ([0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method as described in Yushi to include adjusting the measurement origin (i.e. zero offset value). This would allow the method to adjust the measurement to account for “factors other than the actual sound path in the test material” ([0020]).
Regarding Claim 19, Yushi and Holmes teach all the elements of claim 18, but as previously described do not teach wherein the controller is configured to shift the pre-set measurement origin on a basis of a difference in length determined on a basis of the comparison result multiplied by a constant correction factor.
Furthermore, Holmes also teaches that the device is calibrated by measuring “the speed of sound in a reference sample of the test material and then stores that value for use in calculating thickness from measured time intervals” ([0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method as described in Yushi and Holmes to include a correction factor which adjusts for the sound velocity in the material being tested. This allows for “calibrations for different materials… to be stored and retrieved” ([0019]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2010/0218590 (Foisy), US 10724857 B1 (Brahmeshwarkar) and DK 180269 (Flemming) are all considered relevant to the disclosure but not used in this rejection. All disclose similar methods of calibrating an ultrasonic sensor system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN SCOTT CRAVEN whose telephone number is (571)272-0884. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 0800- 1600.
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, Kristina DeHerrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/Colin S Craven/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855 9/24/26
