NON-FINAL REJECTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings Objection
The drawings are objected to because Fig.6 and 11-16 of the drawings are blurred and the color indexing is not fully clear. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning (See MPEP 1.84 (l)).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, 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 paragraph:
(A) 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;
(B) 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
(C) 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:
“an obtainer” and “a detector” in claims 1 and 9. Claim limitations “an obtainer” (para.[0073]) and “a detector” (para.[0076]) have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder "means" without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1 and 9 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: no structure other than “an obtainer” and “a detector” is disclosed in the originally filed Specification to perform the function.
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: (1) 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 (2) 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 § 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 1-10 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.
As to Step-1 test: result-YES (a method or an apparatus).
Claims 1-10 are related to a process or method and thus, the claims pass Step-1 test.
As to Step-2A test: result-NO (Abstract idea of itself).
Claims 1-10 are rejected as not being directed to patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to a judicial exception, specifically the recitations of “obtaining tapping sound information …”, “detecting, from the tapping sound information … based on a difference between rise times of sounds ….”, are directed to a mathematical procedure for converting one form of mathematical representation to another and therefore the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim recites the steps of “obtaining tapping sound information …”, “detecting, from the tapping sound information … based on a difference between rise times of sounds ….,” which is an abstract idea similar to the concepts that have been identified as abstract by the courts, such as – Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results on the collection and analysis (Electric power Group); Collecting and comparing known information (Classen); Organizing information through mathematical correlations (Digitech); Data recognition and storage (Content Extraction); Comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options (SmartGene); An algorithm for calculating parameters indicating an abnormal condition (Grams) - that are directed to mathematical concepts such as mathematical algorithms, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas, and calculations (or Mathematical Relationships/Formulas or Mathematical procedures for converting one form of mathematical representation to another) along with routine data gathering, which the court has found as an abstract idea.
As to Step-2B test: result-NO (Well known in the Art).
The remainder of the claim limitations, e.g. “an obtainer that obtains tapping sound information indicating a tapping sound generated by tapping a tile that is bonded, and a detector that detects …... an anomaly…”, is not an abstract idea, however, the structure is not found to be significantly more since the structure is routine and conventional as the structure is well known in the art, as disclosed in the Watanaba et al. (JP 2610378 B, cited by the applicants) art for example (See paragraphs [0025], [0029]), and the functions of the known structures are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. mere data gathering or data outputting in conjunction with the abstract idea). Therefore, the claims are not directed to additional elements that amount to significantly more than judicial exception.
It is noted that Alice made it clear that different statutory categories should not be treated differently with regard to analysis of eligible subject matter.
Conclusion
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon, are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Tsutsui et al. (US 2014/0260526 A1) teaches an apparatus for measuring a fixing force of a plate-like member, comprising: means for applying a predetermined controlled hitting force to a surface of said plate-like member to generate a hitting sound; means for collecting the hitting sound generated; means for obtaining plural kinds of feature quantities from the hitting sound; and fixing force estimating means for estimating the fixing force from a database representing a relationship between the plural kinds of feature quantities previously prepared in correspondence to a kind of evaluation object, and the fixing force, and the feature quantities extracted from said database and the hitting sound (Claim 1).
Lewis et al. (US 2022/0286795 A1) teaches a playback device is configured to: based on a room setting of the playback device, determine that the playback device is associated with a first room of a media playback system [Abstract] wherein the sound key may be tapped on more than one object successively, or substantially successively, to collect information (e.g., metadata) regarding one or more characteristics of each object, which may thereafter be used to identify other audio content for playback or create an audio playlist comprising a combination of audio content associated with each object. The sound key may determine that objects have been tapped successively based on an amount of time that has lapsed in between each tap. For example, the sound key may determine that information collected for objects that are tapped in succession within a certain amount of time (e.g., 5 seconds, 10 seconds, etc.) should be treated as a single set of audio content source material [0269].
Georgeson et al. (US 2020/0292430 A1) teaches a method of performing an automated non-destructive examination of a composite structure includes identifying surface damage on the composite structure, coupling an automated tap tester device to a surface of the composite structure at a location of the surface damage, and performing, with the automated tap tester device, a plurality of tapping impacts on the surface within a testing area that encapsulates the surface damage [Abstract] wherein a tapping member 134 may initially perform tapping impacts in a predetermined impact path, and the impact path may be adjusted based on feedback received during performance of the examination operation. For example, in one embodiment the impact path is adjusted based on an iterative analysis of each acoustic signal received after performance of the tapping impacts. In the example embodiment, the plurality of acoustic signals received by sensor 136 (shown in FIG. 2) have a first signature or a second signature that is different than the first signature. The first and second signatures are defined based on differences in at least one of the frequency or amplitude of the acoustic signals, with the first signature being associated with a non-damaged area of composite structure 116 and the second signature being associated with a damaged area of composite structure 116. The first signature has a baseline frequency and amplitude that is determined based on an analysis of a portion of composite structure 116 known to be undamaged [0026].
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUMAN NATH whose telephone number is (571)270-1443. The examiner can normally be reached on M to F 9:00 am to 5:00 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, JOHN BREENE can be reached on 571-272-4107. 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. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR 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.
/SUMAN K NATH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights