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
(1) The drawings are objected to because the figures 4A-7 of PGPub and the originally filed drawings are blurred and not readable. 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)).
(2) The drawings are objected to because of the font size of fig.4A-7 being too small. Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height (see MPEP 1.84(p)).
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 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 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 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakata et al. (US 2013/0160552 Al, “Nakata”).
Regarding Claim 1, Nakata teaches a method for controlling a polycrystalline ceramic ([0028]: ceramic substrate) thick-film transducer array ([0014]; [0027]-[0029]; Fig.1-10) comprising: exciting a single array element or a plurality of array elements [0028] to actively or passively generate interference patterns in the generated ultrasonic wavefield within the substrate ([0029]: “A probe beam 12 emitted from the interferometric displacement sensor 100 irradiates the excitation area where the ultrasonic wave vibration 205 is generated, and a phase change accompanying the ultrasonic wave vibration occurs on its reflected beam. This phase change is detected by the interferometric displacement sensor 100 as an amplitude change of an interference beam, …”); reflecting one or more wavefield components by surfaces, anomalies, and other reflectors within the substrate ([0028]: “… reflected by a defect 401 having arisen inside the sample …”); receiving the one or more reflected wavefield components by a single array element or a plurality of array elements as one or more received signals ([0029]: “… a phase change accompanying the ultrasonic wave vibration occurs on its reflected beam. This phase change is detected by the interferometric displacement sensor 100 as an amplitude change of an interference beam, and outputted as an ultrasonic wave signal 51.”); and processing the received wavefield signals on a computer to generate one or more representative images of portions of the insonified substrate volume ([0027]: “a signal controller-processor 300 that executes control of airborne ultrasonic wave emission, analysis and processing of the amplitude and phase of the detected ultrasonic wave, and control of the ultrasonic wave image configuration, a threedimensional image constructing unit 500 that constructs from detected ultrasonic wave signals a three-dimensional ultrasonic wave image regarding the positions of the sample in the x direction, y direction and z direction, and a display with defect determining unit 600 that displays the three-dimensional ultrasonic wave image and executes defect determination”).
Regarding Claim 3, the method of claim 1 is taught by Nakata.
Nakata further teaches the method further teaches further comprising: exciting a single array element; receiving and recording the excited and reflected wavefield by a portion or all of the array elements; sequentially repeating the excitation-reception process until a portion or all of the array elements have been excited to generate a matrix of received signals; and processing the matrix of received signals to passively simulate the effect of a steered and/or focused wavefield to generate one or more representative images of portions of the insonified substrate volume ([0030] and fig.1 implicitly teach the limitations as the method of a three-dimensional ultrasonic wave imaging is disclosed).
Regarding Claim 4, the method of claim 3 is taught by Nakata.
Nakata further teaches wherein the matrix of received signals is processed using the Total Focusing Method, Synthetic Aperture Focusing, Inverse Wave Extrapolation, Sectorial Total Focusing, Common Source Method, or other similar or derivative algorithms (the Total Focusing Method is disclosed in [0035]).
Regarding Claim 5, the method of claim 3 is taught by Nakata.
Nakata further teaches wherein multiple adjacent array elements are simultaneously excited ([0037]; Fig.1).
Regarding Claim 6, the method of claim 1 is taught by Nakata.
Nakata further teaches the method further comprising: exciting a plurality or array elements with a predetermined set of excitation time delays ([0050]: a time series) designed to actively steer the excited wavefield in a specific direction and/or to focus it at a specific point; receiving and recording the excited and reflected wavefield by a portion or all of the array elements; combining the individually received signals from each element into a single signal associated with a specific steering direction and/or focal point; sequentially repeating the excitation-reception process until the excited wavefield has been steered in and/or focused at all desired directions/locations within the insonified substrate volume; and processing the received signals to generate one or more representative images of portions of the insonified substrate volume ([0030] and fig.1 implicitly teach the limitations as the method of a three-dimensional ultrasonic wave imaging is disclosed. Further, [0050] discloses – “a plurality of ultrasonic wave transmitting units 200a, 200b, 200c and 200d arrayed in the x direction, and they emit a plurality of airborne ultrasonic waves 204a, 204b, 204c and 204d either simultaneously or in a time series.”).
Regarding Claim 7, the method of claim 1 is taught by Nakata.
Nakata further teaches the method further comprising: exciting a plurality or all of the array elements with a predetermined set of excitation time delays ([0050]: a time series) designed to actively steer the excited wavefield in a specific direction within the insonified substrate volume [0030]; receiving and recording the excited and reflected wavefield by a plurality or all of the array elements (Fig.1); sequentially repeating the excitation-reception process until the excited wavefield has been steered in all desired directions within the insonified substrate volume to generate a matrix of received signals; processing the matrix of received signals to passively simulate the effect of focusing the wavefield at discrete points along the wave propagation axis in each of the steering directions to generate one or more representative images of portions of the insonified substrate volume ([0030] and fig.1 implicitly teach the limitations as the method of a three-dimensional ultrasonic wave imaging is disclosed. Further, [0050] discloses – “a plurality of ultrasonic wave transmitting units 200a, 200b, 200c and 200d arrayed in the x direction, and they emit a plurality of airborne ultrasonic waves 204a, 204b, 204c and 204d either simultaneously or in a time series.”).
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 of this title, 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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakata in view of Takahashi (4,361,042, “Takahashi”).
Regarding Claim 2, the method of claim 1 is taught by Nakata.
Nakata does not teach wherein the excitation pulse consists of a unipolar or bipolar square wave, spike pulse, or windowed sine wave.
However, Takahashi teaches a digital type ultrasonic holography apparatus includes a clock generator for generating a clock pulse signal having a fixed period, a transducer for transmitting spike-like ultrasonic pulses toward an object ([Abstract]; col.3; lines 1-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakata’s method with the teaching of Takahashi since such excitation technique is well-known in the art.
Conclusion
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon, are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Tancrell (US 4,228,686 A) teaches an imaging system, particularly useful for acoustic medical diagnosis of a human subject, utilizes an array of radiating elements or sonic transducers located side-by-side and positioned along the subject. Signals received by the transducer are applied to a pair of pattern generation circuits which weight the individual signals by factors of +1, -1 or 0. Graphs of the weighting factors as a function of transducer location have the likeness of cosinusoidal and sinusoidal Fresnel patterns, these patterns being produced by the two circuits. Upon reception of signals, the weighted signals of each pattern are summed together, multiplied by cosinusoidal and sinusoidal reference signals and then summed together to provide a radiation pattern which converges from the array to a focal point in front of the array while eliminating a diverging pattern from a virtual focus behind the array. For transmission, sinusoidal and cosinusoidal signals are weighted by the Fresnel factors, summed together and applied to the transducers [Abstract].
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
