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.
It is noted that claims 1-20 are considered eligible subject matter. Even if the claims could be considered an abstract idea, the claims contain limitations that provide a practical application, i.e. detecting loosening of a fastener.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 claims items in parentheses that are non limiting, i.e. “(instead of testing…prior art)”, “(abandoning….prior art)”, (phase extraction…discarded)” . It is unclear as to what the applicant is encompassing when it refers to “prior art” and therefore cannot be a limiting factor in the claim. Therefore, phrases in the parentheses in claim 1 are not considered limiting and should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
Several claims recite the limitation “its” (claim 1, lines 5 and 7; claim 2, lines 4 and 5; claim 5, lines 7 and 8;claims 6, 11, 12, 13 and 14, the last line). It is unclear as to what “its” is referring to.
Several claims recite the limitation “those” (claim 1, line 13; claim 5, line 13; claim 9, 15, 16, 17 and 18 lines 12 and 14; claim 10,19 and 20, lines 11 and 13). It is unclear as to what “those” is referring to.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the fastener surface" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “such a state” in line 14. It is unclear as to what “such a state” encompasses, i.e. a state itself or something line the state.
Claim 1 recite the limitation “the AI can” in line 15. It is unclear if the AI carries out the recited steps, or if it is only capable of the steps.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,19 and 20 recite the limitation “the fastener” in lines 3-4, 2-3,11, 3, 7, 6, 3, 3, 7, 7, 7, 7,6 and 6 respectively. It is unclear as to which fastener the applicant is referring to, since multiple fasteners are previously claimed.
Several claims recite the limitation “itself” (claim 2, line 6; claim 4, line 2). It is unclear as to what the applicant is referring to.
Claims 4, 7 and 8 claim “preferably” in line 4, 1 and 1, respectively. It is unclear as if any of the following recitations are limiting, because it is preferred, but not actually positively recited. Therefore, those recitations after “preferably” do not provide any limitations in the claim.
Claims 5, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 recite the limitation “the fasteners” in line 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3 and 3, respectively. It is unclear as to which fasteners the applicant is referring to, since many fasteners are previously claimed.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "e.g." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 5 recite “them” in line 6. It is unclear as to what “them” is referring to.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “repeating above loading, unloading and image acquiring” in line 12. The wording appears to be referring to previously claimed “loading, unloading, and image acquiring”. If the applicant is referring to previously claimed subject matter, the applicant should claim “said loading, said unloading and said image acquiring”, otherwise the claim appears to be claiming an above loading, i.e. loading overhead.
Claim 5 recites “the images in the normal status” and “the images in the loosened status” in lines 17 and 17-18, respectively. The applicant previously claims taking sufficient images in a the respective status, but does not explicitly state the sufficient images are the images of the respective status. Please keep terms consistent.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the loose status” in the third to last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites “training the same” in the last line. It is unclear as to what “the same” is referring to.
Claim 6, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18 and 20 recite the limitation "the laser beam" in line 4, 7, 6, 5, 7, 7 and 6 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Several claims recite the word “their” (claims 9, 15, 16, 17 and 18, lines 12 and 14; claims 10, 19 and 20, lines 11 and 13). It is unclear as to what “their” is referring to.
Claims 11, 13, 15, 17 and 19 recite the limitation “the laser” in lines 3-4, 3-4, 6-7, 6-7 and 6-7 respectively. IT is unclear as to which laser the applicant is referring to, since multiple lasers are previously claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over “Real-time monitoring of clamping force of a bolted joint by use of automatic digital image correlation” (Huang et al) in view of U.S. Patent application Publication No. 20210231515 (Song et al).
Regarding claim 1, Huang et al discloses a method for real-time inspecting a loosening status of a fastener (page 409, part 2), wherein a stress or strain of the fastener is used to detect whether the fastener is in a loosening situation, a strain of a washer that shows the strain on the bolted joint (page 409, paragraph 1); a light intensity matrix of the fastener and its adjacent surfaces, an image of the fastener (page 412, paragraph 1), is obtained by means of a irradiation and area scan cameras, i.e. the irradiation of light that allows image capture of fig. 5 and 6, with CCD camera of fig. 5 and 6, so as to detect any loosening condition below the fastener surface and its adjacent surface (page 412, paragraph 3); a correspondence between a speckle texture map and a fastener status is established directly through a matching method (page 412, paragraph 3); and any loosening status of the fastener is found through a direct identification by comparing an obtained speckle texture map with a model of the item for matching conditions (page 3, paragraph 3), through learning those speckle texture maps under different degrees of loosening status of in situ fasteners (Page 412, paragraph 1-2), also learning of such a state that any fastener is to be loosening but has not yet deformed, since all the states are captured (page 412, paragraph 1, table 1, “0”), the model can not only determine whether any fastener is loosening, but also judge and identify a degree of loosening and make an early warning or alarming, because the model determines the amount of strain on the bolted joint and thus can determine how loose the joint is connected (page 412, table 1) and can provide a warning by monitoring the tension (page 408, paragraph 1).
Huang et al does not disclose expressly the method utilizes AI, the matching method used is through Machine Learning of AI, and the model for matching in different conditions is an AI model, and that the irradiation that his used to obtain a light intensity matrix, or image, of the fastener and its adjacent surfaces utilizes a laser irradiation.
Song et al discloses the method utilizes AI (fig. 1, “machine learning”), the matching method used to compare training data with recognition data is through Machine Learning of AI (fig. 1, “machine learning”), and the model for matching in different conditions is an AI model (fig. 1, “machine learning”, “bolt looseness identification”), and further, that the irradiation that his used to obtain a light intensity matrix, or image, of the fastener and its adjacent surfaces utilizes a laser irradiation (page 1, paragraph 6).
Huang et al and Song et al are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. fastener inspection.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use AI to learn and identify data.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more robust method by having a larger set of information and being adaptable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the method of Huang et al with the learning of data of Song et al to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Claims 2-4, 6-8 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Huang et al in view of Song et al, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220180500 (Yoshida et al).
Regarding claim 6, Huang et al (as modified by Song et al) discloses all of the claimed elements as set forth above and is incorporated herein by reference. Huang et al further discloses an apparatus for implementing the method of claim 1 (page 411, fig. 5 and 6), wherein the apparatus comprises; an image receiving device, which uses an area scan camera (page 411, fig. 5 and 6, ”CCD camera”); and a computer, which is provided with an judgment model for real-time inspecting a fastener loosening status (page 411, fig. 4, 5, “computer”) in which any detected image keeps being filtered and normalized, by filtering the data through lens of fig. 5 and 6 of page 419 and normalized to the process of page 409, paragraphs 4-6). Song et al discloses laser irradiation mounted to irradiate the fastener being inspected (page 1, paragraph 6) and that a judgement model is an AI model (fig. 1, “machine learning”, “bolt looseness identification”), in which any detected data keeps being put into the Al judgment model keeping used and trained, and the Al judgment model detects the fastener for its loosening status in real-time (fig. 1, “machine learning” “bolt looseness identification”).
Huang et al (as modified by Song et al) does not disclose expressly laser is mounted at a position capable of irradiating the fastener; a spatial filter and beam expander, which is set in a laser path between the laser and the fastener so as to filter and expand the laser beam; an image forming device which forms images, two identical, interfering images with a phase difference.
Yoshida et al discloses the laser is mounted at a position capable of irradiating the inspection object (fig. 1, item 2); a spatial filter (fig. 1, item 31) and beam expanded, a illumination light lens (page 3, paragraph 43), which is set in a laser path, signified by the lines with arrows of fig. 1 that are between the laser and the inspection object so as to filter and expand the laser beam (page 3, paragraph 43); an image forming device which forms images, two identical, interfering images with a phase difference (fig. 1, item 35, page 4, paragraph 52).
Huang et al (as modified by Song et al) & Yoshida et al are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. inspection.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use an inferometer as an apparatus.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more robust apparatus by providing many imaging means.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Huang et al (as modified by Song et al) with the apparatus of Yoshida et al to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Regarding claim 7,Yoshida et al discloses the laser (fig. 1, item 2) which is preferably a single longitudinal mode semiconductor laser with a wavelength of 532 nm.
Regarding claim 8, Yoshida et al discloses the image forming device (fig. 1, item 35) preferably comprises two polarizers and a Rochon prism.
Regarding claim 2, Song et al discloses wherein a laser beam is emitted by a laser to irradiate the rough surface of the fastener (page 1, paragraph 6), and Yoshida et al discloses the laser passes through a beam expander (page 4, paragraph 43) so as to form a larger diameter output laser beam, since the beam is expanded (page 4, paragraph 43) and irradiate an inspection object and its adjacent area (Fig. 1, item 7); a reflected light from the inspection object and its adjacent area passes through a means for making an image interfered with itself to form a speckle interferogram, an image (page 4, paragraph 49); then the speckle interferogram is recorded by a CCD (page 4, paragraph 49). Huang et al discloses images are transmitted to a computer for storage and image processing (page 411, fig. 5, 6, images transmitted and stored on computer).
Regarding claim 3, Huang et al discloses a CCD (page. 411, fig. 5 and 6) collects an original speckle texture map before deformation of the fastener (page 409, fig. 1(a), left) and a distorted speckle texture map after deformation of the fastener (page 409, fig. 1(a), right); the original speckle texture map is subtracted from the distorted speckle texture map by detecting displacement of point M during the deformation (page 409, paragraph 5-6), so as to obtain a speckle texture data which records phase data of a measured surface to test any loosening condition below the measured surface (page 410, paragraph 1). Huang et al does not disclose expressly obtaining an interferogram. Yoshida et al discloses obtaining an interferogram, images using an interferometer (page 4, paragraph 49).
Regarding claim 4, Yoshida discloses a means for making an image interfered with itself is used to make a misalignment between a reference light and an object light on an imaging surface, producing a speckle interferogram by phase shifting the split light creating a reference and object light (page 4, paragraph 49); preferably, a reference mirror of a Michelson interferometer is rotated by an angle, making two reflected beams of the reference light and the object light, respectively, are misaligned on an imaging surface, thereby forming an interference of an image.
Claims 11-13 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 6. Thus, the arguments analogous to that presented above for claim 6 are equally applicable to claims 11-13 Claims 11-13 distinguishes from claim 6 only in that they have different dependencies, both of which have been previously rejected. Therefore, prior art applies.
Claims 9, 10, 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Huang et al in view of Song et al and Yoshida et al, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200158656 (Chung et al).
Regarding claim 9, Huang et al (as modified by Song et al and Yoshida et al) discloses all of the claimed elements set forth above, and is incorporated herein by reference. Claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 6. Thus, the arguments analogous to that presented above for claim 6 are equally applicable to claim 9. Claim 9 distinguishes from claim 6 only in that claim 9 claims the inspection apparatus is mounted on an operating vehicle, and the laser is used to irradiate one of the fasteners after another while the operating vehicle is moving. Chung et al teaches further this feature, i.e. the inspection apparatus is mounted on an operating vehicle (fig. 1a, item 120), and the laser (page 18, paragraph 184) is used to irradiate one of the fasteners (page 12, paragraph 125) after another while the operating vehicle is moving (Page 5, paragraph 58).
Huang et al (as modified by Song et al and Yoshida et al) and Chung et al are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. inspecting bolts.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to mount the apparatus to a vehicle.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more robust system by allowing the inspection to occur on railways.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the apparatus of Huang et al (as modified by Song et al and Yoshida et al) with mounting of Chung et al to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 9. Thus, the arguments analogous to that presented above for claim 9 are equally applicable to claim 10. Claim 10 distinguishes from claim 9 only in that claim 10 claims a surveillance vehicle and is a surveillance vehicle instead of an operating vehicle. Chung et al teaches further this feature, i.e. the surveillance vehicle of fig. 1.
Claims 15-17 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 9. Thus, the arguments analogous to that presented above for claim 9 are equally applicable to claims 15-17. Claims 15-17 distinguish from claim 9 only in that they have different dependencies, both of which have been previously rejected. Therefore, prior art applies.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 10-. Thus, the arguments analogous to that presented above for claim 10 are equally applicable to claims 19 and 20. Claims 19 and 20 distinguish from claim 10 only in that they have different dependencies, both of which have been previously rejected. Therefore, prior art applies.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 14 and 18, as best understood, is 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, and amended to overcome all the other outstanding rejections and objections.
Claim 5 contains allowable subject matter regarding a training process for the Machine Learning of Al of claim 1 that establishes the claimed correspondence comprises: applying different loads from a zero-load to a critical load at different working conditions to a system installed with fasteners while simultaneously acquiring images of physical parameter changes of the fasteners of the system in an image acquiring operation and transmitting the acquired images into a computer; stopping application of any load upon each cycle of loading reaches a critical state for the fasteners of the system until a fastener of the fasteners of the system returns to an initial state of the fastener of the fastener system, and stopping any image acquisition; and repeating loading and unloading operations until obtaining sufficient fastener images of physical parameter changes in a normal status; loosening the fastener of the fasteners of the system to make the fastener at a loosened status; and repeating the loading, the unloading and the image acquiring operations until taking sufficient images of physical parameter changes in some loosening status of the fastener at a loosened status; selecting a large number of images randomly from physical parameter change images, corresponding to the sufficient fastener images of physical parameter changes in a normal status and the sufficient images of physical parameter changes in some loosening status, acquired during the training process for the Machine Learning of AI of claim 1 as an original data set, to ensure that selected images from the sufficient images of physical parameter changes in the normal status and selected images from the sufficient images of physical parameter changes in some loosened status each account for about 50%, the selected images from the sufficient images of physical parameter changes in the normal status and the selected images from the sufficient images of physical parameter changes in some loosened data set combine to form the original data set; performing filtering, normalizing and other operations on the physical parameter change images using a computer; to label all of the physical parameter change images with a "normal status" or a "loosened status"; or, to directly label the sufficient fastener images of physical parameter changes in the normal status in an opinion of humans with the "normal status" and the sufficient fastener images of physical parameter changes in the some loosened status in an opinion of humans with the loosened status; putting the original data set as a training set into an Al judgment model for training the AI judgement model, then saving the Al judgment model after every training.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN YUAN DULANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2902. The examiner can normally be reached M1:9am-5pm, th1:9am-1pm, fri1 9am-3pm, m2: 9am-5pm, t2:9-5 th2:9am-5pm, f2: 9am-5pm.
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, Emily Terrell can be reached at 5712703717. 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.
/KATHLEEN Y DULANEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666 1/22/2026