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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/03/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/03/2026 have been fully considered are addressed below:
Applicant’s amendments overcome the 112b rejection of claim 12. The 112b rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments overcome the 112d rejection of claim 13. The 112d rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant has filed a terminal disclaimer rendering the double patenting rejection moot.
Applicant's arguments regarding the 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 1 has been amended to include elements of claim 6. Claim 11 has been amended to include elements of claim 19. Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach these limitations from claims 6 or 19 because Sugiura (JP2005221391A) is not analogous to the claimed invention (see remarks page 11).
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Although Sugiura does not teach gas turbine blade inspection, Sugiura does teach surface flaw inspection which is the same function the claimed invention performs on the blades. Specifically, the applicant's specification states the disclosure is directed to an optical inspection system for fan blades utilizing light projection and light polarization ([0001]). Sugiura teaches an optical inspection system utilizing light projection and light polarization (Abstract). Thus it is analogous art because it is still reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. Only the illumination source operation techniques from Sugiura are used to modify the device of Fin/Yacoubian which already include the structure for inspecting gas turbine blades. Additionally, the limitation addressed by Sugiura appears to be a physical phenomenon that occurs when using linearly polarized light which would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (see additional state of the art references provided in the Conclusion).
Further the applicant argues Sugiura does not contemplate gas turbine engine operation conditions (see remarks page 13). However, Sugiura was only relied upon to teach illumination source operation techniques and the other cited prior art addresses these limitations. Specifically, Fin (US20190338666A1) teaches the imaging is conducted during gas turbine engine operational conditions selected from the group consisting of coasting, spool-up, and spool-down, including at least one complete revolution ([0021]).
The rejections of claims 1, 4, 5, 7-11, 14, 16-18, and 20 have been maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “wherein the illumination source is configured to emit linearly polarized light” in both lines 20 and 24. The claim should be amended to only recite this limitation once.
Appropriate correction is required.
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: “light interference devices” in claims 7 and 16.
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.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, the claims recite “light interference devices” which uses the generic placeholder “device” 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. Accordingly, the limitation on “light interference devices” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to slits, holes (applicant’s specification [0060]) or other structures that produce light interference.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, 10, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20190338666A1 by Fin et al. (hereinafter Fin; cited in the IDS as US10914191B2) in view of US20220214286A1 by Yacoubian and JP2005221391A by Sugiura et al. (hereinafter "Sugiura"; translation provided).
Regarding claim 1, Fin teaches an in-situ system for a gas turbine engine blade inspection comprising (at least Fig. 1; [0001]) :
a sensor system (sensor 12) configured to capture images of a forward surface (forward surface 32) of at least one gas turbine engine blade (blade 34; [0055]);
a processor coupled to the sensor system (processor 16), the processor configured to determine damage to the at least one gas turbine engine blade based on video analytics ([0056] "determine damage to the gas turbine engine blade 34 based on video analytics");and
a tangible, non-transitory memory configured to communicate with the processor, the tangible, non-transitory memory having instructions stored therein that ([0039]), in response to execution by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising:
receiving, by the processor, data for the forward surface of at least one gas turbine engine blade from the sensor system ([0039] "Processor 16 may receive data 14 about component 20 captured and transmitted by the sensor(s) 12"); and
determining, by the processor, surface damage ([0039] "process data 14 from sensors 12 to determine if damage or defects are present on the component 20").
Although Fin does not explicitly teach image analytics in this embodiment, Fin teaches another embodiment wherein the processor configured to determine damage to the at least one gas turbine engine blade based on image analytics ([0013]; [0035]). Further, Fin teaches that the video camera captures image data ([0055]). Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, video analysis would be considered image analysis since it is the analysis of a series of images.
Although Fin does not explicitly teach an illumination source in operative communication with the forward surface of at least one gas turbine engine blade and surface damage responsive to the illumination source, wherein the illumination source is configured to emit linearly polarized light; a polarization filter in operative communication with the sensor system for blocking light polarized by an undamaged surface, Fin does teach in reference to other embodiments the mobile video camera system 12 can include lighting within a visible spectrum and/or an infrared spectrum ([0058]) and source illumination may be ambient illumination not specifically associated with or designed for the 2D sensor or the illumination may be specifically designed and installed to provide a good quality 2D image ([0037]).
Further, Yacoubian does address this limitation. Yacoubian and Fin are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of defect inspection.
Yacoubian teaches (Fig. 3; [0032]) a sensor system (camera 303; sensor head 101 [0022]) configured to capture images of a surface (specimen 304);
an illumination source in operative communication with the surface (light source 301; [0032])
receiving, by a processor, data for the surface from the sensor system (Fig. 1; [0022]; processor 119)
determining, by the processor, surface damage responsive to the illumination source ([0022] display also shows the location of defects 114), wherein the illumination source is configured to emit linearly polarized light ([0032] light source 301 can be polarized; [0055]; [0110]); a polarization filter (Fig. 3 polarizer 302; [0032]) in operative communication with the sensor system (camera 303) for blocking light polarized by an undamaged surface ([0055]).
Further, Yacoubian even if does not explicitly teach an embodiment that uses an illumination source is configured to emit linearly polarized light, Yacoubian does teach that the light source 301 can be polarized, randomly polarized or circularly polarized ([0032]). It appears that “polarized” in this context could refer to basic linear polarization in the context of random or circular polarization. Yacoubian also teaches that polarization measurements can distinguish between different types of surface finish or surface angle and reveal damaged coating or distinguish a coated surface and an area with coating removed. Parallel and perpendicular polarized light have different reflectivity for a dielectric surface, and this difference depends on the angle of incidence. Using two polarization states, such as vertical- and horizontal-linear polarization states, or right- and left-handed circular polarization states, will reveal differences in surface finish and defects, particularly when images obtained from the two states are subtracted as demonstrated ([0055]). Further, Yacoubian teaches in alternative embodiments, sensor arrangements described herein use linear, circular, or elliptical polarization states, or a combination thereof ([0110]).
Thus, it would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Yacoubian to use an illumination source configured to emit linearly polarized light to accurately distinguish different or damaged finishes on a surface.
Further, it would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a polarization filter in operative communication with the sensor system for blocking light polarized by an undamaged surface. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Fin to include an illumination source in operative communication with the forward surface of at least one gas turbine engine blade and surface damage responsive to the illumination source, wherein the illumination source is configured to emit linearly polarized light; a polarization filter in operative communication with the sensor system for blocking light polarized by an undamaged surface as suggested by Yacoubian in order to increase detection of variations in a surface ([0003]).
Further, Yacoubian and Fin are silent as to the linearly polarized light being turned into an elliptically polarized light responsive to reflection off of surface damage.
However, Sugiura does address this limitation. Sugiura and Fin are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of defect inspection.
Sugiura teaches wherein the illumination source is configured to emit linearly polarized light, the linearly polarized light being turned into an elliptically polarized light responsive to reflection off of the surface damage ([0028] linearly polarized light reflected by the steel plate is generally elliptically polarized based on Jones matrix; [0032] "The linearly polarized light incident on the steel plate surface is converted into elliptically polarized light as described above. For detection of wrinkles, it is possible to detect the contrast of reflected light using the difference in polarization characteristics between the normal part and the wrinkle part").
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an illumination source configured to emit linearly polarized light and that the linearly polarized light is turned into an elliptically polarized light responsive to reflection off of the surface damage due to the Jones matrix. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Fin to include wherein the illumination source is configured to emit linearly polarized light, the linearly polarized light being turned into an elliptically polarized light responsive to reflection off of the surface damage as suggested by Sugiura in order to increase the contrast of the defect thus improving detection ([0045]; [0032]).
Regarding claim 4, Fin modified by Yacoubian and Sugiura teaches the in-situ system for gas turbine engine blade inspection of claim 1, and although Fin teaches sensor 12 may provide various characteristics of the sensed electromagnetic or acoustic spectrum including intensity, spectral characteristics, polarization, etc ([0031]) and that sensor 12 may include an image capture device, such as an optical device having an optical lens, such as a camera, mobile video camera or other imaging device or image sensor, capable of capturing 2D still images or video images ([0035]), Fin is silent as to wherein the sensor system comprises at least one of a CMOS sensor and a polarization camera.
However, Yacoubian does address this limitation.
Yacoubian teaches an embodiment wherein the sensor system comprises at least one of a CMOS sensor and a polarization camera (Fig. 4C-F; [0033]; each figure shows an example of a polarization camera; Fig. 3 uses camera 303 and polarizer 302; [0032] which could also be considered a polarization camera).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a CMOS sensor or polarization camera to collect images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Fin to include wherein the sensor system comprises at least one of a CMOS sensor and a polarization camera in order to collect images with high resolution.
Regarding claim 10, Fin modified by Yacoubian and Sugiura teaches the in-situ system for gas turbine engine blade inspection of claim 1, and Fin further teaches wherein said gas turbine engine blade is selected from the group consisting of a fan blade ([0030] fan blade or an airfoil (e.g., a vane)) a vane, a compressor blade, a compressor vane, a turbine blade ([0055] gas turbine engine blade 34), and a turbine vane ([0055] blade of a fan, a vane, a blade of a compressor, a vane of a compressor, a blade of a turbine, or a vane of a turbine).
Regarding claim 11, Fin teaches a method for in-situ inspection of a gas turbine engine fan (at least Fig. 1; [0001]), comprising:
positioning a sensor (sensor 12) to capture images of a surface (forward surface 32) of at least one gas turbine engine fan blade (blade 34; [0055] image data);
coupling a processor to the sensor (processor 16), the processor configured to determine damage to the at least one gas turbine engine fan blade based on video analytics ([0056] "determine damage to the gas turbine engine blade 34 based on video analytics"); wherein the processor performs operations comprising:
receiving, by the processor, imaging data for the forward surface of at least one gas turbine engine fan blade from the sensor system ([0039] "Processor 16 may receive data 14 about component 20 captured and transmitted by the sensor(s) 12"); and
determining, by the processor, surface damage ([0039] "process data 14 from sensors 12 to determine if damage or defects are present on the component 20").
Although Fin does not explicitly teach image analytics in this embodiment, Fin teaches another embodiment wherein the processor configured to determine damage to the at least one gas turbine engine blade based on image analytics ([0013]; [0035]). Further, Fin teaches that the video camera captures image data ([0055]). Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, video analysis would be considered image analysis since it is the analysis of a series of images.
Although Fin does not explicitly teach positioning an illumination source in operative communication with the surface of at least one gas turbine engine blade, configuring the illumination source to emit linearly polarized light, blocking light polarized by an undamaged surface by operatively coupling a polarization filter with the sensor and surface damage responsive to the illumination source, Fin does teach in reference to other embodiments the mobile video camera system 12 can include lighting within a visible spectrum and/or an infrared spectrum ([0058]) and source illumination may be ambient illumination not specifically associated with or designed for the 2D sensor or the illumination may be specifically designed and installed to provide a good quality 2D image ([0037]).
Further, Yacoubian does address this limitation. Yacoubian and Fin are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of defect inspection.
Yacoubian teaches (Fig. 3; [0032]) positioning a sensor (camera 303; sensor head 101 [0022]) to capture images of a surface (specimen 304);
positioning an illumination source in operative communication with the surface (light source 301; [0032]);
receiving, by a processor, imaging data for the surface from the sensor system (Fig. 1; [0022]; processor 119);
configuring the illumination source to emit linearly polarized light ([0032] light source 301 can be polarized; [0055]; [0110]);
blocking light polarized by an undamaged surface by operatively coupling a polarization filter (Fig. 3 polarizer 302; [0032]) with the sensor (camera 303; [0055])
determining, by the processor, surface damage responsive to the illumination source ([0022] display also shows the location of defects 114); wherein capturing images are created during gas turbine engine operational conditions selected from the group consisting of coasting, spool-up, and spool-down, including at least one complete revolution ([0055])..
Further, Yacoubian even if does not explicitly teach an embodiment that uses an illumination source configured to emit linearly polarized light, Yacoubian does teach that the light source 301 can be polarized, randomly polarized or circularly polarized ([0032]). It appears that “polarized” in this context could refer to basic linear polarization in the context of random or circular polarization. Yacoubian also teaches that polarization measurements can distinguish between different types of surface finish or surface angle and reveal damaged coating or distinguish a coated surface and an area with coating removed. Parallel and perpendicular polarized light have different reflectivity for a dielectric surface, and this difference depends on the angle of incidence. Using two polarization states, such as vertical- and horizontal-linear polarization states, or right- and left-handed circular polarization states, will reveal differences in surface finish and defects, particularly when images obtained from the two states are subtracted as demonstrated ([0055]). Further, Yacoubian teaches in alternative embodiments, sensor arrangements described herein use linear, circular, or elliptical polarization states, or a combination thereof ([0110]).
Thus, it would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Yacoubian to use an illumination source configured to emit linearly polarized light to accurately distinguish different or damaged finishes on a surface.
Further, it would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a polarization filter in operative communication with the sensor system for blocking light polarized by an undamaged surface. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Fin to positioning an illumination source in operative communication with the surface of at least one gas turbine engine blade, configuring the illumination source to emit linearly polarized light, blocking light polarized by an undamaged surface by operatively coupling a polarization filter with the sensor and surface damage responsive to the illumination source as suggested by Yacoubian in order to increase detection of variations in a surface ([0003]).
Further, Yacoubian and Fin are silent as to turning the linearly polarized light into an elliptically polarized light responsive to reflection off of surface damage.
However, Sugiura does address this limitation. Sugiura and Fin are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of defect inspection.
Sugiura teaches wherein the illumination source is configured to emit linearly polarized light, the linearly polarized light being turned into an elliptically polarized light responsive to reflection off of the surface damage ([0028] linearly polarized light reflected by the steel plate is generally elliptically polarized based on Jones matrix; [0032] "The linearly polarized light incident on the steel plate surface is converted into elliptically polarized light as described above. For detection of wrinkles, it is possible to detect the contrast of reflected light using the difference in polarization characteristics between the normal part and the wrinkle part").
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an illumination source configured to emit linearly polarized light and that the linearly polarized light is turned into an elliptically polarized light responsive to reflection off of the surface damage due to the Jones matrix. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Fin to include wherein the illumination source is configured to emit linearly polarized light, the linearly polarized light being turned into an elliptically polarized light responsive to reflection off of the surface damage as suggested by Sugiura in order to increase the contrast of the defect thus improving detection ([0045]; [0032]).
Regarding claim 20, Fin modified by Yacoubian and Sugiura teaches the method for in-situ inspection of a gas turbine engine fan of claim 11, and Fin further teaches wherein said sensor comprises at least one of, multiple sensors, a video camera ([0055] sensor 12, is shown as a mobile video camera system 12) , a high-speed camera, a CMOS sensor and a polarization camera.
Claim 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fin in view Yacoubian and Sugiura as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of US20050231713A1 by Owen et al. (hereinafter "Owen").
Regarding claim 5, Fin modified by Yacoubian and Sugiura teaches the in-situ system for gas turbine engine blade inspection of claim 1, but Fin and Yacoubian are silent as to wherein the sensor system comprises a CMOS sensor manufactured with a built-in IR cut-off filter, wherein the IR cut-off filter is disabled from a CMOS sensor.
However, Owen does address this limitation. Owen and Fin are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of defect inspection.
Owen teaches wherein an IR cut-off filter is disabled from a CMOS sensor ([0057] removal of a mainstream imaging device's infrared cut-off filter, which filters typically are found in mainstream solid state imaging devices)
67. It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to remove the IR cut-off filter from a CMOS sensor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Fin to include wherein the sensor system comprises a CMOS sensor manufactured with a built-in IR cut-off filter, wherein the IR cut-off filter is disabled from a CMOS sensor as suggested by Owen in order to increase sensitivity generally through the previously blocked infrared wavelengths ([0057]).
Regarding claim 14, Fin modified by Yacoubian and Sugiura teaches the method for in-situ inspection of a gas turbine engine fan of claim 11, but Fin and Yacoubian are silent as to disabling an IR cut-off filter from a CMOS sensor.
However, Owen does address this limitation. Owen and Fin are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of defect inspection.
Owen teaches disabling an IR cut-off filter from a CMOS sensor ([0057] removal of a mainstream imaging device's infrared cut-off filter, which filters typically are found in mainstream solid state imaging devices)
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to remove the IR cut-off filter from a CMOS sensor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Fin to include wherein disabling an IR cut-off filter from a CMOS sensor as suggested by Owen in order to increase sensitivity generally through the previously blocked infrared wavelengths ([0057]).
Claims 7-9 and 16-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Fin in view Yacoubian and Sugiura as applied to claims 1 and 11, and further in view of US4629319A by Clarke et al. (hereinafter “Clarke”).
Regarding claim 7, Fin modified by Yacoubian and Sugiura teaches the in-situ system for gas turbine engine blade inspection of claim 1, but Fin and Yacoubian are silent as to at least one of a combination of optical lens and light interference devices operatively coupled to the illumination source, wherein the combination of optical lens is either an array of cylindrical lenses or a combination of one or more Powell lenses; and the at least one of the combination of optical lens and the light interference devices are configured to produce laser lines.
However, Clarke does address this limitation. Clarke and Fin are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of defect inspection.
Clarke teaches at least one of a combination of optical lens and light interference devices operatively coupled to the illumination source (col 3 lines 25-28 "linear lamp 1 enclosed in housing 2 having a slit opening 3 is used as an illumination line or slit source for a surface of a panel 5 to be examined"; a slit is a light interference device), and
at least one of the combination of optical lens and the light interference devices (slit opening 3) are configured to produce laser lines (col 3 line 26 "illumination line"; see Fig. 1; the lines are focused thus, laser lines).
Further, Clarke teaches in another embodiment (Fig. 3F) that a cylinder lens 280 is used with laser 201 to scan the surface 205 (col 11 line 55).
Although Clarke is silent as to wherein the combination of optical lens is either an array of cylindrical lenses or a combination of one or more Powell lenses, the examiner takes official notice that it would have been well known and obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a an array of cylindrical lenses or a combination of one or more Powell lenses operatively coupled to the illumination source to produce laser lines because that is the function that Powell lenses, also known as laser line generators, were designed to perform. One would be motivated to use a Powell lens to make the device more compact.
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to couple optical lens and light interference devices or other devices in order to produce laser lines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Fin to include at least one of a combination of optical lens and light interference devices operatively coupled to the illumination source, and laser lines produced by an array of cylindrical lenses or a combination of one or more Powell lenses operatively coupled to the illumination source as suggested by Clarke in order to inspect a large surface for defects, thus increasing efficiency.
Regarding claim 8, Fin modified by Yacoubian, Sugiura and Clarke teaches the in-situ system for gas turbine engine blade inspection of claim 7, but Fin and Yacoubian are silent as to wherein the illumination source is configured to produce a mesh or a series of lines projected onto the forward surface of the at least one gas turbine engine blade.
However, Clarke does address this limitation.
Clarke teaches wherein the illumination source is configured to produce a mesh or a series of lines projected onto the surface (Fig. 1a-d show the series of lines on surface 5), further, Clarke teaches that a grid pattern can also be used (col 3 lines 17-21).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a mesh or series of lines on a surface for defect inspection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Fin to include wherein the illumination source is configured to produce a mesh or a series of lines projected onto the forward surface of the at least one gas turbine engine blade as suggested by Clarke in order to measure the contour of a surface to detect flaws with increased accuracy (col 1 line 35).
Regarding claim 9, Fin modified by Yacoubian, Sugiura and Clarke teaches the in-situ system for gas turbine engine blade inspection of claim 8, but Fin and Yacoubian are silent as to wherein the illumination source creates a kink or discontinuity on a smooth curve of the mesh or lines responsive to illumination of the surface damage.
However, Clarke does address this limitation.
Clarke teaches wherein the illumination source creates a kink or discontinuity on a smooth curve of the mesh or lines responsive to illumination of the surface damage (Fig. 1b shows an example of a kin in the smooth curve; col 3 lines 38-46 "However, when a low spot, ding, dimple or what have you appears, the lines distort as is shown in FIG. 1b. This distortion can be characterized by determining slopes or positioned changes of the deviated line image. Defect parameters are put on as a function of the slope of the panel distortion, and/or its width, lengths, etc. Such defect indications can be obtained from the width "w" of the distorted lines or the change of frequency of the lines, or the like.").
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a kink or discontinuity would be created on the smooth surface due to a surface defect or damage. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Fin to include wherein the illumination source creates a kink or discontinuity on a smooth curve of the mesh or lines responsive to illumination of the surface damage as suggested by Clarke in order to quickly, efficiently and visually detect damage to a surface.
Regarding claim 16, Fin modified by Yacoubian and Sugiura teaches the method for in-situ inspection of a gas turbine engine fan of claim 11, but Fin and Yacoubian are silent as to operatively coupling the illumination source to at least one of a combination of optical lens and light interference devices, wherein the combination of optical lens is either an array of cylindrical lenses or a combination of one or more Powell lenses; and producing laser lines with at least one of the combination of optical lens and the light interference devices.
However, Clarke does address this limitation. Clarke and Fin are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of defect inspection.
Clarke teaches operatively coupling the illumination source to at least one of a combination of optical lens and light interference devices (col 3 lines 25-28 "linear lamp 1 enclosed in housing 2 having a slit opening 3 is used as an illumination line or slit source for a surface of a panel 5 to be examined"; a slit is a light interference device) and
and producing laser lines with at least one of the combination of optical lens and the light interference devices (col 3 line 26 "illumination line"; see Fig. 1; the lines are focused thus, laser lines).
Further, Clarke teaches in another embodiment (Fig. 3F) that a cylinder lens 280 is used with laser 201 to scan the surface 205 (col 11 line 55).
Although Clarke is silent as to wherein the combination of optical lens is either an array of cylindrical lenses or a combination of one or more Powell lenses, the examiner takes official notice that it would have been well known and obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a an array of cylindrical lenses or a combination of one or more Powell lenses operatively coupled to the illumination source to produce laser lines because that is the function that Powell lenses, also known as laser line generators, were designed to perform. One would be motivated to use a Powell lens to make the device more compact.
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to couple optical lens and light interference devices or other devices in order to produce laser lines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Fin to include operatively coupling the illumination source to at least one of a combination of optical lens and light interference devices, and laser lines produced by an array of cylindrical lenses or a combination of one or more Powell lenses as suggested by Clarke in order to inspect a large surface for defects, thus increasing efficiency.
Regarding claim 17, Fin modified by Yacoubian, Sugiura and Clarke teaches the method for in-situ inspection of a gas turbine engine fan of claim 16, but Fin and Yacoubian are silent as to configuring the illumination source to produce a mesh or a series of lines projected onto the forward surface of the at least one gas turbine engine blade.
However, Clarke does address this limitation.
Clarke teaches configuring the illumination source to produce a mesh or a series of lines projected onto the surface. (Fig. 1a-d show the series of lines on surface 5), further, Clarke teaches that a grid pattern can also be used (col 3 lines 17-21).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a mesh or series of lines on a surface for defect inspection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Fin to include configuring the illumination source to produce a mesh or a series of lines projected onto the forward surface of the at least one gas turbine engine blade as suggested by Clarke in order to measure the contour of a surface to detect flaws with increased accuracy (col 1 line 35).
Regarding claim 18, Fin modified by Yacoubian, Sugiura and Clarke teaches the method for in-situ inspection of a gas turbine engine fan of claim 17, but Fin and Yacoubian are silent as to creating a kink or discontinuity on a smooth curve of the mesh or lines with the illumination source responsive to illumination of the surface damage.
However, Clarke does address this limitation.
Clarke teaches creating a kink or discontinuity on a smooth curve of the mesh or lines with the illumination source responsive to illumination of the surface damage (Fig. 1b shows an example of a kin in the smooth curve; col 3 lines 38-46 "However, when a low spot, ding, dimple or what have you appears, the lines distort as is shown in FIG. 1b. This distortion can be characterized by determining slopes or positioned changes of the deviated line image. Defect parameters are put on as a function of the slope of the panel distortion, and/or its width, lengths, etc. Such defect indications can be obtained from the width "w" of the distorted lines or the change of frequency of the lines, or the like.").
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a kink or discontinuity would be created on the smooth surface due to a surface defect or damage. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Fin to include creating a kink or discontinuity on a smooth curve of the mesh or lines with the illumination source responsive to illumination of the surface damage as suggested by Clarke in order to quickly, efficiently and visually detect damage to a surface.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20230187242 A1 by Shen et al. teaches an optical inspection system includes one or more gratings to convert the polarization of light scattered from a target from an elliptical polarization that varies spatially across a collection pupil to a linear polarization that is uniformly oriented across the collection pupil (abstract). Shen teaches that scattered light, for example from a defect, has an elliptical polarization ([0043]-[0044]).
US 20220268710 A1 by Liu et al. teaches that it is recognized that light scattered from a particle and light scattered from a surface may exhibit different electric field distributions (e.g., polarization and electric field strength) as a function of scattering angle. Further, differences in the electric field distribution (e.g., scattering map) of these scattering sources may be particularly significant for obliquely-incident p-polarized light. For example, surface haze from obliquely-incident p-polarized light may have elliptical polarization and may be approximately radially polarized with respect to an angle of specular reflection, whereas scattering from a particle may be approximately radially polarized with respect to a surface normal ([0041]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITLYN E KIDWELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at 571-272-2287. 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.
/KAITLYN E KIDWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877