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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/21/2026 was considered by the examiner.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/21/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 09/21/2026 was entered. With entry of the instant amendments, claims 1-14 and 16-20 were presented for examination. Support for the amendments and the new claims can be found throughout the application (as filed). No new matter was added.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ amendments to independent claims 1 and 14 have been considered. The amendment clarifies that the difference between the first wavelength and the second wavelength is a difference in light wavelength. Applicants’ arguments are persuasive only to the extent they show that Li's normalized signal-pair difference is not itself a light-wavelength difference.
Accordingly, the rejection is revised. Li is relied upon only for processor-side fitting/modeling and layer-value computation. The amended first/second light-wavelength limitation is addressed by DeVries and Hubner, while Clark remains relied upon for the composite component and matrix-surface inspection context, and Shortt remains relied upon for multi-wavelength thickness mapping and defect-processing concepts.
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(s) 1-6, 8-10, 14, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark (GB 2524829 A), Shortt (US 2005/0018183 A1), Li (US 2016/0202177 A1), DeVries (US 5,532,817), and Hubner (US 2004/0066503 A1)
11. Claims 1-6, 8-10, 14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al. (GB 2524829 A) in view of Shortt et al. (US 2005/0018183 A1) and Li et al. (US 2016/0202177 A1), and further in view of DeVries et al. (US 5,532,817) and Hubner et al. (US 2004/0066503 A1).
With regard to claims 1 and 14, Clark teaches a method for quantitative, non-destructive optical assessment of a composite material having a translucent polymer matrix reinforced by reinforcement, including surface resin-richness / low fiber-volume-fraction evaluation. Clark teaches that low fiber volume fraction or resin-richness at or near the surface may reduce component strength and may require rejection of the component. Clark, p. 1, ll. 1-25.
Clark further teaches a light emitter and adjacent light detector placed at or near the composite surface, where emitted light enters the surface and returned light is detected by diffusion/backscattering. Clark uses the detected intensity ratio and a calibration scale to assess the composite surface. Clark, p. 1, l. 26-p. 2, l. 16; Figs. 1-2.
Clark does not expressly teach determining a surface thickness for each position on the surface based on determining a difference between a first wavelength and a second wavelength of radiated light, wherein the difference is a difference in light wavelength.
DeVries teaches determining a configuration of a resin portion of an article by exposing the article to a light source at a first wavelength and measuring emission of light at a second, different wavelength. DeVries further teaches that the resin configuration includes thickness, uniformity, voids, contamination, mounds of excess material, resin presence/absence, concentration, and inclusions; and that the method may determine resin thickness/uniformity and detect cracks, voids, mounds, or contaminants. DeVries, col. 1, ll. 9-28, 37-44; col. 7, ll. 34-44; col. 8, ll. 35-57; claim 1.
Hubner teaches wavelength-dependent fluorescence thickness calibration. Hubner teaches ratiometric fluorescence imaging to extract full-field images providing a quantitative measure of coating thickness; teaches fluorescence variation as a function of coating thickness for a plurality of wavelengths; teaches that relative emission-intensity change with respect to thickness differs at different wavelengths; and teaches ratios/trends of emission intensities at selected center wavelengths, e.g., 560 nm/600 nm and 600 nm/700 nm, usable to measure coating thickness. Hubner, paras. [0096]-[0104]; Figs. 4B, 5A, 5B. Hubner also teaches obtaining thickness correction images and calculating a thickness correction map. Hubner, paras. [0111]-[0112]; Fig. 6.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Clark's optical composite-surface inspection method to use the fluorescence-based resin/coating thickness techniques taught by DeVries and Hubner.
In view of the utility of obtaining a fast, quantitative, non-destructive optical measure of resin/matrix surface condition in composite components, the modification would have predictably provided first-wavelength excitation, second wavelength radiated/emitted optical response, and wavelength-dependent optical information useful for determining surface thickness and identifying resin/matrix surface artifacts.
Shortt further supports the thickness-processing aspect by teaching multi-wavelength thickness determination using light beams at differing wavelengths and reflected/scattered optical signals to determine thickness values and characterize defects. Shortt teaches that reflectance behavior varies with illumination wavelength and that different wavelengths establish different reflected-intensity-versus-thickness patterns. Shortt, Abstract; paras. [0037]-[0041], [0052]-[0054]; claims 19, 23, and 25.
Li further supports the processor/computation aspect by teaching processor-side determination of a layer value, such as thickness, using plural wavelengths and fitting/modeling measured signals, including nonlinear least-square optimization. Li, paras. [0010]-[0017], [0028], [0034], [0047]-[0053]. Again, Li is not relied upon as teaching the amended light-wavelength difference.
With regards to claims 2-4, Clark teaches that light may be visible, infrared, or ultraviolet. Clark, p. 3, ll. 14-18.
DeVries teaches ultraviolet and near-ultraviolet illumination, including preferred illuminating wavelengths such as 337.5 nm, 356.4 nm, 325 nm, 254 nm, and 365 nm. DeVries, col. 7, ll. 34-38. Therefore, the claimed wavelength ranges would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Clark with the teaching such as that taught by DeVries, since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component.
With regards to claim 5, Clark modified teachings the claimed invention according to claim 1 but fails to expressly teach the recording as claimed.
DeVries teaches camera/image-based optical inspection of emitted fluorescent light, including storage and enhancement of images by filtering, contrast adjustment, magnification, and difference images, as well as automated image acquisition and processing. DeVries, col. 7, ll. 50-67 to col. 8, ll. 1-3.
Therefore, recording one or more images of the surface using an image recording device would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Clark with the teaching such as that taught by DeVries.
With regards to claim 6, Clark teaches returned light by diffusion or backscattering from the composite surface. Clark, p. 1, l. 26-p. 2, l. 10.
Shortt teaches reflected and scattered optical signals produced by beams directed onto a workpiece and uses those signals for thickness and defect characterization. Shortt, Abstract; paras. [0052]-[0054]. Therefore, radiated light being generated by scattering of the incident light within the surface would have been obvious to include the teachings such as that taught by Shortt in Clark in order to enhance the capabilities of the detection.
With regards to claims 8-10 and 17, Clark teachings the claimed invention according to claim 1 but fails to expressly disclose determining the surface thickness as claimed.
Hubner teaches wavelength-dependent fluorescence thickness calibration, including radiometric fluorescence imaging and ratios/trends of emission intensities at selected center wavelengths usable to measure coating thickness. Hubner, paras. [0096]-[0104]; Figs. 4B, 5A, 5B.
Shortt teaches wavelength-dependent thickness curves, parametric plots, lookup tables, and film-thickness calculators for determining thickness from optical responses at plural wavelengths. Shortt, paras. [0037]-[0041], [0052]-[0054].
Li teaches processor-side model fitting and nonlinear least-square optimization for determining layer values such as thickness. Li, paras. [0011]-[0017], [0047]-[0053].
A line of best fit is an obvious implementation of these calibration/trend/curve-fitting relationships because the references teach using wavelength-dependent optical response data and fitted/model relationships to determine thickness.
With regard to claims 16 and 19, DeVries expressly teaches exposing a resin portion to light at a first wavelength and measuring emission at a second, different wavelength. DeVries, col. 1, ll. 37-44; claim 1.
With regard to claim 18, Clark teaches the claimed limitations according to claim 14 but fails to expressly disclose comparing difference between 1st and 2nd wavelengths as claimed.
Hubner teaches wavelength-dependent fluorescence thickness calibration and ratios/trends of emission at selected center wavelengths usable to measure coating thickness, Hubner, paras. [0096]-[0104]; Figs. 4B, 5A, 5B.
Shortt teaches wavelength-dependent thickness curves and film-thickness calculators, Shortt, paras. [0037]-[0041], [0052]-[0054].
Li teaches processor-side fitting/modeling for layer-value determination Li, paras. [0011]-[0017], [0047]-[0053].
A line of best fit is an obvious implementation of these thicknesses relationships because the references teach using wavelength-dependent optical response data and fitted/model relationships to determine thickness.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13 are objected to depending on rejected claim 1 but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any necessary intervening claims.
Claim 20 is objected to as depending on rejected claim 14 but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of claim 14 and any necessary intervening limitations. This treatment preserves the prior allowance posture and avoids expanding the action beyond the minimal-change rejection requested.
Reason for indication: the Clark/Shortt/Li framework, even as supplemented with DeVries and Hubner to address the instant light-wavelength amendment, does not cleanly disclose or fairly suggest the full claim 13-type artifact criterion requiring a low surface-thickness region surrounded by a region having surface thickness greater than an expected thickness as a surface-void pattern in the matrix material forming the composite surface.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Djura Malevic whose telephone number is 571.272.5975. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (9-5).
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571.272.3995. 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.
/DJURA MALEVIC/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
