DETAILED ACTION
[1] Remarks
I. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
II. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined, where claims 1-20 is/are rejected. Explanations will be provided below.
III. Inventor and/or assignee search were performed and determined no double patenting rejection(s) is/are necessary.
IV. Patent eligibility (updated in 2019) shown by the following: Claims 1-20 pass patent eligibility test because there is/are no limitation or a combination of limitations amounting to an abstract idea.
Also, the following limitation or the combinations of the limitations: “determining a defect of the target object based on the inspection thickness; quantifying and characterizing the defect; determining a critical level of the defect of the target object by comparing a parameter of the defect to a critical threshold” effects a transformation or a reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing / adds a specific limitation(s) other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application and providing improvements to the technical field of defect detection, which recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amounting significant more.
V. There are no PCT associated with the current application.
[2] 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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim(s) 10-15 are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA U.S.C. 112 6th paragraph because of the following reason(s): limitations are modified by sufficient structure or material for performing the claimed function.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 16-20 does not require 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA U.S.C. 112 6th paragraph interpretation because they are method claims and / or they are CRM claims.
Upon examination of the specification and claims, the examiner has determined, under the best understanding of the scope of the claim(s), rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/(b) is not necessitated because of the following reasons: sufficient support are provided in the written description / drawings of the invention.
[3] Grounds of Rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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.
2. Claims 1, 4-6, 8-10, 13-16, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada (US 5493594) in view of Kour (US 20160307133).
Regarding claim 1, Hamada discloses a method comprising:
receiving, from an imaging device, an inspection image of a target object (see figure 1, 4 is the x-ray imaging device and column 6, lines 65-67);
determining an inspection thickness of the target object based on the inspection image (see column 9, lines 58-63, FIG. 13a shows a cross-section of a J lead solder joint, and FIG. 13b shows a variation in brightness of X-ray image in the lead tip direction. The brightness of the X-ray image decreases as the solder thickness increases. In FIG. 13b, the X-ray image becomes darkest at raised portions of the J lead. However, since the lead has a smaller X-ray absorption coefficient than does the solder);
converting into a multilevel threshold thickness map based on a particular sensitivity (see figure 6 illustration below, also see figure 42 as the thickness map);
PNG
media_image1.png
291
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
determining a defect of the target object based on the inspection thickness (see column 10, lines 39-42, a fillet shape is first decided to detect such a defect, In order to extract a fillet's shape, the horizontal and vertical projection circuits 23 and 24);
quantifying and characterizing the defect (see figure 21c1-c4 illustration below):
PNG
media_image2.png
118
729
media_image2.png
Greyscale
determining a critical level of the defect of the target object by comparing a parameter of the defect to a critical threshold (see column 12, lines 11-15, In FIG. 22, WM1 -WMR designate means for averaging waveforms, S1 -SN reference waveforms for decision, W a detection fillet shape obtained by the reference waveforms S1 -SN, and min |W-Sj|E j=1 to N) a defect decision condition with E as the decisional threshold, where this decisional threshold is read as a critical threshold).
Hamada is silent in disclosing generating a recommendation based on the critical level.
Kour discloses generating a recommendation based on the critical level (see paragraph 32, the system recommends only focusing efforts on the top 20 problematic modules of the 34 identified to run linked test cases from the historical database, the system is predicting that by fixing 20 problematic modules pre-release during the release development phase, 150 CEDs will be found and repaired leaving 90 predicted CEDs that are still be found by the customers as not everything can be corrected and the decision maker is looking for the best ROI).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include generating a recommendation based on the critical level because it ensures that time, personnel, and budget are focused on fixing the most detrimental issues first, which protects system stability, reducing costs. Also critical defects can results in the system being unusable, which mitigates the highest risks to functionality, safety, and reliability.
Regarding claim 4, Kour discloses the method of claim 1, wherein quantifying and characterizing the defect comprises:
determining a loss of material or a gain of material (see figure 21b2, shows the loss and gain of materials);
determining a size of the defect (see figure 21b4 shows the size of the defect);
estimating a shape of the defect by determining image metrics comprising an aspect ratio, a perimeter, or a moment of inertia (see figure 21b1 to b4, the difference shows the shape of the defect); and determining a location of the defect (the difference shows the location of the defect).
PNG
media_image3.png
186
779
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
See the motivation for claim 1. Also, determining industrial material losses or gains is essential for optimizing efficiency, reducing costs, and ensuring quality control.
Regarding claim 5, Kour discloses the method of claim 1, wherein generating the recommendation comprises an instruction for a repairing device to automatically repair the target object by correcting the defect (see paragraph 30, this cost information in FIG. 4a allows a manager to make a decision based on a budget they have with respect to the other projects the manager has in place, and accordingly decide whether and how much to invest in finding and correcting the predicted defects). See the motivation for claim 1. In addition, this allows for maximum efficiency, guarantee system stability, and reducing costs in manufacturing.
Regarding claim 6, Kour discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the recommendation is generated using a defect characterization application comprising a predictive model (see figure 1, 108 predictive model). See the motivation for claim 1. In addition employing predictive model-based defect to further mitigate potential issues in manufacturing.
Regarding claim 8, Kour discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the defect comprises a material loss measurement or a material gain measurement of the pipe wall (see figure 21b1 to b4, the difference shows the shape of the defect and the amount of loss in materials):
PNG
media_image3.png
186
779
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
See the motivation for claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 9, Hamada discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the imaging device comprises a radiographic source (see figure 1, 4), a radiographic detector (see figure 1, 5), and a crawler device including a processor (see figure 1, 8), a controller, and a plurality of positioning mechanisms configured to position the radiographic source and the radiographic detector at one or more locations along a length of the target object (see figure 1, 71).
Regarding claims 10 and 16, see the rationale and rejection for claim 1. In addition see figure 1, 8 CPU.
Regarding claim 13, see the rationale and rejection for claim 6.
Regarding claims 14 and 20, see the rationale and rejection for claim 8.
Regarding claim 15, see the rationale and rejection for claim 9.
Regarding claim 19, see the rationale and rejection for claims 5 and 6.
3. Claims 2, 11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada (US 5493594) in view of Kour (US 20160307133) and Safai (US 20190302038).
Regarding claim 2, the combination with Hamada and Kour as a whole disclose all the limitations of claim 1, but is silent in disclosing the method of claim 1, wherein the target object comprises a portion of an industrial asset, wherein the portion of the industrial asset comprises a pipe wall at a first location of an insulated pipe.
Safai discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the target object comprises a portion of an industrial asset, wherein the portion of the industrial asset comprises a pipe wall at a first location of an insulated pipe (see paragraph 80, pipe 106 can have insulated and uninsulated sections, elongate structure 102 may take other forms other than pipe 106. For example, elongate structure 102 may be selected from one of a drum, a fuel tank and see paragraph 124, FIG. 10, an illustration of an image generated from a scan of a pipe filled with a fluid is depicted in accordance with an illustrative embodiment. In this illustrative example, image 1000 is an example of an image that is generated using data obtained from a scan of an elongate structure, such as a pipe).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include inspection of a first location of an insulated pipe because insulated systems are vulnerable to corrosion due to moisture penetrating the outer lining leading to metal loss. Early defect detection leads to prevention catastrophic failures.
Regarding claims 11 and 17, see the rationale and rejection for claim 2.
3. Claims 3, 12 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada (US 5493594) in view of Kour (US 20160307133) and Flipo (US 20070217664).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Hamada and Kour as a whole discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but is silent in disclosing the method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying seed points on the multilevel threshold image; and region growing the seed points to determine the spatial extents of defects.
Flipo discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying seed points on the multilevel threshold image (see paragraph 10, a selection of voxels used as seed points, and displaying a visualization of the pathways traced from the seed points); and region growing the seed points to determine the spatial extents of defects (see paragraph 10, performing region growth to find seed points in a plane that is normal to the cluster's mean direction).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include identifying seed points on a multilevel threshold image in order to bridge the gap between automated coarse segmentation and precise region delineation, which improve recognition.
Regarding claims 12 and 18, see the rationale and rejection for claims 3 and 4.
4. Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada (US 5493594) in view of Kour (US 20160307133) and Shibuya (US 20080317329).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Hamada and Kour as a whole discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but is silent in disclosing the method of claim 1, further comprising: providing the recommendation based on the critical level in a display of a processing system, the display comprising a highlight of the defect atop a color map of the inspection image. Shibuya discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: providing the recommendation based on the critical level in a display of a processing system (see figure 1, 113), the display comprising a highlight of the defect atop a color map of the inspection image (see paragraph 58, A real defect, a false alarm, and an unclassified defect are displayed by different colors on the map, where a real defect and a false alarm in temporary classification are displayed as different marks).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the display comprising a highlight of the defect atop a color map of the inspection image in order to allows operators to identify the location and severity of a flaw, where an inspection image is used to improve the speed, accuracy, and interpretability of automated visual inspections.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX LIEW (duty station is located in New York City) whose telephone number is (571)272-8623 (FAX 571-273-8623), cell (917)763-1192 or email alexa.liew@uspto.gov. Please note the examiner cannot reply through email unless an internet communication authorization is provided by the applicant. The examiner can be reached anytime.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MISTRY ONEAL R, can be reached on (313)446-4912. 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 system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would 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.
/ALEX KOK S LIEW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2674 Telephone: 571-272-8623
Date: 4/3/26
Prosecution Insights