DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to the claims filed on November 10, 2023. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 5-7, 12, 14-17, 20 are objected to.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as ineligible.
Claims 1, 3-13, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Shannon and Imperiale.
Claims 2 and 18 are rejected under 35 USC 103 over Shannon, Imperiale, and Avdelidis.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 USC 103 over Shannon, Imperiale, and Lovell.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 USC 103 over Shannon, Imperiale, and Guo.
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 Objections
Claims 1, 5-7, 12, 14-17, 20 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 6, 9, 12, 14-15, 17, and 20 recite “and/or.” The scope of the claim limitation is identical to “or,” so the claims must alternatively recite “or” to improve clarity and conciseness.
Claims 14-16 recite the term, “preferably.” This puts the person of ordinary skill in doubt as to whether the associated clauses limit the claims. The word “preferably” must be removed.
Claim 5 recites, “wherein at least one of the criteria is based on a design model of the machine component.” However, claim 1, from which claim 5 depends, already provides primary antecedence for a “design model of the machine component.” For purposes of examination, these will be presumed to mean the same element (that secondary antecedence, or “the design model of the machine component,” was intended in claim 5).
Claim 7 twice recites, “a multiple criterion.” The second instance of primary antecedence requires correction.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim
Claim 1 (Statutory Category – Machine)
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, the claims recite a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites (Claim language in bold italic):
[…] perform a simulation on the machine component so to determine a status of one or more regions of the machine component, taking into account the created 3D model of the machine component, inspection data generated from at least one inspection phase, and the received and/or retrieved design model of the machine component, (Mental Process – Using available information to determine a likely component lifetime, health, and/or schedule for maintenance and/or replacement of a component is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper, so it is an evaluation, a mental process, an abstract idea.)
[…] - to apply the one or more serviceable criteria to results of the performed simulation performed, - to determine whether the machine component is serviceable based on the serviceable criteria application, and - to generate a status report of the machine component for a user based on the serviceable determination. (Mental Process – Evaluating information against criteria to determine serviceability of a component and summarizing the findings is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper, so it is an evaluation, a mental process, an abstract idea.)
Claim 1 recites abstract ideas.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
The Additional limitations:
An inspection apparatus for determining automatically a state of a machine component after a period of machine operation based on a plurality of inspection phases, the machine component being already used in a machine, the apparatus comprising:
- a computer unit,
[…]
[…] a scanner configured to scan the machine component dismounted from the machine, wherein the computer unit is coupled with the scanner and is arranged to […]
[…] a plurality of inspection sensors configured to perform a corresponding plurality of inspection phases on the machine component, wherein the computer unit is configured to be coupled with each of the inspection sensors and is arranged to […]
[…] wherein the computer unit is configured to […]
wherein the computer unit comprises a checking engine including one or more serviceable criteria, the checking engine being arranged:
These elements recite generic computing components/code at a high level and, under MPEP 2106.05(f), fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A, Prong 2.
a scanner configured to scan the machine component dismounted from the machine, wherein the computer unit is coupled with the scanner and is arranged to create a 3D model of the machine component based on the scanning of the machine component,
a plurality of inspection sensors configured to perform a corresponding plurality of inspection phases on the machine component, wherein the computer unit is configured to be coupled with each of the inspection sensors and is arranged to generate inspection information from each of the inspection phases and correspondingly associate the inspection information to the 3D model of the machine component so to create an annotated 3D model of the machine component;
This is mere data gathering and, under MPEP 2106.05(g), is insignificant extra-solution activity. Under MPEP 2106.05(g), these limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into practical at Step 2A, Prong 2.
Any specific details about the parameters the data recited represent, the parameters merely limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and, under MPEP 2106.05(h), fail to integrate the abstract idea into practical at Step 2A, Prong 2.
Claim 1 fails to provide any additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
The Additional limitations:
An inspection apparatus for determining automatically a state of a machine component after a period of machine operation based on a plurality of inspection phases, the machine component being already used in a machine, the apparatus comprising:
- a computer unit,
[…]
[…] a scanner configured to scan the machine component dismounted from the machine, wherein the computer unit is coupled with the scanner and is arranged to […]
[…] a plurality of inspection sensors configured to perform a corresponding plurality of inspection phases on the machine component, wherein the computer unit is configured to be coupled with each of the inspection sensors and is arranged to […]
[…] wherein the computer unit is configured to […]
wherein the computer unit comprises a checking engine including one or more serviceable criteria, the checking engine being arranged:
These elements recite generic computing components/code at a high level of generality and, under MPEP 2106.05(f), fail to combine with other elements of the claim to provide significantly more that would confer an inventive concept at Step 2B.
a scanner configured to scan the machine component dismounted from the machine, wherein the computer unit is coupled with the scanner and is arranged to create a 3D model of the machine component based on the scanning of the machine component,
a plurality of inspection sensors configured to perform a corresponding plurality of inspection phases on the machine component, wherein the computer unit is configured to be coupled with each of the inspection sensors and is arranged to generate inspection information from each of the inspection phases and correspondingly associate the inspection information to the 3D model of the machine component so to create an annotated 3D model of the machine component;
These are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity similar to the MPEP 2106.05(d) examples: “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network,” “iii. Electronic recordkeeping” “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory” “i. Determining the level of a biomarker in blood by any means” (sensors) “vi. Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price.” Because these are WURC and, as previously demonstrated, insignificant extra-solution activity, under MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g), the steps fail to combine with other elements of the claim to provide significantly more that would confer an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Any specific details about the parameters the data recited represent, the parameters merely limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and, under MPEP 2106.05(h), fail to combine with other elements of the claim to provide significantly more that would confer an inventive concept at Step 2B.
The additional limitations of claim 1 fails to combine with the other elements of their respective claims to provide significantly more than the abstract idea that would confer an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Claim 1 is ineligible.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites substantially the operations the apparatus of claim 1 is configured to execute, and is ineligible for at least the same reasons as claim 1.
Dependent Claims
The dependent claims fail to provide any additional limitations that would confer eligibility at Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B.
NOTE: For all of the dependent claims, the parameters the data represents merely limit the abstract idea to a particular technological field and fail to confer eligibility under MPEP 2106.05(g). Also, all recited computing elements or the use thereof are recited at a high level of generality and represent generic computing processes, so, under MPEP 2106.05(f), these fail to confer eligibility.
Claims 2 and 18
[…] the checking engine […]
This is a generic computing element recited at a high level, so it fails to confer eligibility under MPEP 2106.05(f).
- to apply the one or more repairable criteria to results of the performed simulation performed, - to determine whether the machine component is repairable based on the repairable criteria application; wherein the status report of the machine component is also based on the repairable determination.
Mental Process – Evaluating information against criteria to determine reparability of a component and summarizing the findings is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper, so it is an evaluation, a mental process, an abstract idea.
Claim 18 recites substantially the operations of the apparatus of claim 2, so the same eligibility analysis is applied to claim 18.
Claims 2 and 18 fail to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility.
Claims 2 and 18 are ineligible.
Claim 3
wherein the computer unit is configured to
This is a generic computing element recited at a high level, so it fails to confer eligibility under MPEP 2106.05(f).
perform a mechanical or thermal or chemical simulation on the machine component so to determine a mechanical or thermal or chemical status of one or more regions of the machine component.
Mental Process – Using available information to determine a likely component lifetime, health, and/or schedule for maintenance and/or replacement of a component is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper, so it is an evaluation, a mental process, an abstract idea.
Claim 3 fails to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility.
Claim 3 is ineligible.
Claim 4
wherein at least one of the criteria is predetermined and associated to the machine component or a category of the machine component.
This is an element of an identified abstract idea, so it is part of the abstract idea.
Also, this merely limits the abstract idea to a particular field, so it fails to confer eligibility under MPEP 2106.05(h).
This is also mere data gathering and WURC for the same reasons as the inspecting operations in the independent claim.
Claim 4 fails to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility.
Claim 4 is ineligible.
Claim 5
wherein at least one of the criteria is based on a design model of the machine component.
This is an element of an identified abstract idea, so it is part of the abstract idea.
Also, this merely limits the abstract idea to a particular field, so it fails to confer eligibility under MPEP 2106.05(h).
This is also mere data gathering and WURC for the same reasons as the inspecting operations in the independent claim.
Claim 5 fails to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility.
Claim 5 is ineligible.
Claim 6
wherein at least one of the criteria is based on a duration and/or a condition of the period of machine operation.
This is an element of an identified abstract idea, so it is part of the abstract idea.
Also, this merely limits the abstract idea to a particular field, so it fails to confer eligibility under MPEP 2106.05(h).
This is also mere data gathering and WURC for the same reasons as the inspecting operations in the independent claim.
Claim 6 fails to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility.
Claim 6 is ineligible.
Claim 7
wherein at least one of the criteria is a multiple criterion, wherein a multiple criterion is based on at least two inspection phases.
This is an element of an identified abstract idea, so it is part of the abstract idea.
Also, this merely limits the abstract idea to a particular field, so it fails to confer eligibility under MPEP 2106.05(h).
This is also mere data gathering and WURC for the same reasons as the inspecting operations in the independent claim.
Claim 7 fails to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility.
Claim 7 is ineligible.
Claim 8
wherein the computer unit is arranged to
This is a generic computing element recited at a high level, so it fails to confer eligibility under MPEP 2106.05(f).
determine a sequence of inspection phases based on the machine component or a category of the machine component.
This is mere data gathering and WURC for the same reasons as the inspecting operations of the independent claim.
Should it be found otherwise, this is also practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper.
Claim 8 fails to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility.
Claim 8 is ineligible.
Claim 9
wherein the computer unit is arranged to
This is a generic computing element recited at a high level, so it fails to confer eligibility under MPEP 2106.05(f).
identify the machine component and/or a category of the machine component based on input received from a user of the inspection apparatus.
Identifying a component or category thereof based on input is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper, so it is an evaluation, a mental process, an abstract idea.
Claim 9 fails to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility.
Claim 9 is ineligible.
Claim 10
wherein the simulation is performed under machine operation conditions.
This merely colors/provides further criteria for the manner in which the projections for lifetime and/or equipment health are conducted, so it is an element of the evaluation, the mental process, the abstract idea. A person can mentally account for real world conditions mentally or with the aid of pen and paper.
Identifying a component or category thereof based on input is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper, so it is an evaluation, a mental process, an abstract idea.
Claim 10 fails to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility.
Claim 10 is ineligible.
Claim 11
wherein the computer unit is arranged to
This is a generic computing element recited at a high level, so it fails to confer eligibility under MPEP 2106.05(f).
correlate the 3D model of the machine component with the design model of the machine component.
Correlating different renderings of designs is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper, so it is an evaluation, a mental process, an abstract idea.
Claim 11 fails to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility.
Claim 11 is ineligible.
Claim 12
wherein some or all inspection sensors of the plurality of inspection sensors are non-contact type and/or contact type.
This merely describes an element of the mere data gathering/WURC identified in claim 1, so it is not an additional limitation that confers eligibility.
Claim 12 fails to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility.
Claim 12 is ineligible.
Claim 13
wherein the plurality of inspection sensors comprises: - at least one inspection sensor for inspecting a surface geometry of the machine component, and - at least one inspection sensor configured to inspect a surface layer or a sub-surface layer or a core of the machine component.
This merely describes an element of the mere data gathering/WURC identified in claim 1, so it is not an additional limitation that confers eligibility.
Also, the sensors are generic computing elements recited at a high level, so they fail to confer eligibility under MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 13 fails to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility.
Claim 13 is ineligible.
Claim 14
further comprising: - a support element configured to support the machine component to be inspected, and - at least one industrial robot with an articulated arm, preferably a five-axis or six-axis articulated arm, wherein the support element is preferably rotatable and/or tiltable; wherein the articulated arm is configured to carry inspection sensors; wherein the computer unit is arranged to control the support element and/or the articulated arm.
These are generic computing elements for manufacturing that merely limit the abstract idea to a particular field and fail to confer eligibility under MPEP 2106.05(f)
Claim 14 fails to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility.
Claim 14 is ineligible.
Claim 15
further comprising: - at least one industrial robot with an articulated arm, preferably a five-axis or six-axis articulated arm, configured to grasp, move and/or manipulate the machine component to be inspected; wherein the computer unit is arranged to control the articulated arm; wherein some or all inspection sensors of the plurality of inspection sensors are fixedly mounted to a frame or structure of the inspection apparatus at different positions.
These are generic elements for manufacturing that merely limit the abstract idea to a particular field and fail to confer eligibility under MPEP 2106.05(h)
These elements also only contribute to the mere data gathering of the inspection, so they are insignificant extra-solution activity and WURC for the same reasons as the inspecting in the independent claim.
Claim 15 fails to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility.
Claim 15 is ineligible.
Claim 16
- a container; wherein the container houses at least the computer unit, the scanner, the plurality of inspection sensors, and preferably at least one industrial robot with an articulated arm; wherein the container has an opening through which the machine component to be inspected is introduced into an inspection room; wherein the container is preferably configured to be transportable.
These are generic elements for manufacturing that merely limit the abstract idea to a particular field and fail to confer eligibility under MPEP 2106.05(h).
These elements also only contribute to the mere data gathering of the inspection, so they are insignificant extra-solution activity and WURC for the same reasons as the inspecting in the independent claim.
Claim 16 fails to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility.
Claim 16 is ineligible.
Claim 19
Claim 19 is a combination of the operations of the apparatuses in claims 3 and 10, so claim 19 is ineligible for at least the reasons stated for the corresponding limitations in claims 3 and 10.
Claim 19 fails to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility.
Claim 19 is ineligible.
Claim 20
Claim 20 is a combination of the operations of the apparatuses in claims 6 and 7, so claim 20 is ineligible for at least the reasons stated for the corresponding limitations in claims 6 and 7.
Claim 20 fails to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility.
Claim 20 is ineligible.
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.
Claims 1, 3-13, 16-17, and 19-20: Shannon and Imperiale
Claim(s) 1, 3-13, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0217672 A1 to Shannon et al. (Shannon) in view of NPL: “UT simulation using a fully automated 3D hybrid model: Application to planar backwall breaking defects inspection” by Imperiale et al. (Imperiale).
Claims 1 and 17
Regarding claim 1, Shannon teaches:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
An inspection apparatus for determining automatically a state of a machine component after a period of machine operation based on a plurality of inspection phases, the machine component being already used in a machine, the apparatus comprising: (Shannon [0022] “FIG. 2 is a schematic illustration of an inspection apparatus 30 of the present invention that may be used for the inspection of components such as a gas turbine blade or vane 12.” See Also FIGs. 1-2 and 5 (shown above) – Inspection apparatus to inspect component used in a machine. [0013] “The present invention also allows the results of the inspections to be created by automated image processing, expert system, and related artificial intelligence algorithms to be recorded as additional surface mapping features on the virtual 3D image of the real component. In addition, inspection results may be archived and recalled for various comparisons, to track condition assessment changes through the partial or entire life-cycle of a component or a population of components, or for the comparison of various components or groups of components with design, operational, service and/or repair history data.” – The apparatus for determining automatically a state of a machine component after a period of machine operation based on a plurality of inspection phases, the machine component being already used in a machine.)
- a computer unit, (Shannon [0022] “The inspection apparatus 30 also includes a processor assembled into the cabinet 32, such as a known industrial PC 46, and associated input and output devices 48, 50 such as a keyboard and liquid crystal display screen” – A computer unit.)
- a scanner configured to scan the machine component dismounted from the machine, wherein the computer unit is coupled with the scanner and is arranged to create a 3D model of the machine component based on the scanning of the machine component, (Shannon [0028] “FIG. 5 is a schematic illustration of an inspection apparatus 80 wherein a plurality of forms of nondestructive testing data may be acquired for use with a 3D model of a component being inspected. A fixture 18 for holding a component to be inspected is disposed within the fields of view of a variety of data acquisition devices, including but not necessarily being limited to: a high resolution visible light color and/or ultraviolet light camera 82; a high resolution visible light black and white camera 84; a low resolution visible light camera 86 optionally with pan/tilt capability; an infrared light camera 88; a UVA light source 90, one or more flash lamps 92 for area heating for thermography; a laser light source 94 for point source heating for thermography; one or more projector (beamer) 96 for selectively projecting color light, white light, ultraviolet light (e.g. UVA), and/or structured light; an induction thermography energy source 98; a contact thermography energy source 100; etc. Another embodiment of the invention allows for the placement of a probe 102 for obtaining single-point nondestructive testing data, including from eddy current, magnetic, capacitive, hardness, thickness and/or ultrasonic probes to be mapped onto the 2D images and 3D virtual model. Additionally, such single-point data can be used to construct virtual image maps visually tracking the position of the probes using the visual processing elements of the present invention or by the addition of known electromechanical, hydraulic or pneumatic manipulators and position encoding devices. The various forms of 2D nondestructive data/images produced by these devices may be associated with a 3D model of the tested component, such as is accomplished in the image processing element 22 of FIG. 1. Embodiments of the invention may thus have the capability of mapping a plurality of 2D inspection images, such as in the form of multiple digital layers, onto a 3D surface of a solid model of the component, for presentation to an inspector either sequentially or simultaneously or in various selective combinations. One may appreciate that various forms of surface features may appear differently under various forms of nondestructive imaging, and that an inspector advantageously may be able to utilize such differences to diagnose a condition of a component. For example, a surface feature that appears in a thermography image but not in a visible light photograph may be interpreted as a subsurface feature. An inspector may further exploit the capabilities of such an inspection apparatus 80 by performing a first inspection of a surface area of a virtual component displayed with a surface as produced using a first type of 2D inspection data, such as relatively lower resolution color photographic data; followed by a second inspection of only selected regions of the surface area that are found to display features of interest during the first inspection, with the second inspection being performed using a second view of the virtual component displayed with a surface as produced using a second type of 2D inspection data, such as relatively higher resolution black and white or color photographic data. Any combination of displays of the virtual component may be used in any order as may be found to function effectively to diagnose conditions of interest. Regions found to contain features of interest in any view may be marked as described above, with such information being saved digitally in a manner that facilitates the sorting, grouping and analyzing of such data for one or more such components. – The inspection apparatus includes various sensor that qualify as a scanner configured to scan the machine component dismounted from the machine (See FIG. 1), wherein the computer unit is coupled with the scanner and is arranged to create a 3D model of the machine component based on the scanning of the machine component, which is illustrated as disassembled from the rest of eth machine in FIG. 1, shown above.)
- a plurality of inspection sensors configured to perform a corresponding plurality of inspection phases on the machine component, wherein the computer unit is configured to be coupled with each of the inspection sensors and is arranged to generate inspection information from each of the inspection phases and correspondingly associate the inspection information to the 3D model of the machine component so to create an annotated 3D model of the machine component; (Shannon [0028] “FIG. 5 is a schematic illustration of an inspection apparatus 80 wherein a plurality of forms of nondestructive testing data may be acquired for use with a 3D model of a component being inspected. A fixture 18 for holding a component to be inspected is disposed within the fields of view of a variety of data acquisition devices, including but not necessarily being limited to: a high resolution visible light color and/or ultraviolet light camera 82; a high resolution visible light black and white camera 84; a low resolution visible light camera 86 optionally with pan/tilt capability; an infrared light camera 88; a UVA light source 90, one or more flash lamps 92 for area heating for thermography; a laser light source 94 for point source heating for thermography; one or more projector (beamer) 96 for selectively projecting color light, white light, ultraviolet light (e.g. UVA), and/or structured light; an induction thermography energy source 98; a contact thermography energy source 100; etc. Another embodiment of the invention allows for the placement of a probe 102 for obtaining single-point nondestructive testing data, including from eddy current, magnetic, capacitive, hardness, thickness and/or ultrasonic probes to be mapped onto the 2D images and 3D virtual model. Additionally, such single-point data can be used to construct virtual image maps visually tracking the position of the probes using the visual processing elements of the present invention or by the addition of known electromechanical, hydraulic or pneumatic manipulators and position encoding devices. The various forms of 2D nondestructive data/images produced by these devices may be associated with a 3D model of the tested component, such as is accomplished in the image processing element 22 of FIG. 1. Embodiments of the invention may thus have the capability of mapping a plurality of 2D inspection images, such as in the form of multiple digital layers, onto a 3D surface of a solid model of the component, for presentation to an inspector either sequentially or simultaneously or in various selective combinations. One may appreciate that various forms of surface features may appear differently under various forms of nondestructive imaging, and that an inspector advantageously may be able to utilize such differences to diagnose a condition of a component. For example, a surface feature that appears in a thermography image but not in a visible light photograph may be interpreted as a subsurface feature. An inspector may further exploit the capabilities of such an inspection apparatus 80 by performing a first inspection of a surface area of a virtual component displayed with a surface as produced using a first type of 2D inspection data, such as relatively lower resolution color photographic data; followed by a second inspection of only selected regions of the surface area that are found to display features of interest during the first inspection, with the second inspection being performed using a second view of the virtual component displayed with a surface as produced using a second type of 2D inspection data, such as relatively higher resolution black and white or color photographic data. Any combination of displays of the virtual component may be used in any order as may be found to function effectively to diagnose conditions of interest. Regions found to contain features of interest in any view may be marked as described above, with such information being saved digitally in a manner that facilitates the sorting, grouping and analyzing of such data for one or more such components. – The inspection apparatus includes various sensors that qualify as a plurality of inspection sensors, aside from the previously claimed scanner, configured to perform a corresponding plurality of inspection phases on the machine component, wherein the computer unit is configured to be coupled with each of the inspection sensors and is arranged to generate inspection information from each of the inspection phases and correspondingly associate the inspection information to the 3D model of the machine component (e.g., 2-D images mapped onto the 3D image and/or other data such as thermographic data, depth data, eddy current data, electromagnetic data, hydraulic data, capacitive data, hardness data, thickness data, or ultrasonic data) so to create an annotated 3D model of the machine component (e.g., such as marked regions of interest in the 3D model).)
- wherein the computer unit is configured to receive and/or retrieve a design model of the machine component; (Shannon [0028] “Another embodiment of the invention allows for the placement of a probe 102 for obtaining single-point nondestructive testing data, including from eddy current, magnetic, capacitive, hardness, thickness and/or ultrasonic probes to be mapped onto the 2D images and 3D virtual model” – A design model is retrieved.)
wherein the computer unit is configured to [determine the suitability for purpose of the part] taking into account the created 3D model of the machine component, inspection data generated from at least one inspection phase, and the received and/or retrieved design model of the machine component, (Shannon [0013] “The present invention also allows the results of the inspections to be created by automated image processing, expert system, and related artificial intelligence algorithms to be recorded as additional surface mapping features on the virtual 3D image of the real component. In addition, inspection results may be archived and recalled for various comparisons, to track condition assessment changes through the partial or entire life-cycle of a component or a population of components, or for the comparison of various components or groups of components with design, operational, service and/or repair history data.” – The computer determines the suitability of the component based on the 3D model, inspection data from phases of inspection, and the retrieved design model of the machine component.)
wherein the computer unit comprises a checking engine including one or more serviceable criteria, the checking engine being arranged: - to apply the one or more serviceable criteria to results of the [suitability for purpose determinations], - to determine whether the machine component is serviceable based on the serviceable criteria application, and – (Shannon [0025]-[0026] “Statistics may be generated automatically, such as percentage of the surface area containing a certain type of defect. Defects may be categorized as to severity, such as length of cracks, depth of erosion, size of pits, etc. and appropriate statistics generated for analysis. The progress of defects over time may be presented when multiple inspections are performed on a single component. Regions of the component may be identified prior to the inspection, such as to define inspection zones for an inspector. Such inspection zones may guide the inspector to varying inspection procedures/criteria for each zone, such as by allowing the inspector to “right click” a mouse indicator positioned over such zone to display a viewing window including such inspection procedures/criteria. While prior art visual inspections are fugitive, the present invention allows the virtual component to be stored through time. This facilitates direct and empirical comparisons of time-displaced and location-displaced inspections. Furthermore, multiple inspectors may perform multiple inspections on the same component under the same conditions, even if the inspectors are located in different locations at different times. If inspection criteria change over time, a component may be re-inspected by simply performing a new inspection with the new criteria on the stored virtual component.” – Criteria are applied in inspection. [0025] “Statistics may be generated automatically, such as percentage of the surface area containing a certain type of defect. Defects may be categorized as to severity, such as length of cracks, depth of erosion, size of pits, etc. and appropriate statistics generated for analysis. The progress of defects over time may be presented when multiple inspections are performed on a single component.” [0021] “Components may be imaged in any of the conditions that are found throughout their lives, including: as-cast; as-machined; as-assembled; before and after coating applications; before and after exposure to environmental and service conditions; before, during and after repair operations; and in conditions where degradation or defects have rendered the component unable to continue to perform its intended function, or where the conditions have changed due to repair or service operations in which it is unknown whether the component is in a condition able or unable to continue to perform its intended function.” – Determinations of serviceability, including ones regarding statistical serviceability, are automatically generated.)
to generate a status report of the machine component for a user based on the serviceable determination. (Shannon [0005] “To augment traditional manual visual inspections, it is known to utilize the capabilities of modern optical imaging devices together with computers and software in systems often referred to as aided visual inspections, and to combine such inspections with mechanical or automated control systems” [0015] “Visual inspections depend upon the ability of the inspector to evaluate visual clues related to the amplitude and color of light reflected from the surface of a component, in order to enable the inspector to make an overall condition assessment, to determine the severity and extent of degradation, and to detect and to characterize visible defects. Assessment of such visual clues, together with the use of observed and measured surface dimensional information, is essential to achieving an accurate and complete evaluation of a component. The inspection apparatus 10 of FIG. 1 allows the inspector to perform an inspection of the real component by accessing and manipulating the virtual component, since all information necessary to perform such an inspection is available via the inspection apparatus 10.“ [0020] “The invention may provide printouts, common image files (e.g. TIFF, GIF, bitmaps) for use in reports or other digital computer applications and (e.g. IGES or STL files) for engineering design interface. The invention may provide for graphical, keyboard, mouse and other known human interfaces to display, manipulate and enhance the virtual component on computer displays, and may provide tools for identifying, labeling, measuring and storing degradations, defects and/or other conditions of interest as individual items and for recalling these items for display at a later time or for use in comparative statistical analyses.” [0025] “Statistics may be generated automatically, such as percentage of the surface area containing a certain type of defect. Defects may be categorized as to severity, such as length of cracks, depth of erosion, size of pits, etc. and appropriate statistics generated for analysis. The progress of defects over time may be presented when multiple inspections are performed on a single component.” [0021] “Components may be imaged in any of the conditions that are found throughout their lives, including: as-cast; as-machined; as-assembled; before and after coating applications; before and after exposure to environmental and service conditions; before, during and after repair operations; and in conditions where degradation or defects have rendered the component unable to continue to perform its intended function, or where the conditions have changed due to repair or service operations in which it is unknown whether the component is in a condition able or unable to continue to perform its intended function.” – A status report, including the statistical serviceability determinations is automatically generated.)
Shannon teaches the use of ultrasonic data for determinations, and (Shannon [0003] “NDE techniques are available for the inspection of surface conditions (e.g. dimensional measurement and visual inspection), for the inspection of near-surface and surface-opening conditions (e.g. dye penetrant test, magnetic particle test and thermography), and depending upon the material of construction of the component, for full volumetric inspection (e.g. eddy current test, ultrasonic test, radiographic test).” also contemplates further automation to save time and cost (Shannon [0027] “The power of modern optical devices may be exploited with the present invention to provide enhanced inspection capabilities that exceed those of an unaided human inspector. […] Prior art visual inspections may incorporate a penetrating dye in order to improve the visibility of very small and/or tight cracks. However, the use of penetrating dye consumes time and money […]”), but fails to expressly teach, but Shannon in view of Imperiale teaches:
wherein the computer unit is configured to perform a simulation on the machine component so to determine a status of one or more regions of the machine component, taking into account the created 3D model of the machine component, inspection data generated from at least one inspection phase, and the received and/or retrieved design model of the machine component, wherein the computer unit comprises a checking engine including one or more serviceable criteria, the checking engine being arranged: - to apply the one or more serviceable criteria to results of the performed simulation performed, (Imperiale Abstract “The high frequency models gathered in the CIVA software allow fast computations and provide satisfactory quantitative predictions in a wide range of situations. However, the domain of validity of these models is limited since they do not accurately predict the ultrasound response in configurations involving subwavelength complex phenomena. In addition, when modelling backwall breaking defects inspection, an important challenge remains to capture the propagation of the creeping waves that are generated at the critical angle. Hybrid models combining numerical and asymptotic methods have already been shown to be an effective strategy to overcome these limitations in 2D [1]. However, 3D simulations remain a crucial issue for industrial applications because of the computational cost of the numerical solver. A dedicated three dimensional high order finite element model combined with a domain decomposition method has been recently proposed to tackle 3D limitations [2]. In this communication, we will focus on the specific case of planar backwall breaking defects, with an adapted coupling strategy in order to efficiently model the propagation of creeping waves. Numerical and experimental validations will be proposed on various configurations.” – An FEM simulation is used to determine ultrasonic data for inspection to be used as the data for the ultrasonic tests in Shannon.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claims to modify a manual ultrasonic test as taught in Shannon by the ultrasonic simulations of Imperiale because the person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated by the use of ultrasonic data and the drive to automate NDT/NDE processes to save time and money of Shannon to look to Imperiale, which automates the collection of ultrasonic data via quicker automated simulation executable on a computer without the expense of purpose-built mechanical ultrasonic testing hardware. (Shannon [0003] “NDE techniques are available for the inspection of surface conditions (e.g. dimensional measurement and visual inspection), for the inspection of near-surface and surface-opening conditions (e.g. dye penetrant test, magnetic particle test and thermography), and depending upon the material of construction of the component, for full volumetric inspection (e.g. eddy current test, ultrasonic test, radiographic test).” [0027] “The power of modern optical devices may be exploited with the present invention to provide enhanced inspection capabilities that exceed those of an unaided human inspector. […] Prior art visual inspections may incorporate a penetrating dye in order to improve the visibility of very small and/or tight cracks. However, the use of penetrating dye consumes time and money […]”; Imperiale Abstract “The high frequency models gathered in the CIVA software allow fast computations and provide satisfactory quantitative predictions in a wide range of situations. However, the domain of validity of these models is limited since they do not accurately predict the ultrasound response in configurations involving subwavelength complex phenomena. In addition, when modelling backwall breaking defects inspection, an important challenge remains to capture the propagation of the creeping waves that are generated at the critical angle. Hybrid models combining numerical and asymptotic methods have already been shown to be an effective strategy to overcome these limitations in 2D [1]. However, 3D simulations remain a crucial issue for industrial applications because of the computational cost of the numerical solver. A dedicated three dimensional high order finite element model combined with a domain decomposition method has been recently proposed to tackle 3D limitations [2]. In this communication, we will focus on the specific case of planar backwall breaking defects, with an adapted coupling strategy in order to efficiently model the propagation of creeping waves. Numerical and experimental validations will be proposed on various configurations.” Page 050004-1, HYBRID APPROACH USING RAY-BASED AND NUMERICAL MODELS “The approach promoted in CIVA is to use as much as possible fast asymptotic solutions within their range of validity. In practice, this range of validity is usually limited to propagation in healthy environment (specimen without flaw) or to certain types of defects, of relatively simple geometry. Numerical schemes such as FEM do not rely on asymptotic approximations for computations of elastic waves phenomena, thus ensuring the accuracy of the model. However, the computational cost (computation time and memory load) of numerical schemes are potentially prohibitive for three dimensional problems, when considering the typical wave paths of hundreds of wavelengths in NDT configurations. Thereby, 3D simulations remain a crucial issue for industrial applications, hence enhancing the interest for numerical/asymptotic hybrid approaches.” Page 050004-2, DESCRIPTION OF THE NUMERICAL MODEL “Computational performances, within each subdomain, are significantly enhanced by the use of high order spectral finite elements [6, 7] defined on hexahedral meshes. This numerical method is widely spread in the community of numerical solutions of transient high-frequency wave propagation problems since they combine the flexibility of finite element methods and the performances of standard finite differences by allowing a fully explicit numerical scheme thanks to a diagonal mass matrix. In the literature, this technique is referred to as the mass-lumping technique. Moreover, by allowing high order polynomials to represent the solutions, spectral finite elements require less discretization points to reach a given precision, which is a major asset when simulating 3D configurations. Moreover, the performances of the numerical solver can be increased by taking into account the parametrization of the subdomain, inherited from the parametrization of the defect. Indeed, incorporating in our formulation the fact that each macro-element is a deformed cube, we can internally define optimal data structures for performing parallelized computations along with “on-the-fly” finite element operations. Typically, the so-called stiffness matrix is never to be assembled, but is only represented as a set of local – i.e., per mesh element – matrices and the manipulation of these local matrices are performed in parallel, thus significantly decreasing CPU time and memory loads. [2]”)
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites the operations that the apparatus of claim 1 is configured to execute, so claim 17 is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 3
Regarding claim 3, Shannon in view of Imperiale teaches the features of claim 1, and further teaches:
wherein the computer unit is configured to perform a mechanical or thermal or chemical simulation on the machine component so to determine a mechanical or thermal or chemical status of one or more regions of the machine component. (Imperiale Abstract “A dedicated three dimensional high order finite element model combined with a domain decomposition method has been recently proposed to tackle 3D limitations [2]. In this communication, we will focus on the specific case of planar backwall breaking defects, with an adapted coupling strategy in order to efficiently model the propagation of creeping waves. Numerical and experimental validations will be proposed on various configurations.” Mechanical simulation.)
Claim 4
Regarding claim 4, Shannon in view of Imperiale teaches the features of claim 1, and further teaches:
wherein at least one of the criteria is predetermined and associated to the machine component or a category of the machine component. (Shannon [0030] “The present invention allows for the use of both relatively high resolution inspection data and relatively low resolution inspection data. For example, lower resolution data may be acquired and analyzed in regions of a component that are of relatively lower concern, such as regions of low stress or regions that historically are not subject to degradation or that are subject to types of degradation that are only of concern when they reach larger sizes, such as general area erosion for example. Selected regions of a component may be subjected to a higher resolution inspection, such as critical or highly stressed areas. In the embodiment of an inspection of a gas turbine blade, for example, the surface areas of the airfoil may be inspected at a first level of optical resolution, whereas the filet weld area between the airfoil and the platform of the blade may be inspected at a second higher level of optical resolution.” – The requirements for suitability are part-specific, addressing particular regions of the parts.)
Claim 5
Regarding claim 5, Shannon in view of Imperiale teaches the features of claim 1, and further teaches:
wherein at least one of the criteria is based on a design model of the machine component. (Shannon [0030] “The present invention allows for the use of both relatively high resolution inspection data and relatively low resolution inspection data. For example, lower resolution data may be acquired and analyzed in regions of a component that are of relatively lower concern, such as regions of low stress or regions that historically are not subject to degradation or that are subject to types of degradation that are only of concern when they reach larger sizes, such as general area erosion for example. Selected regions of a component may be subjected to a higher resolution inspection, such as critical or highly stressed areas. In the embodiment of an inspection of a gas turbine blade, for example, the surface areas of the airfoil may be inspected at a first level of optical resolution, whereas the filet weld area between the airfoil and the platform of the blade may be inspected at a second higher level of optical resolution.” – The criteria include expectations for durability of particular regions of the parts.)
Claim 6
Regarding claim 6, Shannon in view of Imperiale teaches the features of claim 1, and further teaches:
wherein at least one of the criteria is based on a duration and/or a condition of the period of machine operation. (Shannon [0025] “Statistics may be generated automatically, such as percentage of the surface area containing a certain type of defect. Defects may be categorized as to severity, such as length of cracks, depth of erosion, size of pits, etc. and appropriate statistics generated for analysis. The progress of defects over time may be presented when multiple inspections are performed on a single component.” [0013] “The present invention allows the virtual component to be archived for later comparison with similar information for the same component at a point in time later in the component's life after the original component condition has been changed, or for comparison with similar information for other similar components. […] In addition, inspection results may be archived and recalled for various comparisons, to track condition assessment changes through the partial or entire life-cycle of a component or a population of components, or for the comparison of various components or groups of components with design, operational, service and/or repair history data.” – At least one of the criteria of usability is BASED ON duration (age) AND condition (number of defects relative to other similar components) of the period of the machine operation.)
Claim 7
Regarding claim 7, Shannon in view of Imperiale teaches the features of claim 1, and further teaches:
wherein at least one of the criteria is a multiple criterion, wherein a multiple criterion is based on at least two inspection phases. (Shannon [0025]-[0026] “ Regions of the component may be identified prior to the inspection, such as to define inspection zones for an inspector. Such inspection zones may guide the inspector to varying inspection procedures/criteria for each zone, such as by allowing the inspector to “right click” a mouse indicator positioned over such zone to display a viewing window including such inspection procedures/criteria. While prior art visual inspections are fugitive, the present invention allows the virtual component to be stored through time. This facilitates direct and empirical comparisons of time-displaced and location-displaced inspections. Furthermore, multiple inspectors may perform multiple inspections on the same component under the same conditions, even if the inspectors are located in different locations at different times. If inspection criteria change over time, a component may be re-inspected by simply performing a new inspection with the new criteria on the stored virtual component.” – This teaches a multi-criterion of suitability for different portions of the component in different phases/regions of the inspection.)
Claim 8
Regarding claim 8, Shannon in view of Imperiale teaches the features of claim 1, and further teaches:
wherein the computer unit is arranged to determine a sequence of inspection phases based on the machine component or a category of the machine component. (Shannon [0025]-[0026] “ Regions of the component may be identified prior to the inspection, such as to define inspection zones for an inspector. Such inspection zones may guide the inspector to varying inspection procedures/criteria for each zone, such as by allowing the inspector to “right click” a mouse indicator positioned over such zone to display a viewing window including such inspection procedures/criteria. While prior art visual inspections are fugitive, the present invention allows the virtual component to be stored through time. This facilitates direct and empirical comparisons of time-displaced and location-displaced inspections. Furthermore, multiple inspectors may perform multiple inspections on the same component under the same conditions, even if the inspectors are located in different locations at different times. If inspection criteria change over time, a component may be re-inspected by simply performing a new inspection with the new criteria on the stored virtual component.” – This teaches a multi-criterion of suitability for different portions of the component in different phases/regions of the inspection, some regions of which may be inspected by different people at different times/phases.)
Claim 9
Regarding claim 9, Shannon in view of Imperiale teaches the features of claim 1, and further teaches:
wherein the computer unit is arranged to identify the machine component and/or a category of the machine component based on input received from a user of the inspection apparatus. (Shannon [0018] “The invention may also include component identification number, time, date and test system operator identification as part of the data file and display. The component identification number may be provided as an input or by image recognition software capable of reading a component identification marking, such as a cast or machined or marked alphanumeric or barcode.” – User input provides identification for the machine component.)
Claim 10
Regarding claim 10, Shannon in view of Imperiale teaches the features of claim 1, and further teaches:
wherein the simulation is performed under [object component] operation conditions. (Imperiale Abstract “In this communication, we will focus on the specific case of planar backwall breaking defects, with an adapted coupling strategy in order to efficiently model the propagation of creeping waves.” This simulates real-world creeping waves in use of a wall in a structure.)
[…] machine […] (Shannon [0021] “The invention may be used to image industrial components such as, but not limited to, gas turbine engine components, such as blades and vanes used in the turbine and compressor sections of the machine and combustion section components including nozzles, baskets, transitions and combustion chamber liner components.“ – A machine is the source of the component inspected.)
Claim 11
Regarding claim 11, Shannon in view of Imperiale teaches the features of claim 1, and further teaches:
wherein the computer unit is arranged to correlate the 3D model of the machine component with the design model of the machine component. (Shannon [0016] “The integration of a three dimensional model of a component with nondestructive inspection information has not been attempted previously, to the knowledge of the present inventors. For the embodiment of integrating 2D digital photographs onto a 3D dimensional model, it is expected that a plurality of 2D pictures from a plurality of views from one or more cameras will be necessary.” – Correlate 2D image with 3D model [0019] “The invention may store, display, manipulate, measure, analyze and annotate the combined 3D dimensions and 2D surface images for individual component assessment, comparative assessment based on manufacturing and handling conditions, comparative assessment based on environmental or service conditions, statistical comparisons based upon a variety of conditions among similar component populations, such as location of degradations or defects on the surface of the component and statistical comparisons based on similar components throughout a population of components. The invention may provide the ability to display comparative virtual image results of two or more tests as overlays or differential displays for comparative analysis. The invention may allow the operator to mark the virtual 3D solid model based upon an evaluation and analysis of the image, for identification of the location, size, shape, orientation and/or extent of degradations and defects or other conditions of interest. The invention may store these results for future display on an image of the virtual component and for statistical comparison with multiple locations on the tested component and/or with other similar components tested. The invention may provide the ability to display statistical results from one or more components, with analysis results of degradations and defects being displayed in their virtual locations of the mapped surface of the 3D solid model.” – Correlate annotation, statistical, region-specific data with the 3D model.)
Claim 12
Regarding claim 12, Shannon in view of Imperiale teaches the features of claim 1, and further teaches:
wherein some or all inspection sensors of the plurality of inspection sensors are non-contact type and/or contact type. (Shannon [0003] “NDE techniques are available for the inspection of surface conditions (e.g. dimensional measurement and visual inspection), for the inspection of near-surface and surface-opening conditions (e.g. dye penetrant test, magnetic particle test and thermography), and depending upon the material of construction of the component, for full volumetric inspection (e.g. eddy current test, ultrasonic test, radiographic test).” – Tests with contact sensors. [0028] “A fixture 18 for holding a component to be inspected is disposed within the fields of view of a variety of data acquisition devices, including but not necessarily being limited to: a high resolution visible light color and/or ultraviolet light camera 82; a high resolution visible light black and white camera 84; a low resolution visible light camera 86 optionally with pan/tilt capability; an infrared light camera 88; ;” – Non-contact sensors. [0028] “a probe 102 for obtaining single-point nondestructive testing data, including from eddy current, magnetic, capacitive, hardness, thickness and/or ultrasonic probes to be mapped onto the 2D images and 3D virtual model.” – Another contact sensor.)
Claim 13
Regarding claim 13, Shannon in view of Imperiale teaches the features of claim 1, and further teaches:
wherein the plurality of inspection sensors comprises: - at least one inspection sensor for inspecting a surface geometry of the machine component, and (Shannon [0028] “A fixture 18 for holding a component to be inspected is disposed within the fields of view of a variety of data acquisition devices, including but not necessarily being limited to: a high resolution visible light color and/or ultraviolet light camera 82; a high resolution visible light black and white camera 84; a low resolution visible light camera 86 optionally with pan/tilt capability; an infrared light camera 88– Surface sensors.)
- at least one inspection sensor configured to inspect a surface layer or a sub-surface layer or a core of the machine component. (Shannon [0028] “a probe 102 for obtaining single-point nondestructive testing data, including from eddy current, magnetic, capacitive, hardness, thickness and/or ultrasonic probes to be mapped onto the 2D images and 3D virtual model.” – A depth/core sensor.)
Claim 16
Regarding claim 16, Shannon in view of Imperiale teaches the features of claim 1, and further teaches:
further comprising: - a container; wherein the container houses at least the computer unit, the scanner, the plurality of inspection sensors, . (Shannon [0022] “The inspection apparatus 30 is integrated into a frame or cabinet 32 having a hinged or otherwise moveable access cover 34 that facilitates the placement and removal of test objects when in an open position and that blocks ambient light from the test chamber 36 when in a closed position.” – The inspection apparatus and component are integrated into a cabinet (container) with an opening into which the component can be inserted. NOTE – all elements qualified with a preferably are given no patentable weight, as a preference is not a substantive limitation.)
Claim 19
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites features substantially similar to the combination of the features of claims 3 and 10, all the features of which Shannon in view of Imperiale teaches. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected for at least the same reasons as claims 3 and 10.
Claim 20
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites features substantially similar to the combination of the features of claims 6 and 7, all the features of which Shannon in view of Imperiale teaches. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected for at least the same reasons as claims 6 and 7.
Claims 2 and 18: Shannon, Imperiale, and Avdelidis
Claim(s) 2 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0217672 A1 to Shannon et al. (Shannon) in view of NPL: “UT simulation using a fully automated 3D hybrid model: Application to planar backwall breaking defects inspection” by Imperiale et al. (Imperiale) and NPL: “The technology of composite patches and their structural reliability inspection using infrared imaging” by Avdelidis et al. (Avde).
Claims 2 and 18
Regarding claim 2, Shannon in view of Imperiale teaches the features of claim 1, but do not appear to explicitly teach, but Shannon in view of Imperiale and Avde teaches:
wherein the checking engine includes one or more repairable criteria, and is further arranged: - to apply the one or more repairable criteria to results of the performed simulation performed, - to determine whether the machine component is repairable based on the repairable criteria application; (Avde Page 319, 3.7 Once the damage is detected, an assessment needs to be performed taking into account both general and specific reparability criteria. However, the method is not universally applicable. There will be instances when design considerations may preclude it and in some cases a bonded repair may not be appropriate.” – Components are assessed against reparability criteria to determine whether the component is reparable by thermography. Page 324, 7. Infrared imaging inspection during fatigue testing “Real-time monitoring of damage in aircraft repairs during fatigue loading is one of the main issues of NDI. This type of testing simulates the category of defects that can be generated during service life.” – The criteria are applied to results of a simulation.)
wherein the status report of the machine component is also based on the repairable determination. (Avde Abstract “Finally, real-time monitoring of damage during fatigue loading using thermography was also discussed and attempted in the laboratory on aircraft repaired panels.” – Real time monitoring provides real-time reports. Also, in combination with Shannon, which issues reports, this assessment data provided in real-time updates would be included in the component lifecycle record.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claims to modify the inspection procedures for the lifecycle data of a component of Shannon by the inspection criteria of Avde because the person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated by the aim in Shannon to generate and store non-destructive inspection data for the lifecycle of a component, which includes thermography data and repair stages, to look to Avde, which teaches inspection of a part by thermography, which is non-destructive, to respectably and easily determine repairability for a repair stage or the end of the life cycle of the component. (Shannon [0013] “In addition, inspection results may be archived and recalled for various comparisons, to track condition assessment changes through the partial or entire life-cycle of a component or a population of components, or for the comparison of various components or groups of components with design, operational, service and/or repair history data.” [0005] “To augment traditional manual visual inspections, it is known to utilize the capabilities of modern optical imaging devices together with computers and software in systems often referred to as aided visual inspections, and to combine such inspections with mechanical or automated control systems, known as machine vision systems.” [0003] “NDE techniques are available for the inspection of surface conditions (e.g. dimensional measurement and visual inspection), for the inspection of near-surface and surface-opening conditions (e.g. dye penetrant test, magnetic particle test and thermography), and depending upon the material of construction of the component, for full volumetric inspection (e.g. eddy current test, ultrasonic test, radiographic test).”; Avde Page 327, 8. Conclusions “The main objective of this work was to describe the technology of aircraft repairs, as well as to examine the effectiveness of infrared thermography to detect various aircraft component defects under composite patching (without removing the repair). Detection of defects is considered to be one of the most significant stages for through-life-support of aircraft structures [17]. […] Infrared thermography provided respectable results on all investigated samples. The notches beneath the seven plies of carbon or boron epoxy composite patches, as well as the simulated delaminations were identified and measured by means of image analysis. Infrared imaging can investigate rapidly large areas for surface or near-surface defects and can produce easily interpretable results.”)
Claim 14: Shannon, Imperiale, and Lovell
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0217672 A1 to Shannon et al. (Shannon) in view of NPL: “UT simulation using a fully automated 3D hybrid model: Application to planar backwall breaking defects inspection” by Imperiale et al. (Imperiale) and NPL: “An Intelligent Robotic Inspection System For Airframe Structures” by Lovell et al. (Lovell).
Claim 14
Regarding claim 14, Shannon in view of Imperiale teaches the features of claim 1, and further teaches:
further comprising: - a support element configured to support the machine component to be inspected, and (Shannon [0014] “ The inspection apparatus 10 may include a fixture 18 for supporting the component 12 during data acquisition, the fixture 18 including known markings 20 defining a coordinate system for orienting the acquired data in space.” [0028] “A fixture 18 for holding a component to be inspected is disposed within the fields of view of a variety of data acquisition devices” – A fixture)
-
wherein the support element is preferably rotatable and/or tiltable; (Shannon Page [0022] “The fixture includes a multi-axis positioning apparatus 38 for moving the test object into a plurality of positions relative to a data acquisition element 40.” - The fixture includes a multi-axis positioning apparatus 38 for moving the test object into a plurality of positions relative to a data acquisition element 40. The fixture is adapted for multi-axis positioning, which includes rotation and tilting.)
Shannon in view of Imperiale do not appear to explicitly teach, but Shannon in view of Imperiale and Lovell teaches:
- at least one industrial robot with an articulated arm, preferably a five-axis or six-axis articulated arm, […] wherein the articulated arm is configured to carry inspection sensors; wherein the computer unit is arranged to control the support element and/or the articulated arm. (Lovell Abstract “However, in order to perform any more complicated task requires an 'Intelligent' robot, in which the trajectory of the end point may be altered to account for changes in the robot's environment. […] The object of this project has been to investigate the feasibility of using an industrial robot as part of a fully automated aircraft inspection system capable of inspecting general aircraft structures, see fig 1.1. The Puma robot used allows the position and orientation of a test probe to be controlled within an approximately spherical work envelope of 1 meter radius. It is controlled from an IBM PS/2 model 80 personal computer by a serial interface developed at U.C.L. as part of a previous project [7]. In order to improve the accuracy of the Puma it has been calibrated using a computerised surveying system; […] The wrist-mounted instrument package employed is described in appendix I. It consists of a CCD camera, a low power laser used for range finding and any NDI test probes desired. The routines used for processing images from the camera and for processing images from the camera and for component recognition are detailed in chapters 5-7. See Also Fig. 1.1 on page 3– A computer-comntrolled inspection apparatus including an articulated arm with sensors.
PNG
media_image3.png
1018
779
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claims to modify the automated elements of the inspection process in Shannon by the robotic inspection automation of Lovell because the person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated by the aim of Shannon to automate and expedite portions of the inspection process that require viewing multiple perspectives of the component, to look to Lovell, which teaches automated robotic elements with sensors that are calibrated to provide increased accuracy and speed in positioning of sensors to collect data from different perspectives of a part. (Shannon [0005] “To augment traditional manual visual inspections, it is known to utilize the capabilities of modern optical imaging devices together with computers and software in systems often referred to as aided visual inspections, and to combine such inspections with mechanical or automated control systems, known as machine vision systems. Such systems may include an electro-mechanical, hydraulic or pneumatic manipulator and they may function automatically to measure and to evaluate components. Automatic label checkers, container fill level measurement systems, and assembly or misalignment detectors are examples of such systems.” [0013] “In addition, embodiments of the invention also permit the inspector to enhance the inspection, such as with […] automatic evaluation techniques; and other data enhancement, data comparison, and statistical analysis techniques.” [0022] “he fixture includes a multi-axis positioning apparatus 38 for moving the test object into a plurality of positions relative to a data acquisition element 40.“; Lovell Page 169-170, Conclusions “The two calibration methods developed have increased the Puma's positional accuracy to better than 1.5 mm in 800 mm compared with approximately 5 mm before. […] To increase the speed with which the masks may be tried over an image the use of a template image is proposed so that the masks are tried only in those positions where they are likely to match. In a typical image this cuts the time taken to process an image by a factor of more than four. […] Finally, the software to integrate all of the procedures has been written to give a system which is capable of automatically inspecting either the inside or the outside of a section of airframe, […] When tested on the mock-up of a piece of fuselage produced for this project, fig 8.1, and the piece of aircraft wing, fig 6.1, the system consistently tracked along the pieces of channel from end to end and was able to locate all of the rivets in the field of view of the camera.)
Claim 15: Shannon, Imperiale, and Guo
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0217672 A1 to Shannon et al. (Shannon) in view of NPL: “UT simulation using a fully automated 3D hybrid model: Application to planar backwall breaking defects inspection” by Imperiale et al. (Imperiale) and NPL: “Ultrasonic Non-Destructive Testing System of Semi-Enclosed Workpiece with Dual-Robot Testing System” by Guo et al. (Guo).
Claim 15
Regarding claim 15, Shannon in view of Imperiale teaches the features of claim 1, and further teaches:
wherein some or all inspection sensors of the plurality of inspection sensors are fixedly mounted to a frame or structure of the inspection apparatus at different positions. (Shannon [0022] “The inspection apparatus 30 is integrated into a frame or cabinet 32 having a hinged or otherwise moveable access cover 34 that facilitates the placement and removal of test objects when in an open position and that blocks ambient light from the test chamber 36 when in a closed position.” See Also, FIGs. 1 and 2-5 (shown above) – Some sensors are integrated into a cabinet/container that holds the part during an inspection phase.)
Shannon in view of Imperiale does not appear to explicitly teach, but Shannon in view of Imperiale and Guo teaches:
further comprising: - at least one industrial robot with an articulated arm, preferably a five-axis or six-axis articulated arm, configured to grasp, move and/or manipulate the machine component to be inspected; wherein the computer unit is arranged to control the articulated arm; (Guo Abstract “ In order to overcome the problem, this paper establishes an NDT solution for semi-enclosed workpieces based on a dual-robot system of synchronous motion, in which an extension arm is installed on one of the robots and presents a trajectory planning method that always ensures the extension arm is parallel to the rotary axis of a semi-enclosed workpiece and that the ultrasonic probes are perpendicular to the workpiece surface. Trajectory analysis experiments and ultrasonic NDT experiments utilizing the optimal water path distance determined by simulation result of multi-Gaussian beam model for two types of semi-enclosed workpieces are performed with the dual-robot NDT system. Experimental results prove that the dual-robot NDT scheme functions well and the planned trajectories are correct. All the hole-shaped artificial defects with diameters ≥3 mm are detected by using 2.25 MHz ultrasonic probes through the transmission testing method. Vivid 3D C-scan image of a small diameter cylindrical workpiece based on the testing result is provided for convenience of observation.” “Although it is expedient to generate a good raster scan trajectory for NDT probes as demonstrated by Section 2.1, if the trajectory path is generated by a customized software developed for 5-axis machine tool rather than for robot NDT system, post-processing is essential before applying the trajectory to the 6-axis robot NDT system [20]” See Also Figure 1 on Page 3 (shown below) – This teaches an articulating robotic arm for holding the component and conducting a simulation/test using the robotic arm and sensors on the robotic arm.)
PNG
media_image4.png
356
550
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claims because the person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the multi-axis fixture of Shannon by the robotic arm arrangement of Guo because the person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated by the aims of Shannon to increase automation of processes and reposition workpieces for inspection, to look to Guo, which teaches a robotic inspection system that positions workpieces correctly and well. (Shannon [0005] “To augment traditional manual visual inspections, it is known to utilize the capabilities of modern optical imaging devices together with computers and software in systems often referred to as aided visual inspections, and to combine such inspections with mechanical or automated control systems, known as machine vision systems. Such systems may include an electro-mechanical, hydraulic or pneumatic manipulator and they may function automatically to measure and to evaluate components. Automatic label checkers, container fill level measurement systems, and assembly or misalignment detectors are examples of such systems.” [0013] “In addition, embodiments of the invention also permit the inspector to enhance the inspection, such as with […] automatic evaluation techniques; and other data enhancement, data comparison, and statistical analysis techniques.” [0022] “he fixture includes a multi-axis positioning apparatus 38 for moving the test object into a plurality of positions relative to a data acquisition element 40.“; Guo Abstract “Experimental results prove that the dual-robot NDT scheme functions well and the planned trajectories are correct. All the hole-shaped artificial defects with diameters ≥3 mm are detected by using 2.25 MHz ultrasonic probes through the transmission testing method. Vivid 3D C-scan image of a small diameter cylindrical workpiece based on the testing result is provided for convenience of observation.”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20170176342 A1 to Colletti (Teaches a system for inspecting turbine blades with a movable arm)
US 20050038817 A1 to Huang et al. (Teaches a system for inspecting over different zones of a component)
US 20140207419 A1 to Messinger et al. (Teaches a system for automated inspection of a component)
US 20050186327 A1 to Saito et al. (Teaches automated inspection with an articulating arm to determine reparability of components)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY MICHAEL WHITE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7073. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11:00-7:00 EST.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571) 272-4071. 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.
/J.M.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights