DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 1, line 1, the phrase “the quality” should be changed to -- a quality --. In line 9, it appears the word -- that -- should be inserted after the word “chance” for better clarity reading.
In claim 6, line 1, the phrase “the airfoil component” should be changed to -- the airfoil -- to provide proper antecedent basis.
In claim 7, line 1, it appears the phrase “functionally tolerant components” should be changed to -- the functionally tolerant dimension -- to provide antecedent basis.
In claim 10, it appears this claim should be depended upon claim 8 to provide antecedent basis for the phrase “the plural folds”. In lines 1-2, the word -- the -- should be inserted before the phrase “training data”.
In claim 11, line 3, the phrase “the location” should be changed to -- the locations --.
In claim 12, line 2, it appears the word -- that -- should be inserted after the word “chance” for better clarity reading.
In claim 13, line 3, the phrase “the component” should be changed to -- a component --. In line 8, the phrase “the manufactured component” should be changed to -- the component -- to provide antecedent basis. In line 9, it appears the word -- that -- should be inserted after the word “chance” for better clarity reading.
In claim 14, it appears this claim should be depended upon claim 13 to directed it back to the system claim.
In claim 18, line 1, the phrase “the airfoil component” should be changed to -- the airfoil -- to provide proper antecedent basis.
In claim 19, it appears this claim should be depended upon claim 13 to directed it back to the system claim. In line 2, the phrase “the plural sections” should be changed to -- the plurality of locations -- to provide proper antecedent basis. In line 3, the word -- the -- should be inserted before the phrase “training data”.
In claim 20, line 3, the phrase “the location” should be changed to -- the locations --.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, lines 5-7, the phrase “passing the generating data to a machine learning branch wherein the generated data is compared to a training data … the plurality of locations” is not clear on its meaning. How and with what data the machine learning branch has been trained. And who/what performs the comparison (e.g. maybe the machine learning branch or a processor) and how is it performed? Please clarify.
In claim 10, line 2, the phrase “a common part” is not clear on its meaning. Is this “common part” referring to the manufactured component or a shared subset of the training data that is included in every fold’s training set. Hence, the connection between the manufactured component and the common part is not clear. Please clarify.
In claim 13, lines 4-6, the phrase “also operable to pass the generated data to a machine learning branch wherein the generated data is compared to training data … the plurality of locations”. How and with what data the machine learning branch has been trained. And who/what performs the comparison (e.g. maybe the machine learning branch or a processor) and how is it performed? Please clarify.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15,17,20 of copending Application No. 18/594,778 (Zalger et al.). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the claimed elements and limitations in method claims 1-12 of the Instant application are claimed in claims 1-10 and disclosed having the ability to be obviously claimed in the ‘778 Zalger et al. copending Application while all of the claimed elements and limitations in apparatus claims 13-20 of the Instant application are claimed in claims 11-15,17,20 and disclosed having the ability to be obviously claimed in the ‘778 Zalger et al. copending Application Therefore, the claims in the Instant application are not patentably distinct from the claims in the ‘778 Zalger et al. copending Application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13,15-17,19-20 of copending Application No. 18/594,796 (Zalger et al.). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the claimed elements and limitations in method claims 1-12 of the Instant application are claimed in claims 1-10,20 and disclosed having the ability to be obviously claimed in the ‘796 Zalger et al. copending Application while all of the claimed elements and limitations in apparatus claims 13-20 of the Instant application are claimed in claims 2,11-13,15-17,19 and disclosed in the ‘796 Zalger et al. copending Application Therefore, the claims in the Instant application are not patentably distinct from the claims in the ‘796 Zalger et al. copending Application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16,18-19 of copending Application No. 18/594,827 (Soukhostavets et al.). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the claimed elements and limitations in method claims 1-12 of the Instant application are claimed in claims 1-10 and disclosed having the ability to be obviously claimed in the ‘827 Soukhostavets et al. copending Application while all of the claimed elements and limitations in apparatus claims 13-20 of the Instant application are claimed in claims 11-16,18-19 and disclosed having the ability to be obviously claimed in the ‘827 Soukhostavets et al. copending Application Therefore, the claims in the Instant application are not patentably distinct from the claims in the ‘827 Soukhostavets et al. copending Application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6,8-17,20 of copending Application No. 18/594,844 (Soukhostavets et al.). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the claimed elements and limitations in method claims 1-12 of the Instant application are claimed in claims 1-6,8-10,17 and disclosed having the ability to be obviously claimed in the ‘844 Soukhostavets et al. copending Application while all of the claimed elements and limitations in apparatus claims 13-20 of the Instant application are claimed in claims 11-17,20 and disclosed having the ability to be obviously claimed in the ‘844 Soukhostavets et al. copending Application Therefore, the claims in the Instant application are not patentably distinct from the claims in the ‘844 Soukhostavets et al. copending Application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7, 9, 11-13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 3767403 (Mayinger).
With regards to claim 1, Mayinger discloses a system for surface quality inspection of a workpiece comprising, as illustrated in Figures 1-5, a method of assessing the quality of a manufactured component (e.g. paragraph [0001]) comprising the steps of manufacturing a component (e.g. step 202 – mechanical workpiece is manufactured; paragraphs [0051]-[0054],[0058],[0079]; Figures 1,2) and generating data at each of a plurality of locations on the component (e.g. step 204 - workpiece is measured using surface sensors to generate surface parameter values; paragraph [0079]); passing the generating data to a machine learning branch wherein the generated data is compared to training data at each of the locations to determine whether the component is a functionally tolerant dimension at each of the plurality of locations (e.g. paragraphs [0051]-[0055],[0059],[0060],[0086]); accepting or rejecting the manufactured component based upon a determined percentage chance the component is functionally tolerant or fails to be functionally tolerant, respectively, at each of the plurality of locations (e.g. step 206 to step 218 - percentage values for three classes like good, bad, undecided; paragraphs [0004],[0049][0058],[0061],[0079]; Figure 2). (See, paragraphs [0001] to [0107] of translation).
With regards to claim 7, Mayinger further discloses functionally tolerant components are identified which have dimensions outside of a nominal tolerance range (e.g. paragraphs [0004],[0026]).
With regards to claim 9, Mayinger further discloses the training data is from prior assessments (e.g. paragraphs [0013],[0034],[0055],[0059],[0060],[0081]; classifier system maybe trained using annotated training data to form a classification model to assign surface parameter value matrix to plurality of predefined classes, and repeating evaluation with additional training data).
With regards to claim 11, Mayinger further discloses an evaluation is reached as to a percentage chance that the component is acceptable and a percentage chance that the component is rejectable at each of the location (e.g. paragraphs [0058],[0079],[0080]).
With regards to claim 12, Mayinger further discloses the evaluation uses a conservative evaluation such that if the percentage chance the component is rejectable at one of the locations exceeds a predetermined maximum that is less than 50%, the component is rejected (e.g. paragraphs [0058],[0079],[0080]).
With regards to claims 13 and 20, the claims are directed to apparatus claims and are commensurate in scope with the above method claims 1,11 and are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above.
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 2-6 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3767403 (Mayinger) in view of Publication “Evaluating Airfoil Mesh Quality with Transformer” by Liu et al..
With regards to claim 2, Mayinger does not explicitly specify the component includes an airfoil.
Liu et al. disclose a system for evaluating airfoil mesh quality, as illustrated in Figures 1-18, a method of assessing the quality of a manufactured component comprising the steps of manufacturing a component (e.g. page 1, under “1. Introduction” indicates manufacture of aircraft) and generating data at each of a plurality of locations on the component (e.g. using a data-drive approach; page 5, under “2.2 Recent Advances in Mesh Quality Evaluation”); passing the generating data to a machine learning branch (e.g. machine learning; page 5, under “2.2 Recent Advances in Mesh Quality Evaluation”); the component includes an airfoil (e.g. airfoil mesh; page 7, under “3.1 Mesh Pre-Processing Algorithm”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have readily recognize the advantages and desirability of employing the component as an airfoil as suggested by Liu et al. to the system of Mayinger to have the ability to identify integrity quality defects and provide quality evaluation of the airfoil. (See, page 1, Abstract).
With regards to claim 3, Liu et al. further discloses the generated data includes curvature and dimensional measurement (e.g. page 3, under “2. Related Work”).
With regards to claim 4, Liu et al,. further discloses the plurality of locations are a plurality of cross-sections (e.g. airfoil is cross-sectional shape of rotor blade; Figures 9,10).
With regards to claim 5, Liu et al. further discloses the plurality of locations are a plurality of cross-sections (e.g. airfoil is cross-sectional shape of rotor blade; Figures 9,10)
With regards to claim 6, Liu et al. further discloses the airfoil component is an integrally bladed rotor (e.g. airfoil is shape of blade like a rotor blade of aircraft).
With regards to claims 14-18, the claims are directed to apparatus claims and are commensurate in scope with the above method claims 2-6 and are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above.
Claims 8, 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3767403 (Mayinger) in view of Publication “Analysis of k-fold cross-validation over hold-out validation on colossal datasets for quality classification” by Yadav et al..
With regards to claim 8, Mayinger does not disclose the machine learning branch utilizes a K-fold validation to develop plural folds at each of the plurality of locations.
Yadav et al. discloses a system to analysis of k-fold cross-validation comprising, as illustrated in Tables !-V, the machine learning branch utilizes a K-fold validation to develop plural folds at each of the plurality of locations (e.g. pages 78-79 under section “I. Introduction”; page 80 under section “A. K-fold Cross-validation”). (See, pages 78-83).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have readily recognize the advantages and desirability of employing the machine learning branch utilizes a K-fold validation to develop plural folds at each of the plurality of locations as suggested by Yadav et al. to the system of Mayinger to have the ability to be trained properly and achieve good results with high accuracy when used for classification testing and is a well-known options in quality control. (See, Abstract on page 78).
With regards to claim 10, Yadav et al. further discloses each of the plural folds receive training data from a common part, and the training data across the plural folds is all distinct (e.g. pages 78-79 under section “I. Introduction”; Tables I-V).
With regards to claim 19, the claim is directed to apparatus claims and are commensurate in scope with the above method claims 8-9 and is rejected for the same reasons as set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The references cited, particularly Nguyen, Pelossof, Virkar, Fusi and Blasi, are related to machine learning systems for identifying patterns in measurement data and forecasting health status of machine components.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Helen C Kwok whose telephone number is (571)272-2197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:30 to 4:00 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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/HELEN C KWOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights