CTNF 18/632,725 CTNF 77333 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 11-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 11, “the component” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claim. Further, claim 11 introduces "a region" then states "within the plurality of regions" which therefore lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate corrections are required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 4-8, 15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Euler et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0297232 A1 ('232) in view of Coskun et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0258748 A1 ('748) . As per claim 1, ‘232 in view of ‘748 discloses a method comprising: generating a digital representation of a component, wherein the digital representation is based on geometrical dimensions of the component (e.g., See '232; [0009] and [0036], which disclose scanning a part to create 2D image data and generating a measured surface profile of the part); identifying at least one region of a plurality of regions within the digital representation of the component as showing damage to the component, wherein the at least one region includes a boundary (e.g., See '232; [0009] and [0037], which disclose identifying a potentially defective region and its surrounding boundary in the scanned part data); executing a morphing process within the plurality of regions of the digital representation, applying a displacement field on the plurality of regions (Although '232 discloses reconstructing the damaged region from boundary data outside the region (e.g., see '232; [0009], [0020], and [0037]), '232 does not specifically disclose performing a morphing process within the identified region(s) and applying a displacement field to the identified region(s). '748 discloses these missing features by disclosing, in [0006] and [0035], morphing the CAD model by moving rows of points toward the boundary and displacing those points in a set direction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teachings of '748 into '232 for the purpose of smoothly reshaping the identified damaged region so that damage can be removed more accurately, reliably, and efficiently); and generating an output file having the damage removed within the at least one region of the digital representation (e.g., See '748; [0006), [0035] and [0036], which disclose generating a reshaped digital representation that matches the boundary of the at least one region and removes the damage within that region). As per claim 4, ‘232’s combined system (‘232 in view of ‘748) further discloses that the identified at least one region is marked as an interpolation region for an inspection process using the digital representation (e.g., See '232; [0009] and [0035], which disclose using the defective region as an interpolation region during inspection). As per claim 5, ‘232’s combined system further discloses smoothing the at least one region of the digital representation using the morphing process (e.g., See '232; [0006] and [0013], which disclose morphing the CAD model so that the surface remains continuous, almost seamless, without discontinuities). As per claim 6, ‘232’s combined system further discloses scanning the component into a surface geometry model as the digital representation (e.g., See '232; [0009] and [0036], which disclose scanning the part to create 2D image data and a 3D model of the part). As per claim 7, ‘232’s combined system further discloses generating a new digital representation of the component prior to the damage (e.g., See '748; [0006] and [0031], which disclose providing an unused digital part model and aligning it with the damaged part). As per claim 8, ‘232’s combined system further discloses that the component is a blade of a bladed rotor because '232 discloses inspection of a turbine blade (e.g., See '232; [0013] and [0036]). As per claim 15, the rationale as set forth above, with respect to the rejection of claim 1, is applied herein. As per claim 18, the rationale as set forth above, with respect to the rejection of claim 5, is applied herein. As per claim 19, the rationale as set forth above, with respect to the rejection of claim 6, is applied herein. As per claim 20, the rationale as set forth above, with respect to the rejection of claim 8, is applied herein . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2-3 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Euler et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0297232 A1 ('232) in view of Coskun et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0258748 A1 ('748), as applied to claims 1 and 15, respectively, from above, in further view of Kanthasamy, U.S. Patent No. 9,323,869 B1 (‘869) . As per claim 2, ‘232’s combined system does not specifically disclose interpolating based on a node location within the at least one region. ‘869 discloses the missing features by '869 disclosing, in [0037] and [0046], that displacement of interior nodes is determined using interpolation of boundary node displacement compared to interior node locations, with weighting based on distances between the nodes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teachings of '869 into '232 and '748 for the purpose of estimating node movement within the identified region(s) so reshaping follows the region more accurately. As per claim 3, '232's combined system, in further view of '869, adequately discloses executing the morphing process based on the node location (e.g., see '869; [0037], [0039], and [0040], which disclose using node locations to calculate and move interior points during morphing). As per claim 16, the rationale as set forth with respect to the rejection of claim 15, from above, is incorporated herein. Further, the rationale as applied to the rejection of claim 2, from above, is incorporated herein. As per claim 17, the rationale as applied to the rejection of claim 3, from above, is incorporated herein . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Euler et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0297232 A1 ('232) in view of Coskun et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0258748 A1 ('748), in further view of Kanthasamy, U.S. Patent No. 9,323,869 B1 (‘869) . As per claim 11, the rationale set forth above with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 2 and 8 are applied herein. Further, '232 in view of '748, in further view of '869, discloses marking a boundary around the damage to the blade within the digital representation, identifying a region based on the boundary within the digital representation of the blade showing the damage, and generating a new digital representation of the blade having the damage removed (e.g., See '748; [0033], [0034], and [0035], which disclose obtaining image data of a damaged blade portion and its boundary line, importing that boundary into a CAD representation model, and morphing the CAD model based on that imported boundary; and '869 discloses, in [0003], [0004], and [0053], generating a morphed mesh that results in an updated digital model). As per claim 12, ‘232’s combined system, in further view of ‘869, further discloses that the region is marked as an interpolation region for an inspection process using the digital representation (e.g., See '232; [0009] and [0035], which disclose using the damaged region as the area where inspection interpolation is performed). As per claim 13, ‘232’s combined system, in further view of ‘869, further discloses smoothing the region within the boundary on the digital representation using the morphing process (e.g., See '748; [0013] and [0035], which disclose smoothing the damaged region so the model surface stays continuous and seamless). As per claim 14, ‘232’s combined system, in further view of ‘869, further discloses scanning the component into a surface geometry model as the digital representation (e.g., See '232; [0009] and [0036], which disclose scanning the part to create a measured surface profile of the part) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Euler et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0297232 A1 ('232) in view of Coskun et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0258748 A1 ('748), in further view of Oxholm et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0118594 A1 (' 594) . As per claim 9, '232 in view of '748 does not specifically disclose generating a sequence of intermediate images for the at least one region within the boundary. '594 discloses this missing feature by disclosing, in [0004], [0025], and [0027], using boundary motion and a reference frame to update the target region across a sequence of video frames. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teachings of '594 into '232 in view of '748 for the purpose of creating step-by-step image updates within the identified region(s) so that damage is removed more smoothly across frames. With respect to claim 10, '232's combined system ('232 in view of '748), in further view of '594, further discloses applying the sequence of intermediate images to the at least one region to remove the damage identified in the digital representation by (e.g., See ‘594; [0025] and [0061], which discloses applying updated region images across frames to replace unwanted content in the target region). References Considered but Not Relied Upon The following references were considered but were not relied upon with respect to any prior art rejections: (1) US 8,910,361 B2, which discloses scanning a badly damaged gas turbine part, building a CAD replacement part, and joining the replacement into a cut out portion; (2) US 9,902,024 B2, which discloses a system using optical inspection and stored geometry as well as damage data to plan machining, welding, and reinspection of aircraft or gas turbine components; (3) US 8,996,156 B2, which discloses digitizing a damaged machine component, machining a trough using the scan data, rescanning the component, and controlling material buildup from the updated geometry; (4) US 2023/0315069 A1, which discloses converting bladed rotor scan point clouds into section files, determining blade defects, and adding repair details for later analysis and repair; (5) US 11,676,007 B2, which discloses building a morphed 3D surface model that removes manufacturing defects by learning from image comparative analysis; and (6) US 2018/0211373 A1, which discloses capturing partial point clouds, merging them into a 3D model, and dividing the model into regions, and outputting detected defects. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD D HARTMAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3684. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 4:30 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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at (571) 272-4105. 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. /RONALD D HARTMAN JR/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119 April 1, 2026 /RDH/ Application/Control Number: 18/632,725 Page 2 Art Unit: 2119 Application/Control Number: 18/632,725 Page 3 Art Unit: 2119 Application/Control Number: 18/632,725 Page 4 Art Unit: 2119 Application/Control Number: 18/632,725 Page 5 Art Unit: 2119 Application/Control Number: 18/632,725 Page 6 Art Unit: 2119 Application/Control Number: 18/632,725 Page 7 Art Unit: 2119 Application/Control Number: 18/632,725 Page 8 Art Unit: 2119 Application/Control Number: 18/632,725 Page 9 Art Unit: 2119
Prosecution Insights