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 Analysis - 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.
Claim 1 appears to contain generally algorithmic steps, and generally lacks physical steps. As such an analysis under 35 U.S.C. 101 is warranted. In general, the claim appears directed to the judicially excepted subject matter of abstract ideas. However, these ideas have been articulated as being embodied in the practical application of scanning a part for defects. As such, no rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 are appropriate at this time.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 and 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Griffiths et al. (2020/0225171)
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Griffiths discloses a method (and computer hardware programmed to perform it), comprising: obtaining one or more three dimensional computer models that model geometric and material properties of a component, and model beam properties of a beam of radiation to be applied to the component; utilizing the one or more three dimensional computer models to obtain simulated radiation imaging data, which includes simulated elastic scattering data, resulting from a simulated application of the beam having the beam properties on a plurality of discretized samples of the component, and which accounts for sequential interactions of rays of the beam with multiple ones of the plurality of discretized samples; obtaining actual radiation imaging data, which includes actual elastic scattering data, of an output beam pattern caused by application of a non-simulated beam of radiation having the beam properties to the component; and performing at least one of: determining whether an anomaly exists in a crystalline structure of the component based a comparison of the simulated elastic scattering data to the actual elastic scattering data; and modifying the actual radiation imaging data based on the simulated elastic scattering data to at least partially remove the actual elastic scattering data from the actual radiation imaging data. (Griffiths, Abstract, see also [0083], [0084], [0085])
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Griffiths further discloses the beam properties that are modeled by the one or more three dimensional computer models include one or more of: an energy spectrum of the beam; a shape of the beam; an axial divergence of the beam; a distance between the component and a source of the beam; and ray tracing data of the beam. (Griffiths, [0082], the “pattern of diffracted radiation” corresponds to both a shape of the beam and ray tracing data of the beam)
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Griffiths further discloses the geometric properties of the component that are modeled by the one or more three dimensional computer models include one or more of: a material density of the component; a chemical composition of the component; an orientation of the component with respect to the non-simulated radiation beam; spatial coordinates and a size of each discretized sample of the component; and which locations of the component are to be analyzed. (Griffiths, [0089], Laue back reflection)
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Griffiths further discloses the geometric properties of the component that are modeled by the one or more three dimensional computer models also include one or more of: a crystalline structure of the component, including a lattice and basis of the crystalline structure; an orientation of crystals of the component with respect to a unified reference frame; a permissible grain divergence of the component; and a structure factor of the component. (id.)
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Griffiths further discloses the simulated diffraction pattern includes one or more of the following for each of the plurality of discretized samples: a brightness of a refracted beam; and an angle of the refracted beam relative to a unified reference frame. (Griffiths, [0085], Fig. 4; a detected diffraction pattern on detector 47 necessarily includes its beam angle with respect to item under examination 50)
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Griffiths further discloses said utilizing the one or more three dimensional computer models to obtain a simulated diffraction pattern comprises: Utilizing at least one of Bragg’s Equation and an Ewald Construction to simulate an elastic scattering event caused by application of the beam to each discretized sample of the component. (Griffiths, [0101])
Regarding claim 10, Griffiths further discloses the component comprises one or more superalloy components. (High performance turbine fans)
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Griffths discloses both determining and modifying. (Griffiths, [0083], [0098], [0099])
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 7-9, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffiths.
Regarding claims 7-8 and 19-20, Griffiths lacks explicit teaching of said modifying the actual radiation imaging data based on the simulated elastic scattering data to at least partially remove the actual elastic scattering data comprises: subtracting the simulated elastic scattering data from the actual radiation imaging data.
However, Griffiths does explicitly disclose comparing the expected scattering pattern with the simulated pattern via overlay and neural network analysis. As the primary mathematical differencing operator, subtraction is obvious as a form of comparison where the data is overlaid, and explicitly performing the subtraction is trivial where comparison is disclosed.
Regarding claim 9, Griffiths does not explicitly disclose displaying the modified actual elastic scattering data on an electronic display. However a reference need not disclose the trivial, and displaying data on an electronic display is entirely routine and obvious and would have been so before the filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN C GUNBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-3107. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30AM-5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-2995. 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.
/EDWIN C GUNBERG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884