DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ response to the last Office Action, filed on 06/24/2026 has been entered and made of record.
In view of the Applicant’s amendments, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 of claims 9 and 20 are expressly withdrawn.
In view of Applicant’s argument that the limitations describe an improvement for inspecting defects within a component, Examiner has withdrawn the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection to the claims since the limitations, as a whole, are indicative to significantly more than just the abstract idea an integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to Applicant’s argument that Morris fails to disclose or suggest generating a matching score for an indication, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the result of the comparison of the measurements of the recaptured image to identify and confirm the defect is the matching score. Thus, Examiner maintains that Morris does teach a matching score for an indication.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (US 8,131,107) in view of Finn et al. (US 2019/0339235), Yang et al. (CN 114881997, see translated version), and Morris et al. (US 2021/0174484).
With regards to claim 1, Sun et al. discloses a method comprising:
generating a scan of a component using an infrared camera, wherein the scan includes a plurality of image frames captured by the infrared camera (Col. 2 lines 19-23, Col. 4 lines 23-39, Col. 5 lines 6-17, "NDT" "infrared" "scanned object");
inputting the scan to an indication detection module (Col. 5 lines 18-24, "statistical model");
identifying at least one indication within at least one image frame of the plurality of image frames by the indication detection module, wherein the at least one indication relates to a possible defect within the component (Col. 5 lines 18-24, Col. 8 lines 33-54 "one or more defects");
wherein the at least one indication includes a plurality of attributes (Col. 8 lines 33-54, "type, location, and size").
Sun et al. does not explicitly teach generating a thermal acoustic imaging (TAI) scan, including capturing friction heat at a disbonded region within a component using an infrared camera, wherein the friction heat generates infrared radiation from the disbonded region.
However, Finn et al. discloses the concept of generating a thermal acoustic imaging (TAI) scan of a component by capturing friction heat at a disbonded region within a component using an infrared camera, wherein the friction heat generates infrared radiation from the disbanded region and identifying potential defects of the component (Para. 0031 lines 1-6, 0032 lines 1-11, 0033 lines 1-10, 0034 lines 1-3, "infrared" "radiation" “disbonding" “friction” "defects"). While Sun et al. discloses acquiring nondestructive testing image data of a component and identifying at least one possible defect, Finn et al. discloses acquiring nondestructive testing image data of a component by generating a thermal acoustic imaging (TAI) scan of the component by capturing friction heat at a disbonded region within a component using an infrared camera, wherein the friction heat generates infrared radiation from the disbanded region and identifying at least one possible defect. In both cases, nondestructive testing image data of a component is obtained and potential defects of the component are determined.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Sun et al. to replace the technique of acquiring nondestructive testing image data of a component with acquiring nondestructive testing image data of a component by generating a thermal acoustic imaging (TAI) scan of the component by capturing friction heat at a disbonded region within a component using an infrared camera, wherein the friction heat generates infrared radiation from the disbanded region as taught by Finn et al. since one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution and the results from the substitution would be predictable to obtain scans of the component and identify at least one indication within at least one image frame.
The combination of Sun et al. and Finn et al. does not explicitly teach providing the at least one indication to a ranking system, determining a priority score based on the plurality of attributes of the at least one indication by the ranking system, and ranking the component related to the at least one indication according to the priority score.
However, Yang et al. discloses the concept of providing the at least one possible defect indication to a ranking system, determining a priority score based on a plurality of attributes, and ranking the component according to the priority score (Para. n0031 lines 1-4, n0032 lines 1-2, n0033 lines 1-3, n0054 lines 5-9, n0055 lines 1-3, n0056 lines 1-2, n0090 lines 1-4, n0113 lines 1-2, "defect risk probability" "defect risk level") in order to allow for more efficient determination of maintenance measures (Para. n0029 lines 1-2, n0054 lines 1-4, n0090 lines 1-4, n0113 lines 1-2, n0114 lines 1-4, "facilitates").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the concept of providing the at least one possible defect indication to a ranking system, determining a priority score based on a plurality of attributes, and ranking the component according to the priority score as taught by Yang et al. into the method of the combination of Sun et al. and Finn et al. The motivation for this would be to allow for more efficient determination of maintenance measures of the component.
The combination of Sun et al., Finn et al., and Yang et al. does not explicitly teach rescanning to capture a TAI rescan of the at least one indication of the component using the infrared camera; and inputting the TAI scan and the TAI rescan of the at least one indication into a match analysis module to generate a matching score for the at least one indication.
However, Morris et al. discloses the concept of rescanning to capture a rescan of a component using an imaging system and inputting the scan and the rescan of the at least one defect into a match analysis module to generate a matching score for the at least one defect in order to confirm a presence of the at least one defect on the component (Para. 0071 lines 1-9, "recapturing" “comparing” "confirm", where the matching score is the result of the comparing that allows for confirming the defect).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the concept of rescanning to capture a rescan of a component using an imaging system as taught by Morris et al. into the method of the combination of Sun et al., Finn et al., and Yang et al. The motivation for this would be to confirm the presence of a possible defect of the component.
With regards to claim 5, the combination of Sun et al., Finn et al., Yang et al., and Morris et al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of attributes includes at least one of a geometry of the at least one indication, a location on the component of the at least one indication, a type for the at least one indication, and a classifier for the at least one indication (Sun et al.: Col. 8 lines 33-54, "type, location, and size").
With regards to claim 6, the combination of Sun et al., Finn et al., Yang et al., and Morris et al. discloses the method of claim 5, wherein determining the priority score includes applying an importance weight for the at least one indication based on the geometry of the at least one indication or the location on the component of the at least one indication (Yang et al.: n0032 lines 1-2, n0033 lines 1-3, n0054 lines 5-9, n0055 lines 1-3, n0056 lines 1-2, "weights").
With regards to claim 7, the combination of Sun et al., Finn et al., Yang et al., and Morris et al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the priority score includes determining a likelihood that the at least one indication is the possible defect on the component (Yang et al.: n0031 lines 1-4, n0032 lines 1-2, Sun et al.: Col. 8 lines 40-48, "probability" “defect”).
With regards to claim 8, the combination of Sun et al., Finn et al., Yang et al., and Morris et al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one indication includes a first indication and a second indication (Sun et al.: Col. 5 lines 2-5, 18-24, Col. 8 lines 33-54 "defects").
With regards to claim 10, the combination of Sun et al., Finn et al., Yang et al., and Morris et al. discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising generating the TAI scan using a TAI inspection system including the infrared camera and at least one ultrasonic converter configured to generate the infrared radiation at the component (Finn et al.: Para. 0031 lines 1-6, 0032 lines 1-11, 0033 lines 1-10, 0034 lines 1-3, "infrared" “ultrasonic” "thermoacoustic").
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With regards to claim 4, Sun et al. (US 8,131,107) discloses a plurality of attributes of the at least one indication, however, there is no mention of the plurality of attributes of the at least one indication including a matching score, where the matching score is generated by inputting the TAI scan and a TAI rescan of the at least one indication into a match analysis module. Morris et al. (US 2021/0174484) discloses generating a matching score for the at least one indication. However, there is no mention of the plurality of attributes of the at least one indication including the matching score, where the priority score would be determined, in part, based on the matching score as well. Thus, while different prior arts disclose parts of the claim, none of the prior arts disclose or have reasonable motivation to combine to disclose all of the limitations of the claim as a whole.
With regards to claim 9, Sun et al. (US 8,131,107) discloses determining a first indication and a second indication, however, there is no mention of determining a priority score or determining a first or second product based on attributes for the first or second indication, respectively. Yang et al. (CN 114881997) discloses determining a priority score including determining a first product based on the attributes of the first indication, however, there is no mention of determining the priority score based on the first product and a second product, the second product based on attributes for the second indication, where the second product includes a second likelihood that the second indication is a second defect on the component. Thus, while different prior arts disclose parts of the claim, none of the prior arts disclose or have reasonable motivation to combine to disclose all of the limitations of the claim as a whole.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to claim 11, Sun et al. (US 8,131,107) discloses a plurality of attributes of at least one indication and determining a first indication and a second indication, however, there is no mention of a matching score within a plurality of attributes of the at least one indication, where the matching score is generated by inputting the TAI scan and a TAI rescan of the at least one indication into a match analysis module and there is no mention of determining a priority score. Morris et al. (US 2021/0174484) discloses generating a matching score for the at least one indication. However, there is no mention of a matching score within a plurality of attributes of the at least one indication, where the priority score would be determined, in part, based on the matching score as well. Yang et al. (CN 114881997) discloses determining a priority score based on the attributes of the first indication, however, there is no mention of a second indication with a second set of attributes and determining the priority score based on the first set of attributes and the second set of attributes. Thus, while different prior arts disclose parts of the claim, none of the prior arts disclose or have reasonable motivation to combine to disclose all of the limitations of the claim as a whole.
With regards to claims 12-16, they are dependent on claim 11.
With regards to claim 17, Sun et al. (US 8,131,107) discloses determining a first indication and a second indication, however, there is no mention of determining a priority score or determining a first or second product based on attributes for the first or second indication, respectively. Yang et al. (CN 114881997) discloses determining a priority score including determining a first product based on the attributes of the first indication, however, there is no mention of determining the priority score based on the first product and a second product, the second product based on attributes for the second indication, where the second product includes a second likelihood that the second indication is a second defect on the component. Thus, while different prior arts disclose parts of the claim, none of the prior arts disclose or have reasonable motivation to combine to disclose all of the limitations of the claim as a whole.
With regards to claim 18, it is dependent on claim 17.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROL W CHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5766. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-3:30 M-F.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-3638. 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.
/CAROL W CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights