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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/06/2024 and 11/21/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 2-3 recite “the geometry or the location on the component” which Examiner suggests amending to “the geometry of the at least one indication or the location on the component of the at least one indication”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 2-3 recite “based the geometry or the location on the component” which Examiner suggests amending to “based on the geometry of the first indication or the location on the component of the first indication”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 2-3 recite “the geometry or the location on the component” which Examiner suggests amending to “the geometry of the second indication or the location on the component of the second indication”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 9 and 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitations "the attributes for the first indication" in Line 2 and “the attributes for the second indication” in Line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim as there is no earlier mention of attributes for the first indication or attributes for the second indication. Examiner suggests amending the limitations to “attributes for the first indication” (deleting “the”) and “attributes for the second indication” (deleting “the”), respectively, and has interpreted the limitations as such.
Claim 20 recites the limitations "the attributes for the first indication" in Line 2 and “the attributes for the second indication” in Line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim as there is no earlier mention of attributes for the first indication or attributes for the second indication. Examiner suggests amending the limitations to “attributes for the first indication” (deleting “the”) and “attributes for the second indication” (deleting “the”), respectively, and has interpreted the limitations as such.
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.
Claims 1 and 17 recite(s) steps of identifying at least one indication within at least one image frame where the at least one indication relates to a possible defect within the component and includes a plurality of attributes, determining a priority score based on the plurality of attributes, and ranking the component according to the priority score which may be performed practically in the human mind as a mental process by mentally observing the image and making a determination of at least one possible defect including a shape and size of the possible defect within the component in the image, mentally evaluating the shape and size of the possible defect in the image and determining a priority score, and mentally ranking the component based on the priority score. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of generating a thermal acoustic imaging (TAI) scan, inputting the TAI scan to an indication detection module, and providing the at least one indication to a ranking system amounts to mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional elements of the infrared camera, the indication detection module, and the ranking system in claims 1 and 17, and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and processor in claim 17 are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and camera system.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements of the infrared camera, the indication detection module, and the ranking system in claims 1 and 17, and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and processor in claim 17 are at best mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and camera system. The additional elements of generating a thermal acoustic imaging (TAI) scan using an infrared camera, inputting the TAI scan to an indication detection module, and providing the at least one indication to a ranking system are recited at a high level of generality that amounts to obtaining, inputting, receiving, and outputting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Thus, claims 1 and 17 are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 2-10 and 18-20 also do not include elements that amount to significantly more than just the abstract idea or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, claims 2-10 and 18-20 are also not patent eligible.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) steps of identifying a first indication of a first possible defect and a second indication of a second possible defect in an image, determining a first matching score within a first set of attributes for the first indication and a second matching score within a second set of attributes for the second indication in the TAI scan and the TAI rescan, determining a priority score based on the first set of attributes and the second set of attributes, and ranking the component according to the priority score which may be performed practically in the human mind as a mental process by mentally observing the image of the TAI scan and making a mental determination of a first possible defect including a first shape and first size of the first possible defect and a mental determination of a second possible defect including a second shape and second size of the second possible defect within the component in the image, mentally observing and evaluating whether the first shape and first size of the first possible defect match with a rescanned first shape and rescanned first size of a rescanned first possible defect in a rescan image and mentally determine a first matching score, mentally observing and evaluating whether the second shape and second size of the second possible defect match with a rescanned second shape and rescanned second size of a rescanned second possible defect in the rescan image and mentally determine a second matching score, mentally evaluating the first shape and first size of the first possible defect and the second shape and second size of the second possible defect in the image and determining a priority score, and mentally ranking the component based on the priority score. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of generating a thermal acoustic imaging (TAI) scan, inputting the TAI scan to an indication detection module, rescanning the component to generate a TAI rescan, and providing the first and second indications to a ranking system amounts to mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional elements of the infrared camera in a TAI inspection system, the indication detection module, the match analysis module, and the ranking system are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and camera system.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements of the infrared camera in the TAI inspection system, the indication detection module, the match analysis module, and the ranking system are at best mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and camera system. The additional elements of generating a thermal acoustic imaging (TAI) scan, inputting the TAI scan to an indication detection module, rescanning the component to generate a TAI rescan, and providing the first and second indications to a ranking system are recited at a high level of generality that amounts to obtaining, inputting, receiving, and outputting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 11 is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 12-16 also do not include elements that amount to significantly more than just the abstract idea or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, claims 12-16 are also not patent eligible.
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, 10, and 17-19 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) and Yang et al. (CN 114881997, see translated version).
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 (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.
However, Finn et al. discloses the concept of generating a thermal acoustic imaging (TAI) scan of a component 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" "thermoacoustic" "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 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 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.
With regards to claim 5, the combination of Sun et al., Finn et al., and Yang 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., and Yang 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 or the location on the component (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., and Yang 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., and Yang 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., and Yang 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 thermal 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").
With regards to claim 17, Sun et al. discloses an article of manufacture including a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by a processor, configures the processor to perform operations (Col. 3 lines 45-57, "processors" "memory") comprising:
generating a scan of a component using an infrared camera, wherein the scan includes a plurality of image frames (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.
However, Finn et al. discloses the concept of generating a thermal acoustic imaging (TAI) scan of a component 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" "thermoacoustic" "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 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 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 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 article of manufacture 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.
With regards to claim 18, the combination of Sun et al., Finn et al., and Yang et al. discloses the article of manufacture of claim 17, 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 19, the combination of Sun et al., Finn et al., and Yang et al. discloses the article of manufacture of claim 17, 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").
Claim(s) 2 and 3 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) and Yang et al. (CN 114881997) and further in view of Morris et al. (US 2021/0174484).
With regards to claim 2, the combination of Sun et al., Finn et al., and Yang et al. discloses the method of claim 1.
The combination of Sun et al., Finn et al., and Yang et al. does not explicitly teach further comprising rescanning to capture a TAI rescan of the at least one indication of the component using the infrared camera.
However, Morris et al. discloses the concept of rescanning to capture a rescan of a component using an imaging system in order to confirm the presence of the defect on the component (Para. 0071 lines 1-9, "recapturing" "confirm").
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 3, the combination of Sun et al., Finn et al., Yang et al., and Morris et al. discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising 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 (Morris et al.: Para. 0071 lines 1-9, "comparing" "confirm").
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
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.
Claims 9 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With regards to claims 9 and 20, 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.
Claim 4 and 12-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 claims 12-16, they are dependent on claim 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith.
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