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 .
Claims Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “using a transducer to transmit a first signal into a component comprising a solid metallic material” should read “using a transducer to transmit a first signal into [[a]] the component comprising a solid metallic material” in order to provide the appropriate antecedent basis.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “the step of decomposing the response signal into the phase spectrum and the magnitude spectrum includes applying a Fourier transform to the response signal” should read “the step of the decomposing the response signal into the phase spectrum and the magnitude spectrum includes applying a Fourier transform to the response signal” in order to provide the appropriate antecedent basis.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “the step of decomposing the response signal into the phase spectrum and the magnitude spectrum includes applying a Fourier transform to the response signal” should read “the step of the decomposing the response signal into the phase spectrum and the magnitude spectrum includes applying a Fourier transform to the response signal” in order to provide the appropriate antecedent basis.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “using a database of stored acceptable signal response data determined from a plurality of control components that are free from defects to determine the presence or absence of the defect in the solid metallic material of the component” should read “using a database of stored acceptable signal response data determined from a plurality of control components that are free from the defects to determine the presence or the absence of the defect in the solid metallic material of the component” in order to provide the appropriate antecedent basis.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “using a transducer to transmit a first signal into a component comprising a solid metallic material” should read “using a transducer to transmit a first signal into [[a]] the component comprising a solid metallic material” in order to provide the appropriate antecedent basis.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “the step of decomposing the response signal includes applying a Fourier transform to the response signal“ should read “the step of the decomposing the response signal includes applying a Fourier transform to the response signal” in order to provide the appropriate antecedent basis.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea as discussed below. This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the reasons discussed below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons discussed below.
Under Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the
four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Applied to the present application, the claims belong to one of the statutory classes of a process.
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is divided into two Prongs. Prong 1 requires the
examiner to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, and further requires that
the abstract idea belongs to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical
concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Independent Claim 1 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an
abstract idea highlighted in bold; the remaining limitations are ''additional elements''.
A method of inspecting a component, comprising
using a transducer to transmit a first signal into a component comprising a solid metallic material;
using the transducer to sense the component for a second signal produced as a result of the first signal being transmitted into the component, and produce a response signal representative of the second signal;
processing the response signal received from the transducer, the processing including decomposing the response signal into a phase spectrum and a magnitude spectrum; and
using the phase spectrum and the magnitude spectrum to determine a presence or an absence of a defect in the solid metallic material of the component.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the bold portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exception. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion).
The step “processing the response signal received from the transducer, the processing including decomposing the response signal into a phase spectrum and a magnitude spectrum” is treated by the examiner as belonging to mathematical concept grouping, and the step “using the phase spectrum and the magnitude spectrum to determine a presence or an absence of a defect in the solid metallic material of the component” is treated as a combination of mathematical and mental concepts.
Prong 2 of Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims recite additional elements or a combination of additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This requires additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
In Claim 1, the additional elements “a component”, “a transducer”, “a first signal”, “a second signal”, “a solid metallic material”, “a phase spectrum”, and “a magnitude spectrum” are generally recited and used for extra-solution activities (e.g., signal transmission/reception) and do not qualify as a particular machine or a particular transformation.
The preamble of Claim 1: “A method of inspecting a component” is a generically recited preamble.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, when considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
Step 2B of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine whether the additional elements cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The considerations for this particular claim are essentially the same as the considerations for Prong 2 of Step 2A, and the same analysis leads to the conclusion that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Essentially, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis) because they are well-understood and conventional in the relevant art of US20180231501 to Findikoglu et al. (hereinafter Findikoglu) and US20170023527 to Mattei (hereinafter Mattei).
Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claim 1, therefore, is not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-9 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm, so these limitations should be considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims (Step 2A, Prong One), recite no additional elements reflecting a practical application (Step2A, Prong Two), and fail a “significantly more” test under the step 2B for the same reasons as discussed with regards to the independent claims.
The dependent claims are, therefore, also ineligible.
Same considerations were applied to independent Claim 10 and its dependent claims 11-13.
With regards to independent Claim 14: under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
In Claim 14, the additional elements “an investigation system”, “a component”, “a signal transmitter”, “a signal receiver”, “a controller”, “a first ultrasonic signal”, “a second ultrasonic signal”, “a solid metallic material”, “a phase spectrum”, and “a magnitude spectrum” are generally recited and do not qualify as a particular machine.
The preamble of Claim 14: “An investigation system for a component comprising a solid metallic material” is a generically recited preamble.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, when considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
Step 2B of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine whether the additional elements cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The considerations for this particular claim are essentially the same as the considerations for Prong 2 of Step 2A, and the same analysis leads to the conclusion that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Essentially, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis) because they are well-understood and conventional in the relevant art of US20180231501 to Findikoglu et al. (hereinafter Findikoglu) and US20170023527 to Mattei (hereinafter Mattei).
Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claim 14, therefore, is not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 15-19 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm, so these limitations should be considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims (Step 2A, Prong One), recite no additional elements reflecting a practical application (Step2A, Prong Two), and fail a “significantly more” test under the step 2B for the same reasons as discussed with regards to the independent claims.
The dependent claims are, therefore, also ineligible.
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 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.
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 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20180231501 to Findikoglu et al. (hereinafter Findikoglu) in view of US20170023527 to Mattei (hereinafter Mattei).
Regarding Claim 1: Findikoglu discloses:
“A method of inspecting a component, comprising using a transducer to transmit a first signal into the component comprising a solid metallic material” (para 0008 – “the method for detection and monitoring changes in an elongated metallic structure having a wall and an exterior surface, hereof includes: placing at least one acoustic transmitting transducer in vibrational communication with the exterior surface of the metallic structure… generating acoustic frequency chirp signals having a selected signal strength, spectral content, and duration; directing the chirp signals to the at least one transmitting transducer; producing a baseline signal by”);
“using the transducer to sense the component for a second signal produced as a result of the first signal being transmitted into the component, and produce a response signal representative of the second signal” (para 0008 – “receiving the vibrational signals generated in the wall of the metallic structure in response to the chirp signal by the receiving transducer”);
“processing the response signal received from the transducer” (para 0043 – “Acoustic signals having propagated through pipe or vessel section 18 are detected by receiving transducer, 20… These signals are processed by signal receiver 26, and the processed signal is directed to computer, 28, for data acquisition and analysis”).
Findikoglu does not specifically disclose:
“the processing including decomposing the response signal into a phase spectrum and a magnitude spectrum; and using the phase spectrum and the magnitude spectrum to determine a presence or an absence of a defect in the solid metallic material of the component”.
However, Mattei discloses:
“the processing including decomposing the response signal into a phase spectrum and a magnitude spectrum” (Fig. 5B showing ; para 0044 – “the calibrator is adapted to determine the influence of contact surface variations by determining a phase shift between the test signal and the reference signal, and to compensate the full test signal for the determined phase shift”; para 0045 – “the calibrator is further adapted to determine the influence of contact surface variations by determining an amplitude (i.e. magnitude, added by examiner) difference between the test signal and the reference signal, and to compensate the test signal by performing an amplitude normalization of the full test signal and the reference signal.”) ; and
“using the phase spectrum and the magnitude spectrum to determine a presence or an absence of a defect in the solid metallic material of the component” (Fig. 11; para 0025; para 0154 – “the determining 105 of the contact surface influence is determined as a phase shift for each acquired test signal. The determining 105 includes comparing the direct signal portion of each test signal with the direct signal portion of the corresponding reference signal”; para 0097 – “Since the influences of the difference of contact between the probes and objects, as described by the amplitude normalization A and the phase shift A, are determined from the received signals … In this way a residual (eq. 16) can be obtained, which will only indicate the defect 9.”; Claim 4 – “the step of determining the contact surface variations (i.e. defect, added by examiner) comprises determining an amplitude variation between the test signal and the reference signal, and wherein the method further includes normalizing the amplitude of the full test signal and/or the reference signal in accordance with the determined amplitude variation”; para 0135 – “The measuring system 13 is provided with transducers 12 preferably adapted to induce ultrasonic signals at a low ultrasonic frequency, i.e. below 1 MHz. In many solid materials, such as metals like aluminum, such low frequency ultrasonic signals spread while propagating through the solid material”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Findikoglu, as taught by Mattei, in order to accurately and efficiently determine the defect in the solid metallic component.
Regarding Claim 14: Findikoglu discloses:
“An investigation system for a component comprising a solid metallic material, the system comprising: a signal transmitter; a signal receiver” (para 0008 – “the method for detection and monitoring changes in an elongated metallic structure having a wall and an exterior surface, hereof includes: placing at least one acoustic transmitting transducer in vibrational communication with the exterior surface of the metallic structure; placing at least one receiving transducer in vibrational communication with the exterior surface of said metallic structure and spaced apart a chosen length from the at least one transmitting transducer”)
“a controller in communication with the signal transmitter, the signal receiver, and a non-transitory memory storing instructions, which instructions when executed cause the controller to” (para 0043 – “The electrical signal generated by receiving transducer 20 is amplified by amplifier, 22, and filtered by filter, 24, before being directed to signal receiver, 26, is synchronized (triggered with a specific time delay with respect to) with signal source 12. These signals are processed by signal receiver 26, and the processed signal is directed to computer, 28, for data acquisition and analysis. Computer 28 (i.e. controller, added by examiner) also controls elements 12, 14, 22, 24, and 26.”);
“control the signal transmitter to transmit a first ultrasonic signal into the component comprising the solid metallic material” (para 0043 – “FIG. 1A, a schematic representation of an apparatus, 10, for practicing embodiments of the method of the present invention is shown. Signal source, 12 (i.e. signal transmitter, added by examiner), provides a chosen ultrasonic signal, amplified by amplifier, 14, to one or more transmitting transducers”);
“control the signal receiver to sense the component for a second ultrasonic signal produced by transmitting the first ultrasonic signal, and produce a response signal representative of the second ultrasonic signal” (para 0043 – “Signal source, 12 (i.e. signal transmitter, added by examiner), provides a chosen ultrasonic signal, amplified by amplifier, 14, to one or more transmitting transducers… Acoustic signals having propagated through pipe or vessel section 18 are detected by receiving transducer, 20, disposed at the opposite end of the pipe or vessel section 18 from transmitting transducer 16. The electrical signal generated by receiving transducer 20 (i.e. second ultrasonic signal, added by examiner) is amplified by amplifier, 22, and filtered by filter, 24, before being directed to signal receiver, 26”; para 0008 – “producing a monitoring signal (i.e. response signal, added by examiner) by: receiving the vibrational signals generated in the wall of the metallic structure in response to the chirp signal by the receiving transducer”).
Findikoglu does not specifically disclose:
“the processing including decomposing the response signal into a phase spectrum and a magnitude spectrum; and using the phase spectrum and the magnitude spectrum to determine a presence or an absence of a defect in the solid metallic material of the component”.
However, Mattei discloses:
“the processing including decomposing the response signal into a phase spectrum and a magnitude spectrum” (Fig. 5B showing ; para 0044 – “the calibrator is adapted to determine the influence of contact surface variations by determining a phase shift between the test signal and the reference signal, and to compensate the full test signal for the determined phase shift”; para 0045 – “the calibrator is further adapted to determine the influence of contact surface variations by determining an amplitude (i.e. magnitude, added by examiner) difference between the test signal and the reference signal, and to compensate the test signal by performing an amplitude normalization of the full test signal and the reference signal.”) ; and
“using the phase spectrum and the magnitude spectrum to determine a presence or an absence of a defect in the solid metallic material of the component” (Fig. 11; para 0025; para 0154 – “the determining 105 of the contact surface influence is determined as a phase shift for each acquired test signal. The determining 105 includes comparing the direct signal portion of each test signal with the direct signal portion of the corresponding reference signal”; para 0097 – “Since the influences of the difference of contact between the probes and objects, as described by the amplitude normalization A and the phase shift A, are determined from the received signals … In this way a residual (eq. 16) can be obtained, which will only indicate the defect 9.”; Claim 4 – “the step of determining the contact surface variations (i.e. defect, added by examiner) comprises determining an amplitude variation between the test signal and the reference signal, and wherein the method further includes normalizing the amplitude of the full test signal and/or the reference signal in accordance with the determined amplitude variation”; para 0135 – “The measuring system 13 is provided with transducers 12 preferably adapted to induce ultrasonic signals at a low ultrasonic frequency, i.e. below 1 MHz. In many solid materials, such as metals like aluminum, such low frequency ultrasonic signals spread while propagating through the solid material”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Findikoglu, as taught by Mattei, in order to accurately and efficiently determine the defect in the solid metallic component.
Claims 2, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Findikoglu in view of Mattei and in further view of US20210156759 to Donskoy et al. (hereinafter Donskoy).
Regarding Claim 2: Findikoglu/Mattei combination discloses the method of Claim 1.
Findikoglu does not specifically disclose:
“wherein the step of decomposing the response signal into the phase spectrum and the magnitude spectrum includes applying a Fourier transform to the response signal”.
However, Donskoy discloses:
“wherein the step of decomposing the response signal into the phase spectrum and the magnitude spectrum includes applying a Fourier transform to the response signal” (para 0034 – “FIG. 4.4 shows spectrum of (a) instantaneous amplitude and (b) instantaneous frequency for pure amplitude modulated signal, spectrum of (c) instantaneous amplitude and (d) instantaneous frequency for pure amplitude modulated signal with amplitude and phase frequency response distortions”; para 0193 – “The instantaneous amplitude, representing the amplitude modulation, and the instantaneous frequency, representing the frequency modulation index, in a modulated signal, can be obtained using Equations (4.13) and (4.16). The Fourier transforms of instantaneous amplitude and frequency are used to represent the results of HT. The amplitude of Fourier spectrum of instantaneous amplitude and frequency in the first harmonic of modulating frequency has been calibrated to express Modulation Index”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Findikoglu/Mattei combination, as taught by Donskoy, in order to determine the presence or absence of a defect with higher accuracy.
Regarding Claim 15: Findikoglu/Mattei combination discloses the method of Claim 14.
Findikoglu does not specifically disclose:
“wherein the instructions when executed cause the controller to decompose the response signal into the phase spectrum and the magnitude spectrum by applying a Fourier transform to the response signal”.
However, Donskoy discloses:
“wherein the instructions when executed cause the controller to decompose the response signal into the phase spectrum and the magnitude spectrum by applying a Fourier transform to the response signal” (para 0034 – “FIG. 4.4 shows spectrum of (a) instantaneous amplitude and (b) instantaneous frequency for pure amplitude modulated signal, spectrum of (c) instantaneous amplitude and (d) instantaneous frequency for pure amplitude modulated signal with amplitude and phase frequency response distortions”; para 0193 – “The instantaneous amplitude, representing the amplitude modulation, and the instantaneous frequency, representing the frequency modulation index, in a modulated signal, can be obtained using Equations (4.13) and (4.16). The Fourier transforms of instantaneous amplitude and frequency are used to represent the results of HT. The amplitude of Fourier spectrum of instantaneous amplitude and frequency in the first harmonic of modulating frequency has been calibrated to express Modulation Index”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Findikoglu/Mattei combination, as taught by Donskoy, in order to determine the presence or absence of a defect with higher accuracy.
Claims 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Findikoglu in view of Mattei in further view of Donskoy and in further view of US20030028332A1 to DiMaggio et al. (hereinafter DiMaggio).
Regarding Claim 3: Findikoglu/Mattei/Donskoy combination discloses the method of Claim 2.
Findikoglu does not specifically disclose:
“further comprising determining a cepstrum value, and using the cepstrum value to determine the presence or absence of the defect in the solid metallic material of the component”.
However, DiMaggio discloses:
“further comprising determining a cepstrum value, and using the cepstrum value to determine the presence or absence of the defect in the solid metallic material of the component” (para 0018 – “The invention is a method directed towards a diagnostic procedure for measuring the performance of a machine having periodic movement that can be externally detected through acquired vibration signals. The method is based on a double or two-sided cepstrum analysis that can be applied in the preferred form to steady-state gear box accelerations. The gear box may be part of a rocket engine under hot fire testing (i.e., solid metallic material, added by examiner)”; para 0020 – “the peak value of the vibration signal synchronized with the inverse of the calculated average gear speed. This peak value is a cepstrum parameter (i.e. cepstrum value, added by examiner) that is used to assess gear health and is stored in a database. A progressive increase in the value of this cepstrum parameter for a particular engine is indicative of progression of a gear tooth defect.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Findikoglu/Mattei/Donskoy combination, as taught by DiMaggio, in order to determine the presence or absence of a defect with higher accuracy.
Regarding Claim 16: Findikoglu/Mattei/Donskoy combination discloses the method of Claim 15.
Findikoglu does not specifically disclose:
“further comprising determining a cepstrum value, and using the cepstrum value to determine the presence or absence of the defect in the solid metallic material of the component”.
However, DiMaggio discloses:
“further comprising determining a cepstrum value, and using the cepstrum value to determine the presence or absence of the defect in the solid metallic material of the component” (para 0018 – “The invention is a method directed towards a diagnostic procedure for measuring the performance of a machine having periodic movement that can be externally detected through acquired vibration signals. The method is based on a double or two-sided cepstrum analysis that can be applied in the preferred form to steady-state gear box accelerations. The gear box may be part of a rocket engine under hot fire testing (i.e., solid metallic material, added by examiner)”; para 0020 – “the peak value of the vibration signal synchronized with the inverse of the calculated average gear speed. This peak value is a cepstrum parameter (i.e. cepstrum value, added by examiner) that is used to assess gear health and is stored in a database. A progressive increase in the value of this cepstrum parameter for a particular engine is indicative of progression of a gear tooth defect.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Findikoglu/Mattei/Donskoy combination, as taught by DiMaggio, in order to determine the presence or absence of a defect with higher accuracy.
Claims 4-9 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Findikoglu in view of Mattei in further view of Donskoy in further view of DiMaggio and in further view of CN-117591808-A to Zhang et al. (hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding Claim 4: Findikoglu/Mattei/Donskoy/DiMaggio combination discloses the method of Claim 3.
Findikoglu does not specifically disclose:
“wherein the step of determining the cepstrum value includes applying a discrete cosine transform to the magnitude spectrum”.
However, Zhang discloses:
“wherein the step of determining the cepstrum value includes applying a discrete cosine transform to the magnitude spectrum” (para 0009 – “The vibration spectrum is obtained by fast Fourier transform (FFT) of the preprocessed vibration signal.
Based on the vibration spectrum, the Mel cepstral coefficients (MFCC) and gamma characteristic cepstral coefficients (GFCC) are obtained respectively. In the specific implementation: (1) The vibration spectrum is analyzed using the Mel filter bank to obtain the first energy spectrum, the logarithm of the first energy spectrum is taken and transformed by DCT (i.e. discrete cosine transform, added by examiner) to obtain the Mel cepstral coefficients (MFCC)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Findikoglu/Mattei/Donskoy/DiMaggio combination, as taught by Zhang, in order to determine the presence or absence of a defect with higher accuracy.
Regarding Claim 5: Findikoglu/Mattei/Donskoy/DiMaggio/Zhang combination discloses the method of Claim 4.
Findikoglu does not specifically disclose:
“wherein the response signal includes a range of different frequencies”.
However, Donskoy discloses:
“wherein the response signal includes a range of different frequencies” (FIG. 3.6 shows s Frequency response (A1(f) upper curve, in decibels) of 0.5-m-long steel beam for the high-frequency ultrasonic signal f1 swept the 160-190 kHz frequency range. The lower two curves are the corresponding frequency responses of the sidebands A±(f±) (also in decibel scale) at the frequencies f±=11±250 Hz recorded as f1 is swept. MI is the modulation index (in decibels). It is graphically defined as a difference between the linearly averaged value of two lower curves and the upper curve. As can be seen, MI could vary as much 40 dB (MI1-MI2) because of resonances and antiresonances of the frequency response).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Findikoglu/Mattei/Donskoy/DiMaggio/Zhang combination, as taught by Donskoy, in order to determine the presence or absence of a defect with higher accuracy.
Regarding Claim 6: Findikoglu/Mattei/Donskoy/DiMaggio/Zhang combination discloses the method of Claim 5.
Findikoglu does not specifically disclose:
“the cepstrum value is a cepstral coefficient that is representative of a relationship of a given frequency across the range of different frequencies within the response signal”.
However, DiMaggio discloses:
“the cepstrum value is a cepstral coefficient that is representative of a relationship of a given frequency across the range of different frequencies within the response signal” (para 0020 – “The digital signal processing system implements a two-sided cepstrum analysis, rotational speed detection and periodic cepstrum peak detection. A two-sided cepstrum analysis calculator converts the time records into a two-sided frequency spectrum using a discrete Fourier transform, an autospectral density calculator and a logarithmic converter, and then converts the two-sided frequency spectrum into a cepstrum vibration signal within a two-sided periodic time domain spectrum… This peak value is a cepstrum parameter (i.e. cepstrum value, added by examiner) that is used to assess gear health and is stored in a database. … The two-sided cepstrum analysis method detects anomalous vibration signatures and provides a diagnostic indication as to the nature of a defect so that proper corrective actions can be rapidly implemented.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Findikoglu/Mattei/Donskoy/DiMaggio/Zhang combination, as taught by DiMaggio, in order to determine the presence or absence of a defect with higher accuracy.
Regarding Claim 7: Findikoglu/Mattei/Donskoy/DiMaggio/Zhang combination discloses the method of Claim 6.
Findikoglu does not specifically disclose:
“further comprising using a database of stored acceptable signal response data determined from a plurality of control components that are free from defects to determine the presence or absence of the defect in the solid metallic material of the component”.
However, DiMaggio discloses:
“further comprising using a database of stored acceptable signal response data determined from a plurality of control components that are free from defects to determine the presence or absence of the defect in the solid metallic material of the component” (para 0019 – “Following a series of tests, discrete time periods of data segments are stored in a computer in digital format. The stored measurement data is converted into a single quantitative parameter that may be indicative of anomalous behavior of a gear. The system operates on the series of stored data records, using a digital signal processing system to produce parameters that are stored in a database. These parametric results are used to assess the possibility of the presence and progression of a gear tooth fault in the gear train of the turbopump of the rocket engine”; see also paras 0020 and 0021).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Findikoglu/Mattei/Donskoy/DiMaggio/Zhang combination, as taught by DiMaggio, in order to determine the presence or absence of a defect with higher accuracy.
Regarding Claim 8: Findikoglu/Mattei/Donskoy/DiMaggio/Zhang combination discloses the method of Claim 6.
Findikoglu further discloses:
“wherein the transducer includes a signal transmitter and a signal receiver, and the signal transmitter is independent of the signal receiver” (para 0008 – “the method for detection and monitoring changes in an elongated metallic structure having a wall and an exterior surface, hereof includes: placing at least one acoustic transmitting transducer in vibrational communication with the exterior surface of the metallic structure; placing at least one receiving transducer in vibrational communication with the exterior surface of said metallic structure and spaced apart a chosen length (i.e. independent, added by examiner) from the at least one transmitting transducer”).
Regarding Claim 9: Findikoglu/Mattei/Donskoy/DiMaggio/Zhang combination discloses the method of Claim 7.
Findikoglu further discloses:
“wherein the first signal and the second signal are in the range of 30-500kHz” (para 0052 – “(a) Select a frequency chirp signal having a signal strength between about 1 and approximately 100 V; a spectral content of between about 10 kHz and about 200 kHz… between about 1 kHz to about 1 MHz, and more advantageously, between about 10 kHz to about 200 kHz range is effective for acoustic interrogation of corrosion and other defects, because such acoustic modes are sensitive to various defects and mechanical perturbations, and also because they do not significantly dissipate over long length propagation, up to hundreds of feet”).
Regarding Claim 17: Findikoglu/Mattei/Donskoy/DiMaggio combination discloses the method of Claim 15.
Findikoglu does not specifically disclose:
“wherein the instructions when executed cause the controller to apply a discrete cosine transform to the magnitude spectrum in the determination of the cepstrum value”.
However, Zhang discloses:
“wherein the instructions when executed cause the controller to apply a discrete cosine transform to the magnitude spectrum in the determination of the cepstrum value” (para 0009 – “The vibration spectrum is obtained by fast Fourier transform (FFT) of the preprocessed vibration signal. Based on the vibration spectrum, the Mel cepstral coefficients (MFCC) and gamma characteristic cepstral coefficients (GFCC) are obtained respectively. In the specific implementation: (1) The vibration spectrum is analyzed using the Mel filter bank to obtain the first energy spectrum, the logarithm of the first energy spectrum is taken and transformed by DCT (i.e. discrete cosine transform, added by examiner) to obtain the Mel cepstral coefficients (MFCC)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Findikoglu/Mattei/Donskoy/DiMaggio combination, as taught by Zhang, in order to determine the presence or absence of a defect with higher accuracy.
Regarding Claim 18: Findikoglu/Mattei/Donskoy/DiMaggio/Zhang combination discloses the method of Claim 17.
Findikoglu does not specifically disclose:
“wherein the response signal includes a range of different frequencies”.
However, Donskoy discloses:
“wherein the response signal includes a range of different frequencies” (FIG. 3.6 shows s Frequency response (A1(f) upper curve, in decibels) of 0.5-m-long steel beam for the high-frequency ultrasonic signal f1 swept the 160-190 kHz frequency range. The lower two curves are the corresponding frequency responses of the sidebands A±(f±) (also in decibel scale) at the frequencies f±=11±250 Hz recorded as f1 is swept. MI is the modulation index (in decibels). It is graphically defined as a difference between the linearly averaged value of two lower curves and the upper curve. As can be seen, MI could vary as much 40 dB (MI1-MI2) because of resonances and antiresonances of the frequency response).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Findikoglu/Mattei/Donskoy/DiMaggio/Zhang combination, as taught by Donskoy, in order to determine the presence or absence of a defect with higher accuracy.
Regarding Claim 19: Findikoglu/Mattei/Donskoy/DiMaggio/Zhang combination discloses the method of Claim 18.
Findikoglu does not specifically disclose:
“wherein the cepstrum value is a cepstral coefficient that is representative of a relationship of a given frequency across the range of different frequencies within the response signal”.
However, DiMaggio discloses:
“wherein the cepstrum value is a cepstral coefficient that is representative of a relationship of a given frequency across the range of different frequencies within the response signal” (para 0020 – “The digital signal processing system implements a two-sided cepstrum analysis, rotational speed detection and periodic cepstrum peak detection. A two-sided cepstrum analysis calculator converts the time records into a two-sided frequency spectrum using a discrete Fourier transform, an autospectral density calculator and a logarithmic converter, and then converts the two-sided frequency spectrum into a cepstrum vibration signal within a two-sided periodic time domain spectrum… This peak value is a cepstrum parameter (i.e. cepstrum value, added by examiner) that is used to assess gear health and is stored in a database. … The two-sided cepstrum analysis method detects anomalous vibration signatures and provides a diagnostic indication as to the nature of a defect so that proper corrective actions can be rapidly implemented.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Findikoglu/Mattei/Donskoy/DiMaggio/Zhang combination, as taught by DiMaggio, in order to determine the presence or absence of a defect with higher accuracy.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Findikoglu in view of DiMaggio.
Regarding Claim 10: Findikoglu discloses:
“A method of inspecting a component, comprising using a transducer to transmit a first signal into the component comprising a solid metallic material” (para 0008 – “the method for detection and monitoring changes in an elongated metallic structure having a wall and an exterior surface, hereof includes: placing at least one acoustic transmitting transducer in vibrational communication with the exterior surface of the metallic structure… generating acoustic frequency chirp signals having a selected signal strength, spectral content, and duration; directing the chirp signals to the at least one transmitting transducer; producing a baseline signal by”);
“using the transducer to sense the component for a second signal produced as a result of the first signal being transmitted into the component, and produce a response signal representative of the second signal” (para 0008 – “receiving the vibrational signals generated in the wall of the metallic structure in response to the chirp signal by the receiving transducer”);
“processing the response signal received from the transducer” (para 0043 – “Acoustic signals having propagated through pipe or vessel section 18 are detected by receiving transducer, 20… These signals are processed by signal receiver 26, and the processed signal is directed to computer, 28, for data acquisition and analysis”).
Findikoglu does not specifically disclose:
“the processing including performing a cepstral analysis on the response signal, the cepstral analysis producing a cepstrum value; and determining a presence or an absence of a defect in the solid metallic material of the component using the cepstrum value”.
However, DiMaggio discloses:
““the processing including performing a cepstral analysis on the response signal, the cepstral analysis producing a cepstrum value” (para 0035 – “The digital signal processing system 30 processes the vibration and shaft speed tachometer signals 34 (i.e. processing response signal, added by examiner) to form a cepstrum parameter (i.e. producing a cepstrum value, added by examiner) for each engine tested of a family of like engines having similar nominal vibration signatures during static test firing”); and
“determining a presence or an absence of a defect in the solid metallic material of the component using the cepstrum value” (para 0018 – “The invention is a method directed towards a diagnostic procedure for measuring the performance of a machine having periodic movement that can be externally detected through acquired vibration signals. The method is based on a double or two-sided cepstrum analysis that can be applied in the preferred form to steady-state gear box accelerations. The gear box may be part of a rocket engine under hot fire testing (i.e., solid metallic material, added by examiner)”; para 0020 – “the peak value of the vibration signal synchronized with the inverse of the calculated average gear speed. This peak value is a cepstrum parameter (i.e. cepstrum value, added by examiner) that is used to assess gear health and is stored in a database. A progressive increase in the value of this cepstrum parameter for a particular engine is indicative of progression of a gear tooth defect.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Findikoglu, as taught by DiMaggio, in order to determine the presence or absence of a defect with higher accuracy.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Findikoglu in view of DiMaggio and in further view of US3996791 to Niklas et al. (hereinafter Niklas).
Regarding Claim 11: Findikoglu/DiMaggio combination discloses the method of Claim 10.
Findikoglu does not specifically disclose:
“wherein the step of performing the cepstral analysis includes determining a magnitude spectrum and producing the cepstrum value using the magnitude spectrum”.
However, Niklas discloses:
“wherein the step of performing the cepstral analysis includes determining a magnitude spectrum and producing the cepstrum value using the magnitude spectrum” (Col. 5, lines 38-47 - the computer is programmed by well-known techniques to compute for a given x(t), the values of the Fourier transform: o for producing simultaneously the frequency spectrum and the phase spectrum of the signal x(t)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Findikoglu/DiMaggio combination, as taught by Niklas, in order to determine the presence or absence of a defect with higher accuracy.
Regarding Claim 12: Findikoglu/DiMaggio combination discloses the method of Claim 11.
Findikoglu does not specifically disclose:
“wherein the step of processing the response signal includes decomposing the response signal into a phase spectrum and the magnitude spectrum”.
However, Niklas discloses:
“wherein the step of processing the response signal includes decomposing the response signal into a phase spectrum and the magnitude spectrum” (Col. 5, lines 51-60 – “The output of the computer can be programmed to show on the display unit 44 a graph of the amplitude versus frequency of the Fourier transform of the signal x(t) (amplitude spectrum) and a graph of the phase angle versus frequency of the Fourier transform of the signal x(t) (phase spectrum). The resultant graphs, an amplitude and phase spectrum analysis for each of the three received echo signals are compared in the computer to stored graphs. Each defect in the workpiece results in a unique “signature' of six graphs”.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Findikoglu/DiMaggio combination, as taught by Niklas, in order to determine the presence or absence of a defect with higher accuracy.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Findikoglu in view of DiMaggio in further view of Niklas and in further view of Donskoy.
Regarding Claim 13: Findikoglu/DiMaggio/Niklas combination discloses the method of Claim 12.
Findikoglu does not specifically disclose:
“wherein the step of decomposing the response signal includes applying a Fourier transform to the response signal”.
However, Donskoy discloses:
“wherein the step of decomposing the response signal includes applying a Fourier transform to the response signal” (para 0034 – “FIG. 4.4 shows spectrum of (a) instantaneous amplitude and (b) instantaneous frequency for pure amplitude modulated signal, spectrum of (c) instantaneous amplitude and (d) instantaneous frequency for pure amplitude modulated signal with amplitude and phase frequency response distortions”; para 0193 – “The instantaneous amplitude, representing the amplitude modulation, and the instantaneous frequency, representing the frequency modulation index, in a modulated signal, can be obtained using Equations (4.13) and (4.16). The Fourier transforms of instantaneous amplitude and frequency are used to represent the results of HT. The amplitude of Fourier spectrum of instantaneous amplitude and frequency in the first harmonic of modulating frequency has been calibrated to express Modulation Index”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Findikoglu/DiMaggio combination, as taught by Donskoy, in order to determine the presence or absence of a defect with higher accuracy.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US4995260 to Deason et al. (hereinafter Deason) discloses nondestructive material characterization.
US20170023527 to Mattei (hereinafter Matte) discloses method and device for inspection of solids by means of ultrasound.
US20110023609 to Ume et al. (hereinafter Ume) discloses methods and systems for detecting defects in welded structures utilizing pattern matching.
US20210156759 to Donskoy et al. (hereinafter Donskoy) discloses structural health monitoring system and method.
US20200348266 to Ouis (hereinafter Ouis) discloses method for diagnosing defects in solid materials and a diagnostic device.
US4052889 to Mucciardi et al. (hereinafter Mucciardi) discloses system for measurement of subsurface fatigue crack size.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lyudmila Zaykova-Feldman whose telephone number is (469)295-9269. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:30pm, Monday through Friday.
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, Arleen M. Vazquez can be reached on 571-272-2619. 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.
/LYUDMILA ZAYKOVA-FELDMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights