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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract contains form and legal phraseology that is used in patent claims such as “means” and “method comprises”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 9-16 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “angles of view” should be changed to “angles of view of the part” in order to correct the antecedence.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “the sum of the norms of the squared differences” should be changed to “a sum of norms of squared differences” in ordered to correct the antecedence.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “N projections” and “N computed images” should be changed to “N projections of the part” and “N computed imaged of the part” in order correct the antecedence. Claim 14 is objected to by virtue of its objection.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “the projection geometry” should be changed to “a projection geometry” in order to correct the antecedence.
Regarding claim 10, the term “the parameters ρi” should be changed to “parameters ρi” in order to correct the antecedence.
Regarding claim 11, the term “the parameters ck” should be changed to “parameters ck” in order to correct the antecedence.
Regarding claim 12, the term “the parameters αj” should be changed to “parameters αj” in order to correct the antecedence.
Regarding claim 13, the term “the parameters αj” should be changed to “parameters αj” in order to correct the antecedence.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “angles of view” should be changed to “angles of view of the part” in order to correct the antecedence.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “the sum of the norms of the squared differences” should be changed to “a sum of norms of squared differences” in ordered to correct the antecedence.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “N projections” and “N computed images” should be changed to “N projections of the part” and “N computed imaged of the part” in order correct the antecedence.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “angles of view” should be changed to “angles of view of the part” in order to correct the antecedence.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “the sum of the norms of the squared differences” should be changed to “a sum of norms of squared differences” in ordered to correct the antecedence.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “N projections” and “N computed images” should be changed to “N projections of the part” and “N computed imaged of the part” in order correct the antecedence.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to a computer program per se. Computer programs are abstract instructions. Therefore, a computer program is not a product nor a process as they are not “acts” being performed. As such, these claims are not directed to one of the statutory categories of invention. See MPEP 2106.01. The claims are directed to a non-statutory functional descriptive material. It is noted that computer programs embodied on computer readable medium or other structure would be directed to a product so long as the computer readable medium is not disclosed as non-statutory subject matter per se (signals or carrier waves).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-14 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objections, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objection and 101 rejection set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art is Bock(“Beam Hardening Correction with an Iterative Scheme using an Exact Backward Projector and a Polychromatic Forward Projector”) and Lee (U.S. 2022/0215521).
Regarding claim 9:
Bock discloses a method of non-destructive testing of a part by transmission radiography, comprising the following steps, executed by a calculator:
acquiring of N projections of the part using a transmission radiography device from N different and predetermined angles of view of the part (Pg. 47-48, Section 3.1, projections acquired), where N is a given natural integer,
generating of N computed images of the part from a reference part corresponding to the N angles of view and from a vector ρ of parameters characterizing a projection geometry of acquisition for the N angles of view at each of several successive iterations (Fig. 2, multiples images acquired).
Lee teaches estimating, by the successive iterations, of the vector p from an initial vector ρ = ρini and of at least one of a vector c of parameters from an initial vector c = cini and of a vector α of parameters from an initial vector α = αini, where the vector c of the parameters accounts for beam hardening of radiation in the part and the vector a of the parameters characterizes Compton scattering of the radiation in the part, by minimizing the sum of the norms of the squared differences between the N projections having been acquired and the N computed images ([0072]-[0075], equations for calculating defects),
identifying of defects of the part by comparison of the N projections having been processed with the N computed images having been processed (Fig. 5, s3044).
However Bock and Lee fail to disclose generating of N computed images of the part from a reference model of the part corresponding to the N angles of view and from a vector ρ of parameters characterizing a projection geometry of acquisition for the N angles of view at each of several successive iterations, processing of the N projections and/or of the N computed images comprising a first processing and/or a second processing, the first processing comprising a correction of the beam hardening over the N projections from the vector c having been estimated or a generation of the beam hardening over the N computed images from the vector c having been estimated, the second processing comprising a correction of the Compton scattering over the N projections from the vector α having been estimated or a generation of the Compton scattering over the N computed images from the vector α having been estimated.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record. Claims 10-14 are allowable by virtue of their dependency.
Regarding claim 15:
Bock discloses a computer program, comprising code instructions for implementing the following steps of a method of non-destructive testing of a part by transmission radiography, when it is executed by a calculator:
receiving of N projections of the part from a transmission radiography device from N different and predetermined angles of view of the part (Pg. 47-48, Section 3.1, projections acquired), where N is a given natural integer,
generating of N computed images of the part from a reference part corresponding to the N angles of view and from a vector ρ of parameters characterizing a projection geometry of acquisition for the N angles of view at each of several successive iterations (Fig. 2, multiples images acquired).
Lee teaches estimating, by the successive iterations, of the vector p from an initial vector ρ = ρini and of at least one of a vector c of parameters from an initial vector c = cini and of a vector α of parameters from an initial vector α = αini, where the vector c of the parameters accounts for beam hardening of radiation in the part and the vector a of the parameters characterizes Compton scattering of the radiation in the part, by minimizing the sum of the norms of the squared differences between the N projections having been acquired and the N computed images ([0072]-[0075], equations for calculating defects),
identifying of defects of the part by comparison of the N projections having been processed with the N computed images having been processed (Fig. 5, s3044).
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record if rewritten to overcome the 101 rejection above.
Regarding claim 16:
Bock discloses a device for non-destructive testing of a part by transmission radiography, comprising:
a transmission radiography device, for acquiring of N projections of the part using a transmission radiography device from N different and predetermined angles of view of the part (Pg. 47-48, Section 3.1, projections acquired), where N is a given natural integer,
a calculator (Fig. 1) configured to carry out the following steps:
generating of N computed images of the part from a reference part corresponding to the N angles of view and from a vector ρ of parameters characterizing a projection geometry of acquisition for the N angles of view at each of several successive iterations (Fig. 2, multiples images acquired).
Lee teaches estimating, by the successive iterations, of the vector p from an initial vector ρ = ρini and of at least one of a vector c of parameters from an initial vector c = cini and of a vector α of parameters from an initial vector α = αini, where the vector c of the parameters accounts for beam hardening of radiation in the part and the vector a of the parameters characterizes Compton scattering of the radiation in the part, by minimizing the sum of the norms of the squared differences between the N projections having been acquired and the N computed images ([0072]-[0075], equations for calculating defects),
identifying of defects of the part by comparison of the N projections having been processed with the N computed images having been processed (Fig. 5, s3044).
However Bock and Lee fail to disclose generating of N computed images of the part from a reference model of the part corresponding to the N angles of view and from a vector ρ of parameters characterizing a projection geometry of acquisition for the N angles of view at each of several successive iterations, processing of the N projections and/or of the N computed images comprising a first processing and/or a second processing, the first processing comprising a correction of the beam hardening over the N projections from the vector c having been estimated or a generation of the beam hardening over the N computed images from the vector c having been estimated, the second processing comprising a correction of the Compton scattering over the N projections from the vector α having been estimated or a generation of the Compton scattering over the N computed images from the vector α having been estimated.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOORENA KEFAYATI whose telephone number is (469)295-9078. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 7:30 am to 4:30 pm.
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, David Makiya can be reached at 571-272-2273. 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.
/S.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884