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 statement (IDS) submitted on 05/22/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Para[0038] recites “acquisition device 114”, which should be “acquisition device 112”.
Para[0039], [0050] recites “et”, which should be corrected to explain what “et” means.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 5, 9 and 13 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 7 recites “the same acquisition point”, which should be “a same acquisition position”.
Claim 1 line 16 recites “(312)” and Claim 1 line 18 recites “(314)”, which should be removed.
Claim 2 line 3 recites “the Miller indices {100}”, which should be “Miller indices {100}”
Claim 3 line 4 recites “the relative positions”, which should be “relative positions”.
Claim 5 line 6 recites “the illuminated neutral surface”, which should be “an illuminated neutral surface”.
Claim 5 line 6-7 recites “the corrective image”, which should be “a corrective image”.
Claim 6 line 3 recites “Ic(n)”, which should be “Ic(n)”.
Claim 9 line 2 recites “the sum”, which should be “a sum”.
Claim 13 lines 8-9 recite “the illumination device” and “the image acquisition device”, which should be “an illumination device” and “an image acquisition device”
Claim 13 line 9 recites “a method”, which should be “the method”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “114” has been used to designate both “acquisition position” and “acquisition point” (See Para[0036]). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a supervision device” in line 8 which has the corresponding structure of a computer, see Para[0029] “the supervision device 118 is a computer system”,
“the illumination device” in line 8 which has the corresponding structure of a device with a plurality of non-collimated light sources, see Para[0026] “the illumination device 108 comprises a non-collimated light source placed at each illumination position 110n”,
and “the image acquisition device ”in lines 8-9 in claim 13. Examiner was unable to find any corresponding structure.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 13 recites the functional limitation of “a device for acquiring an image”. There is no corresponding structure in the specification. Therefore, applicant has not demonstrated possession and the Claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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 2-3, 6, 8, 12, and 13 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 2 line 2 recites “beforehand”. It is unclear as to when “beforehand” is referring to, rendering this limitation in the claim as indefinite.
Claims 2 (line 2) and 3 (line 5) recite “for example”. For purposes of examination, the recited example will be considered as not further limiting and will not be examined.
Regarding Claims 2 (line 2) and 3 (line 5), the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 6 line 3 recites “I(n) represents the corrected image” and Claim 6 line 3-4 recites “Ic(n) represents the corrected image”. It is not clear whether I(n) or Ic(n) is the corrected image, rendering these limitations as indefinite. Based on Claim 5, Examiner interprets “Ic(n)” as the “corrective image” instead.
Claim 8 lines 4-5 recite “an average reflectance”. It is unclear if this is the same average reflectance as “an average reflectance” in Claim 8 line 3, rendering this limitation as indefinite.
Claim 12 line 3 and Claim 13 lines 3 and 5 recite “the component”. It is unclear if this is the same component as “a component” in Claim 1 line 2 or “an aeronautical component” in Claim 12 line 1 (for “the component” in Claim 12) or “an aeronautical component” in Claim 13 lines 1-2 (for “the component” in Claim 13), rendering these limitations as indefinite.
Claim 13 line 5 recites “a device for illuminating the surface” and line 7 recites “a device for acquiring an image of the surface”, although line 8 recites “the illumination device” and lines 8-9 recite “the image acquisition device”. It is unclear if “a device for illuminating the surface” is “the illumination device” and if “a device for acquiring an image of the surface” is “the image acquisition device”, rendering these limitations as indefinite.
Claim 13 lines 5 and 7 recite “the surface”. It is unclear if this is the same surface as “a surface” in Claim 1 lines 1-2 or “a surface” in Claim 13 line 3, rendering these limitations as indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fortune (US 20150070687 A1) in view of Zhou (“Large-area surface topography analysis of additively manufactured metallic materials using directional reflectance microscopy”).
With regards to Claim 1, Fortune teaches
for each of a plurality of illumination positions (See Fig. 5, each aperture position corresponds to an illumination position):
• a non-collimated illumination (See Para[0026] “Preferably each electable light source in the above arrangements is a Light Emitting Diode (LED) (i.e. a non-collimated illumination, as LEDs emit non-collimated light). Each LED may be focussed to the same focal point.”) of the surface (See Fig. 4, the surface of the article 8) from the illumination position under consideration (See Fig. 4, the convex illumination support 10, which has the apertures from Fig. 5, which allow the illumination of the surface via each of the apertures (i.e. the illumination positions under consideration, as they are considered for use in illuminating the surface of the article 8)), and
• an acquisition, at the same acquisition point for all of the illumination positions, of an image referred to as raw of the illuminated surface (See Fig. 4, an image referred to as raw of the illuminated surface (i.e. from the surface of article 8) is sent to the processor 12, which then processes the raw images, and the processor 12 acquires the raw image data at a position as shown in Fig. 12 (i.e. an acquisition, at the same acquisition point for all of the illumination positions, as all the data from the apertures are directed to the same processor 12 at the same acquisition position));
for each illumination position and for each pixel (Pm) of the raw images (See Para[0033] “Preferably the detector captures an image and the image is transferred to a processor that records the value of the detected reflectance.” Examiner notes the image has pixels, and the image is from the data gathered by each illumination position defined by each aperture in Fig. 5.).
Fortune is silent to the language of
a determination of a possible orientation (θn,m, φn,m) of crystalline facets of a zone corresponding to the pixel (Pm) under consideration, assuming light propagates from the illumination position under consideration to the acquisition position, with specular reflection on the crystalline facets of the zone corresponding to the pixel (Pm) under consideration;
from the raw images and the possible orientations (θn,m, φn,m) associated with their pixels (Pm), a construction (312) of a reflectance profile (PR) giving a reflectance (R) as a function of the possible orientation of the facets; and
a determination (314) of an actual orientation (θn,m, φn,m) of the facets from the reflectance
profile (PR).
Zhou teaches
a determination of a possible orientation (θn,m, φn,m) of crystalline facets of a zone corresponding to the pixel (Pm) under consideration (See Fig. 2a, where the plot is for a single pixel (i.e. a single value for m) for n=468 possible combinations of θ and φ (i.e. a determination of a possible orientation (θn,m, φn,m) of crystalline facets, as each data point in Fig. 2a is a possible orientation.). See also section 2.3 paragraph 3 “The resolution of the optical micrographs is 2448 × 2048 pixels, where a single pixel has physical dimensions of 27.7 μm2 (i.e. crystalline facets, See Fig. 1a, of a zone (from the area of 27.7 μm2) corresponding to the pixel (Pm) under consideration). As a result, g is a 2448 × 2048 × 468 matrix. g (:,:,I ( i, j)) represents one optical micrograph of the sample surface acquired for a specific incident light direction, ( θi, φj).”), assuming light propagates from the illumination position under consideration to the acquisition position (See Fig. 1b, where the light from I (i.e. from the illumination position of the light source) propagates from the illumination source and acquired by the microscope, who is positioned in the acquisition position and obtains the reflected light from the sample), with specular reflection on the crystalline facets of the zone corresponding to the pixel (Pm) under consideration (See Fig. 2a, where the plot is for a single pixel (i.e. a single value for m) for n=468 possible combinations of θ and φ. The specular reflection from the crystalline facets is contained in the data points of the entire plot, see section 2.3 paragraph 3 “In other words, g (m, n, :) is a measure of the pixel's “directional reflectance”, which describes the brightness of the pixel as the light-source rotates across φ and θ. A visual representation of a pixel g (m, n, :) matrix is shown in Fig. 2a.”. Therefore, g contains the specular reflection on the crystalline facets of the zone corresponding to the pixel (Pm) under consideration);
from the raw images and the possible orientations (θn,m, φn,m) associated with their pixels (Pm), a construction (312) of a reflectance profile (PR) giving a reflectance (R) as a function of the possible orientation of the facets (See Fig. 2a, reflectance profile (PR) is plotted (i.e. constructed) based on the raw images from the assembly in Fig. 1b, and the possible orientations are each plotted in Fig. 2a via the data points. Examiner notes that 2a is for a single pixel, but as Zhou teaches 2448 x 2048 pixels, there are 2448 x 2048 such figures. The strength of each data point in 2a corresponds to the reflectance as a function of the possible orientation of the facets (i.e. φ and θ)); and
a determination (314) of an actual orientation (θr, φr) of the facets from the reflectance profile (PR) (See Fig. 2b, where the actual orientation (θr, φr) of the facets from the reflectance profile (PR) from Fig. 2a is determined by the vector Nm,n).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fortune wherein a determination of a possible orientation (θn,m, φn,m) of crystalline facets of a zone corresponding to the pixel (Pm) under consideration, assuming light propagates from the illumination position under consideration to the acquisition position, with specular reflection on the crystalline facets of the zone corresponding to the pixel (Pm) under consideration; from the raw images and the possible orientations (θn,m, φn,m) associated with their pixels (Pm), a construction (312) of a reflectance profile (PR) giving a reflectance (R) as a function of the possible orientation of the facets; and a determination (314) of an actual orientation (θr, φr) of the facets from the reflectance
profile (PR) is done like in Zhou in order to have a more analytical method to determine the orientation of the grain structure in Fortune.
With regards to Claim 3, Fortune and Zhou teach the limitations of Claim 1. Fortune further teaches
the illumination positions and for each illumination position (See Fig. 5, the positions of the apertures correspond to the illumination positions).
Fortune is silent to the language of
-a determination of the relative positions of the zones with respect to the illumination position and the acquisition position, for example from a distance (D) between the surface and the acquisition position which can be determined from a focus on the surface of an acquisition device located at the acquisition position; and
-for the illumination position and each pixel (Pm), a determination of the three angles: incident azimuth ( φinc(n,m)), incident elevation (θinc(n,m)) and return elevation (θret(n,m)) from the relative positions, the possible orientation (θn,m, φn,m) being calculated from these three angles.
Zhou teaches
-a determination of the relative positions of the zones with respect to the illumination position and the acquisition position (See Fig. 1b, where the relative positions of the zones (which are contained in the sample, so each zone’s relative position is determined in Fig. 1b) with respect to the illumination position (which is the position of the light source) and the acquisition position (which is the position of the lens of the microscope above the sample) is shown and determined by the assembly of the DRM in Fig. 1b.), for example from a distance (D) between the surface and the acquisition position which can be determined from a focus on the surface of an acquisition device located at the acquisition position (Examiner notes that the claim recites “for example”, which directs towards an option not selected by the Examiner.); and
-for the illumination position and each pixel (Pm), a determination of the three angles: incident azimuth ( φinc(n,m)), incident elevation (θinc(n,m)) (See Fig. 1b, the incident azimuth is shown as φ and the incident elevation is shown as θ) and return elevation (θret(n,m)) (See section 3.2 paragraphs 2-3 “The generalized Phong model consists of three components: ambient, diffuse, and specular reflection. In general, all these components affect g [29]. The ambient component stems from the reflection of nondirectional light from an infinitely large source. The diffuse component denotes light scattering at dull surfaces, which is randomly reflected in each direction. The specular component is based on perfect mirror-reflection, which is typical of metal surfaces. Since DRM measurements are collected in a dark room, we disregard the ambient component. Because this work focuses on characterizing metallic surfaces, we assume the diffuse component to be negligible compared to the specular component [32].” Therefore, since only the specular component is considered, the incident elevation and the return elevation are the same angle) from the relative positions (See Fig. 1b, where the relative positions of the zones in the sample to the light source and the microscope lens determines all three angles), the possible orientation (θn,m, φn,m) being calculated from these three angles (See Fig. 2a, where each data point is an intensity obtained at a possible orientation which is calculated from the incident azimuth (which is φ from Fig. 1b), and the incident elevation (which is equal θ from Fig. 1b, which is also equal to the return elevation)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fortune wherein a determination of the relative positions of the zones with respect to the illumination position and the acquisition position, for example from a distance (D) between the surface and the acquisition position which can be determined from a focus on the surface of an acquisition device located at the acquisition position; and for the illumination position and each pixel (Pm), a determination of the three angles: incident azimuth ( φinc(n,m)), incident elevation (θinc(n,m)) and return elevation (θret(n,m)) from the relative positions, the possible orientation (θn,m, φn,m) being calculated from these three angles is done like in Zhou in order to clearly define the mathematical steps needed to calculate the possible orientations of the grain in Fortune.
With regards to Claim 11, Fortune and Zhou teach the limitations of Claim 1. Fortune further teaches
wherein the component is a vane of a turbine (See Abstract “a grain structure of a turbine blade or vane (i.e. wherein the component is a vane of a turbine ) using an optical technique”).
With regards to Claim 12, Fortune and Zhou teach the limitations of Claim 1. Fortune further teaches
a method of non-destructive testing of an aeronautical component made of a monocrystalline or polycrystalline material (See Para[0017] “Preferably the component is a gas turbine component with a primary grain. The grain may have a cubic face centred crystal lattice (i.e. made of a monocrystalline material).”), by determining a crystallographic orientation of a surface of the component (See Abstract “A method of determining the orientation of a grain structure (i.e. determining a crystallographic orientation) of a turbine blade or vane (i.e. testing of an aeronautical component (i.e. also the component) which has a surface) using an optical technique, illuminates a surface (i.e. tests the surface of the aeronautical component) with a beam from a light source and then manipulates the relative orientation of the surface, a light beam and detector to determine the relative orientation which provides the peak reflectance of the beam from the surface to the detector.” The method of testing is non-destructive, as it illuminates the structure without damaging it.), in accordance with a method according to claim 1.
Claim(s) 2 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fortune and Zhou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gaskey (WO 2021080515 A1).
With regards to Claim 2, Fortune and Zhou teach the limitations of Claim 1. Fortune and Zhou are silent to the language of
wherein the surface has been chemically etched beforehand to reveal the crystalline facets, for example those marked by the Miller indices { 100}.
Gaskey teaches
wherein the surface has been chemically etched beforehand to reveal the crystalline facets (See Para[00025] “According to various embodiments, the sample may be prepared by mechanical polishing and/or grinding and/or chemical etching so as to process the surface (i.e. wherein the surface has been chemically etched beforehand) such that it is capable of distinguishing different grains (i.e. to reveal the crystalline facets) or capable of inducing directional reflectance.”), for example those marked by the Miller indices { 100} (Examiner notes that the claim recites “for example”, which directs towards an option not selected by the Examiner.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fortune and Zhou wherein the surface has been chemically etched beforehand to reveal the crystalline facets, for example those marked by the Miller indices { 100} like in Gaskey in order to clearly define the type of manufacturing process used to build the sample.
With regards to Claim 13, Fortune and Zhou teach the limitations of Claim 1. Fortune further teaches
a device for illuminating the surface of the component with noncollimated light selectively from a plurality of illumination positions (See Fig. 5, the device is the entire figure, and the device illuminates the surface of the component selectively (See Fig. 4, the surface of article 8) with noncollimated light (See Para[0026] “Preferably each electable light source (i.e. selectively) in the above arrangements is a Light Emitting Diode (LED) (i.e. a non-collimated illumination, as LEDs emit non-collimated light”)) from a plurality of illumination positions (i.e. where the plurality of illuminated positions corresponds to the positions of the apertures in Fig. 5.)).
Fortune and Zhou are silent to the language of
a device for acquiring an image of the surface; and
a supervision device designed to control the illumination device and the image acquisition device in order to implement a method according to claim 1.
Gaskey teaches
a device for acquiring an image of the surface (See Para[00032] “The image capturing device 140 (i.e. the image acquisition device)”); and
a supervision device designed to control the illumination device and the image acquisition device in order to implement a method according to claim 1 (See Para[00032] “The image capturing device 140 (i.e. the image acquisition device), the stage 110, and the light source 120 (i.e. the illumination device) may be all integrated with a processor 150 (or an electronic controller (i.e. a supervision device designed to control)), that may be an embedded system or a piece of software running on an attached computer, which allows the sample to be translated and the DRP to be captured automatically (i.e. in order to implement a method according to Claim 1).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fortune and Zhou wherein a device for acquiring an image of the surface and a supervision device designed to control the illumination device and the image acquisition device in order to implement a method according to claim 1 is done like in Gaskey in order to provide a clearer structure as to the physical components that control the assembly that executes the method.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fortune and Zhou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dey (“Uneven illumination correction of digital images: A survey of the state-of-the-art”).
With regards to Claim 4, Fortune and Zhou teach the limitations of Claim 1. Fortune is silent to the language of
comprising a correction of the raw images to compensate for inhomogeneous illumination of the surface, in order to give corrected images associating a reflectance with each pixel.
Zhou teaches
associating a reflectance with each pixel (See Fig. 2a, where the reflectance of each pixel is the entire plot of Fig. 2a, where it is shown for one pixel, and Zhou has 2448 x 2048 such pixels. The plot in Fig. 2a is from the optical micrograph (i.e. an image) obtained from the assembly in Fig. 1b, therefore the reflectance is associated with the optical micrograph.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fortune wherein associating a reflectance with each pixel is done like in Zhou in order to have a more granular understanding of the orientation of the grain in Fortune.
Fortune and Zhou are silent to the language of
comprising a correction of the raw images to compensate for inhomogeneous illumination of the surface, in order to give corrected images.
Dey teaches
comprising a correction of the raw images to compensate for inhomogeneous illumination of the surface, in order to give corrected images (See Abstract “Uneven illumination correction (i.e. comprising a correction of the raw images to compensate for inhomogeneous illumination of the surface, as the uneven illumination is the inhomogeneous illumination, the correction is to correct an original, raw image) incorporates a penalty term that performs intensity distribution (i.e. in order to give corrected images, as the penalty term helps to provide the corrected images), and transfer between pre-defined uniformly illuminated and non-uniformly illuminated sub-regions of the input scale image. Many methods exist in the literature to address illumination correction.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fortune and Zhou wherein comprising a correction of the raw images to compensate for inhomogeneous illumination of the surface, in order to give corrected images is done like in Dey in order to have more accurate representations of the possible orientations of the crystalline structures.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fortune, Zhou, and Dey as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Chen (US 6211515 B1).
With regards to Claim 5, Fortune, Zhou and Dey teach the limitations of Claim 4. Fortune further teaches
for each of the illumination positions (See Fig. 5, where each of the illumination positions correspond to the positions of the apertures):
a non-collimated illumination (See Para[0026] “Preferably each electable light source in the above arrangements is a Light Emitting Diode (LED) (i.e. a non-collimated illumination, as LEDs emit non-collimated light).”) from the illumination position under consideration (See Fig. 5, where each of the illumination positions correspond to the positions of the apertures) of the surface of the component (See Fig. 4, the surface of the article 8).
obtained by illumination from the illumination position under consideration (See Fig. 5, where each of the illumination positions correspond to the positions of the apertures and see Para[0085] “The illumination support 10 has a plurality of apertures arranged in a series of concentric arrays 16, 18, 20.”. Therefore, illumination is obtained from the illumination position, and each of the illumination positions are considered, as they all provide light to the surface, see Fig. 4.)
Fortune is silent to the language of
of a neutral surface placed in place,
an acquisition of a blurred image of the illuminated neutral surface, known as the corrective image, and
a correction of the raw image, from the corrective image to give the corrected image.
Zhou teaches
of a neutral surface placed in place (See Section 3.2 paragraph 2 “The diffuse component denotes light scattering at dull surfaces, which is randomly reflected in each direction. The specular component is based on perfect mirror-reflection, which is typical of metal surfaces.” and Section 3.2 Paragraph 3 “Since DRM measurements are collected in a dark room, we disregard the ambient component. Because this work focuses on characterizing metallic surfaces, we assume the diffuse component to be negligible compared to the specular component”. Therefore, Zhou teaches a neutral surface placed in place of the actual surface of the sample as an approximation technique, and the approximation amounts to a neutral surface as only the spectral part of the light-matter interaction is considered for the experiment.),
of the illuminated neutral surface (See Fig. 3. (a), where the approximated surface, as explained in Section 3.2 paragraphs 2 and 3 (see above), is illuminated by light of intensity I.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fortune wherein of a neutral surface placed in place and of the illuminated neutral surface is used like in Zhou in order to have an efficient and analytical model to calculate reflectances.
Fortune and Zhou are silent to the language of
an acquisition of a blurred image, known as the corrective image, and
a correction of the raw image, from the corrective image to give the corrected image.
Chen teaches
an acquisition of a blurred image (See Abstract “the second frame is a blurred frame”), known as the corrective image (See Abstract “the system multiplies at least a portion of the second frame of image data with the error signal to provide a noise error corrected output signal”. Since the blurred frame is used to calculate the noise error corrected output signal, the blurred frame functions and is known as the corrective image.), and
a correction of the raw image (See Fig. 4, where the pixel replacement 40, the discrete wavelet transform 56, and the multiplier 58 processes the raw image sequentially, and the multiplier 58 corrects the raw image that was obtained from the pixel replacement 40 via the discrete wavelet transform 56), from the corrective image to give the corrected image (See Fig. 4, where the multiplier 58 corrects the focused frame (i.e. which comes from the raw image) from the signal obtained from the NADNUC comparison function 52 via the sparse processing 54. Therefore, since the NADNUC comparison function 52 uses the information from the blurred frame via the stored average blurred frame values 76, the blurred frame (i.e. the corrective image) is used to give the signal output from the multiplier 58 (i.e. the corrected image)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fortune and Zhou wherein an acquisition of a blurred image, known as the corrective image, and a correction of the raw image, from the corrective image to give the corrected image is done like in Chen in order to have a methodical procedure to correct any possible defects in the raw images gathered in Fortune.
Claim(s) 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fortune and Zhou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Goldstein (US 4491411 A).
With regards to Claim 7, Fortune and Zhou teach the limitations of Claim 1. Fortune is silent to the language of
wherein the construction of the reflectance profile comprises, for each of a plurality of orientation intervals, a determination of an average reflectance from the raw images and the possible orientations (θn,m, φn,m) of their pixels (Pm).
Zhou teaches
wherein the construction of the reflectance profile comprises (See Fig. 2a, reflectance profile (PR) is plotted (i.e. constructed) based on the raw images from the assembly in Fig. 1b, and the possible orientations are each plotted in Fig. 2a via the data points. Examiner notes that Fig. 2a is for a single pixel, but as Zhou teaches 2448 x 2048 pixels, there are 2448 x 2048 such figures. The strength of each data point in Fig. 2a corresponds to the reflectance as a function of the possible orientation of the facets (i.e. φ and θ)), for each of a plurality of orientation intervals (See Fig. 2. (a), where each of a plurality of orientation intervals correspond to the set of orientations φ and θ constituting a cross section of Fig. 2. (a). For example, a cross section contains the values of φ = 0° and 180° and the corresponding values of θ. Therefore, from Fig. 2. (a) there are a plurality of cross sections that correspond to a plurality of orientation intervals. These are intervals as each cross section contains an interval of θ = 15° to 75° radially from the center of each cross section, the center of which corresponds to the origin in Fig. 2. (a) ), from the raw images and the possible orientations (θn,m, φn,m) of their pixels (Pm) (See Fig. 2a, reflectance profile (PR) is plotted (i.e. constructed) based on the raw images from the assembly in Fig. 1b, and the possible orientations are each plotted in Fig. 2a via the data points. Examiner notes that Fig. 2a is for a single pixel, but as Zhou teaches 2448 x 2048 pixels, there are 2448 x 2048 such figures. The strength of each data point in Fig. 2a corresponds to the reflectance as a function of the possible orientation of the facets (i.e. φ and θ)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fortune wherein the construction of the reflectance profile comprises, for each of a plurality of orientation intervals, and from the raw images and the possible orientations (θn,m, φn,m) of their pixels (Pm) like in Zhou in order to have a more analytical method to determine the orientation of the grain structure in Fortune.
Fortune and Zhou are silent to the language of
a determination of an average reflectance.
Goldstein teaches
a determination of an average reflectance (See Column 3 lines 47-48 “The mean reflectance, designated Ro, was 0.77 percent in this specimen (i.e. a determination of an average reflectance).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fortune and Zhou wherein a determination of an average reflectance is done like in Goldstein in order to capture more macroscopic statistical information with regards to the data obtained from the grain structure in Fortune.
With regards to Claim 9, Fortune, Zhou, and Goldstein teach the limitations of Claim 7. Fortune is silent to the language of
wherein, for each orientation interval, the average reflectance is equal to the sum of the reflectances associated with the possible orientations (θn,m, φn,m) contained in the orientation interval under consideration, divided by the number of possible orientations (θn,m, φn,m) contained in the orientation interval under consideration.
Zhou teaches
wherein, for each orientation interval (See Fig. 2. (a), where each orientation interval corresponds to the set of orientations φ and θ constituting a cross section of Fig. 2. (a). For example, a cross section contains the values of φ = 0° and 180° and the corresponding values of θ. This is an interval as the cross section contains an interval of θ = 15° to 75° radially from the center of each cross section, the center of which corresponds to the origin in Fig. 2. (a) ), the reflectances associated with the possible orientations (θn,m, φn,m) contained in the orientation interval under consideration (See Fig. 2. (a), where the intensity of each data point is the reflectance associated with the possible orientations (θn,m, φn,m) contained in the orientation interval under consideration), the number of possible orientations (θn,m, φn,m) contained in the orientation interval under consideration (See Fig. 2. (a), where the number of data points in the cross section correspond to the number of possible orientations (θn,m, φn,m) contained in the orientation interval under consideration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fortune wherein, for each orientation interval, the reflectances associated with the possible orientations (θn,m, φn,m) contained in the orientation interval under consideration, number of possible orientations (θn,m, φn,m)contained in the orientation interval under consideration is used like in Zhou in order to have a clear visual and analytical methodology to characterize the data obtained from the grain structure in Fortune.
Fortune and Zhou are silent to the language of
the average reflectance is equal to the sum of
divided by.
Goldstein teaches
the average reflectance is equal to the sum of (See Column 3 lines 45-48)
divided by (See Column 3 lines 45-48 “The relative number of measurements that fell in each 0.05% interval was plotted on a histogram. The mean reflectance, designated Ro, was 0.77 percent in this specimen (i.e. the mean reflectance is equal to the sum of individual reflectance values divided by the number of reflectance measurements, which is the number of measurements in Goldstein.).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fortune and Zhou wherein the average reflectance is equal to the sum of, and divided by is used like in Goldstein in order to capture more macroscopic statistical information with regards to the data obtained from the grain structure in Fortune using the reflectance data and the number of orientations as defined in Zhou.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fortune, Zhou, and Dey as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Goldstein (US 4491411 A).
With regards to Claim 8, Fortune, Zhou, and Dey teach the limitations of Claim 4. Fortune is silent to the language of
wherein the construction of the reflectance profile (PR) comprises, for each of a plurality of orientation intervals, a determination of an average reflectance from the raw images and the possible orientations (θn,m, φn,m) of their pixels (Pm) and an average reflectance is determined from the corrected images and the possible orientations (θn,m, φn,m) of their pixels (Pm).
Zhou teaches
wherein the construction of the reflectance profile (PR) comprises (See Fig. 2a, reflectance profile (PR) is plotted (i.e. constructed) based on the raw images from the assembly in Fig. 1b, and the possible orientations are each plotted in Fig. 2a via the data points. Examiner notes that Fig. 2a is for a single pixel, but as Zhou teaches 2448 x 2048 pixels, there are 2448 x 2048 such figures. The strength of each data point in Fig. 2a corresponds to the reflectance as a function of the possible orientation of the facets (i.e. φ and θ)), for each of a plurality of orientation intervals (See Fig. 2. (a), where each of a plurality of orientation intervals correspond to the set of orientations φ and θ constituting a cross section of Fig. 2. (a). For example, a cross section contains the values of φ = 0° and 180° and the corresponding values of θ. Therefore, from Fig. 2. (a) there are a plurality of cross sections that correspond to a plurality of orientation intervals. These are intervals as each cross section contains an interval of θ = 15° to 75° radially from the center of each cross section, the center of which corresponds to the origin in Fig. 2. (a) ), from the raw images and the possible orientations (θn,m, φn,m) of their pixels (Pm) (See Fig. 2a, reflectance profile (PR) is plotted (i.e. constructed) based on the raw images from the assembly in Fig. 1b, and the possible orientations are each plotted in Fig. 2a via the data points. Examiner notes that Fig. 2a is for a single pixel, but as Zhou teaches 2448 x 2048 pixels, there are 2448 x 2048 such figures. The strength of each data point in Fig. 2a corresponds to the reflectance as a function of the possible orientation of the facets (i.e. φ and θ)),
and the possible orientations (θn,m, φn,m) of their pixels (Pm) (See Fig. 2a, reflectance profile (PR) is plotted (i.e. constructed) based on the raw images from the assembly in Fig. 1b, and the possible orientations are each plotted in Fig. 2a via the data points. Examiner notes that Fig. 2a is for a single pixel, but as Zhou teaches 2448 x 2048 pixels, there are 2448 x 2048 such figures. The strength of each data point in Fig. 2a corresponds to the reflectance as a function of the possible orientation of the facets (i.e. φ and θ))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fortune wherein the construction of the reflectance profile (PR) comprises, for each of a plurality of orientation intervals, from the raw images and the possible orientations (θn,m, φn,m) of their pixels (Pm), and the possible orientations (θn,m, φn,m) of their pixels (Pm) like in Zhou in order to have a more analytical method to determine the orientation of the grain structure in Fortune.
Fortune and Zhou are silent to the language of
a determination of an average reflectance
and an average reflectance is determined from the corrected images.
Dey teaches
from the corrected images (See Abstract “Uneven illumination correction incorporates a penalty term that performs intensity distribution (i.e. in order to give corrected images, as the penalty term helps to provide the corrected images)” Therefore Dey teaches the method to provide the corrected images (i.e. from the corrected images).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fortune and Zhou wherein from the corrected images is done like in Dey in order to have more accurate representations of the possible orientations of the crystalline structures.
Fortune, Zhou, and Dey are silent to the language of
a determination of an average reflectance
and an average reflectance is determined.
Goldstein teaches
a determination of an average reflectance (See Column 3 lines 47-48 “The mean reflectance, designated Ro, was 0.77 percent in this specimen (i.e. a determination of an average reflectance).”)
and an average reflectance is determined (See Column 3 lines 47-48 “The mean reflectance, designated Ro, was 0.77 percent in this specimen (i.e. and an average reflectance is determined).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fortune, Zhou, and Dey wherein a determination of an average reflectance and an average reflectance is determined is done like in Goldstein in order to capture more macroscopic statistical information with regards to the data obtained from the grain structure in Fortune.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fortune and Zhou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamazaki (US 20150229844 A1).
With regards to Claim 10, Fortune and Zhou teach the limitations of Claim 1. Fortune and Zhou are silent to the language of
wherein the component is a nickel-based alloy.
Yamazaki teaches
wherein the component is a nickel-based alloy (See Para[0170] “For the conductive film that reflects visible light, for example, a metal material such as aluminum, gold, platinum, silver, nickel, tungsten, chromium, molybdenum, iron, cobalt, copper, or palladium or an alloy containing any of these metal materials can be used (i.e. wherein the component is a nickel-based alloy).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fortune and Zhou wherein the component is a nickel-based alloy like in Yamazaki in order to clearly define the type of sample being analyzed for its crystallographic orientations.
Examiner note with Regards to Prior Art of Record
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 6 further includes a 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection that must also be overcome in order to allow Claim 6.
Claim 6 is distinguished over the prior art of record.
With regards to Claim 6, Fortune, Zhou, and Dey teach the limitations of Claim 5. The prior art fails to disclose
wherein the correction of the raw image comprises a division of the raw image by the corrected image as follows: I(n) =IB(n) o Ico - 1 (n), where I(n) represents the corrected image, IB(n) represents the raw image, Ic(n) represents the corrected image, o represents the Hadamard product and o - 1 represents the Hadamard inverse.
Although Reams (“Hadamard inverses, square roots and products of almost semidefinite matrices”) does teach the Hadamard product and the Hadamard inverse. Reams does not teach the combination of the Hadamard product and the Hadamard inverse like in Claim 6, much less apply the combination of them in the context of crystallographic imaging and analysis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOSTOFA AHMED HISHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-8773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 a.m. - 4 p.m. ET.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/MOSTOFA AHMED HISHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights