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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 14-33 are pending. Claims 1-13 are canceled, and Claims 26-33 are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p.10-14, filed 06/20/2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 14-25 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the Specification clearly establishes that a disclosed improvement is provided to address a technical problem in the area of quality assurance of additive manufacturing of thin-walled components. Furthermore, the Applicant argues that the alleged abstract idea of step (v) is meaningfully limited by steps (i)-(iv). Examiner respectfully disagrees because the limitations “(i) providing a target geometry (CAD) of a component with the aid of a 3-D data model of the component,(ii) providing measured data of the component, the measured data (CT) being generated by an imaging method,(iii) overlaying the measured data (CT) of the component on the 3-D data model,(iv) providing 2-D model slices by cutting the data model with the overlaid measured data, a slice spacing between individual layers of the data model corresponding to a value roughly between 0.01 mm and 0.05 mm” are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activities. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites these insignificant extra-solution activities wherein other additional recited elements in certain other claims are just only generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is a field-of-use limitation that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea due to the claim limitations only reciting simply “examining” the 2-D slice images for a difference between the model and the measured data using an automated analysis as opposed to properly imposing meaningful limits on practicing the idea by providing further details on what examination and analysis specifically is being done automatically such as the automatic analysis of chamber areas and identifications of breakthroughs between chambers as recited in Claims 32 and 33. Furthermore, Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception such as through improvements to the functioning of a computer, technology, or technical field. The additional elements/steps amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activities and are therefore not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim as a whole, recites an abstract idea.
Applicant’s arguments, see p.1-5, filed 11/07/2025, with respect to the rejections of Claims 14-25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, new grounds of rejection are presented below. Examiner has considered applicants arguments with respect to the new claims 26-33. However, arguments are moot due to new claims being presented and are therefore being analyzed as presented below. Additionally, Applicant argues that Oh is non-analogous art due to OH teaching the aligning of 3D CT image with the 3D model of a heart wherein Woods makes no mention of calcium deposits or arteries. In response to applicant's argument that the reference Oh is non-analogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Oh is in the same field of art of image processing, especially in the processing of CT image data and 3D models, wherein Oh is directed to teach overlaying the measured CT image data with the 3D model of Woods. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine this overlay of image data of Oh with the teachings of Woods in order to improve detection and classification of the image data (Oh, Para. 2).
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 14-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows. Claim 14 recites providing a target geometry of a component with a 3D model, providing measured data of the component using a CT imaging method, overlaying the measured data and the model, providing 2D model slices of the model overlaid with the measured data, and examining the slices for structural differences between the model and the measured data.
Step 1:
With regard to Step 1, the instant claims are directed to a method, which is among the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Prong 1:
With regard to Step 2A – Prong 1, for example in Claim 14, the limitations of "and (v) examining each 2-D model slice for structural differences between the data model and the measured data using an automated image analysis", as drafted only involves mental processes or mathematical calculations, such as examining the image slices for a difference between the model and the measured data. That is, nothing in the above-described claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind or on a piece of paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonably interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind or through mathematical calculations, but for the recitation of a generic apparatus components, such as a processor, computer program, or machine-readable media, then it falls within the "mental processes", which include concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, or mathematical calculations groupings of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2:
The 2019 PEG defines the phrase “integration into a practical application” to require an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception. In the instant case, the additional elements in the claims do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the following additional steps "(i) providing a target geometry (CAD) of a component with the aid of a 3-D data model of the component; (ii) providing measured data of the component, the measured data (CT) being generated by an imaging method; (iii) overlaying the measured data (CT) of the component on the 3-D data model; (iv) providing 2-D model slices by cutting the data model with the overlaid measured data, a slice spacing between individual layers of the data model corresponding to a value roughly between 0.01 mm and 0.05 mm”, i.e., insignificant extra-solution activity comprising routine and conventional image processing steps. The other additional recited elements in certain other claims are just a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with a processor, which are generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is a field-of-use limitation that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim as a whole, recites an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Because the claim fails under Step 2A, the claims are further evaluated under Step 2B. The claim herein does not include additional steps that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements/steps amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activities. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic apparatus component, such as a processor, cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. It should be noted that a similar analysis may be performed with respect to Claims 23-25.
Further, with regard to dependent Claims 15-22 and 26-31 viewed individually, these additional steps are under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind and do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims’ limitations amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For example, aligning the 3D model with the measured data using compensating adaptation as recited in Claim 17 or distinguishing between solid and hollow component features as recited in Claim 18 are only examples of routine and conventional image processing steps and do not amount to significantly more to consider as inventive steps. Accordingly, Claims 14-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 14-17, and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woods et al. (US 20170292922 A1) in view of Oh et al. (US 20130094749 A1) and Reinhart et al. ("Industrial computer tomography–A universal inspection tool").
Regarding Claim 14, Woods teaches "A method of nondestructive material testing, comprising: (i) providing a target geometry (CAD) of a component with the aid of a 3-D data model of the component"; (Woods, Para. 3, teaches additive manufacturing including taking a three-dimensional computer aided design CAD file of the object to be formed that includes an intended three-dimensional model or rendering of the object, i.e., providing a target geometry CAD of a component being the object with the aid of a 3D model of the component);
"(ii) providing measured data of the component, the measured data (CT) being generated by an imaging method"; (Woods, Paras. 30 and 31, teaches a tomographic scanner including a coordinate measuring machine and a computed tomography CT scanner and include any form of device capable of imaging by sections or capable of creating a 3D image or 3D point cloud using post-imaging software wherein the tomographic model includes a three-dimensional representation of at least a portion of the object that can be sliced, i.e., provide measured data of the component generated by a CT imaging method);
"
"a slice spacing between individual layers of the data model corresponding to a value roughly between 0.01 mm and 0.05 mm"; (Woods, Para. 3, teaches the intended 3D model is electronically sliced into layers 18-102 micrometers or 0.018-0.102mm thick and creating a two-dimensional image of each layer, i.e., slice spacing between layers of model correspond to a value roughly between 0.01mm and 0.05mm).
However, Woods does not explicitly teach "(iii) overlaying the measured data (CT) of the component on the 3-D data model; (iv) providing 2-D model slices by cutting the data model with the overlaid measured data; and (v) examining each 2-D model slice for structural differences between the data model and the measured data using an automated image analysis".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Oh teaches "(iii) overlaying the measured data (CT) of the component on the 3-D data model"; (Oh, Para. 49, teaches the 3D CT image must overlap the 3D model correctly, i.e., overlay the measured CT data of the object with the 3D data model).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Woods by including the overlaying of the CT data with a 3D model taught by Oh. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it improves detection (Oh, Para. 2, teaches the motivation of combination to be to improve detection and classification).
However, the combination of references of Woods in view of Oh does not explicitly teach "(iv) providing 2-D model slices by cutting the data model with the overlaid measured data; and (v) examining each 2-D model slice for structural differences between the data model and the measured data using an automated image analysis".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Reinhart teaches "(iv) providing 2-D model slices by cutting the data model with the overlaid measured data"; (Reinhart, Section 2 and Figure 2, teaches that it is possible to superimpose CAD and CT data both in three-dimensional mode and in 2-dimensional slice images wherein the CT slice image of a cylinder head with the CAD model superimposed is shown, i.e., provide 2-D model slices by cutting the data model which is overlaid with measured data being the CAD model and the CT data);
"and (v) examining each 2-D model slice for structural differences between the data model and the measured data using an automated image analysis"; (Reinhart, Abstract and Section 2 and Figure 2, teaches each individual slice image can now be accurately assessed on the basis of its position in which defects in the actual component can be more easily allocated and localized based on the alignment of the models and slice images for nominal/actual comparison of the data and the model wherein all data analysis processes can be automated, i.e., examine each 2-D model slice for structural differences being the defects between the model and the measured data using automated image analysis).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Woods and Oh by including the providing of 2D slices of overlaid model and measured data and automatic examining of 2D model slices for structural differences between the model and the measured data taught by Reinhart. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it allows for rapid assessment of components (Reinhart, Section 2, teaches the motivation of combination to be to allow rapid assessment of components).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of references of Woods in view of Oh and Reinhart teaches "The method as claimed in claim 14, wherein the target geometry (CAD) is provided by a 3-D CAD data record"; (Woods, Paras. 3 and 22, teaches additive manufacturing including taking a three-dimensional computer aided design CAD file of the object to be formed that includes an intended three-dimensional model or rendering of the object, i.e., target geometry provided by 3D CAD data record).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of references of Woods in view of Oh and Reinhart teaches "The method as claimed in claim 14, wherein the measured data (CT) are generated by a tomographic method or computed tomography"; (Woods, Para. 7, teaches scanning the portion of the object using a computed tomography CT scanner to obtain a CT model of the portion of the object in a CT scanner format, i.e., measured data generated by computed tomography).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of references of Woods in view of Oh and Reinhart teaches "The method as claimed in claim 14, wherein the overlay comprises or represents an alignment of the 3-D data model with the measured data (CT) of the component by way of a compensating adaptation"; (Oh, Para. 54, teaches an alignment parameter is determined by using the landmarks identified in the previous step wherein the alignment parameter defines the set of angles and translations that will align the 3D model with the 3D CT image in which the initial alignment is aligning the aorta of the 3D CT image with the aorta in the 3D model and wherein more detailed alignments may be performed for more specific landmarks, i.e., alignment of the model with the CT data of the component by way of compensating adaptation).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Woods, Oh, and Reinhart references presented in the rejection of Claim 14, applies to claim 17. Thus, the method recited in claim 17 is met by Woods in view of Oh and Reinhart.
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of references of Woods in view of Oh and Reinhart teaches "The method as claimed in claim 14, which is part of quality assurance in a process chain of industrialized additive manufacturing"; (Woods, Abstract, teaches correction of thermal defects using tomographic scanning for additive manufacturing wherein modified 3D model may be generated of the object correcting the intended 3D model to address the defect of the portion of the object, i.e., quality assurance process chain of industrialized additive manufacturing).
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of references of Woods in view of Oh and Reinhart teaches "A device for performing a method as claimed in claim 14"; (Woods, Para. 20, teaches a control system comprising a computer in communication with a I/O device, i.e., device for performing method).
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of references of Woods in view of Oh and Reinhart teaches "A computer program product (CP) stored on a non-transitory computer readable media, comprising: program commands stored thereon which, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform the method as claimed in claim 14"; (Woods, Para. 20, teaches a control system implemented on a computer as computer program code in which the memory and/or storage system can comprise non-transitory computer readable storage medium, i.e., computer program product stored on non-transitory computer readable media comprising program commands executed by a computer).
Regarding Claim 25, the combination of references of Woods in view of Oh and Reinhart teaches "A provision device for the computer program product as claimed in claim 24, the provision device storing and/or providing the computer program product (CP)"; (Woods, Para. 20, teaches a control system implemented on a computer as computer program code in which the memory and/or storage system can comprise non-transitory computer readable storage medium, i.e., provision device being the computer stores/provides the computer program product).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woods in view of Oh, Reinhart, and Hendon et al. (US 20210239450 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of references of Woods in view of Oh and Reinhart does not explicitly teach "The method as claimed in claim 14, wherein the automated image analysis for the examination of each model slice includes distinguishing between solid and hollow component features".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Hendon teaches "The method as claimed in claim 14, wherein the automated image analysis for the examination of each model slice includes distinguishing between solid and hollow component features"; (Hendon, Para. 64, teaches region features derived from images in which an automated classification procedure may differentiate between hollow-structured tissue against solid tissue, i.e., automated image analysis includes distinguishing between solid and hollow features).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Woods, Oh, and Reinhart by including the distinguishing between solid and hollow features taught by Hendon. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it facilitates better visualization (Hendon, Para. 64, teaches the motivation of combination to be to facilitate a better visualization of detailed features).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woods in view of Oh, Reinhart, and Peters et al. (US 20220044384 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of references of Woods in view of Oh and Reinhart does not explicitly teach "The method as claimed in claim 14, wherein the automated image analysis for the examination of each model slice includes measuring an area enclosed by component features and performing an area adjustment with the data model".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Peters teaches "The method as claimed in claim 14, wherein the automated image analysis for the examination of each model slice includes measuring an area enclosed by component features and performing an area adjustment with the data model"; (Peters, Paras. 19, 30, and 47, teaches determining damage by image analysis of the projected 2D image data and by ascertaining deviations of the registered 3D triangulation data vis-à-vis the reference model wherein the determination of damage is automated and relatively small instances of damage are able to be determined wherein the 3D triangulation data are used to adapt the 3D CAD reference model to the actual conditions in which the reference model is varied in such a way that it corresponds as far as possible to the 3D triangulation data, i.e., automated image analysis measures an area of features by the determination of damage and performs an area adjustment with the model being the adapting of the triangulation data to correspond with the model).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Woods, Oh, and Reinhart by including the measuring of an area of features and perform area adjustment taught by Peters. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it improves capture of the components (Peters, Para. 13 teaches the motivation of combination to be to improve the 3D capture of surfaces in the interior of a components).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woods in view of Oh, Reinhart, Peters, and Gould et al. (US 20220048243 A1).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of references of Woods in view of Oh, Reinhart, and Peters does not explicitly teach "The method as claimed in claim 19, wherein a component material, a scanning parameter comprising an irradiation power or an irradiation pattern, and/or a position of the component in an installation space are given consideration during the measurement of the area".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Gould teaches "The method as claimed in claim 19, wherein a component material, a scanning parameter comprising an irradiation power or an irradiation pattern, and/or a position of the component in an installation space are given consideration during the measurement of the area"; (Gould, Abstract and Para. 60, teaches performing sub-surface porosity detection in an additively manufactured part wherein conditions required to remove the defect depend on the material of the piece, the location of the subsurface defect, and the melt conditions may include a radiation power or radiation scan pattern for correcting the defect, i.e., considering component material, scanning parameter comprising irradiation power or pattern, and a position of the component during measurement of the defect area).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Woods, Oh, Reinhart, and Peters by including the measurement of an area considering material, radiation power or pattern, and position taught by Gould. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it optimizes parameters (Gould, Para. 28, teaches the motivation of combination to be to optimize print parameters).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woods in view of Oh, Reinhart, and Lim et al. (US 20180322366 A1).
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of references of Woods in view of Oh and Reinhart does not explicitly teach "The method as claimed in claim 14, wherein machine learning methods are applied during the automated image analysis".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Lim teaches "The method as claimed in claim 14, wherein machine learning methods are applied during the automated image analysis"; (Lim, Abstract, teaches an artificial neural network automatically identifying equipment damage appearing in actual images, i.e., machine learning methods applied to automated image analysis).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Woods, Oh, and Reinhart by including the automated image analysis using machine learning methods taught by Lim. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it rapidly and accurately identifies objects (Lim, Para. 19, teaches the motivation of combination to be to rapidly and accurately identify objects depicted in images).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woods in view of Oh, Reinhart, Peters, and Carreno et al. (US 20200371476 A1).
Regarding Claim 26, the combination of references of Woods in view of Oh, Reinhart, and Peters teaches "The method as claimed in claim 14, wherein the component is a component to be used in a hot gas path of a gas turbine"; (Peters, Para. 42 and Claim 7, teaches the component to be blades of a gas turbine in which the blades of the high-pressure turbine have prevailing loading by hot gases from the combustion chamber);
"
"and wherein the method further comprises generating, with the imaging method, the measured data (CT) of the component"; (Woods, Paras. 30 and 31, teaches a tomographic scanner including a coordinate measuring machine and a computed tomography CT scanner and include any form of device capable of imaging by sections or capable of creating a 3D image or 3D point cloud using post-imaging software wherein the tomographic model includes a three-dimensional representation of at least a portion of the object that can be sliced, i.e., provide measured data of the component generated by a CT imaging method).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Woods, Oh, Reinhart, and Peters references presented in the rejection of Claim 19, applies to claim 26.
However, the combination of references of Woods in view of Oh, Reinhart, and Peters does not explicitly teach "and wherein the component comprises walls with a thickness between 0.1 mm and 0.2 mm".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Carreno teaches "and wherein the component comprises walls with a thickness between 0.1 mm and 0.2 mm"; (Carreno, Claim 5, teaches wall thicknesses of a component are less than 0.2 mm, 0.15 mm, or even less than 0.12 mm, i.e., walls with a thickness between 0.1 mm and 0.2 mm).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Woods, Oh, Reinhart, and Peters by including the walls having a specific thickness taught by Carreno. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it improves the device by making it possible to apply excessive forces (Carreno, Abstract and Para. 4, teaches the motivation of combination to be to improve the device by making it possible to apply excessive driving-on forces).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claims 27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woods in view of Oh, Reinhart, Hendon, and Gettemy et al. (BR 112022022560 B1).
Regarding Claim 27, the combination of references of Woods in view of Oh, Reinhart, and Hendon does not explicitly teach "The method as claimed in claim 18, further comprising measuring an area enclosed by said solid and hollow component features of each 2-D model slice".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Gettemy teaches "The method as claimed in claim 18, further comprising measuring an area enclosed by said solid and hollow component features of each 2-D model slice"; (Gettemy, Para. 28, teaches 2D slice images of a sample showing a cross-sectional slice of the structural details of the same including features of solid material, pore or void space, and partial solid/porous space, i.e., measure an area enclosed by solid and hollow features of each 2-D model slice).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Woods, Oh, Reinhart, and Hendon by including the measuring of an area of solid and hollow features of a 2D slice taught by Gettemy. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it improves the structure defined in the volume (Gettemy, Para. 32, teaches the motivation of combination to be to improve the structure defined in the image volume).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding Claim 29, the combination of references of Woods in view of Oh, Reinhart, Hendon, and Gettemy teaches "The method as claimed in claim 27, further comprising considering one or more of a component material, a scanning parameter and a position of the component in the measuring step, wherein the scanning parameter comprises one or more of an irradiation power or an irradiation pattern"; (Gettemy, Paras. 28-29 and 33, teaches segmenting the image volume into different material constituents and wherein image data may be in the form of grayscale values representative of the attenuation of X-ray radiation by the constituents of the sample and wherein segmentation associates with corresponding physical location within the sample, i.e., the measuring step considers component material, scanning parameter comprising irradiation power, and position).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Woods, Oh, Reinhart, Hendon, and Gettemy references presented in the rejection of Claim 27, applies to claim 29. Thus, the method recited in claim 29 is met by Woods in view of Oh, Reinhart, Hendon, and Gettemy.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woods in view of Oh, Reinhart, Hendon, Gettemy, and Peters.
Regarding Claim 28, the combination of references of Woods in view of Oh, Reinhart, Hendon, Gettemy, and Peters teaches "The method as claimed in claim 27, further comprising comparing the measured area enclosed by said solid and hollow component features with a target area and performing an area adjustment to the data model based on the comparing step"; (Peters, Paras. 19, 30, and 47, teaches determining damage by image analysis of the projected 2D image data and by ascertaining deviations of the registered 3D triangulation data vis-à-vis the reference model wherein the determination of damage is automated and relatively small instances of damage are able to be determined wherein the 3D triangulation data are used to adapt the 3D CAD reference model to the actual conditions in which the reference model is varied in such a way that it corresponds as far as possible to the 3D triangulation data, i.e., comparing measured area with a target area being automated image analysis measures an area of features by the determination of damage from ascertained deviations of the registered model and the reference model and performs an area adjustment with the model being the adapting of the triangulation data to correspond with the model).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Woods, Oh, Reinhart, Hendon, Gettemy and Peters references, wherein the measured area is enclosed by solid and hollow features, presented in the rejection of Claims 14, 18, 19, and 27, applies to claim 26. Thus, the method recited in claim 28 is met by Woods in view of Oh, Reinhart, Hendon, Gettemy, and Peters.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woods in view of Oh, Reinhart, and Ferrucci et al. ("Lessons learned in the design of reference fiducials for layer-wise analysis of test coupons made by laser powder bed fusion”).
Regarding Claim 30, the combination of references of Woods in view of Oh and Reinhart does not explicitly teach "The method as claimed in claim 17, further comprising using a lower side of the component separated from a building platform and an upper plane of the component as a reference surface for the alignment".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Ferrucci teaches "The method as claimed in claim 17, further comprising using a lower side of the component separated from a building platform and an upper plane of the component as a reference surface for the alignment"; (Ferrucci, Section 1, teaches alignment relies on inherent geometrical features in which a plane is fit to the top flat surface and can serve as a reference vertical position wherein the bottom surface has separation from the build plate, i.e., using lower side of component separate from building platform and an upper plane as reference for alignment).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Woods, Oh, and Reinhart by including the alignment using an upper plane reference surface taught by Ferrucci. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it offers an improved fiducial design for alignment (Ferrucci, Abstract, teaches the motivation of combination to be to improve fiducial design for alignment).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claims 31-32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woods in view of Oh, Reinhart, Hendon and Madara (US 20200211177 A1).
Regarding Claim 31, the combination of references of Woods in view of Oh, Reinhart, and Hendon does not explicitly teach "The method as claimed in claim 18, wherein step (v) comprises: analyzing, using the automated image analysis, one or more of individual chambers, segments, features or portions of the 2-D model slice for their respective area, wherein the analyzing step is performed after the distinguishing step".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Madara teaches "The method as claimed in claim 18, wherein step (v) comprises: analyzing, using the automated image analysis, one or more of individual chambers, segments, features or portions of the 2-D model slice for their respective area, wherein the analyzing step is performed after the distinguishing step"; (Madara, FIG. 3 and Abstract and Paras. 4, 35, 47, and 75, teaches cellular ceramic articles have a web made up of finely formed walls that define a dense array of cells for exhaust gases to pass through wherein edge location for each of the walls of the web is established and determining characteristics that defines a conforming or non-conforming cell regions in which walls are then examined to locate the defect, i.e., using automated image analysis to analyze chambers being the cells in the image after the distinguishing step being the identification of the solid wall edges and the hollow cell portions).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Woods, Oh, Reinhart, and Hendon by including the analyzing of individual chambers of a 2D image taught by Madara. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it locates defects in the walls of the cells (Madara, Abstract, teaches the motivation of combination to be to locate defects in the walls of cells).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding Claim 32, the combination of references of Woods in view of Oh, Reinhart, Hendon, and Madara teaches "The method as claimed in claim 31, further comprising: measuring, with the automated image analysis, an area of the individual chambers in the 2-D model slices"; (Madara, Paras. 47 and 86-88, teaches a processed 2D image is analyzed to identify cell regions as compared to intensities associated with walls in which the area of each cell region is determined, i.e., measure an area of the plurality of chambers being the cells using automated image analysis);
"determining, with the automated image analysis, an increase in the measured area of the one of the individual chambers in the 2-D model slices"; (Madara, Paras. 86-88, teaches the area of each cell region is used along with the cell pitch to distinguish between conforming cell regions and non-conforming cell regions that have a larger than expected area, i.e., determining an increase in the area of one of the chambers with automated image analysis being the determination that a cell region has a larger than expected area);
"and identifying a breakthrough between two individual chambers in the 2-D model slices based on the determined increase in the measured area"; (Madara, FIG. 9C and Paras. 86-88, teaches the walls of non-conforming cells having larger than expected area are examined to determine if any of the walls had missing portions, i.e., use automated image analysis to identify a breakthrough between two individual chambers of the plurality of chambers based on the increase in area being the identification of a cell wall having a missing portion between two chambers or cells based on the identification that a cell or chamber had a larger or increased area).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Woods, Oh, Reinhart, Hendon, and Madara references presented in the rejection of Claim 31, applies to claim 32. Thus, the method recited in claim 32 is met by Woods in view of Oh, Reinhart, Hendon, and Madara.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woods in view of Oh, Ferrucci, Reinhart, Hendon and Madara.
Regarding Claim 33, the combination of references of Woods in view of Oh, Ferrucci, Reinhart, Hendon, and Madara teaches "A method of nondestructive material testing, comprising:(i) providing a target geometry (CAD) of a component with the aid of a 3-D data model of the component"; (Woods, Para. 3, teaches additive manufacturing including taking a three-dimensional computer aided design CAD file of the object to be formed that includes an intended three-dimensional model or rendering of the object, i.e., providing a target geometry CAD of a component being the object with the aid of a 3D model of the component);
"(ii) measuring, with a tomographic or imaging method, data of the component, wherein the tomographic or imaging method comprises one of computed tomography (CT), x-ray tomography, ultrasound diagnostics, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), positron emission tomography (PET), single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), optical coherence tomography (OCT), electrical impedance tomography (EIT) or digital volume tomography (DVT)"; (Woods, Paras. 30 and 31, teaches a tomographic scanner including a coordinate measuring machine and a computed tomography CT scanner and include any form of device capable of imaging by sections or capable of creating a 3D image or 3D point cloud using post-imaging software wherein the tomographic model includes a three-dimensional representation of at least a portion of the object that can be sliced, i.e., provide measured data of the component generated by a CT imaging method);
"(iii) overlaying the measured data of the component on the 3-D data model, wherein the overlaying comprises aligning the 3-D data model with the measured data of the component by way a compensation algorithm"; (Oh, Paras. 49 and 54, teaches the 3D CT image must overlap the 3D model correctly wherein an alignment parameter is determined by using the landmarks identified in the previous step wherein the alignment parameter defines the set of angles and translations that will align the 3D model with the 3D CT image in which the initial alignment is aligning the aorta of the 3D CT image with the aorta in the 3D model and wherein more detailed alignments may be performed for more specific landmarks, i.e., overlay measured data on the 3D model and alignment of the model with the CT data of the component by way of compensating adaptation);
"wherein a lower surface of the component to be separated from a building platform and an upper plane of the component are used in the aligning step"; (Ferrucci, Section 1, teaches alignment relies on inherent geometrical features in which a plane is fit to the top flat surface and can serve as a reference vertical position wherein the bottom surface has separation from the build plate, i.e., using lower side of component separate from building platform and an upper plane as reference for alignment);
"(iv) providing 2-D model slices by cutting the data model with the overlaid measured data"; (Reinhart, Section 2 and Figure 2, teaches that it is possible to superimpose CAD and CT data both in three-dimensional mode and in 2-dimensional slice images wherein the CT slice image of a cylinder head with the CAD model superimposed is shown, i.e., provide 2-D model slices by cutting the data model which is overlaid with measured data being the CAD model and the CT data);
"and (v) examining each 2-D model slice for structural differences between the data model and the measured data using an automated image analysis"; (Reinhart, Abstract and Section 2 and Figure 2, teaches each individual slice image can now be accurately assessed on the basis of its position in which defects in the actual component can be more easily allocated and localized based on the alignment of the models and slice images for nominal/actual comparison of the data and the model wherein all data analysis processes can be automated, i.e., examine each 2-D model slice for structural differences being the defects between the model and the measured data using automated image analysis).
"said examining step comprising: distinguishing, with the automated image analysis, between solid and hollow component features of each 2-D model slice"; (Hendon, Para. 64, teaches region features derived from images in which an automated classification procedure may differentiate between hollow-structured tissue against solid tissue, i.e., automated image analysis includes distinguishing between solid and hollow features);
"wherein the hollow component features comprise a plurality of individual chambers"; (Madara, FIG. 3 and Paras. 4, 35, and 75, teaches cellular ceramic articles have a web made up of finely formed walls that define a dense array of cells for exhaust gases to pass through, i.e., hollow component features comprise a plurality of individual chambers being the cells);
"measuring, with the automated image analysis, an area of the plurality of individual chambers"; (Madara, Paras. 86-88, teaches a processed image is analyzed to identify cell regions as compared to intensities associated with walls in which the area of each cell region is determined, i.e., measure an area of the plurality of chambers being the cells using automated image analysis);
"determining, with the automated image analysis, an increase in the area of one of the plurality of individual chambers"; (Madara, Paras. 86-88, teaches the area of each cell region is used along with the cell pitch to distinguish between conforming cell regions and non-conforming cell regions that have a larger than expected area, i.e., determining an increase in the area of one of the chambers with automated image analysis being the determination that a cell region has a larger than expected area);
"and identifying, with the automated image analysis, a breakthrough between two individual chambers of the plurality of individual chambers based on the determining the increase in the area"; (Madara, FIG. 9C and Paras. 86-88, teaches the walls of non-conforming cells having larger than expected area are examined to determine if any of the walls had missing portions, i.e., use automated image analysis to identify a breakthrough between two individual chambers of the plurality of chambers based on the increase in area being the identification of a cell wall having a missing portion between two chambers or cells based on the identification that a cell or chamber had a larger or increased area).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Woods, Oh, Ferrucci, Reinhart, Hendon, and Madara references presented in the rejection of Claims 14, 18, 30, and 31, applies to claim 33. Thus, the method recited in claim 33 is met by Woods in view of Oh, Ferrucci, Reinhart, Hendon, and Madara.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW STEVEN BUDISALICH whose telephone number is (703)756-5568. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-5:00pm EST.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached on (571) 272-3382. 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.
/ANDREW S BUDISALICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights