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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 9/10/2024 and 12/10/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because the specification, while being enabling for cone beam x-ray CT scanning of aerofoils, does not reasonably provide enablement for any sort of “scanning apparatus” for scanning any sort of “part”. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
The disclosure is directed to an optimized ratio calculated from a group of three scanning parameters that were optimized for a cone-beam x-ray CT system for improving image quality in turbine blade inspection. The optimized parameters include the tube voltage, magnification and tube current in order to compensate for the unique challenges of rotationally scanning an aerofoil cross section (see at least Background and Summary).
By contrast, the claims are directed to an unspecified scanning apparatus to generate an unspecified radiation to scan an unspecified “part” in an unspecified manner. The enabled scope is narrower than that claimed for at least the following reasons:
A) The skilled artisan recognizes that the listed parameters would not be appropriate for an MRI, UV/Vis/IR, THz, or for some particle scanning systems. The claimed invention was developed for a cone beam x-ray CT scanner, and may, at most, be suitable for x-ray cone beam tomographic imaging systems (see specification, p.5).
B) Once limited to x-ray tomographic imaging systems, the limitation of setting the tube voltage to a maximum of the tube is highly device-dependent and not relevant to effective imaging. As described in O’Hare (US 2015/0139381 A1), the optimal accelerating voltage for x-ray CT imaging is heavily dependent on the specifics of the given x-ray system and further teaches the practice of referring to attenuation tables provided by NIST as a starting point for determining the optimal x-ray energy range for the attenuation of the object (par.0045). As such, the appropriate tube voltage for the object being scanned may not be available for a given x-ray system. The claimed parameters are not universal.
C) Based on the assumption that the presumed tube voltage is large (>140keV, O’Hare, p.0045), the skilled artisan also appreciates the fact that such a range of parameters cannot be suitable for all possible parts. The skilled artisan readily recognizes that the claimed parameters are likely suitable for metal alloys based on the supporting disclosure (at least for transition-metal alloys; also see O’Hare, par.0045). The parameters may also be suitable for high-attenuation ceramics (such as those with significant metal content).
However, the skilled artisan readily recognizes that the claimed parameters would likely be detrimental to polymer parts, unsuitable/detrimental for semiconductor parts, may not be suitable for a variety of low-Z ceramic parts, and would likely be dangerous/prohibited for human parts, such as a patient’s arm or chest.
In addition, the specific values claimed in claims 9 and 11 are not enabled for anything other than a cone beam x-ray CT scanner that is scanning a metallic aerofoil.
In summary, the claimed invention was developed for cone beam x-ray CT scanning of turbine blades, and as such, the supporting disclosure is enabling for industrial x-ray tomographic imaging of metallic parts having curved or complex cross sections (based on the statements in the specification regarding turbine blades and aerofoils, and statements regarding additively-manufactured parts, which are known in the art for having complex cross sections not readily manufactured by conventional means - see at least p.5 of the specification).
In conclusion, the skilled artisan cannot make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without an x-ray source and an x-ray detector, which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 1 is a method for scanning a part, without the enabling structure for actualizing the method steps. The claims are lacking:
a) x-ray tube to which the voltage and current are applied and for emitting x-rays under the established parameters;
b) an x-ray detector for detecting the x-rays having passed through the part, thus enabling the acquisition of the scan data;
c) a support for positioning of the part relative to the source and detector to enable the set magnification; and
d) a processor or equivalent for controlling the CT scanner to scan the part by applying the voltage and current, set the positions of the tube, detector and/or part support according to the magnification, effect relative movement for scanning the object based on the defined parameters, taking a plurality of projections of the object by irradiating the x-rays and detecting the x-rays passing through the part, and generating an image of the part based on the acquired projections.
Claims 2-18 are rejected under this paragraph by virtue of their dependence upon claim 1, thus incorporating the un-enabled subject matter, and further for failing to remedy any of the noted deficiencies.
Claims 4-7 are further rejected under this paragraph since there are no scanning steps or components claimed, so there is no meaning to requiring a number of projections, nor applying filters, nor are there any pixels to bin.
Claim 14 is further rejected under this paragraph because generic recitations of scanner types do not clearly set forth the necessary structural components for performing the method.
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite at least because of one or more of the following:
a) the limitation, “setting an output voltage to a maximum output value” is not defined. Such a limitation is device specific, where every given imaging device under the Sun is not in the possession of the inventors. There is no applicable reference by which to determine the claimed voltage, and as such, the meets and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained.
b) the claimed ratio does not compute. The specification states that the preferred acceleration voltage is 450kV, claim 9 states that the preferred pixel size is 53.7μm, and claim 11 states that the preferred tube current is 288.6μA. Given the disclosure on p.2 of the specification and using the specified units, the ratio should come out to between 2 and 3. However, the ratio of (450 * 288.6) / 53.7 = 2,418. In fact, no combination of Applicant’s preferred values satisfy the claimed relationship (p.3-4 of the specification). Since Applicant’s preferred values, in the specified units, do not satisfy the claimed relationship, then the claim is indefinite.
Claims 2-18 are rejected under this paragraph by virtue of their dependence upon claim 1, thus incorporating the indefinite subject matter, and further for failing to remedy the deficiencies.
Claim 14 is further indefinite at least because there is no clear structure required by the claim. The deficiencies of claim 1 are not remedied by a generic recitation of scanner types.
Examiner’s Note #1: due to the lack of substantive subject matter in the claims, examination on the merits is hereby precluded.
Examiner’s Note #2: Mertens (US 2015/0160354 A1) discloses an x-ray cone beam CT scanning system with an x-ray tube, x-ray detector, support for positioning the part to be inspected, where Mertens further discloses determining scanning parameters for scanning the part by determining a tube current (step 1110) based on a set tube voltage (step 1102) and a desired magnification (step 1108) (par.0074: the tube current is selected for the maximum focal spot that satisfies the desired magnification, Fig.11) for an x-ray cone beam CT scanner having an x-ray source, detector, part support, and processor.
The disclosed framework in Figs.10 and 11 makes it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to:
a) select a desired filtration thickness and material for beam-hardening correction when scanning metallic parts according to the half-value intensity rule (par.0069);
b) to acquire more projections per rotation (claim 6, par.0037), as throughput limitations permit, in order to improve signal-noise ratio and provides a superior spatial sampling for various artifact mitigations, including cone beam artifacts and aliasing;
c) select the desired binning, including no binning (par.0058);
d) optimize the magnification and tube current based on the selected tube voltage (Fig.11); and
e) accommodate modest-sized parts (Figs.1, 2A and 3);
all within the level of routine experimentation and without undue experimentation.
In addition, O’Hare (IDS filed 12/10/2024) teaches varying parameters based on preliminary imaging results in order to dial in optimal parameters during scanning of a part using an x-ray CT scanner (Fig.3, step 308).
Examiner’s Note #3: An example of a claim that resolves all of the above 35 USC 112 issues, and therefore has subject matter suitable for examination on the merits, is as follows. It is NOT an admission that the following example would be novel and/or non-obvious over the prior art:
Claim 1: A method of inspecting a metallic aerofoil with a cone beam x-ray CT scanner, the cone beam x-ray CT scanner having an x-ray tube configured to emit an x-ray cone beam along a propagation axis, an x-ray detector configured to detect the x-ray cone beam, a support for supporting the metallic part along the propagation axis between the x-ray source and x-ray detector, and at least one processor, the method comprising:
a) determining a tube voltage;
b) determining a magnification;
c) determining a tube current as a function of the determined magnification and of the determined tube voltage; and
scanning the metallic part, where the processor executes the scan by:
d) locating the metallic part on the support at a relative position with respect to the x-ray source or x-ray detector along the propagation axis according to the determined magnification;
e) irradiating the metallic part with the x-ray cone beam emitted from the x-ray tube based on the determined tube voltage and determined tube current; and
f) detecting the x-ray cone beam having transmitted through the metallic part with an x-ray detector;
g) acquiring, during the irradiating and detecting, a plurality of x-ray projections of the metallic part while rotating the metallic part relative to the x-ray source and x-ray detector around an axis perpendicular to the propagation axis; and
h) generating an image of the metallic part based on the plurality of projections; where
i) the ratio of the product of the determined tube current (mA) and determined tube voltage (kV) to the determined magnification is between 2 and 3, where the magnification is expressed in terms of an effective pixel length (μm) in the image.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US patent documents to Makeev are the US family members of the WIPO document cited in the IDS filed 12/10/2024.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS R ARTMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2485. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-6:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Makiya can be reached on 571.272.2273. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
THOMAS R. ARTMAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/THOMAS R ARTMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884