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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims1-19 are 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.
The claims contain the following indefinite languages (the line numbers correspond to the line number for the corresponding claim, not the page):
Claim 1: “the trajectories” (line 4) and “the rotation axes” (line 6) are indefinite because it is not clear whether they refer to some or all of the previously-recited limitations. For the purpose of further examination, the limitations have been interpreted as “the plurality of trajectories” and “the plurality of rotation axes.”
Claim 2: inherits all of the deficiencies of claim 1 due to dependency. In addition, “the defects” (line 2), “a plurality of subsets of the trajectories” (line 3), “non-fit characteristic” (line 10) are indefinite because it is unclear whether the defects correspond to some or all of the previously-recited plurality of defects, whether the trajectories correspond to a new/different or previously-recited trajectories, and whether the non-fit characteristic correspond to a new/different characteristic or previously-recited characteristic. For the purpose of further examination, the limitations have been interpreted as “the plurality of defects,” “the plurality of subsets of the trajectories,” and “the non-fit characteristic.”
Claim 3: inherits all of the deficiencies of claim 2 due to dependency. In addition, “the defects” (lines 2 & 5) and “each video frame” (line 3) are indefinite because it is unclear whether the defects correspond to some or all of the plurality of defects, and it is unclear whether each video frame corresponds to new/different video frames or previously-recited frames. For the purpose of further examination, the limitation has been interpreted as “the plurality of defects” and “each of the plurality of video frames.”
Claim 4: inherits all of the deficiencies of claim 3 due to dependency. In addition, “the some of the defects” (line 2) and “distinct defects” (line 2) are indefinite because there is no antecedent basis for “the some of the plurality of defects” (and the same reasoning applies regarding “the plurality”) and it is unclear whether distinct defects correspond to new/different defects or previously-recited defects. For the purpose of further examination, the limitation has been interpreted as “a subset of the plurality of defects” and “the distinct defects.”
Claim 5: inherits all of the deficiencies of claim 4 due to dependency. In addition, “the defects” (line 2) is rejected using the same rationale as discussed above. The limitation has been interpreted as “the plurality of defects.”
Claim 6: inherits all of the deficiencies of claim 5 due to dependency. In addition, “some of the defects” (line 2), “distinct defects” (line 2), “the ascertained positions” (line 4), and “the some of the defects” (lines 4-5) are indefinite. The same reasoning applies to “some of the defects,” “distinct defects,” and “the some of the defects” as discussed above. It is unclear whether the ascertained positions correspond to the undetected positions or new/different positions. For the purpose of further examination, the limitations have been interpreted as “the subset of the plurality of defects,” “the distinct defects,” “the ascertained undetected positions,” and “the subset of the plurality of defects.”
Claim 7: inherits all of the deficiencies of claim 6 due to dependency. In addition, “distinct defects” (line 2) is rejected using the same rationale as discussed above.
Claim 8: inherits all of the deficiencies of claims 1-7 due to dependency.
Claim 9: inherits all of the deficiencies of claim 1 due to dependency. In addition, “each defect” (line 3) and “the trajectories” (line 4) are indefinite because it is unclear whether each defect correspond to the previously recited plurality of defects or distinct defects and it is unclear whether the trajectories correspond to all or some of the plurality of trajectories. For the purpose of further examination, the limitations have been interpreted as “each of the plurality of defects” and “the plurality of trajectories.”
Claim 19: inherits all of the deficiencies of claim 1 due to dependency.
Claims 10-18: rejected using the same rationale as applied to claims 1-9 for the same corresponding system claims.
Examiner’s Comment Regarding Suggested Amendment
The examiner suggests amending the claims as shown below. The examples are only shown for claims 1-9. The same corresponding amendment applies to claims 10-18. Claim 19 does not require amendment.
Claim 1 (Currently Amended). A method for inspection of rotational components, the method comprising:
based on a plurality of video frames of the rotation components in motion, ascertaining a plurality of trajectories of a plurality of defects on the rotational components;
based on a plurality of fitted ellipses of a plurality of subsets of the plurality of trajectories, ascertaining a plurality of rotation axes; and
based on a distribution of the plurality of rotation axes, ascertaining a reference rotation axis for the rotational components.
Claim 2 (Currently Amended). The method of claim 1, further comprising:
clustering the plurality of defects by:
for each of [[a]]the plurality of subsets of the plurality of trajectories wherein each subset includes at least a first and a second trajectory:
based on the reference rotation axis and the first and the second trajectory, ascertaining a reference trajectory;
ascertaining fit or non-fit characteristic of the reference trajectory against the first and the second trajectory;
ascertaining the defects which correspond to the first and the second trajectory as distinct defects if the non-fit characteristic is ascertained.
Claim 3 (Currently Amended). The method of claim 2, further comprising:
identifying corresponding rotational components for the plurality of defects by:
for each of the plurality of video frames, ascertaining a rotational component count;
based on the rotational component count and the reference trajectory, assigning the corresponding rotational components to the plurality of defects.
Claim 4 (Currently Amended). The method of claim 3, wherein clustering the defects further includes:
ascertaining a subset of the plurality of defects as the distinct defects if the following condition is complied with: the fit characteristic is ascertained; and the corresponding rotational components of the first and the second trajectory are distinct.
Claim 5 (Currently Amended). The method of claim 4, further comprising:
ascertaining undetected positions of the plurality of defects on the corresponding rotational components, including:
for at least one missing defect which is detected in an occurrence video frame and undetected in a non-occurrence video frame, ascertaining an undetected position for the missing defect in the non-occurrence video frame by:
identifying a reference defect which is detected in the occurrence and the non-occurrence video frame,
ascertaining a rotation angle of the reference defect by ascertaining a progression of fitted ellipses of the reference defect which correspond to a progression from the occurrence video frame to the non-occurrence video frame;
based on the rotation angle, ascertaining a recovered defect in the non-occurrence video frame, the recovered defect being the undetected position for the missing defect in the non-occurrence video frame,
wherein the plurality of video frames include the occurrence frame and the non-occurrence video frame, and wherein the plurality of defects include the missing or recovered defect and the reference defect.
Claim 6 (Currently Amended). The method of claim 5, wherein clustering the defects further includes:
ascertaining the subset of the plurality of defects, including the recovered defect, as the distinct defects if the following conditions are complied with: the fit characteristic is ascertained; and the corresponding rotational components of the first and the second trajectory are same; and the ascertained undetected positions of the subset of the plurality of defects are distinct;
ascertaining the subset of the plurality of defects, including the recovered defect, as same defects if the following conditions are complied with: the fit characteristic is ascertained; the corresponding rotational components of the first and the second trajectory are same; and the ascertained positions of the subset of the plurality of defects are same.
Claim 7 (Currently Amended). The method of claim 6, further comprising:
based on at least some of the plurality of video frames and the distinct defects, including the recovered defect, generating at least one modified image which includes an identification of the distinct defects, including the recovered defect.
Claim 8 (Currently Amended). The method of claim 7, further comprising:
based on the modified video frame, ascertaining a count of the distinct defects therein.
Claim 9 (Currently Amended). The method of claim 1, wherein ascertaining the trajectories of the defects on the rotational components includes:
based on mapping features of each of the plurality of defects over a plurality of successive frames of the plurality of video frames, ascertaining the plurality of trajectories.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record teaches that it was known at the time the application was filed to acquire a video stream to analyze whether a rotating blade contains a defect. The prior art teaches fitting a contour and/or trajectory for defects having elliptical shape (Aust Fig. 8, Poursaeidi Figs. 8, Sousa Fig. 8).
However, the prior art, alone or in combination, does not appear to teach or suggest determining a plurality of rotation axes based on the fitted ellipses of the trajectories and determining a reference rotation axis for the rotating blade based on the distribution of the rotation axes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOO J SHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9753. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 10-6.
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, Matthew Bella can be reached at (571)272-7778. 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.
/Soo Shin/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667 571-272-9753
soo.shin@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights