DETAILED ACTION
Status
This Office Action is responsive to claims filed on 11/08/2024. Please note Claims 1-14 are pending and have been examined.
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) submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 3, 4, 6 and 7 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “fields of sensitivity” and “sensitivity fields” which are not well-recognized terms in the art. The Specification also fails to define/explain/clarify what the “fields of sensitivity” or “sensitivity fields” refer to. It’s also unclear whether the “fields of sensitivity” and the “sensitivity fields” are referring to a same feature or not.
Claim 4 is dependent from claim 3 and is therefore rejected.
Claim 6 recites “fields of sensitivity” and “sensitivity fields” which are not well-recognized terms in the art. The Specification also fails to define/explain/clarify what the “fields of sensitivity” or “sensitivity fields” refer to. It’s also unclear whether the “fields of sensitivity” and the “sensitivity fields” are referring to a same feature or not.
Claim 7 is dependent from claim 6 and is therefore rejected.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 2, 5 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PERRON (US 20200184617 A1), in view of COLLE (US 20220237761 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, PERRON discloses a method of non-destructive testing of a part, comprising the steps of:
computing registration based on images of the part acquired from different projection angles ([0005] “a plurality of X-ray images is taken from different angles”) by an X-ray radiography device (PERRON claim 1, “performing registration of the article in 3D space relative to the radiographic image acquisition device for each one of the acquired radiographic images;” [0079] “In an embodiment, the precise relative position (X, Y and Z) and orientation of the article with regards to the radiographic source(s) and corresponding detector(s) is performed through analysis of the corresponding acquired radiographic image, using intensity-based or feature-based image registration techniques, with or without fiducial points.”);
at each of several iterations (PERRON claim 1 “performing a three-dimensional model correction loop comprising, iteratively:”): generating first simulated projections of the part corresponding to the registration computed based on the images acquired from the different projection angles ([0070] “generating simulated radiographic images of the article 13 based on the determined positions of the article and the detailed 3D model”), based on a reference model of an outer surface of the part ([0072] “In the embodiment shown where surface profile acquisition 11 is performed, the method can further comprise adjusting the theoretical detailed 3D model (base 3D Mesh) 22 based on the acquired surface profile 21 of the article and generating an updated 3D model (New 3D Mesh) 23.”) and on a vector µ of parameters of transformation of the reference model of the outer surface ([0079] “In an embodiment, the precise relative position (X, Y and Z) and orientation of the article with regards to the radiographic source(s) and corresponding detector(s) is performed through analysis of the corresponding acquired radiographic image, using intensity-based or feature-based image registration techniques, with or without fiducial points.”); determining a discrepancy between the first simulated projections and the projections computed based on the acquired images ([0084] “The step of comparing the simulated radiographic images and the acquired radiographic images 15 is performed using comparison methods to determine whether the simulated radiographic images of the article and the acquired radiographic images match or if there are differences between the two sets of images, indicating that the article does not conform to the detailed 3D model used for generating the simulated radiographic images. The differences can be differences in positioning, geometry, presence of defects or even differences in density.”); modifying the vector µ for the purpose of reducing said discrepancy ([0070] “iteratively adjusting (correcting) the detailed 3D model until the simulated radiographic images of the article and the acquired radiographic images match 16.”);
determining a corrected model of the outer surface by transformation of the reference model of the outer surface by means of the vector µ resulting from the iterations ([0089] “When the simulated radiographic images of the article and the acquired radiographic images match, the last newly updated 3D model (New 3D Mesh) 23 is used as final 3D model (Actual 3D Mesh) 25 representative of the article currently being inspected (i.e. the final 3D model (Actual 3D Mesh) 25 corresponds to the actual geometric dimensions of the article being inspected).”);
determining an effective model of the part by means of the corrected model of the outer surface ([0101] “Finally, in an embodiment, the step of performing data visualization 24 based on the data of the metrology assessment and/or the subsurface defect detection previously performed includes displaying the metrology assessment data and/or the subsurface defect detection data (or inspection data) on a display screen.”).
PERRON does not expressly disclose computing projections.
However, in the same field of endeavor, COLLE discloses computing projections based on images of the part acquired from different projection angles ([0141] “The digital analysis of the radiographic images of an object therefore allows knowing the relative position in space of a certain number of points of the boundary surfaces of the object.”) and generating first simulated projections of the part corresponding to the projections computed based on the images acquired from the different projection angles ([0152] “A digital geometric model is therefore made up of geometric elements … In other words, the coordinates of the geometric elements are determined by considering that said coordinates have modified the radiographic projections”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of PERRON with the feature of computing projections. Doing so could allow determining a digital geometric model, as taught by COLLE (see COLLE [0153] “one advantage of the method according to the invention is that it allows determining, for each object, a digital geometric model consisting of at least two three-dimensional points, each of these two points belonging to a boundary surface of the region to be inspected and this even if these two points are not located in a plane orthogonal to a direction of projection Dji, Djik, nor in a plane parallel to the direction of displacement.”).
Regarding Claim 2, PERRON-COLLE discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein generating, at each of the iterations, the first simulated projections is also done based on a reference model of one or more inner cavities of the part and wherein the vector µ also comprises parameters of transformation of the reference model of the inner cavity or cavities (COLLE [0137] “In the case of a hollow object including an internal cavity delimited by an internal surface of the object, the internal surface is an outer boundary surface of the object because it is the interface between the material of the object and the surrounding air, even in the case of a closed cavity in which the surrounding air would be trapped.”); further comprising determining a corrected model of the inner cavity or cavities by transformation of the reference model of the inner cavity or cavities by means of the vector µ resulting from the iterations; and wherein determining the effective model of the part is also done by means of the corrected model of the inner cavity or cavities (COLLE [0242] “The description can be geometric, for example if the computer system receives the number and general appearance of the boundary surfaces for describing it, the number of cavities, the number of faces or sides of a polyhedron.”).
Regarding Claim 5, PERRON-COLLE discloses the method as claimed in claim 1,wherein each iteration further comprises following modifying the vector µ: generating second simulated projections of the part corresponding to the projections computed based on the images acquired from the different projection angles, based on the reference model of the outer surface, on a model of a j-th sub-part of interest of the part, on the modified vector µ and on a vector Ɵj of geometrical parameters of the j-th sub-part of interest of the part; determining a discrepancy between the second simulated projections and the projections computed based on the acquired images; modifying the vector Ɵj for the purpose of reducing said discrepancy (PERRON [0069] “In an embodiment, the article (or region of interest thereof) can be made of more than one known material with known positioning, geometry and dimensional characteristics of each one of the portions of the different materials. For ease of description, in the course of the description, only reference to inspection of an article will be made, but it will be understood that, in an embodiment, inspection of only a region of interest of the article can be performed. It will also be understood that the method can be applied successively to multiple articles, thereby providing scanning of a plurality of successive articles, such as in a production chain or the like.”).
Regarding Claim 8, PERRON-COLLE discloses the method as claimed in claim 5, further comprising determining a corrected model of the j-th sub-part of interest by transformation of the reference model of the j-th sub-part of interest by means of the vector Ɵj resulting from the iterations and wherein determining the effective model of the part is also done by means of the corrected model of the j-th sub-part of interest (PERRON [0069] “In an embodiment, the article (or region of interest thereof) can be made of more than one known material with known positioning, geometry and dimensional characteristics of each one of the portions of the different materials... It will also be understood that the method can be applied successively to multiple articles, thereby providing scanning of a plurality of successive articles, such as in a production chain or the like.”).
Regarding Claim 9, PERRON-COLLE discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein generating the first simulated projections is furthermore done based on a vector p of parameters characterizing the projection geometry of the acquisition (PERRON [0079] “In an embodiment, the precise relative position (X, Y and Z) and orientation of the article with regards to the radiographic source(s) and corresponding detector(s) is performed through analysis of the corresponding acquired radiographic image”).
Regarding Claim 10, PERRON-COLLE discloses the method as claimed in claim 9, further comprising, by means of a vector of parameters of a model of image artifacts, a correction of artefacts in the projections computed based on the acquired images or a generation of artifacts in the first simulated projections ([0090] “For example and without being limitative, in an embodiment, the required imagery analysis includes identification and characterization of the deviation between the simulated radiographic images of the article and the acquired radiographic images, for example, using image subtraction and/or intensity profile comparison and displacing control points of the latest version of the detailed 3D model to correct the identified deviation(s).”).
Regarding Claim 11, PERRON-COLLE discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a validation of the part by means of the effective model of the part (COLLE claim 6, “then iteratively, the calculation, from the calculated delineation of a given iteration rank of the object in the section plane, of a number (NP) at least equal to three of simulated one-dimensional radiographic images (SSpk) of the region to be inspected, calculated in the section plane along the at least three different directions of projection (Dijk) which are used for the acquisition of the one-dimensional processing radiographic images (Spk) in the section plane, the comparison of the simulated one-dimensional radiographic images (SSpk) with the one-dimensional processing radiographic images (Spk), depending on the comparison, the modification of the calculated delineation into a calculated delineation of higher iteration rank, until the comparison of the simulated one-dimensional radiographic images (SSpk) with the one-dimensional processing radiographic images (Spk) reaches a predefined optimization criterion.”).
Regarding Claim 12, PERRON-COLLE discloses the method as claimed in claim 11, wherein the validation of the part comprises: generating third simulated projections of the part corresponding to the projections computed based on the images acquired from the different projection angles, based on the effective model of the part (COLLE claim 6, “then iteratively, the calculation, from the calculated delineation of a given iteration rank of the object in the section plane, of a number (NP) at least equal to three of simulated one-dimensional radiographic images (SSpk) of the region to be inspected, calculated in the section plane along the at least three different directions of projection (Dijk) which are used for the acquisition of the one-dimensional processing radiographic images (Spk) in the section plane”); comparing the projections computed based on the acquired images and the third simulated projections based on the effective model of the part (COLLE claim 6, “the comparison of the simulated one-dimensional radiographic images (SSpk) with the one-dimensional processing radiographic images (Spk), depending on the comparison, the modification of the calculated delineation into a calculated delineation of higher iteration rank, until the comparison of the simulated one-dimensional radiographic images (SSpk) with the one-dimensional processing radiographic images (Spk) reaches a predefined optimization criterion.”).
Regarding Claim 13, it recites similar limitations of claim 1 but in a system form. The rationale of claim 1 rejection is applied to reject claim 13.
Regarding Claim 14, PERRON-COLLE discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to implement the method of claim 1 (PERRON [0120] “One skilled in the art will understand that the positional evaluation unit 34, the 3D model data correction unit 33 (including the radiographic image simulator 36, the image compare unit 38, and the 3D model data update unit 40), the metrology assessment unit 42, and the subsurface defect detection unit 44 can be embodied on a single computing unit 50 having its own memory and processor.” COLLE [0118] “The computer system implements one or several software stored and/or executed locally or remotely, including on one or several remote computer servers. This or these software preferably comprise one or several software programmed to implement the method according to the invention.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hashimoto (US 12411007 B2) – this reference teaches a measurement device includes an analyzer configured to analyze a diffraction image of X-rays scattered from a subject; estimate a surface contour shape of a measurement area of the subject; extract feature data from shape information, and determine shape parameters for representing the surface contour shape; calculate a theoretical scattering intensity of each of the scattered X-rays when values of the shape parameters are changed; calculate a difference between a measured scattering intensity of each scattered X-ray and the corresponding theoretical scattering intensity, and generate a regression model of a relationship between a corresponding value of the shape parameter and the difference for each shape parameter; extract one shape parameter candidate value reducing the difference from the regression model, and calculate a theoretical scattering intensity of the shape parameter candidate value; and estimate the value of the shape parameter minimizing the difference while repeatedly changing the shape parameter candidate value.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHONG WU whose telephone number is (571)270-5207. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI: 9AM-5PM 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, Xiao Wu can be reached at 571-272-7761. 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.
/CHONG WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights