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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 9-10, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbott et al. (US 2017/0234812; hereinafter Abbott) in view of Kawane et al. (JP 2021-096087; hereinafter Kawane) and Warner et al. (US 2009/0213984; hereinafter Warner).
Regarding claim 1, Abbott discloses a method for scanning a component (title and abstract), the method comprising: applying a contrast agent to one or more regions of interest of the component (par. 9), wherein a material of the contrast agent has a mass attenuation coefficient that is greater than a mass attenuation coefficient of a material of the component (par. 13) thereby providing a contrast between the one or more regions of interest of the component and a rest of the component (par. 14: for CT scanning); providing a computed tomography (CT) scanner (par. 14).
However, Abbott fails to disclose wherein the CT scanner comprises an x-ray source and a detector; placing the component between the x-ray source and the detector after the application of the contrast agent to the one or more regions of interest of the component; generating, via the x-ray source, an x-ray cone beam or fan beam that passes through the component; receiving the x-ray cone beam or fan beam at the detector, wherein the detector is configured to generate an x-ray signal in response to receiving the x-ray cone beam or fan beam; and generating an x-ray image of the component based on the x-ray signal.
Kawane teaches wherein the CT scanner (1) comprises an x-ray source (11) and a detector (12); placing the component (fig. 1: on 13) between the x-ray source and the detector after the application of the contrast agent to the one or more regions of interest of the component (fig. 3); generating, via the x-ray source (11), an x-ray beam that passes through the component (on 13); receiving the x-ray beam at the detector (12), wherein the detector (12) is configured to generate an x-ray signal (for 18) in response to receiving the x-ray beam; and generating an x-ray image (with 18) of the component based on the x-ray signal. Warner teaches an x-ray cone beam or fan beam (par. 13).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Abbott with the teaching of Kawane, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for easier handling (Kawane: abstract).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Abbott with the teaching of Warner, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for performing inspection faster over a larger area (Warner: fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Abbott as modified above suggests claim 1. Abbott further discloses wherein applying the contrast agent further comprises infusing the contrast agent into one or more cavities of the component in this embodiment (par. 20).
However, Abbot fails to disclose pores in the above embodiment.
Abbott teaches pores in the prior art (par. 7).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Abbott with the prior art teaching of pores, since these regions of interest were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, which one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to substitute. One would have been motivated to make such a modification for inspecting more things (Abbott: par. 7).
Regarding claim 9, Abbott discloses wherein applying the contrast agent further comprises coating the one or more regions of interest of the component with the contrast agent (pars. 20-22).
Regarding claim 10, Abbott discloses wherein the coating process is one of: direct coating (pars. 20-22: by having the contrast agent directly applied to regions of interest); chemical vapor deposition; physical vapor deposition; electroplating; electroplating and selective etching; multi-material additive layer manufacturing; and powder coating.
Regarding claim 15, Abbott discloses wherein the mass attenuation coefficient of the material of the contrast agent is at least twice the mass attenuation coefficient of the material of the component (par. 13).
Regarding claim 16, Abbott discloses wherein the component is metallic (par. 13).
Regarding claim 17, Abbott discloses wherein the component is a turbine blade (par. 16) of an engine (par. 1). Warner teaches a gas turbine engine (par. 26).
Claim(s) 2-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbott, Kawane, and Warner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cui et al. (CN 113640324 A; hereinafter Cui).
Regarding claim 2, Abbott as modified above suggests claim 1.
However, Abbott fails to disclose generating a greyscale plot of the x-ray image; and detecting one or more peaks in the greyscale plot corresponding to the one or more regions of interest of the component that are applied with the contrast agent.
Cui teaches generating a greyscale plot of the x-ray image; and detecting one or more peaks in the greyscale plot corresponding to the one or more regions of interest of the component that are applied with the contrast agent (title; abstract; figs. 5-6).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Abbott with the teaching of Cui, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for accuracy and reliability (Cui: abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Abbott discloses cavity defects (par. 19). Cui teaches determining one or more surface cavities of the component based on the one or more peaks (figs. 4-6).
Regarding claim 4, Cui teaches determining one or more edges of the component adjacent to a background of the component based on the one or more peaks (figs. 4-6).
Regarding claim 5, Cui teaches wherein the one or more edges comprise at least two peaks (at the edges of fig. 6), the method further comprising determining a reference dimension of the component based on a distance between the two peaks (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 6, Cui teaches aligning the one or more peaks corresponding to the one or more regions of interest of the component with a reference geometry in order to perform a datum alignment of the x-ray image (figs. 4-6).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbott, Kawane, and Warner as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Taft et al. (US 2003/0119200; hereinafter Taft).
Abbott as modified above suggests claim 7.
However, Abbott fails to disclose wherein applying the contrast agent further comprises lowering a temperature of the component to solidify the contrast agent after infusion.
Taft teaches wherein applying the contrast agent further comprises lowering a temperature of the component to solidify the contrast agent after infusion (pars. 13-14 and 16).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Abbott with the teaching of Taft, since these contrast agents were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, which one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to substitute. One would have been motivated to make such a modification for better control (Taft: par. 2).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbott, Kawane, and Warner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cho et al. (US 2021/0313631; hereinafter Cho).
Abbott as modified above suggests claim 1.
However, Abbott fails to disclose wherein the contrast agent comprises mercury, lead, platinum or an alloy thereof.
Cho teaches wherein the contrast agent comprises mercury, lead, platinum or an alloy thereof (par. 51).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Abbott with the teaching of Cho, since these contrast agents were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, which one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to substitute. Furthermore, it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. One would have been motivated to make such a modification for ensuring its seen (Cho: par. 49).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbott, Kawane, and Warner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tokutome et al. (JP 2021-017419 A; hereinafter Tokutome).
Regarding claim 12, Abbott as modified above suggests claim 1.
However, Abbott fails to disclose wherein the contrast agent comprises a resin embedded with a plurality of nanoparticles.
Tokutome teaches wherein the contrast agent comprises a resin embedded with a plurality of nanoparticles (par. 22).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Abbott with the teaching of Tokutome, since these contrast agents were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, which one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to substitute. One would have been motivated to make such a modification for high contrast (Tokutome: abstract).
Regarding claim 13, Tokutome teaches wherein applying the contrast agent further comprises: coating the one or more regions of interest of the component with the resin; and curing the resin after coating by at least one of lowering a temperature and exposure to light (par. 22).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbott, Kawane, and Warner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ferro et al. (US 2023/0099769; hereinafter Ferro) and Reinhardt et al. (DE 10 2007 021 932 A1; hereinafter Reinhardt).
Abbott as modified above suggests claim 1.
However, Abbott fails to disclose wherein the x-ray image comprises a plurality of voxels, each voxel from the plurality of voxels having a voxel size, wherein a thickness of the contrast agent on the one or more regions of interest of the component is equal to or less than the voxel size.
Ferro teaches wherein the x-ray image comprises a plurality of voxels, each voxel from the plurality of voxels having a voxel size (fig. 3). Reinhardt teaches wherein a thickness of the contrast agent on the one or more regions of interest of the component is equal to or less than the voxel size (par. 26).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Abbott with the teaching of Ferro, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for more information (Ferro: fig. 3).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Abbott with the teaching of Reinhardt, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for not needing lots of contrast agent (Reinhardt: par. 26).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chih-Cheng Kao whose telephone number is (571)272-2492. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 at (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.
/Chih-Cheng Kao/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights