DETAILED ACTION
This is the First Action on the Merits for U.S. Patent Application No. 18/954,875, filed 21 November 2024, which claims foreign priority to British Application No. GB 2318858.4, filed 11 December 2023.
Claims 1–14 are pending.
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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 12, and 13 are objected to for want of conformity to 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(i), which requires every element or step in a claim to be separated by a line indentation. Appropriate correction is required. Contrast with claim 8.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 9, and 12 are objected to for various minor grammar and punctuation errors. See the claim rejections infra. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claim 6 is 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 6 is ungrammatical and appears incomplete. For the purpose of initial search, claim 6 is interpreted as reading “The imaging system according to claim 1, wherein the camera container comprises a box having two white light sources, wherein the two light sources are positioned spatially and axially apart”.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6–8, and 10–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 111855682 A (“Wang”)1. Wang, directed to a system for detecting defects of turbine blades, teaches with respect to claim 1 an imaging system for a component to be imaged (Fig. 1, turbine blades 3),
the imaging system comprising a frame having an upper (id., data acquisition module substantially above blades 3) and lower section (id., transmission device 1),
at least one section comprising a clamp for holding the component (id., ¶¶ 0026–36, clamp 2),
the frame supporting an [sic] camera container (¶ 0014, detection black box),
wherein the camera container comprises a box (id.) having
at least one white light source (¶ 0017, white light source) and
a diffuser (id., diffuse light sources) and
at least one camera (¶¶ 0014–15, industrial cameras inside detection black box), and
wherein the camera is connected to a computer (Fig. 1, defect analysis module 5).
Regarding claim 2, Wang teaches the imaging system according to claim 1, wherein the camera container contains two cameras that are angularly offset from one another (Fig. 4, positions of any two of cameras 42, 44, 46, or 48).
Regarding claim 4, Wang teaches the imaging system according to claim 1, wherein the clamp is a slot that is shaped to accommodate the component to be imaged (Fig. 2, structure of special tool clamp 2).
Regarding claim 6, Wang teaches the imaging system according to claim 1, wherein two light sources [what about them?], with [presumably, sic] the light sources are positioned spatially and axially spaced [redundant?] apart (Fig. 4, positions of light sources 43 and 47).
Regarding claim 7, Wang teaches the imaging system according to claim 1, wherein the component to be imaged is a blade for a gas turbine engine (passim, imaging jet engine turbine blades).
Regarding claim 8, Wang teaches a method of imaging a component using the tool as claimed in claim 12, wherein the method comprises[:]
inserting the component to be scanned into the tool (¶ 0032, inserting one end of the turbine blade into the first clamping portion),
imaging the component (¶ 0054, collecting images of the blade surface),
transferring the image data to the computer (id., transmitting image data to data analysis and visualization module 5),
adding metadata to the image data (¶¶ 0018–21, labelling each turbine blade with a QR code that links to defect information),
analyzing the image data (¶ 0022, comprehensively analyzing the number, type, and distribution of defects of the turbine blades), [and]
deciding an action for the component (¶ 0012, robotic arm sorting system diverts turbine blades with surface defects).
Regarding claim 10, Wang teaches the method according to claim 8, wherein more than one image is taken for the component (¶ 0054, collecting continuous images of the blade surface).
Regarding claim 11, Wang teaches the method according to claim 8, wherein the analysis is done by machine learning or artificial intelligence (¶ 0010, recognizing and classifying surface defects based on a machine learning method).
Regarding claim 12, Wang teaches the method wherein the deciding an action for the component[[,]] involves identifying the presence of damage
assessing the severity of the damage to the component (id., classifying surface defects).
Regarding claim 13, Wang teaches the method according to claim 8, wherein after the first imaging step the camera is moved to at least one more position (¶ 0054, collecting images of the blade surface while the blades are moving with conveying device 1) and
at least one more image is obtained (id.).
Regarding claim 14, Wang teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the decision data from the component is one of: reinstall, replace, repair, or monitor (¶ 0010, recognizing and classifying surface defects; ¶ 0012, unacceptable blades are “diverted”).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wang. Claim 3 specifies the cameras are movable, but Wang shows stationary cameras and a movable conveyance device for the turbine blades. However, the examiner finds that moving the camera relative to the blade or moving the blade relative to the camera performs the same function of photographing the blade from different positions and angles, and are obvious variants of each other. See M.P.E.P. §§ 2144.04(VI)(A) (reversal of relative movement obvious), 2144.04(VI)(C) (rearrangement of parts that does not affect function a matter of design choice), 2183 (Doctrine of Equivalents).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of EP 4276747 A1 (“Blakeslee”)3. Claim 5 recites using an additional measurement tool, namely, “at least one of ultrasonic probe [or] eddy current probe”. Wang does not teach this. However, Blakeslee, directed to component inspection, teaches with respect to claim 5: wherein the frame is provided with another measurement tool for assessing the condition of the component, the tool being at least one of ultrasonic probe [or] eddy current probe (¶ 0026, cl. 10; use of ultrasonic sensor with camera to inspect component for defects).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the Wang system to incorporate an ultrasonic sensor as an additional defect detector with the cameras, as taught by Blakeslee, in order to use a plurality of metrics to find defects or anomalies that may be missed by a camera alone. Blakeslee ¶ 0035.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of US 2018/0128687 A1 (“Boudin”)4. Claim 9 recites a variety of metadata options, all of which have the effect of identifying an individual blade or engine under inspection. Wang appears to be directed to manufacturing, and only collects data in the aggregate, not specifically stating that the QR codes are used to identify specific blades. However, Boudin, directed to an inspection system for a turbine component, teaches with respect to claim 9: wherein the metadata includes at least one of: engine, engine number, operator, component number, blade number, [or] engine flying hours (¶ 0036, database stores information on individual components such that a component may be tracked over time for statistical analysis on wear). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the Wang system to include blade numbers in its own database for this purpose.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following prior art was found using an Artificial Intelligence assisted search using an internal AI tool that uses the classification of the application under the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) system, as well as from the specification, including the claims and abstract, of the application as contextual information. The documents are ranked from most to least relevant. Where possible, English-language equivalents are given, and redundant results within the same patent families are eliminated. See “New Artificial Intelligence Functionality in PE2E Search”, 1504 OG 359 (15 November 2022), “Automated Search Pilot Program”, 90 F.R. 48,161 (8 October 2025).
US 2009/0323053 A1
US 2015/0355106 A1
GB 2577851 A
GB 2473099 A
US 10473593 B1
US 2021/0318565 A1
EP 0907077 A2
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David N Werner whose telephone number is (571)272-9662. The examiner can normally be reached M--F 7:30--4:00 Central.
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, Dave Czekaj can be reached at 571.272.7327. 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.
/David N Werner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
1 This reference was cited as an ‘X’ reference in the European Search Report for corresponding application EP 24214168, and was listed in the 9 May 2025 Information Disclosure Statement. An English-language machine translation is added to the record.
2 Under U.S. statute, claim 8 is interpreted as dependent on claim 1. 35 U.S.C. § 112(d).
3 This reference was cited as a ‘Y’ reference in the European Search Report for corresponding application EP 24214168, and was listed in the 9 May 2025 Information Disclosure Statement.
4 This reference was cited as a ‘Y’ reference in the European Search Report for corresponding application EP 24214168, and was listed in the 9 May 2025 Information Disclosure Statement.
Prosecution Insights