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
The current application claims foreign priority from the United Kingdom application (GB2319017.6). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/03/2024 and 05/09/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-5, 9 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 line 4, “digital mark” should read “digital mask”
In claim 1 line 6, “the image of the object into the memory” should read “the image of the component into a memory”
In claim 3 line 2, “the material limits” should read “material limits”
In claim 4 line 2, “the size” should read “a size”
In claim 5 line 2, “the comparison of size” should read “a comparison of size”
In claim 9 line 8, the claim should end in a period instead of a semicolon
In claim 13 line 2, “the device” should read “a device”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed towards a "computer program" per se. Such computer programs, per se, are not, in and of themselves, methods or machines, nor are they physical products of manufacture or compositions of matter. Therefore, such programs do not fall into any of the categories of eligible subject matter defined in 35 U.S.C. § 101 and are not, by themselves, eligible for patent protection. Such programs can be eligible for patent protection if claimed as embodied on or in a computer readable storage device or medium, but only if the claim clearly and unambiguously excludes transitory, propagating signals from the full scope of the claimed subject matter, as such signals are also not eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-11 are method claims under Step 1, but under Step 2A all of these claims recite abstract ideas and specifically mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion; these mental processes are more particularly:
Recited in claim 1 as:
aligning the component with a physical or digital mask
comparing the captured image of the component against a perfect component
determining the amount of material loss between the perfect component and the imaged component
determining the differences between the captured image data with that of the perfect component
Recited in claim 2 as:
scaling the imaged component to a co-ordinate database that matches a model of the perfect component
subtracting the co-ordinates of the imaged component from those of the perfect modelled component
Recited in claim 3 as:
comparing the amount of material loss against material limits of the component
sentencing the component based on this comparison
Recited in claim 4 as:
scaling the component using either a scale marked on the mask, or by determining a size from a feature of known size on the component
Recited in claim 5 as:
mapping the image onto a three-dimensional model of the component
Recited in claim 7 as:
dividing the material loss by the engine run time to determine the material loss per unit time of the engine running
Recited in claim 9 as:
categorizing the wear to the component
Recited in claim 10 as:
predicting a safe length of future running time on the component based upon the determined categorisation of wear of the component and the metadata
Recited in claim 11 as:
sentencing the component to either be scrapped, refurbished or refitted to a gas turbine engine based upon the predicted safe length of future running time
It is noted that the above analysis is according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019 and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Consider also that “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea” as per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B). See also footnotes 14 and 15 of the Federal Register Notice. The steps as detailed above may be practically performed in the human mind with or without the use of a physical aid such as a pen and paper.
Under Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because each of claims 1-11 do not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application. The additional elements (“taking an image of the component using a camera” and “transferring the image of the component into a memory of a computer and adding metadata related to the component” in claim 1; “the material loss over unit time is output to a manufacturer or operator” in claim 8) are adding insignificant extra-solution activities of acquiring data and outputting results to the judicial exception, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application as per MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, each of claims 1-11 do not recite additional elements that are indicative of an inventive concept. The additional elements detailed above are simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception as per MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.07(a)III. In other words, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
For all of the above reasons, taken alone or in combination, claims 1-11 recite a non-statutory mental process.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-6, 9 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finn et al. (US 2019/0338666 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 2018/0260793 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Finn discloses a method for determining the wear to a component (Finn paragraph 0030: “detecting a defect or damage to a component 20”), the method comprising: taking an image of the component using a camera (Finn paragraphs 0030, 0035: “Component 20 may be scanned or sensed by one or more sensors 12 to obtain data 14 about the component 20…sensor 12 may include an image capture device…such as a camera…capable of capturing 2D still images or video images”); transferring the image of the component into a memory of a computer (Finn paragraph 0039: “Data 14 from sensor(s) 12 may be transmitted to one or more processors 16 (e.g., computer systems having a central processing unit and memory) for recording, processing and storing the data received from sensors 12”); comparing the captured image of the component against a perfect component (Finn paragraph 0040: “Reference model 22 may be generated from a CAD model, a 3D CAD model, and/or 3D information, such as from a 3D scan or 3D information of an original component or an undamaged component”); and determining the amount of material loss between the perfect component and the imaged component (Finn paragraph 0052: “Various types of damage such as missing material”) by determining the differences between the captured image data with that of the perfect component (Finn FIG. 1, paragraph 0048: “determine differences or dissimilarities between the 3D information 30 and the reference model 22…Differences or dissimilarities between the 3D information 30 and the reference model 22 may represent various types of damage to component 20”). However, Finn fails to explicitly disclose aligning the component with a physical or digital mask, wherein the physical or digital mask is transparent, with areas marked for an edge of the component; and adding metadata related to the component. In the related art of damage assessment, Li discloses aligning the component with a physical or digital mask (Li paragraph 0159: “The user can then position the camera of the client device so that the hood of the car aligns with the outline 1902”), wherein the physical or digital mask is transparent, with areas marked for an edge of the component (Li FIG. 19C, paragraph 0159: “an outline 1902 is displayed for the hood of the vehicle superimposed on a live camera view from the client device”); and adding metadata related to the component (Li paragraph 0090: “the images may include additional metadata, such as GPS location”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Finn to incorporate the teachings of Li to improve the accuracy and efficiency of image processing on the images (Li paragraph 0092).
Regarding claim 3, Finn, modified by Li, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the amount of material loss is compared against material limits of the component (Finn paragraph 0041: “determine the probability of damage and/or if the damage meets or exceeds a threshold 24”) and the component is sentenced based on this comparison (Finn paragraph 0051: “Damage may be determined if the probability meets or exceeds a threshold… determine if the damage is acceptable or unacceptable, and may determine if the component 20 should be accepted or rejected”).
Regarding claim 5, Finn, modified by Li, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the image is mapped onto a three-dimensional model of the component (Finn paragraphs 0040, 0042: “aligning the 2D or 3D information with a reference model (step 206)” where “Reference model 22 may be generated from a CAD model, a 3D CAD model, and/or 3D information”), before a comparison of size is performed (Finn FIG. 2: step 206 occurs before steps 208-214).
Regarding claim 6, Finn, modified by Li, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the metadata added to the image is one or more of the following: engine, component number, engine run time, operator, area of operation (Li paragraph 0090: “the images may include additional metadata, such as GPS location”).
Regarding claim 9, Finn, modified by Li, discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the component is a component of turbine of a gas turbine engine (Finn paragraph 0003: “at least one gas turbine engine blade”) and the wear to the component is categorised into at least one of: loss of a portion of thermal barrier coating; b. loss of a portion of substrate material; c. alteration of a flow area of at least one cooling hole through the substrate and thermal barrier coating; and d. holing of the component (Finn FIG. 1, paragraph 0049: “damage may be categorized into classes such as warping, stretching, edge defects, erosion, nicks, cracks, and/or cuts”).
Regarding claim 12, it is the corresponding computer program configured to execute the method claimed in claim 1. Therefore, Finn, modified by Li, discloses the limitations of claim 12 as it does the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Finn, modified by Li, discloses the computer program of claim 12, wherein the computer program is installed on a device having a camera (Finn FIG. 3, paragraph 0056: “The processor 16 may be coupled to the mobile video camera (system) 12”).
Regarding claim 14, Finn, modified by Li, discloses the computer program of claim 12, wherein the captured image data is transferred to a second computer, having the program of claim 12 (Finn paragraph 0039: “Data 14 from sensor(s) 12 may be transmitted to one or more processors 16 (e.g., computer systems having a central processing unit and memory)”).
Claim(s) 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finn and Li in view of Finch et al. (US 9,875,535 B2).
Regarding claim 2, Finn, modified by Li, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the determining of the material loss is performed by subtracting the co-ordinates of the imaged component from those of the perfect modelled component (Finn paragraph 0048: “The dissimilarities may be expressed, for example, by the distance between two points or vectors”). However, Finn fails to explicitly disclose the imaged component is scaled to a co-ordinate database that matches a model of the perfect component. In the related art of wear measurement, Finch discloses the imaged component is scaled to a co-ordinate database that matches a model of the perfect component (Finch col 12 lines 5-9: “orient (i.e. scale and/or rotate) 3D point cloud 224 such that the first set of register points in the computer model overlap the locations corresponding to the second set of register points in 3D point cloud 224”). Scaling is a known technique involved in aligning two datasets. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying scaling as part of the alignment step in Finn (Finn paragraph 0047). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Finn to incorporate the teachings of Finch to yield the predictable result of aligning the data with a reference model (Finn paragraph 0004).
Regarding claim 4, Finn, modified by Li and Finch, discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the component is scaled using either a scale marked on the mask (Finch col 9 lines 27-39: “determine the scaling factor S based on the determined image distance and a known length of the tape measure between the two reference points”), or by determining a size from a feature of known size on the component (Finch col 9 lines 10-26: “determine the scaling factor S based on the known dimensions of a feature 230, which may exist on undercarriage 12”).
Claim(s) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finn and Li in view of Banitt et al. (US 2016/0292518 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Finn, modified by Li, discloses the method of claim 6. However, Finn fails to explicitly disclose the material loss is divided by the engine run time to determine the material loss per unit time of the engine running. In the related art of monitoring changes in condition, Banitt discloses the material loss is divided by the run time to determine the material loss per unit run time (Banitt paragraph 0052: “The change of the dimensions of the surface damage divided by the time interval between the two surveys will provide an estimate of the rate of change in…the paved surface”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Finn to incorporate the teachings of Banitt to determine relevant information for future damage progression detection, damage trending and condition-based maintenance (Finn paragraph 0019).
Regarding claim 8, Finn, modified by Li and Banitt, discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the material loss over unit time is output to a manufacturer or operator (Finn paragraph 0041: “display an indication of the damage to component 20, which may include an image and/or a report” ) to identify replacement time limit for the component (Banitt paragraphs 0052-0053: “provide an estimate of…the projected residual lifetime of, the paved surface”).
Claim(s) 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finn and Li in view of Bonhage et al. (US 2024/0084716 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Finn, modified by Li, discloses the method of claim 9. However, Finn and Li fail to explicitly disclose a safe length of future running time on the component is predicted based upon the determined categorisation of wear of the component and the metadata. In the related art of component inspection, Bonhage discloses a safe length of future running time on the component is predicted (Bonhage paragraph 0020: “provide a lifespan prediction for the components classified as serviceable”) based upon the determined categorisation of wear of the component and the metadata (Bonhage paragraph 0035: “the algorithm is trained to classify component 10 into either a "serviceable" category or a "non-serviceable" category…us[ing] metadata about component 10 stored in the database”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Finn and Li to incorporate the teachings of Bonhage to determine relevant information for future damage progression detection, damage trending and condition-based maintenance (Finn paragraph 0019).
Regarding claim 11, Finn, modified by Li and Bonhage, discloses the method of claim 10 wherein the component is sentenced to either be scrapped, refurbished or refitted to a gas turbine engine based upon the predicted safe length of future running time (Bonhage Fig. 2, paragraph 0007: “the metadata including…a calculated remaining service life…Based on the at least one first image captured by the image-capturing device and the acquired metadata, the component being inspected is classified into either a "serviceable" category or a "non-serviceable" category…a component classified as "non-serviceable" is no longer operational and either needs repair or is scrap”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen et al. (US 10,657,647 B1) discloses detecting changes in objects, such as damage to automobiles, by comparing a base object model, which depicts the object in an expected condition, to one or more target images of the object in the changed condition.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE ZHAO whose telephone number is (703)756-5986. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm 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, Andrew Bee can be reached at (571)270-5183. 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.
/C.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 2677
/ANDREW W BEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights