The Boeing Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 23, 2021

2020006279 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/339,114 10/31/2016 Gary E. Georgeson 16-1042 4235
64722 7590 08/23/2021
OSTRAGER CHONG FLAHERTY & BROITMAN, P.C.
437 Madison Avenue, 24th Floor
NEW YORK, NY 10022-7035
EXAMINER
GRAVES, TIMOTHY P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2856
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2021 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
JBROITMAN@OCFBLAW.COM
patentadmin@boeing.com
patentdockets@ocfblaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GARY E. GEORGESON, JILL P. BINGHAM, HONG HUE TAT,
YUAN-JYE WU, JOHN M. PRYOR, SADIE L. FIENI, MARK D.
WINTERS, KATHRYN T. MOORE, JAMES C. KENNEDY,
CLAYTON M. LITTLE, and JOHN Z. LIN
Appeal 2020-006279
Application 15/339,114
Technology Center 2800

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, CHRISTA P. ZADO, and DAVID J.
CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.

ZADO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as The Boeing Co.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-006279
Application 15/339,114
2

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The instant application relates to non-destructive inspection of
structures or parts, and more particularly to systems and methods for
characterizing or evaluating anomalies, such as wrinkles, in a laminate
structure. Spec. 1:1–5.2 Claim 14, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
14. A method for non-destructive inspection of composite
structures, comprising:
(a) calibrating an ultrasonic inspection system based on a
correlation of ultrasonic B-scan data acquired in an area of a
reference standard made of composite material with optical
cross-section measurement data acquired from an image of a
cross section of the reference standard made by cutting the area
where the ultrasonic B-scan data was acquired, each reference
standard having at least one wrinkle;
(b) collecting ultrasonic B-scan data from a part made of
composite material using the ultrasonic inspection system after
completion of step (a);
(c) detecting the presence of a wrinkle in the part based on the
ultrasonic B-scan data collected in step (b); and
(d) calculating dimensions of the wrinkle in the part based on the
ultrasonic B-scan data collected in step (b) using a computer that
takes into account the correlation of the ultrasonic B-scan data
with the optical cross section measurement data.
Appeal Br. 22–23 (Claims App’x).

2 The notation “1:1–5” denotes page 5, lines 1 through 5. We use this
notation in this decision when referencing the Specification of the
application on appeal.
Appeal 2020-006279
Application 15/339,114
3

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Georgeson US 2008/0000299 A1 Jan. 3, 2008
Meredith US 2010/0250148 A1 Sept. 30, 2010
Sagnella EP 2 472 254 A2 July 4, 2012
Peter J. Joyce, et al., A Technique for Characterizing Process-Induce
Fiber Waviness in Unidirectional Composite Laminates—Using Optical
Microscopy, 31 J. COMPOSITE MATERIALS, 1694–1727 (1997).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–4, 6–10, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Sagnella and Joyce. Final Act. 6–21.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the combination of Sagnella, Joyce, and Georgeson. Id. at 21–22.
Claims 11–13 and 15–17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Sagnella, Joyce, and Meredith. Id. at
22–25.
Claims 18–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the combination of Sagnella, Joyce, and Meredith. Id. at 25–30.
OPINION
Background
The Specification explains that there is a need for improved, non-
destructive, techniques for characterizing wrinkles in composite materials
(such as multi-layered laminate structures used in the aerospace industry).
Spec. 1:5–2:10. By non-destructive, the Specification is referring to
techniques that do not require cutting/sectioning the composite material in
order to inspect the inside of the structure. Id. at 2:1–10. Non-destructive
Appeal 2020-006279
Application 15/339,114
4

techniques may include, e.g., using ultrasonic inspection. Id. However,
ultrasonic inspection is limited, according to the Specification, in that it can
be used to identify wrinkles, but cannot measure or characterize the
wrinkles. Id. at 1:20–25.
The Specification addresses the alleged drawback in non-destructive
techniques by first “calibrating” the ultrasonic inspection system. A
multiplicity of reference standards—i.e., samples of composite material—
containing at least one wrinkle are scanned using ultrasonic equipment.
Then, the reference standards are cut to expose cross-sections, wherein each
cross-section is imaged optically. The optical cross-section images are used
to acquire measurement data for each wrinkle. The optical cross-section
image data is compared with—i.e., “correlated” with—the data from the
ultrasound scans. The system, once “calibrated,” calculates dimensions of
wrinkles in composite materials based on ultrasound scans of the composite
material, using the correlation of ultrasound data and optical measurement
data taken of the reference standards during calibration. Spec. 3:18–30. In
this manner, in a calibrated system, the dimensions of the wrinkles may be
inferred from the results of the ultrasound scan without having to cut the
material to obtain an optical scan. Id. at 19:10–15. As the Specification
explains, in order to substitute destructive inspection with non-destructive
inspection,
one needs to establish a correlation between the non-destructive
inspection prediction of internal part quality and the results from
destructive inspection (e.g., optical cross section measurements).
After an acceptable correlation between the two methods has
been established, destructive inspection can be eliminated or the
number of optical cross sections required can be greatly reduced.
Id. at 20:1–6.
Appeal 2020-006279
Application 15/339,114
5

The Specification explains that the data collected during an ultrasound
scan can be displayed in different view windows, including A-scan, B-scan
(horizontal and/or vertical), and/or C-scan windows. See Spec. 9:28–13:4,
Fig. 2 (displaying each of the different scans). The Specification specifically
correlates B-scan data with optical measurement data. See, e.g., id. at
18:29–15. However, the Specification does not explain why B-scan data, in
particular, is used. Id. (stating there is a benefit of using ultrasonic data, but
not explaining why B-scan, as opposed to A-scan or C-scan data, is of
particular benefit).
Discussion
Appellant submits that the Examiner has not demonstrated the prior
art teaches or suggests correlating ultrasonic B-scan data with optical cross-
section measurement data, as required by each independent claim–i.e.,
claims 1, 6, 9, 14, and 18.3 In particular, Appellant argues that Sagnella
does not: 1) specifically use ultrasound B-scan data, but instead uses C-scan
data; and 2) Sagnella does not correlate ultrasound data with optical cross-
section measurement data. Appeal Br. 12–17. For reasons discussed below,
we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not shown that Sagnella
teaches or suggests correlating ultrasound data with optical cross-section
measurement data. On this basis, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 1–20. Because we reverse the rejections on this basis, we need not

3 Specifically, claim 14 recites the step of “calibrating an ultrasonic
inspection system based on a correlation of ultrasonic B-scan data acquired
in an area of a reference standard made of composite material with optical
cross-section measurement data acquired from an image of a cross-section of
the reference standard made by cutting the area where the ultrasonic B-scan
data was acquired, each reference standard having at least one wrinkle.”
Independent claims 1, 6, 9, and 18 each contain a similar recitation.
Appeal 2020-006279
Application 15/339,114
6

and do not decide whether Sagnella teaches or suggests using ultrasonic B-
scan data.
Sagnella relates to non-destructive testing (NDT) methods of
composite material structures (such as laminate structures) used to detect
defects in the structures. Sagnella ¶ 57. NDT methodologies range from
simple visual inspection to more complex techniques, such as ultrasonic-
based inspection. Id. ¶ 2. Sagnella purports to improve ultrasonic NDT
methods in particular. Id. ¶ 20. The methodology includes: 1) defining a
plurality of inspection points along a first scanning direction of the structure;
2) generating an ultrasonic signal incident on the structure’s surface for each
inspection point and acquiring a reflected ultrasonic signal, wherein the
reflected signal indicates the presence of an internal defect in the structure;
3) for each inspection point, processing the reflected signal to extract a first
echo signal; 4) for each inspection point, associating the peak amplitude
value and a first time-of-flight value with the first echo signal; 5) using
interpolation functions to mathematically fit peak amplitude value(s) and/or
time-of-flight value(s) associated with the first echo signals extracted for
each inspection point; and 6) estimating a first dimension of the defect on
the basis of at least one parameter of the interpolation function. Id. Notably,
the method disclosed in Sagnella does not include correlating the ultrasonic
data with optical cross-section measurement data, according to Appellant.
Appeal Br. 12–17.
In the Final Action the Examiner relies on paragraphs 52, 58, and 60
of Sagnella for teaching the claim limitation at issue. See, e.g., Final Act. 18
(rejection of claim 14). The cited paragraphs describe at least two different
calibrations. For reasons discussed below, the Examiner has not shown that
Appeal 2020-006279
Application 15/339,114
7

the cited portions of Sagnella teach or suggest correlating ultrasonic data
with optical cross-section measurement data.
The first calibration relates to limit of measurability. Sagnella ¶ 52.
Sagnella explains that if the amplitude of an ultrasonic signal and the back
echo are negligible, this could be due to insufficient gain rather than a defect
not being present. Id. ¶ 51. When amplitude is low, gain is incremented,
and the scanning steps of the method are repeated with the higher gain. Id.
Sagnella cautions, however, that the amount of gain has an upper limit,
because increasing gain by too much also increases the gain of noise levels,
and therefore does not result in significant improvement. Id. For example, a
gain greater than 12dB generally does not result in significant improvement;
however, the limit value may be different from 12dB depending on various
factors. Id. Determination of an appropriate limit value (or limit of
measurability) can be made by means of experimental processes based on a
statistically sufficient number of representative samples, according to
Sagnella. Id. ¶ 52.
Concerning how to determine the limit of measurability, Sagnella
does not provide express details that are sufficient to show the claimed
limitation at issue. Sagnella ¶¶ 51–53. Sagnella states that “the limit of
measurability should be checked by means of an experimental process
(experimental calibration), based on a statistically sufficient number of
representative samples of the parts to be inspected and containing real,
simulated or artificially induced defects similar to those of interest.” Id.
¶ 52. Notably absent is any description of using both ultrasonic data and
optical cross-section measurement data, and correlating such data. The
Examiner provides no explanation as to how Sagnella’s check of the limit of
Appeal 2020-006279
Application 15/339,114
8

measurability teaches or suggests correlating ultrasonic data with optical
cross-section data measurements. Final Act. 18–19; Ans. 6. The Examiner
finds that Sagnella teaches use of ultrasonic measurements to determine the
limit of measurability. Ans. 6. Assuming without deciding that the
Examiner is correct, using ultrasonic data, alone, is insufficient to satisfy the
limitation at issue, which requires correlating ultrasonic data with optical
cross-section measurement data.
The second calibration in Sagnella upon which the Examiner relies
relates to estimating values of R, RL, and RP. Sagnella ¶¶ 58–60. Sagnella
calculates the ratio ρ of the width LW and depth PW of a wrinkle within a
specific layer using R, RL, and RP. Id. ¶ 58. Ratio ρ is a useful metric,
because its magnitude indicates wrinkle severity. Id. ¶ 60 (explaining that a
wrinkle becomes less severe as ρ increases). The relationship between ρ
(i.e., ratio of wrinkle depth and width) and the ratio of pocket depth and
width is defined by the functions R, RL, and RP. These functions can be
estimated through experimental calibration, including through the use of
destructive analysis including visual analysis of wrinkles. Id. ¶ 60.
Assuming, without deciding, that Sagnella’s disclosure teaches using optical
cross-section measurement data in order to estimate the functional
relationships R, RL, and RP, there is no indication that Sagnella uses
ultrasonic data to estimate these relationships. It appears these relationships
are estimated using only destructive and/or visual analysis. Accordingly, the
Examiner has not shown, nor do we discern, how Sagnella teaches
correlating ultrasound data with optical cross-section measurement data to
estimate R, RL, and RP.
Appeal 2020-006279
Application 15/339,114
9

Relying on the two above-discussed calibrations—one for teaching
use of ultrasonic data and the other for teaching use of optical measurement
data—the Examiner finds that Sagnella teaches the limitation at issue.
Ans. 6. However, as discussed above, each calibration is unrelated. The
Examiner does not explain why a skilled artisan would have correlated the
ultrasonic measurements used to calibrate the limit of measurability with
optical measurement data used to determine R, RL, and RP. As such, the
Examiner has failed to show that the calibration of these two distinct
parameters teaches correlating ultrasonic data with optical cross-section
measurement data.
In the Answer, the Examiner identifies a calibration in Sagnella that is
not relied upon in the Final Action. Ans. 5–6 (citing Sagnella ¶¶ 66, 75); see
also, e.g., Final Act. 18–21 (rejection of claim 14 does not cite Sagnella
¶¶ 66, 75). Specifically, the Examiner cites paragraphs 66 and 75 of
Sagnella, which disclose experimentally estimating best-fit functions during
a calibration stage. Sagnella ¶¶ 66, 75. Whereas the portions of Sagnella
discussed above relate to detecting a defect, paragraphs 66 and 75 of
Sagnella relate to calculating the dimensions of the detected defect. Id.
¶¶ 63–81, Fig. 5. Paragraphs 66 and 75 each describe a different method of
estimating the width of a section SR of a detected pocket. Paragraph 66
describes estimating width La of section SR using ultrasonic amplitude
values. Id. ¶ 66. Paragraph 75 describes estimating width Lt of section SR
using ultrasonic time of flight values. Id. ¶ 75.
Appeal 2020-006279
Application 15/339,114
10

With regard to estimating La, Sagnella discloses the following
formula, the Figure of which is reproduced below, relating La to a function
φ:

Sagnella ¶ 66. The formula shown in the Figure states that La is equal to φ,
wherein φ is a function of k2 minus k1. Id. Both k2 and k1 are values
estimated from a best fit. Id. Specifically, each scan point (i.e., location
where an ultrasound signal is emitted and received) along SR has an
ultrasonic amplitude associated with it. Id. ¶ 66. The sequence of
amplitudes may be approximated by a best-fit procedure. Id. For example,
for curved areas and for wrinkles originating in curves along SR, the
sequence of amplitudes may be approximated with a Gaussian function,
according to Sagnella. Id. In that instance, k2 and k1 are amplitude values
obtained from the best fit function at scan points 2 and 1, respectively. Id.
Sagnella states that φ normally is a linear function, and that it may be
experimentally estimated in a calibration stage. Id.
Similar to the method for estimating La, Lt is estimated as a function ψ
of j2 minus j1, wherein j2 and j1 are time of flight values obtained from the
best-fit function at scan points 2 and 1, respectively. Sagnella ¶ 75. As with
φ, Sagnella states that ψ normally is a linear function, and that it may be
experimentally estimated in a calibration stage. Id.
The Examiner relies on Sagnella’s disclosure that φ and ψ can be
experimentally calibrated in an experimentation stage for teaching
correlating ultrasonic data with optical cross-section measurement data.
Ans. 5–6. However, Sagnella does not disclose details as to how φ and ψ
are experimentally estimated. Sagnella ¶¶ 66, 75. The Examiner finds,
Appeal 2020-006279
Application 15/339,114
11

nonetheless, that Sagnella collects ultrasonic data along wrinkles in a
reference sample and correlates ultrasonic inspection data with measured
wrinkle properties to obtain φ and ψ, but provides no explanation or
reasoning to support this assertion. Ans. 5–6. There is no disclosure of
using optical cross-section measurement data, no disclosure of using
ultrasonic data, and no disclosure of correlating the two, in order to estimate
φ and ψ. In light of Sagnella’s lack of disclosure, we find the Examiner’s
unexplained assertion is insufficient. Reply Br. 2–3.
For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner has not shown that Sagnella
teaches or suggests correlating ultrasonic B-scan data with optical cross-
section measurement data, as required by each independent claim—i.e.,
claims 1, 6, 9, 14, and 18. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejections of
claims 1, 6, 9, 14, and 18 or claims 2–5, 7, 8, 10–13, and 15–20 depending
therefrom.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.
More specifically, we do not sustain the rejections of:
Claims 1–4, 6–10, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the combination of Sagnella and Joyce;
Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination
of Sagnella, Joyce, and Georgeson;
Claims 11–13 and 15–17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Sagnella, Joyce, and Meredith; and
Claims 18–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the combination of Sagnella, Joyce, and Meredith.

Appeal 2020-006279
Application 15/339,114
12

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6–10,
14
103 Sagnella, Joyce 1–4, 6–10,
14
5 103 Sagnella, Joyce,
Georgeson
5
11–13, 15–
17
103 Sagnella, Joyce,
Meredith
11–13, 15–
17
18–20 103 Sagnella, Joyce,
Meredith
18–20
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED