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 .
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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 13 May 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of 1-5, 7-14, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170176342 (Colletti) in view of US 20070050156 (Vaidyanathan), and further in view of US 20160018256 (Mushimoto) have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. Claims 1-9 are hereby allowed. However, upon further consideration with respect to independent claims 10 and 15, a new ground(s) of rejection is made correcting the errors from the previous rejection.
Applicant did not make amendments, so this action is made non-final.
Applicant contended with respect to Claims 10 and 15 that Le Neel is insufficient to teach the limitation of “scanning between 95% and 100% of an external surface area of the bladed rotor” because Le Neel is directed to a blade, not a bladed rotor as claimed. The Examiner does not agree. Coletti is directed to scanning a bladed rotor but is silent as to how much of the bladed rotor is being scanned. One of ordinary skill applying the invention of Colletti would look to the prior art to see how much of a bladed rotor should be scanned. As Le Neel teaches it is known to scan an entire blade with multiple scanners in a similar way to Colletti and Applicant’s invention, it would be obvious to apply teachings of Le Neel to arrive at scanning the entire bladed rotor, i.e. 100%, for the benefit of inspecting the totality of the dimensional characteristics of the bladed rotor, as taught by Le Neel. See rejection below.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 10-12, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colletti (US 20170176342) in view of Le Neel (US 20180321028).
Claim 10 recites “an article of manufacture.” Colletti teaches such an article of manufacture, as will be shown.
Colletti teaches (Figs. 5-8) an article of manufacture including a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (inherent for operating processor 50) having instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising:
commanding, via the processor 50, a first scanner 41 to scan a first portion of a bladed rotor (40, 45, see Fig. 7, and para. 0036);
commanding, via the processor, a second scanner 41 to scan a second portion of the bladed rotor, the second portion being different from the first portion (see Fig. 7 and para. 0036);
However, Coletti does not teach determining, via the processor, whether the first scanner and the second scanner have both scanned between 95% and 100% of an external surface area of the bladed rotor; and generating, via the processor, a point cloud from scanned data of the first scanner and the second scanner.
Le Neel teaches (Figs. 1-5) an article of manufacture comprising storage medium 150 and instructions comprising: commanding via a processor 160 first and second scanners (2A, 2B, 3A, 3B) to scan different portions of a blade 5 (para. 0057), and determining, via the processor, whether the first scanner and the second scanner have both scanned between 95% and 100% of an external surface area of the bladed rotor (para. 0022, 0063, scan of the entire blade, i.e. 100%); and generating, via the processor, a point cloud from scanned data of the first scanner and the second scanner (para. 0024, para. 0063).
Le Neel further teaches scanning the entire blade and generating a point cloud from the scans data allows for an inspection of the totality of the dimensional characteristics of the blade can then be performed using measurement points derived from the scanning means (para. 0022).
Coletti is directed to scanning a bladed rotor but is silent as to how much of the bladed rotor is being scanned. One of ordinary skill applying the invention of Colletti would look to the prior art to see how much of a bladed rotor should be scanned. As Le Neel teaches it is known to scan an entire blade with multiple scanners in a similar way to Colletti and Applicant’s invention, it would be obvious to apply teachings of Le Neel to arrive at determining, via the processor, whether the first scanner and the second scanner have both scanned between 95% and 100% of an external surface area of the bladed rotor; and generating, via the processor, a point cloud from scanned data of the first scanner and the second scanner for the benefit of inspecting the totality of the dimensional characteristics of the bladed rotor, as taught by Le Neel.
Regarding Claim 11, Colletti, as modified with Le Neel in Claim 10 above, teaches (Colletti Figs. 5-8) the article of manufacture of claim 10, wherein the operations further comprise: commanding, via the processor, a motor 47 to rotate a shaft coupled to the bladed rotor a fixed amount (para. 0025); commanding, via the processor, the first scanner to scan a third portion of the bladed rotor; and commanding, via the processor, the second scanner to scan a fourth portion of the bladed rotor (para. 0025, 0039, see Fig. 5 and 7).
Regarding Claim 12, Colletti, as modified with Le Neel in Claim 10 above, teaches (Colletti Figs. 5-8) the article of manufacture of claim 10, wherein the first portion of the bladed rotor is a first blade, and wherein the second portion of the bladed rotor is a second blade (see Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 14, Colletti, as modified with Le Neel in Claim 10 above, teaches (Colletti Figs. 5-8) the article of manufacture of claim 10, wherein the operations further comprise receiving, via the processor, location data of the first scanner and the second scanner relative to a datum (46, 48); and generating the point cloud relative to the datum (para. 0026).
Claim 15 recites “an article of manufacture.” Colletti teaches such an article of manufacture, as will be shown.
Colletti teaches (Figs. 5-8) a method of inspecting a bladed rotor, the method comprising: scanning an external surface area of the bladed rotor (40, 45, see Fig. 7) a first time; scanning of the external surface area of the bladed rotor a second time (with plurality of scanners 41, see Fig. 7).
However, Colletti does not teach scanning 95-100% of an external surface area of the bladed rotor the first and second times and generating a point cloud based on scanning data received from scanning the bladed rotor the first time and the second time.
Le Neel teaches (Figs. 1-5) a method comprising scanning 95-100% of an external surface area (para. 0022, 0063, scan of the entire blade, i.e. 100%) of the blade 5 the first and second times (para. 0068, 0071, more modules can be added to increase point density) and generating a point cloud based on scanning data received from scanning the blade the first time and the second time (para. 0024, para. 0063).
Le Neel further teaches scanning the entire blade and generating a point cloud from the scans data allows for an inspection of the totality of the dimensional characteristics of the blade can then be performed using measurement points derived from the scanning means (para. 0022).
Coletti is directed to scanning a bladed rotor but is silent as to how much of the bladed rotor is being scanned. One of ordinary skill applying the invention of Colletti would look to the prior art to see how much of a bladed rotor should be scanned. As Le Neel teaches it is known to scan an entire blade with multiple scanners in a similar way to Colletti and Applicant’s invention, it would be obvious to apply teachings of Le Neel to arrive at scanning 95-100% of an external surface area of the bladed rotor the first and second times and generating a point cloud based on scanning data received from scanning the bladed rotor the first time and the second time for the benefit of inspecting the totality of the dimensional characteristics of the bladed rotor, as taught by Le Neel.
Regarding Claim 17, Colletti, as modified with Le Neel in Claim 15 above, teaches (Colletti Figs. 5-8) the method of claim 15, wherein scanning the bladed rotor the first time further comprises: scanning a first portion of the bladed rotor; rotating the bladed rotor a fixed amount; and scanning a second portion of the bladed rotor (para. 0025, 0039).
Regarding Claim 18, Colletti, as modified with Le Neel in Claim 15 above, teaches (Colletti Figs. 5-8) the method of claim 15, wherein scanning the bladed rotor the first time and scanning the bladed rotor the second time occurs simultaneously (para. 0025, 0039, Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 20, Colletti, as modified with Le Neel in Claim 15 above, teaches (Colletti Figs. 5-8) the method of claim 15, wherein the point cloud is generated relative to a datum (46, 48) based on location data of a scanner 41 that performs the scanning the first time and the scanning the second time (para. 0026).
Claims 13, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colletti in view of Le Neel, and further in view of Clark et al. (hereafter Clark – US 11250189).
Regarding Claim 13, Colletti, as modified with Le Neel in Claim 10 above, teaches (Colletti Figs. 5-8) the article of manufacture of claim 10.
However, modified Colletti does not teach the first scanner and the second scanner both comprise a blue light scanner.
Using a blue light scanner is mere simple substitution, as it is known to use them for bladed rotor to form point clouds, e.g. described in Clark (col. 5, ln. 54-62).
Regarding Claim 16, Colletti, as modified with Le Neel in Claim 15 above, teaches (Colletti Figs. 5-8) the method of claim 15.
However, modified Colletti does not teach a blue light scanner scans the bladed rotor the first time and the second time.
Using a blue light scanner is mere simple substitution, as it is known to use them for bladed rotor to form point clouds, e.g. described in Clark (col. 5, ln. 54-62).
Regarding Claim 19, Colletti, as modified with Le Neel in Claim 15 above, teaches (Colletti Figs. 5-8) the method of claim 15.
However, modified Colletti does not teach scanning the bladed rotor the first time and scanning the bladed rotor the second time is performed with a blue light scanner.
Using a blue light scanner is mere simple substitution, as it is known to use them for bladed rotor to form point clouds, e.g. described in Clark (col. 5, ln. 54-62).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art does not teach a first scanner moveably coupled to the support structure; a second scanner moveably coupled to the support structure; a motor operably coupled to a shaft, the shaft rotatably coupled to the support structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW BUI whose telephone number is (571) 272-0685. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Courtney Heinle can be reached on (571) 270-3508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/ANDREW THANH BUI/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights