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 15 October 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170176342 (Colletti) in view of US 20070050156 (Vaidyanathan) have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Mushimoto et al. (US 20160018256) and Le Neel (US 20180321028).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) above have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant did not make amendments so this action is made non-final.
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 1-5, 7-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colletti (US 20170176342) in view of Vaidyanathan (US 20070050156), and further in view of Mushimoto et al. (hereafter Mushimoto - US 20160018256).
Claim 1 recites “an inspection system for a bladed rotor.” Harman teaches such an inspection system for a bladed rotor, as will be shown.
Colletti teaches (Figs. 5-8) an inspection system for a bladed rotor, the inspection system comprising: a support structure 55; a first scanner 41 moveably coupled to the support structure (see para. 0027); a second scanner (second 41, see Fig. 7) moveably coupled to the support structure (para. 0027); a motor (gear mechanism 47) operably coupled to a shaft (claim 6), the shaft rotatably coupled to the support structure (para. 0036), the shaft configured to be coupled to the bladed rotor (claim 6); and a controller (50) in electronic communication with the first scanner, the second scanner, and the motor (para. 0027, 0039).
However, Colletti does not teach the controller configured to generate a point cloud for the bladed rotor based on scanning data received from the first scanner and the second scanner, the controller configured to: command the first scanner to scan the bladed rotor; command the second scanner to scan the bladed rotor.
Vaidyanathan (Figs. 1-4) teaches an inspection system for vanes comprising a controller 78 configured to generate a point cloud for the bladed rotor based on scanning data received from the first scanner and the second scanner (claim 2). Vaidyanathan further teaches this results in the most accurate scan data (para. 0030).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Vaidyanathan to the inspection system of Colletti to have the controller configured to generate a point cloud for the bladed rotor based on scanning data received from the first scanner and the second scanner, as both references and Applicant’s invention are directed to inspection systems for rotors. Doing so would result in accurate scans, as recognized by Vaidyanathan.
Mushimoto teaches an inspection system comprising a controller 40 configured to: command a first scanner 2 to scan (see para. 0060, 0091).
Mushimoto further teaches the controller may restart the scanner if it is in a defective state (para. 0091).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Mushimoto to the inspection system of modified Colletti to have the controller configured to: command the first scanner to scan the bladed rotor; command the second scanner to scan the bladed rotor, as both references and Applicant’s invention are directed to scanner systems. Doing so would result in convenient operation of the scanners, as recognized by Mushimoto.
Regarding Claim 2, Colletti, as modified with Vaidyanathan and Mushimoto in Claim 1 above, teaches (Colletti Figs. 5-8) the inspection system of claim 1. However, modified Colleti does not teach the first scanner and the second scanner are both blue light scanners.
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 et al. (US 11250189).
Regarding Claim 3, Colletti, as modified with Vaidyanathan and Mushimoto in Claim 1 above, teaches (Colletti Figs. 5-8) the inspection system of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to: command the motor to rotate the shaft a fixed amount between scanning by the first scanner and the second scanner (para. 0025).
Regarding Claim 4, Colletti, as modified with Vaidyanathan and Mushimoto in Claim 1 above, teaches (Colletti Figs. 5-8) the inspection system of claim 3, wherein the controller is further configured to determine each portion of the bladed rotor has been scanned by the first scanner and the second scanner in response to determining an angular position of the bladed rotor is 360 degrees from an initial position of the bladed rotor (para. 0025).
Regarding Claim 5, Colletti, as modified with Vaidyanathan and Mushimoto in Claim 1 above, teaches (Colletti Figs. 5-8) the inspection system of claim 1, wherein the point cloud has a point density twice that of a single scanner inspections system (two scanners would have more point density).
Regarding Claim 7, Colletti, as modified with Vaidyanathan and Mushimoto in Claim 1 above, teaches (Colletti Figs. 5-8) the inspection system of claim 1, further comprising a first track system and a second track system, the first scanner configured to travel along the first track system, the second scanner configured to travel along the second track system (arms 42).
Regarding Claim 8, Colletti, as modified with Vaidyanathan and Mushimoto in Claim 1 above, teaches (Colletti Figs. 5-8) the inspection system of claim 7, wherein the first track system and the second track system are distinct (see Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 9, Colletti, as modified with Vaidyanathan and Mushimoto in Claim 1 above, teaches (Colletti Figs. 5-8) the inspection system of claim 8, wherein the first track system is disposed opposite the second track system on the support structure (see Fig. 5).
Claim 10 recites an article of manufacture comprising the same features of Claim 1 and 6 which are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 11 recites an article of manufacture comprising the same features of Claim 3 which are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 12, Colletti, as modified with Vaidyanathan and Mushimoto in Claim 1 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 (para. 0039).
Claim 13 recites an article of manufacture comprising the same features of Claim 2 which are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 14, Colletti, as modified with Vaidyanathan and Mushimoto in Claim 1 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; and generating the point cloud relative to the datum (Vaidyanathan para. 0030).
Regarding Claim 16, Colletti, as modified with Vaidyanathan and Mushimoto in Claim 1 above, teaches (Colletti Figs. 5-8) a method of claim 15, wherein a blue light scanner scans the bladed rotor the first time and the second time (Fig. 5, Fig 8).
Regarding Claim 17, Colletti, as modified with Vaidyanathan and Mushimoto in Claim 1 above, teaches (Colletti Figs. 5-8) a 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. 0039).
Regarding Claim 18, Colletti, as modified with Vaidyanathan and Mushimoto in Claim 1 above, teaches (Colletti Figs. 5-8) a method of claim 15, wherein scanning the bladed rotor the first time and scanning the bladed rotor the second time occurs simultaneously (para. 0036).
Claim 19 recites a method comprising the same features of Claim 2 which are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 20, Colletti, as modified with Vaidyanathan and Mushimoto in Claim 1 above, teaches (Colletti Figs. 5-8) a method of claim 15, wherein the point cloud is generated relative to a datum based on location data of a scanner that performs the scanning the first time and the scanning the second time (Vaidyanathan para. 0030).
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colletti in view of Vaidyanathan, and further in view of Mushimoto, and further in view of Le Neel (US 20180321028).
Regarding Claim 6, Colletti, as modified with Vaidyanathan and Mushimoto in Claim 1 above, teaches (Colletti Figs. 5-8) the inspection system of claim 1.
However, modified Colletti does not teach the inspection system is configured to scan between 99% and 100% of an external surface area of the bladed rotor.
Le Neel teaches an inspection system configured to scan between 99% and 100% of an external surface area of the bladed rotor (para. 0022, entire blade, i.e. 100%).
Le Neel further teaches inspection of the totality of the dimensional characteristics of the blade can then be performed using measurement points derived from the scanning means.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Le Neel to the inspection system of modified Colletti to have the inspection system is configured to scan between 99% and 100% of an external surface area of the bladed rotor, as both references and Applicant’s invention are directed to inspection systems for bladed rotors. Doing so would result in more accurate inspections, as recognized by Le Neel.
Regarding Claim 15, Colletti, as modified with Vaidyanathan and Mushimoto in Claim 1 above, teaches (Colletti Figs. 5-8) a method of inspecting a bladed rotor, the method comprising.
However, modified Colletti does not teach scanning between 95% and 100% of an external surface area of the bladed rotor a first time; scanning between 95% and 100% of the external surface area of the bladed rotor a second time; 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 a method system configured to scanning between 95% and 100% of an external surface area of the bladed rotor a first time; (para. 0022, entire blade, i.e. 100%).
Le Neel further teaches inspection of the totality of the dimensional characteristics of the blade can then be performed using measurement points derived from the scanning means.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Le Neel to the inspection system of modified Colletti to have scanning between 95% and 100% of an external surface area of the bladed rotor a first time; scanning between 95% and 100% of the external surface area of the bladed rotor a second time, as both references and Applicant’s invention are directed to inspection systems for bladed rotors. Doing so would result in more accurate inspections, as recognized by Le Neel. When applying Le Neel to modified Colletti, there would be a second scan because of the second scanner.
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