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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed December 17,2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6, 8-10, 12-17, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and the rejection(s) of claim(s) 11 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 additional teachings of Finn et al. (US 2019/0338666).
Applicant's request for the double patenting rejections to be held in abeyance is noted.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-10, 12-17, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finn et al. (US 2019/0338666).
With respect to claim 1, Finn shows an assembly for an aircraft propulsion system, the assembly comprising:
A propulsor section (Fig. 3) for the aircraft propulsion system, the propulsor section including a propulsor (20) and a propulsor case (See Figs. 4 and 5), the propulsor including a nose cone (Figs. 4 and 5) and a plurality of propulsor blades (34), the plurality of propulsor blades configured for rotation about a rotational axis of the aircraft propulsion system, the propulsor case extending circumferentially about the rotational axis and circumscribing the plurality of propulsor blades, and the nose cone disposed axially adjacent the plurality of propulsor blades (Fig. 4);
a plurality of imaging devices (multiple sensors 12 or multiple viewpoints; [0045]) mounted in the propulsor section ([0058]), each imaging device including a camera ([0031]) camera, the plurality of imaging devices including a first imaging device and a second imaging device, the first imaging device disposed on (Para. [0058]:"the sensor 12 is configured as a mobile camera integral with and coupled to a nacelle 36 of a gas turbine engine 38" and thus implies the same implementation for Fig. 4); and
a controller connected in signal communication with each imaging device of the plurality of imaging devices, the controller including a processor (16) in communication with a non-transitory memory storing instructions ([0004]), which instructions when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
control the camera of each imaging device of the plurality of imaging devices to capture image data of each propulsor blade of the plurality of propulsor blades as the plurality of propulsor blades rotate about the rotational axis ([0030]); and
identify a presence or an absence of damage for each propulsor blade of the plurality of propulsor blades using the image data from the cameras of two or more imaging devices of the plurality of imaging devices ([0004]).
Finn does not show that first imaging device disposed on the nose cone. Finn teaches "the system 10 can include an optical in-situ, i.e., built-in, system for a gas turbine engine blade inspection." Finn also suggests capturing data from multiple view points at para. [0030]: "…multiple sensors of multiple types. In various embodiments, data 14 may be obtained by…positioning the sensor(s) 12 relative to the component 20 to capture data 14 from multiple viewpoint angles, perspectives, and/or depths." In Figs 3 and 4, there are a limited number of locations where the system can be built in where capture data is from multiple viewpoint angles/perspective/depths, namely the cone and the nacelle.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to build in multiple systems in the cone and the nacelle, there being only a finite number of choices, in order to have an inspection system that is built-in and able to capture data from multiple viewpoint angles, perspectives, and/or depths. As such it would not require moving an inspection system to the turbine engine each time an inspection is performed and to different viewpoint angles, perspectives, and/or depths.
2. The assembly of claim 1, wherein the plurality of imaging devices includes a first imaging device and a second imaging device, the first imaging device is disposed at a first circumferential position, and the second imaging device is disposed at a second circumferential position different than the first circumferential position ([0030]).
3. The assembly of claim 1, wherein the plurality of imaging devices includes a first imaging device and a second imaging device, the first imaging device is disposed at a first axial position, and the second imaging device is disposed at a second axial position different than the first axial position ([0030]).
4. The assembly of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to identify the presence or the absence of damage for each propulsor blade of the plurality of propulsor blades by determining a damage probability for each propulsor blade of the plurality of propulsor blades using the image data from the camera of two or more imaging devices of the plurality of imaging devices ([0041]).
5. The assembly of claim 4, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to identify the presence or the absence of damage for each propulsor blade of the plurality of propulsor blades by comparing the damage probability for each propulsor blade of the plurality of propulsor blades to a damage probability threshold ([0041]).
6. The assembly of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to identify the presence of damage for each propulsor blade of the plurality of propulsor blades based on identification of the damage in the image data from the camera of two or more imaging devices of the plurality of imaging devices ([0041]).
9. The assembly of claim 1, wherein: each propulsor blade of the plurality of propulsor blades includes a root end, a tip end, a leading edge, and a trailing edge, the leading edge and the trailing edge extending radially between and to the root end and the tip end (Fig. 3); and the camera of two or more imaging devices of the plurality of imaging devices is configured to capture the image data for a same portion of a radial span of each propulsor blade of the plurality of propulsor blades (e.g. forward surface; Abstract).
10. The assembly of claim 9, wherein the same portion includes the leading edge at the root end (forward surface includes leading edge at the root end).
12. The assembly of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to transmit to an offboard system an indication of identification of the presence of damage to at least one propulsor blade of the plurality of propulsor blades (see user interface; [0041]).
With respect to claim 13, see citations given for claim 1, the steps of the claim flowing from the elements of claim 1.
With respect to claim 14, see claim 9 discussed above.
With respect to claim 15, see claim 10 discussed above.
With respect to claim 16, see claims 5 and 6 discussed above.
With respect to claim 17, see claim 1 and 9 discussed above.
With respect to claim 19, see claim 2 discussed above.
With respect to claim 20, see claim 10 discussed above.
With respect to claim 20, see claim 1 discussed above.
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.
Claim(s) 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finn as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Eastment (US 2020/056501).
Regarding claim 11, Finn shows all the elements of claim 1 as discussed above but does not show that the cameras are controlled to capture image data based on the rotation speed of the propulsor.
Eastment shows detection of defects of rotor blades wherein image data is taken based on the rotation speed of a propulsor ([0057]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to modify Finn to take images based on the rotation speed of the propulsor in order to take images of the rotor at its expected position in time.
Regarding claim 18, Finn shows all the elements of claim 1 as discussed above but does not show that the cameras are configured to capture the image data for only a radial portion of the leading edge of each blade.
Eastment teaches taking images of only a portion of the fan blade ([0034], [0037]). As the leading edge is a portion of interest, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to take images of only the leading edge of the blades so that the images do not contain extraneous data needing to be filtered out.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6 and 9-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,385,412. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are identical except for the recitation of a plurality of cameras in the claim instead of “a camera” found in the patented claim and broader because of the absence of light sources in the claim. Official notice is taken that using a plurality of cameras instead of a single camera was well known and it would have been obvious to use additional cameras to take redundant or additional images in order to improve the resolution and obtain images from different angles thus providing an improved ability of identifying elements in an image.
Claims 1-6 and 9-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,055,053. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations of claim 1 are found in patented claim 1 except the controller having the ability to identify the presence of damage for each blade. Official notice is taken that images of blades for damage was well known and it would have been obvious to include identification of damage in the inspection information of patented claim 1.
Claims 1-6 and 9-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,410,727. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations of claim 13 are found in patented claim 1 except the recitation of a “plurality of cameras” and disposed on a nose cone. Patented claim 13, however recites “at least one camera” and thus already covers a plurality of cameras. Mounting on a nose cone would have been obvious in light of Finn as discussed above for claim 1. Claim 1 corresponds to the method of patented claim 13 as the method requires and flows from the structure recited in claim 1.
Claims 1-6 and 9-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,379,645. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations of the claim are found in patented claim 1 and also being broader, requiring fewer limitations. Mounting a camera on a nose cone would have been obvious in light of Finn as discussed above for claim 1. As such, the patented claims already cover the limitations of claims 1-20.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hwa Andrew S Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5:30pm.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/Hwa Andrew Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877