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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I and species 1 in the reply filed on 6/12/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 22-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/12/26. The Examiner notes that claim 23 belongs to non-elected group II, and claim 22 does not read on the elected species, as noted by Applicant in the reply filed 6/12/26.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "126" (fig. 2) and "136" (fig. 3a) have both been used to designate the same spring. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 16-18 of pg. 18 refer to reference character 16 as both a shaft and a backplate
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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) 13-15, 19, 21 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 110672292 A, hereinafter Zhang) in view of Foucault et al. (FR 2956206 A1, hereinafter Foucault).
As to claim 13, Zhang teaches a non-contact excitation system for a spin rig comprising:
a plurality of exciter elements 19 arranged around the axis of rotation (¶65),
wherein the exciter elements are magnetically attractive (¶65 teaches that they are magnets);
wherein the exciter elements comprise magnets (¶65);
each exciter element 19 being moveable between an active position (fig. 5 and ¶65) and an inactive position (¶65 teaches “The permanent magnet 19 is fixed to the magnet mounting bracket 29 using nuts and bolts,” meaning that the exciter elements are able to be uninstalled and placed respectively in an inactive position away from the rest of the system), in which the magnetic force (i.e. between the magnets 19 and the blades, as described in ¶70) is reduced .
Zhang does not explicitly teach a plurality of test piece elements for attachment to a test piece for rotation about an axis of rotation of the spin rig; and
wherein the test piece elements are magnetically attractive,
the active position is a position in which a magnetic force is provided between each exciter element and at least one of the test piece elements,
wherein in the inactive position, the magnetic force between the exciter elements and the at least one test piece element is reduced.
Foucault teaches a vibratory stimulator for a bladed wheel (title), comprising a plurality of test piece elements 11 (fig. 2) for attachment to a test piece (bladed wheel 10B) for rotation about an axis of rotation (see the paragraph beginning on line 5 of pg. 7 of the translation),
wherein the test piece elements are magnetically attractive,
a magnetic force is provided between an exciter element 12 and at least one of the test piece elements 11 (in the translation, see the paragraph bridging pgs. 7-8 and lines 9-13 of pg. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Zhang to use a plurality of magnetically attractive test piece elements as taught by Foucault for the benefit of being able to additionally test bladed structures that do not have magnetic properties (in the translation of Foucault, see lines 11-19 on pg. 4).
Zhang as modified teaches a plurality of test piece elements 11 (Foucault) for attachment to a test piece for rotation about an axis of rotation of the spin rig; and
the active position is a position in which a magnetic force is provided between each exciter element 19 (Zhang) and at least one of the test piece elements 11 (Foucault),
wherein in the inactive position (i.e., an uninstalled position of the exciter elements 19 of Zhang, away from the rest of the system), the magnetic force between the exciter elements and the at least one test piece element is reduced.
If Applicant argues that only one (or none) of the exciter elements is able to be uninstalled,
it has been held that making something separable is obvious if there is a motivation for separating that structure. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is “press fitted” and therefore not manually removable. The court held that “if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.”). See MPEP 2144.04(V)(C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Zhang as modified such that all the exciter elements are removable for maintenance purposes.
As to claim 14, Zhang teaches wherein each exciter element 19 is moveable in an axial direction of the system between the active position and the inactive position (when each exciter element 19 is uninstalled, it is capable of being moved in an axial direction of the system between the active position and the inactive position).
As to claims 15 and 24, Zhang teaches wherein each exciter element is resiliently biased to the inactive position (when each exciter element 19 is uninstalled, it is capable of being resiliently biased to the inactive position).
As to claim 19, Zhang teaches wherein the number of exciter elements is adjustable (the exciter elements are removable, as discussed above, meaning the number of exciter elements that is attached can be changed).
As to claim 21, Zhang as modified teaches a test piece (fig. 3 and ¶51 of Zhang) to which the test piece elements (of Foucault) are attached.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Foucault as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Komori (JP H0755655 A).
As to claim 20, Zhang teaches wherein, in use, the exciter elements are arranged around the test piece (¶65).
Zhang as modified does not teach wherein each exciter element is axially and radially offset from the plurality of test piece magnets elements.
Komori teaches an exciter for a “blade vibration-rotation test” (title), comprising at least one exciter element 13 (fig. 2) that is axially offset and at least partially radially offset from the portion of the blade(s) to be excited.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Zhang as modified such that the exciter elements are axially offset and at least partially radially offset from the portions to be excited as taught by Komori since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of exciting for another for the predictable result that vibration tests are still successfully carried out.
Zhang as modified teaches wherein each exciter element is axially and radially (at least partially radially) offset from the plurality of test piece magnets elements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-18 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 16, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the features of “wherein the system comprises a shock absorber corresponding to at least one exciter element, the shock absorber to dampen the movement of the exciter element from the active to the inactive position” all in combination with the rest of the claimed apparatus.
As to claim 17, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the features of “wherein the system comprises a plurality of electromagnets, each corresponding to at least one exciter element, and wherein each electromagnet is configured to hold the or each corresponding exciter element in the active position during use” all in combination with the rest of the claimed apparatus.
Claim 18 contains allowable subject matter for depending from claim 17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KR 20220159794 A teaches a test piece 21 that can be placed at an arbitrary position on a blade
US 6422813 B1 teaches the concept of adjusting the location of exciter magnets in the axial direction (figs. 2 and 7), but teaches away from the use of test pieces on blades – col. 1 lines 30-40
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUBEN C PARCO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM 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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/R.C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights