DETAILED ACTION
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.
Internet/E-mail Communication
In order to permit communication regarding the instant application via email, Applicant is invited to file form PTO/SB/439 (Authorization for Internet Communications) or include the following statement in a filed document or remarks of a filed response (see MPEP 502.03 II):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
If such authorization is provided, please include an email address in the remarks of a filed response. The examiner’s e-mail address is CHRISTOPHER.LEGENDRE@USPTO.GOV.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 20 October 2025 has been entered.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant's remarks/arguments filed 20 October 2025 addressing the previously applied prior art references in light of amended claims 1 and 8 have been fully considered. The Office respectfully notes that the previously applied references Shohei, Kuniyoshi, Koichi, and Metscher disclose (see below prior art rejections; see attached human-assisted AI translations of Shohei, Kuniyoshi, and Koichi) a controller that controls the frequency of the respective oscillator, and that the associated claim limitations of “scale removal” and/or changing “node” positioning are necessarily achieved by such control and/or amount to statements of intended use/result that do not further limit the structure of the claimed invention.
Applicant's remarks/arguments filed 20 October 2025 stating “Using a high frequency of 10 kHz or higher for scale removal is not described in the prior art and is not merely a design matter” have been fully considered. The Office respectfully notes that Shohei discloses a frequency of 500 kHz.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 4, --that-- should be added before “controls”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in this Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in this Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a controller” (claims 1 and 8).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 1, the limitation recited as “a frequency that can remove scale that cannot be removed” renders the claim indefinite since “that cannot be removed” is necessarily excluding of “remove scale”. Due to an identical instance, this rejection also applies to claim 8. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claims 2-5, 7, and 9.
In claim 1, the limitation recited as “a portion of node of the vibration mode”/”the portion of node of the vibration mode” renders the claim indefinite since it is semantically/grammatically unclear. Due to an identical instance, this rejection also applies to claim 8. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claims 2-5, 7, and 9.
In claim 8, the limitation recited as “The steam turbine” renders the claim indefinite since it lacks antecedent basis (see MPEP 2173.05(e)). To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests changing “The” to --A--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shohei et al. (JP S62251405 A - hereafter referred to as Shohei; previously cited; see attached human-assisted AI translation).
In reference to claim 1 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Shohei discloses:
A turbine blade comprising:
a blade part (i.e., the assembly of elements 2, 3, and the airfoil extending therebetween - Figure 1); and
an oscillator ((1) 9 or 9’ - Figure 1, OR (2) 24 - Figure 9) mounted on the blade part to vibrate the blade part, and
a controller controls the oscillator (see page 7 of the human-assisted AI translation stating “A high-frequency power supply (not shown) capable of arbitrarily setting the frequency and applied voltage is provided outside the casing, and a high-frequency voltage is applied to the vibrator 9.9' via high-frequency power lines 11.11' and 12.12'. The frequency of the high frequency power is appropriately adjusted to generate ultrasonic standing waves 15”)(note: vibrations from elements 9,9’ will propagate into the identified blade part),
wherein the oscillator is configured to change a frequency at which the blade part is vibrated (see page 7 of the AI-human translation stating “A high-frequency power supply (not shown) capable of arbitrarily setting the frequency and applied voltage is provided outside the casing, and a high-frequency voltage is applied to the vibrator 9.9' via high-frequency power lines 11.11' and 12.12'. The frequency of the high frequency power is appropriately adjusted to generate ultrasonic standing waves 15”)(note: vibrations from elements 9,9’ will propagate into the identified blade part), and
the controller changes the frequency of the oscillator to a frequency that can remove scale that cannot be removed from a portion of node of the vibration mode of the blade part (note: the recitation that can remove scale that cannot be removed from a portion of node of the vibration mode of the part is considered as a statement of intended use/result that does not structurally limit the claimed invention - Applicant’s disclosure indicates that the instant recitation is a mere byproduct of changing the frequency, and it is noted that the applied reference is capable of achieving the instant result due to its ability to change the frequency), where a position of the portion of node of the vibration mode of the blade part changes (note: the recitation a position of the portion of node of the vibration mode of the blade part necessarily results from a change in frequency).
In reference to claim 3
Shohei discloses:
The turbine blade according to claim 1, wherein the turbine blade is a stator blade, and the blade part includes a blade portion (i.e., airfoil) and a blade ring (2 or 3) supporting the blade portion.
In reference to claim 4
Shohei discloses:
The turbine blade according to claim 3, wherein the oscillator (9 or 9’) is mounted on an exterior (9 - see Figure 4; 9’ – see Figure 1) of the blade ring (2 or 3).
In reference to claim 5
Shohei discloses:
The turbine blade according to claim 3, wherein the oscillator (9’) is mounted on the blade ring (2) which is provided radially inward of the blade portion.
In reference to claim 7
Shohei discloses:
A steam turbine comprising the turbine blade according to claim 1.
In reference to claim 9
Shohei discloses:
The steam turbine according to claim 1 wherein the oscillator is configured to vibrate the blade part at a high frequency of 10 kHz or higher (i.e., 500 kHz - see page 7 of human-assisted AI translation).
Claims 1, 3, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuniyoshi et al. (JP S61106901 A - hereafter referred to as Kuniyoshi; previously cited; see attached human-assisted AI translation).
In reference to claim 1 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Kuniyoshi discloses:
A turbine blade comprising:
a blade part (i.e., the assembly of elements 1, 2, and 3 - Figure 1);
an oscillator (9 - Figure 1) mounted on the blade part to vibrate the blade part, and
a controller (see page 5 of the human-assisted AI translation stating “As shown in FIG. 1, the electrodes 10, 10' are connected to power supply lines 12, 13 which communicate with an external high frequency power supply”) controls the oscillator
wherein the oscillator (9) is configured to change a frequency (see page 6 of the human-assisted AI translation stating “In particular, if the frequency t of the vibrators 9, 9' is increased to a high frequency in the ultrasonic range, this high frequency will cause a resonance phenomenon on the liquid surface of the water vent flow, causing the wave surface to break up and become fine water droplets”) at which the blade part is vibrated, and
the controller changes the frequency of the oscillator to a frequency that can remove scale that cannot be removed from a portion of node of the vibration mode of the blade part (note: the recitation that can remove scale that cannot be removed from a portion of node of the vibration mode of the part is considered as a statement of intended use/result that does not structurally limit the claimed invention - Applicant’s disclosure indicates that the instant recitation is a mere byproduct of changing the frequency, and it is noted that the applied reference is capable of achieving the instant result due to its ability to change the frequency), where a position of the portion of node of the vibration mode of the blade part changes (note: the recitation a position of the portion of node of the vibration mode of the blade part necessarily results from a change in frequency).
In reference to claim 3
Kuniyoshi discloses:
The turbine blade according to claim 1, wherein the turbine blade is a stator blade, and the blade part includes a blade portion (1) and a blade ring (2 or 3) supporting the blade portion.
In reference to claim 7
Kuniyoshi discloses:
A steam turbine comprising the turbine blade according to claim 1.
Claims 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koichi et al. (JP H04284103A - hereafter referred to as Koichi; previously cited; see attached human-assisted AI translation).
In reference to claim 1 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Koichi discloses:
A turbine blade comprising:
a blade part (i.e., the assembly of element 3 and the radially inner and outer bands attached thereto - Figure 3); and
an oscillator (14) mounted on the blade part to vibrate the blade part, and
a controller (i.e., power supply circuit 15 - see par. [0010] of the human-assisted AI translation) controls the oscillator
wherein the oscillator (14) is configured to change a frequency (see par. [0010] of the human-assisted AI translation stating “when the frequency of the AC voltage applied to the piezoelectric element 14 from the power supply circuit 15 is changed”) at which the blade part is vibrated, and
the controller changes the frequency of the oscillator to a frequency that can remove scale that cannot be removed from a portion of node of the vibration mode of the blade part (note: the recitation that can remove scale that cannot be removed from a portion of node of the vibration mode of the part is considered as a statement of intended use/result that does not structurally limit the claimed invention - Applicant’s disclosure indicates that the instant recitation is a mere byproduct of changing the frequency, and it is noted that the applied reference is capable of achieving the instant result due to its ability to change the frequency), where a position of the portion of node of the vibration mode of the blade part changes (note: the recitation a position of the portion of node of the vibration mode of the blade part necessarily results from a change in frequency).
In reference to claim 2
Koichi discloses:
The turbine blade according to claim 1, wherein the blade part is formed with a hollow part (i.e., the space defined by elements 3 and 12 - Figure 2), and the oscillator (14) is mounted (see Figure 2) inside the hollow part.
In reference to claim 3
Koichi discloses:
The turbine blade according to claim 1, wherein the turbine blade is a stator blade, and the blade part includes a blade portion (3) and a blade ring (i.e., either of the radially inner and outer bands) supporting the blade portion.
In reference to claim 7
Koichi discloses:
A steam turbine comprising the turbine blade according to claim 1.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Metscher (DE 102005021781; previously cited).
In reference to claim 8 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Metscher discloses:
The steam turbine comprising:
a turbine blade (15) comprising a blade part (i.e., at least an airfoil);
a turbine casing (13) supporting the turbine blade;
an oscillator (i.e., oscillatory element 16) mounted on a wall face of the turbine casing vibrating the wall face of the turbine casing to vibrate the blade part, and
a controller (i.e., a control device - see page 7, last paragraph of machine translation) controlling the oscillator,
wherein the oscillator (16) is configured to change a frequency at which the blade part is vibrated (see page 7, last paragraph of machine translation), and the controller changes the frequency of the oscillator to a frequency that can remove scale that cannot be removed from a portion of node of the vibration mode of the blade part (note: the recitation that can remove scale that cannot be removed from a portion of node of the vibration mode of the part is considered as a statement of intended use/result that does not structurally limit the claimed invention - Applicant’s disclosure indicates that the instant recitation is a mere byproduct of changing the frequency, and it is noted that the applied reference is capable of achieving the instant result due to its ability to change the frequency), where a position of the portion of node of the vibration mode of the blade part changes (note: the recitation a position of the portion of node of the vibration mode of the blade part necessarily results from a change in frequency).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RYAN LEGENDRE whose telephone is (571)270-3364 and email is christopher.legendre@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
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 Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at 571-272-8648. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER R LEGENDRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745