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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 18-19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding newly amended claims 18-19, the claim recites the limitation regarding “a distance along the centerline between the plurality of expansion elements decreases during the deforming of the expansion element”. The specification fails to describe such a structural relationship between the plurality of expansion elements and the centerline. Instead, the specification provides support for, when each of the expansion elements deform radially outward away from the centerline, a longitudinal distance [112] along the centerline between respective expansion element ends [106, 108] decreases (Para [0079-0082], see Figs. 11-15). The specification fails to describe any embodiment comprising expansion elements deforming radially outward away from the centerline such that the distance along the centerline between the plurality of expansion elements themselves decreases. Based on the Figures of the instant application, it would appear that when each of the plurality of expansion elements deform radially outward away from the centerline, a distance along the centerline between the plurality of expansion elements [98] increases [opposite of what is claimed in newly amended claims 18-19] (see Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 22, it is dependent on claim 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 1-4, 6-8, 10, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rouse et al. (US 4,304,134) (hereinafter Rouse).
Regarding claim 1, Rouse teaches an inspection method [ultrasonically inspecting material] (see Abstract), comprising:
inserting a head of an inspection scope [inspection apparatus 10] into an interior of a powerplant [steam turbine], the head of the inspection scope comprising an actuator [transducers 38], and the powerplant comprising a component within the interior of the powerplant [rotor 12 and circular rotor bore 14] (Col 3, lines 4-15, see Figs. 1-2);
arranging the head of the inspection scope within the interior of the powerplant [coaxially aligned with rotor 12 and circular rotor bore 14 into which apparatus 10 is insertable] with the actuator contacting the component [transducers engage bore wall] (Col 3, lines 4-22, see Figs. 1-2);
expanding a mechanically expandable mount within the interior of the powerplant to anchor a position of the head of the inspection scope within the interior of the powerplant and maintain contact between the actuator and the component [transducers radially expanded to engage bore wall] (Col 3, lines 4-22, see Figs. 1-2);
the mechanically expandable mount comprising an expansion element extending between a first end and a second end [various movable parts can be considered as an expansion element, such as a combination of linkage arm 22 and support arm 28; extends between a first end at the end of the linkage arm closest to the body and a second end at the end of the support arm adjacent the transducer 38] (see Figs. 1-2), the expansion element including a first member and a second member [linkage arm 22 and support arm 28], the second member movably connected to the first member at a connection between the first end and the second end (see Figs. 1-2), the expanding of the mechanically expandable mount comprises deforming the expansion element radially outward away from a centerline of the inspection scope [combination of linkage arm 22 and support arm 28 bends radially outward away from the centerline when expanding] (see Fig. 2); and a distance along the centerline between the first end and the second end decreases during the deforming of the expansion element [distance along axis 18 between the two ends of the expansion element decreases when expanding] (see Figs. 1-2); and
inducing vibrations in the component using the actuator while the contact is maintained between the actuator and the component using the mechanically expandable mount [transducers engage bore wall; means for transmitting ultrasonic signals between transducers 38 and bore wall 16] (Col 3, lines 4-22, Col 5, lines 14-16, see Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 2, Rouse as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the inspection scope includes the head of the inspection scope, the mechanically expandable mount and a scope body extending longitudinally along a centerline to the head of the inspection scope [along longitudinal axis 18] (see Figs. 1-2); the head of the inspection scope is connected to the scope body and disposed at a distal end of the inspection scope; and the mechanically expandable mount is connected to the scope body longitudinally next to the head of the inspection scope (see Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 3, Rouse as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein in addition to wherein the inspection scope includes the head of the inspection scope, the mechanically expandable mount and a scope body extending longitudinally along a centerline to the head of the inspection scope [along longitudinal axis 18] (see Figs. 1-2); the head of the inspection scope is located at a distal end of the inspection scope; and the mechanically expandable mount is located at the longitudinal end of the head of the inspection scope (see Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 4, Rouse as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, wherein the expansion element comprises a flat geometry when the mechanically expandable mount is in a retracted arrangement (see Fig. 1); and the expansion element comprises a bent geometry when the mechanically expandable mount is in an expanded arrangement (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Rouse as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the expanding of the mechanically expanding mount comprises moving the first member relative to the second member such that an angle between the first member and the second member at the connection decreases (see Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 7, Rouse as applied to claim 6 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the angle is between 175 degrees and 180 degrees when the mechanically expandable mount is in a retracted arrangement before the expanding of the mechanically expandable mount (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Rouse as applied to claim 7 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the angle is between 160 degrees and 90 degrees when the mechanically expandable mount is in an expanded arrangement after the expanding of the mechanically expandable mount (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Rouse as applied to claim 7 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the expanding of the mechanically expandable mount comprises moving the first member relative to the second member such that an angle between the first member and a centerline of the inspection scope increases [angle between linkage arm 22 and axis 18 increases during expansion] (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Rouse as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to further comprising stowing the mechanically expandable mount following the inducing of the vibrations [initial position before inserted into bore to be monitored; not a single use apparatus] (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Rouse as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the position of the head of the inspection scope is fixed within the interior of the powerplant by the mechanically expandable mount to further maintain a preload between the actuator and the component [radial position of carrier 36, force of biasing means and the radial length of transducer 38 are cooperatively adjustable to ensure engagement force levels between the transducer lens and the bore wall] (Col 4, lines 39-45).
Regarding claim 15, Rouse as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to further comprising measuring a vibratory response in the component excited by the vibrations using a sensor to provide sensor data [ultrasonic signals reflected to the transducers may be interpreted to diagnose discontinuities, inclusions, impurities, or cracks in the rotor material] (Col 3, lines 10-15).
Regarding claim 16, Rouse as applied to claim 15 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to further comprising determining a characteristic of the component based on the sensor data [ultrasonic signals reflected to the transducers may be interpreted to diagnose discontinuities, inclusions, impurities, or cracks in the rotor material] (Col 3, lines 10-15).
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 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.
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.
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rouse as applied to claims 6 and 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, Rouse as applied to claim 6 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the angle is between 90 degrees and 20 degrees when the mechanically expandable mount is in an expanded arrangement after the expanding of the mechanically expanding mount. Rouse additionally teaches wherein rotor bore size varies from turbine rotor to turbine rotor, the inspection apparatus 10 must be capable of centering itself and have transducers which may be radially expanded to engage any bore’s wall (Col 3, lines 16-20). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Rouse such that the angle is chosen to be a specified amount, such as between 90 degrees and 20 degrees, when the mechanically expandable mount is in an expanded arrangement after the expanding of the mechanically expanding mount, in order to radially expand the transducers to engage a bore wall having a large diameter. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 17, Rouse as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the powerplant comprises a turbine engine, and the component is configured as a rotor disk within the turbine engine (Col 3, lines 4-22, see Figs. 1-2). Rouse additionally teaches that it is to be understood that the present invention may be successfully used for inspection purposes with any circular bore (Col 3, lines 25-30). Rouse fails to teach wherein the turbine engine is installed with an aircraft during the inserting, the arranging, the expanding, and the inducing. The Examiner takes Official Notice that it is known in the art that airplanes are known to comprise turbine engines having a rotor component with a circular bore. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Rouse such that the turbine engine is installed with an aircraft during the inserting, the arranging, the expanding, and the inducing, in order to inspect an aircraft turbine engine that’s already installed.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rouse as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bousquet et al. (US 2012/0291583 A1) (hereinafter Bousquet).
Regarding claim 11, Rouse as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the component is a first component, the powerplant further comprise a second component within the interior of the powerplant, and the second component comprises an aperture; the inspection scope extends longitudinally along a centerline through the aperture with the head of the inspection scope disposed between the first component and the second component; and the mechanically expandable mount is disposed between the first component and the second component and longitudinally abutted against the second component adjacent the aperture when the mechanically expandable mount is deployed.
Bousquet teaches an inspection method for a first component of a powerplant, the powerplant comprise a second component [wall 42] within the interior of the powerplant and the second component comprises an aperture [second opening 46]; an inspection scope [20, 32] extends longitudinally along a centerline through the aperture with the head of the inspection scope disposed between the first component and the second component [component to be inspected past the second wall 42]; and a mechanically expandable mount is disposed between the first component and the second component and longitudinally abutted against the second component adjacent the aperture when the mechanically expandable mount is deployed [traction line pressed against the inside surface of the opening 46 during flexing of longitudinal body 26] (Para [0045-0050], see Figs 5-9).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Rouse with Bousquet such that wherein the component is a first component, the powerplant further comprise a second component within the interior of the powerplant, and the second component comprises an aperture; the inspection scope extends longitudinally along a centerline through the aperture with the head of the inspection scope disposed between the first component and the second component; and the mechanically expandable mount is disposed between the first component and the second component and longitudinally abutted against the second component adjacent the aperture when the mechanically expandable mount is deployed, in order to inspect a circular bore behind a wall component of the powerplant.
Regarding claim 12, Rouse as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the component is a first component, the powerplant further comprise a second component within the interior of the powerplant, and the second component comprises an aperture; the inspection scope extends longitudinally along a centerline through the aperture with the head of the inspection scope disposed between the first component and the second component; and the mechanically expandable mount is disposed at least partially within the aperture and radially abutted against the second component when the mechanically expandable mount is deployed.
Bousquet teaches an inspection method for a first component of a powerplant, the powerplant comprise a second component [wall 42] within the interior of the powerplant and the second component comprises an aperture [second opening 46]; an inspection scope [20, 32] extends longitudinally along a centerline through the aperture with the head of the inspection scope disposed between the first component and the second component [component to be inspected past the second wall 42]; and a mechanically expandable mount is disposed at least partially within the aperture and radially abutted against the second component when the mechanically expandable mount is deployed [traction line pressed against the inside surface of the opening 46 during flexing of longitudinal body 26] (Para [0045-0050], see Figs 5-9).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Rouse with Bousquet such that wherein the component is a first component, the powerplant further comprise a second component within the interior of the powerplant, and the second component comprises an aperture; the inspection scope extends longitudinally along a centerline through the aperture with the head of the inspection scope disposed between the first component and the second component; and the mechanically expandable mount is disposed at least partially within the aperture and radially abutted against the second component when the mechanically expandable mount is deployed, in order to inspect a circular bore behind a wall component of the powerplant.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is 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:
Regarding claim 21, the primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter is the inclusion of the limitations regarding wherein the expansion of mechanically expandable mount further comprises translating the first end towards the second end along a base mount of the mechanically expandable mount, in combination with the rest of the limitations found in the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding newly amended claim 1, Applicant argues that Rouse fails to teach “deforming the expansion element radially outward away from a centerline of the inspection scope, and a distance along the centerline between the first end and the second end decreases during the deforming of the expansion element”, suggesting that Rouse actually teaches the distance between the first end and the second end increase during deforming. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in the rejection, the expansion element of Rouse is interpreted as a combination of linkage arm 22 and support arm 28, such that expansion element extends between a first end at the end of linkage arm 22 closest to body 20 and a second end at the end of support arm 28 adjacent to the transducer 38. The apparatus is transformed from a collapsed configuration having a flat geometry (see Fig. 1) to an expanded configuration having a bent geometry (see Fig. 2). As seen in Figs. 1-2 of Rouse, the distance between the first end at the end of linkage arm 22 closest to body 20 and the second end at the end of support arm 28 adjacent to transducer 38 decreases when the apparatus is transformed from Fig. 1 to Fig. 2 [expansion elements deforming radially outward from the centerline]. As such, Rouse still teaches the claimed invention and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant presents similar arguments in regards to newly amended claims 18 and 19; however, the language presented in claims 18 and 19 is different from the language in claim 1 and is not supported by the instant specification. See rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) presented above.
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 DAVID Z HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5360. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/DAVID Z HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights