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.
DETAILED ACTION
Claims status
Claims 1-20 are pending as the applicant filed on 05/13/2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1-20, the terms “initial inspection” “initial signal” “the baseline inspection” “unique to the component” “defect” ” initial first signal” “initial second signal” are vague and a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The terms “initial inspection” “initial signal” “the baseline inspection” “unique to the component” “defect” ” initial first signal” “initial second signal” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably appraised of the scope of the invention. An artisan doing measuring and testing would not know at what point “initial inspection” “initial signal” “the baseline inspection” “unique to the component” “defect” ” initial first signal” “initial second signal” within the scope of the claim had been accomplished because nothing within the disclosure establishes when a sufficient “initial inspection” “initial signal” “the baseline inspection” “unique to the component” “defect” ” initial first signal” “initial second signal” occur.
Note: In view of the PTO compact prosecution, the Examiner notes that due to the indefiniteness issues described above all consideration of the merits of the claims in view of prior art is as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1, Step 1 the claim is a process (or machine) (Yes),
Step 2A Prong One, does the claim recite an abstract idea? current claim related to a method of inspecting a component within a gas turbine engine, wherein the component comprises a solid metallic material, the method comprising: (a) providing a baseline inspection response signal that is produced by using a transducer to perform an initial inspection of the component, the initial inspection including transmitting a first initial signal into the component and sensing the component for a second initial signal produced as a result of the first initial signal being transmitted into the component, wherein the baseline inspection response signal is representative of the second initial signal and is unique to the component appears is an abstract idea of mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)) or data gathering equivalent to mathematical concept or mathematical manipulation function (MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) (concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula), (OR Mathematical Concepts and Mental Processes) Step 2A Prong One: Yes.
Step 2A Prong Two, is the claim directed to an abstract idea? In other words, does claim recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application? the additional elements of using the transducer to inspect the component, the inspection including transmitting a first signal into the component and sensing the component for a second signal produced as a result of the first signal being transmitted into the component, and producing an inspection response signal representative of the second signal are recited at a high level of generality and merely amount to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) and/or insignificant post-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), this does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application,
Step 2A Prong Two: NO.
Step 2B, Does the claim recite additional element that amount to significantly more than the Judicial exception? the additional elements of evaluating the inspection response signal to determine the presence or absence of a defect using the baseline response signal appears to be field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h) and MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or merely amounts to insignificant extra-solution output of the results (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and therefore fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Step 2B: No. claim 1 not eligible.
Claim 13, Step 1 the claim is a process (or machine) (Yes),
Step 2A Prong One, does the claim recite an abstract idea? current claim related to an inspection system for a component within a gas turbine engine, the component comprising a solid metallic material, the system comprising:
a transducer having a signal transmitter and a signal receiver; and
a controller in communication with the signal transmitter, the signal receiver, and
a non-transitory memory storing instructions, which instructions when executed cause the controller to: (a) control the signal transmitter to transmit a first signal into the component comprising the solid metallic material; (b) control the signal receiver to sense the component for a second signal produced as a result of the first signal being transmitted into the component, and to produce a response signal appears is an abstract idea of mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)) or data gathering equivalent to mathematical concept or mathematical manipulation function (MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) (concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula), (OR Mathematical Concepts and Mental Processes) Step 2A Prong One: Yes.
Step 2A Prong Two, is the claim directed to an abstract idea? In other words, does claim recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application? the additional elements of process the response signal received from the signal receiver to produce an inspection response signal; sense the component for an initial second signal produced as a result of the initial first signal being transmitted into the component, and produce the baseline response signal unique to the component using the initial second signal are recited at a high level of generality and merely amount to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) and/or insignificant post-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), this does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application,
Step 2A Prong Two: NO.
Step 2B, Does the claim recite additional element that amount to significantly more than the Judicial exception? the additional elements of evaluate the inspection response signal to determine the presence or absence of a defect, using a stored baseline response signal unique to the component produced by using the transducer to perform an initial inspection of the component by transmitting an initial first signal into the component appears to be field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h) and MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or merely amounts to insignificant extra-solution output of the results (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and therefore fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Step 2B: No. claim 13 not eligible.
Claim 2 related to the inspection response signal is evaluated to determine a difference with the baseline response signal, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 2 not eligible.
Claim 3 related to the inspection response signal is evaluated by comparison with the baseline response signal, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 2 not eligible.
Claim 4 related to the inspection response signal is evaluated by comparison with the baseline response signal to determine a frequency shift of one or more signal peaks, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 4 not eligible.
Claim 5 related to wherein the first signal and the second signal are ultrasonic signals, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 5 not eligible.
Claim 6 related to the baseline response signal is indicative of the component being free of defects, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 6 not eligible.
Claim 7 related to the component is a rotor disk, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 7 not eligible.
Claim 8 related to repeating steps (b) and (c) after a trigger event that occurs during operation of the gas turbine engine, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 8 not eligible.
Claim 9 related to repeating steps (b) and (c) periodically, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 9 not eligible.
Claim 10 related to repeating steps (b) and (c) after the gas turbine engine has performed a predetermined number of flight cycles, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 10 not eligible.
Claim 11 related to determining trend data using a plurality of the inspection response data produced periodically, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 11 not eligible.
Claim 12 related to the transducer is attached to the component, and an inspection scope in contact with the component and independent of the transducer is used to communicate with the transducer, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 12 not eligible.
Claim 14 related to the instructions when executed cause the controller to evaluate the inspection response signal by determining a difference with the baseline response signal, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 14 not eligible.
Claim 15 related to the instructions when executed cause the controller to evaluate the inspection response signal by comparison with the baseline response signal, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 15 not eligible.
Claim 16 related to wherein the first signal and the second signal are ultrasonic signals, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 16 not eligible.
Claim 17 related to the instructions when executed cause the controller to perform (a) – (d) after a trigger event that occurs during operation of the gas turbine engine, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 17 not eligible.
Claim 18 related to the instructions when executed cause the controller to perform (a) – (d) periodically, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 18 not eligible.
Claim 19 related to the instructions when executed cause the controller to determine trend data using a plurality of the inspection response data produced periodically, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 19 not eligible.
Claim 20 related to the instructions when executed cause the controller to perform (a) – (d) after the gas turbine engine has performed a predetermined number of flight cycles, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 20 not eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6- 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Wang, US Patent Application Publication 20120162192 A1, Date Published: 2012-06-28.
Regarding claim 1:
Wang described a method of inspecting a component within a gas turbine engine, wherein the component comprises a solid metallic material (0019, monitoring system may be utilized to monitor components within other rotary machines or turbo machines, turbine rotor), the method comprising:
(a) providing a baseline inspection response signal that is produced by using a transducer to perform an initial inspection of the component, the initial inspection including transmitting a first initial signal into the component and sensing the component for a second initial signal produced as a result of the first initial signal being transmitted into the component, wherein the baseline inspection response signal is representative of the second initial signal and is unique to the component (0022, inspection interval, identify blocked cooling holes);
(b) using the transducer to inspect the component, the inspection including transmitting a first signal into the component and sensing the component for a second signal produced as a result of the first signal being transmitted into the component, and producing an inspection response signal representative of the second signa (0022, determine a desired inspection interval)l; and
(c) evaluating the inspection response signal to determine the presence or absence of a defect using the baseline response signal (0025, to detect defects).
Regarding claim 13:
Wang described an inspection system for a component within a gas turbine engine, the component comprising a solid metallic material (0019, monitoring system may be utilized to monitor components within other rotary machines or turbo machines, turbine rotor), the system comprising:
a transducer having a signal transmitter and a signal receiver; and
a controller in communication with the signal transmitter, the signal receiver, and
a non-transitory memory storing instructions, which instructions when executed cause the controller to (0022, inspection interval, identify blocked cooling holes, fig. 1, 36 controller, detector array):
(a) control the signal transmitter to transmit a first signal into the component comprising the solid metallic material (fig. 1, 36, detector array);
(b) control the signal receiver to sense the component for a second signal produced as a result of the first signal being transmitted into the component, and to produce a response signal (0022, inspection interval,=);
(c) process the response signal received from the signal receiver to produce an inspection response signal (0022, inspection interval, identify blocked cooling holes,; and
(d) evaluate the inspection response signal to determine the presence or absence of a defect (0025, to detect defects), using a stored baseline response signal unique to the component produced by using the transducer to perform an initial inspection of the component by transmitting an initial first signal into the component and sense the component for an initial second signal produced as a result of the initial first signal being transmitted into the component, and produce the baseline response signal unique to the component using the initial second signal (0031, certain combustion products species, such as water vapor and carbon dioxide, absorb and emit radiation over a wide range of wavelengths in response to increased temperature).
Regarding claim 2, Wang further described the inspection response signal is evaluated to determine a difference with the baseline response signal (0034, different angles).
Regarding claim 3, Wang further described the inspection response signal is evaluated by comparison with the baseline response signal (0034, different angles).
Regarding claim 4, Wang further described the inspection response signal is evaluated by comparison with the baseline response signal to determine a frequency shift of one (0029, scanning frequency may be reduced proportionally to the number of observation points scanned) or more signal peaks.
Regarding claim 6, Wang further described the baseline response signal is indicative of the component being free of defects (0025, defects?).
Regarding claim 7, Wang further described a rotor disk (0023, rotor).
Regarding claim 8, Wang further described repeating steps (b) and (c) after a trigger event that occurs during operation of the gas turbine engine (0027, any period of time).
Regarding claim 9, Wang further described comprising repeating steps (b) and (c) periodically (0027, any period of time).
Regarding claim 10, Wang further described repeating steps (b) and (c) after the gas turbine engine has performed a predetermined number of flight cycles (0027, any period of time).
.
Regarding claim 11, Wang further described determining trend data using a plurality of the inspection response data produced periodically (0027, signal time of 10, 5, 3, 2, 1, or 0.5 microseconds).
Regarding claim 12, Wang further described the transducer is attached to the component, and an inspection scope in contact with the component and independent of the transducer is used to communicate with the transducer (0028, scan resolution is inversely proportional to the number of spatially multiplexed signals).
Regarding claim 14, Wang further described the instructions when executed cause the controller to evaluate the inspection response signal by determining a difference with the baseline response signal (0034, different angles).
Regarding claim 15, Wang further described the instructions when executed cause the controller to evaluate the inspection response signal by comparison with the baseline response signal (0034, different angles).
.
Regarding claim 17, Wang further described executed cause the controller to perform (a) – (d) after a trigger event that occurs during operation of the gas turbine engine (0027, any period of time).
.
Regarding claim 18, Wang further described the instructions when executed cause the controller to perform (a) – (d) periodically (0027, any period of time).
.
Regarding claim 19, Wang further described the instructions when executed cause the controller to determine trend data using a plurality of the inspection response data produced periodically (0027, signal time of 10, 5, 3, 2, 1, or 0.5 microseconds).
Regarding claim 20, Wang further described the instructions when executed cause the controller to perform (a) – (d) after the gas turbine engine has performed a predetermined number of flight cycles (0027, any period of time)..
.
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) 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, US Patent Application Publication 20120162192 A1, Date Published: 2012-06-28 in view of VASLOT, FR 2970329 A1, Date Published: 2012-07-13, CPC G01H 9/008.
Regarding claim 5, 16, Wang further described the signals (0022, inspection interval, identify blocked cooling holes) except signal are ultrasonic signals.
VASLOT described ultrasonic signals (page 1, ultrasonic sensor) for the advantage of can be determined in an easy, accurate (page 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Wang to have ultrasonic signals for the advantage of can be determined in an easy, accurate.
Both references are relevant because both try to solve the same problem: detect turbo function
Contact information
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tung Lau whose telephone number is (571)272-2274, email is Tungs.lau@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday-Friday 7:00 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, TURNER SHELBY, can be reached on 571-272-6334. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/TUNG S LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Technology Center 2800
August 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights