CTNF 18/680,662 CTNF 81920 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: 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. 07-30-05 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 07-30-06 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Such claim limitation(s) and the corresponding structure in the specification is/are: processing system (claim 18 ) – control system 32 including memory 58 and processing device 60 having single core or multi-core processors (Published Application, ¶ [0046]). If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim (s) 1-5, 8, 10, and 11 s/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Hayashi et al. (JP 2021-135107 A) . Regarding claim 1 , Hayashi et al. discloses an inspection method, comprising: arranging an inspection scope (10; figs. 1 and 2) with a component (object to be inspected), the inspection scope (10) including a transducer (13) and a vibration isolator (ultrasonic probe 10 includes array sensor 13 and damper member 12; Espacenet Machine Translation, ¶ [0011]), the arranging of the inspection scope (10) comprising preloading the transducer (13) against the component through the vibration isolator (12) where the transducer (13) contacts a surface of the component (array sensor 13 and soft film 15 are urged, or preloaded, against the surface of the object to be inspected through damper member 12 wherein array sensor 13 contacts the surface of the object; ¶ [0027]); inducing vibrations in the component using the transducer (piezoelectric elements 17 of array sensor 13 induce vibrations in the object to be tested; ¶ [0084]); and measuring a vibratory response in the component excited by the vibrations using the transducer (13) to provide sensor data (a vibratory response from the object to be tested received by array sensor 13 provides information on defects in the object; ¶ [0002]). Regarding claim 2 , Hayashi et al. disclose wherein the transducer (10) comprises a piezoelectric transducer (sensor array 13 comprises piezoelectric elements 17; ¶ [0010]). Regarding claim 3 , Hayashi et al. disclose wherein the inspection scope (10) further includes a support structure with the vibration isolator (12) longitudinally between the support structure and the transducer (damper member 12 is connected to a support at an end portion, and is longitudinally between the support and sensor array 13; figs. 1 and 2); and the vibration isolator (12) transfers a longitudinal force from the support structure to the transducer (13) to preload the transducer (13) against the component (as damper member 12 must be held in place against the surface of the object to be tested, the support must to some degree, urge sensor array 13 against the object; ¶ [0027]). Regarding claim 4 , Hayashi et al. discloses wherein the vibration isolator (12) is bonded to the transducer (sensor array 13 is mounted to, and thus bonded in some way, to damper member 12; ¶ [0012]). Regarding claim 5 , Hayashi et al. discloses wherein the transducer (13) has a transducer stiffness; and the vibration isolator (12) has an isolator stiffness that is less than the transducer stiffness (as damper member 12 is a soft material that absorbs vibration energy from piezoelectric elements 17 of sensor array 13, damper 12 must have a lower stiffness that sensor array 13; ¶ [0085]). Regarding claim 8 , Hayashi et al. discloses wherein the vibration isolator (12) comprises a polymer (polymer materials such as rubber and resin; ¶ [0014]). Regarding claim 10 , Hayashi et al. discloses further comprising determining a characteristic of the component using the sensor data (data from sensor array 13 is used to determine defects in an object; ¶ [0002]). Regarding claim 11 , Hayashi et al. discloses further comprising detecting a defect internal to the component using the sensor data (data from sensor array 13 is used to determine locations and sizes of defects in an object; ¶ [0002]) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 6, 7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (JP 2021-135107 A) . Regarding claims 6 and 7 , Hayashi et al. discloses the invention as set forth above with regard to claims 1 and 5 . Hayashi et al. is silent on the particular relative stiffnesses of the transducer and the vibration isolator. However, Hayashi et al. teaches that the vibration isolator (12) absorbs vibration energy from the transducer (¶ [0085]), and further discloses setting a natural frequency of the transducer (17, 13) higher than the frequency required for defect detection, because the natural frequency of the transducer (17, 13) is decreased by the vibration isolator (¶ [0089]). Additionally, one of ordinary skill would have known that the stiffness of the vibration isolator affects its ability to absorb vibration energy. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Hayashi et al. to optimize the relative stiffnesses of the transducer and vibration isolator to a desired ratio, such as from 10 to 100 times, to provide the desired frequency of the transducer for detection of particular defects. Regarding claim 9 , Hayashi et al. discloses the invention as set forth above with regard to claim 1 . Hayashi et al. is silent on the particular frequency of vibrations damped by the vibration isolator. However, Hayashi et al. teaches setting a natural frequency of the transducer (17, 13) higher than the frequency required for defect detection, because the natural frequency of the transducer (17, 13) is decreased by the vibration isolator (¶ [0089]). Hayashi et al. further teaches the transducer frequency includes low-frequency waves of 5 MHz and high-frequency waves of 10 MHz (¶ [0020]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Hayashi et al. to optimize the vibration isolator to damp desired frequencies, such as equal or greater than 30 KHz, to provide the desired frequency of the transducer for detection of particular defects . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (JP 2021-135107 A) in view of Zombo et al. (US 5,670,879) . Regarding claims 12-15 , Hayashi et al. discloses the invention as set forth above with regard to claim 1 . Hayashi et al. is silent on the inspection scope used to inspect a powerplant. Zombo et al. teaches inserting an inspection scope (102) into an interior of a powerplant (combustion turbine; fig. 1), the powerplant comprising a component within the interior of the powerplant (components in an interior of the combustion turbine are inspected; c. 1, ll. 59-63); wherein the powerplant comprises a turbine engine (combustion turbine; fig. 1); wherein the component is configured as a rotor disk (turbine disks 20 are inspected; c. 1, ll. 27-28); wherein the powerplant (combustion turbine) is installed with an aircraft (jet aircraft) during inserting and arranging the inspection scope, inducing vibrations, and measuring (the inspection device does not require disassembly of machinery, therefore, the combustion turbine is installed in a jet aircraft, and not disassembled, during inserting and arranged of ultrasound transducer 102, and inducing and measuring vibrations; c. 1, ll. 59-63). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Hayashi et al. with the powerplant inspection of Zombo et al. to prevent failure of the powerplant by detecting cracks within turbines (Zombo et al., c. 1, ll. 31-35). Regarding claim 16 , Hayashi et al. discloses an inspection method, a head of an inspection scope (10) including a transducer (13) and a support structure (support at an end portion of damper member 12; figs. 1 and 2); arranging the head of the inspection scope (10) with a component (array sensor 13 and soft film 15 are urged against the surface of the object to be inspected; ¶ [0027]); the arranging of the head of the inspection scope (10) comprising abutting the transducer (13) against a surface of the component and transferring a force from the support structure to the transducer (13) to preload the transducer against the surface of the component (a force is transferred from support at an end of damper 12 to damper 12 so that array sensor 13 is urged, or preloaded, against the surface of the object to be inspected and array sensor 13 contacts the surface of the object; ¶ [0027]); , inducing vibrations in the component using the transducer (13) while the transducer (13) remains in contact with and is preloaded against the surface of the component (piezoelectric elements 17 of array sensor 13 induce vibrations in the object to be tested while array sensor 13 is urged against the surface of the object; ¶ [0084]); vibrationally isolating the transducer (13) from the support structure during the inducing of the vibrations (damper 12 absorbs vibrations from sensor array 13 and therefore, vibrationally isolates sensor array 13 from the support; ¶ [0014]); and measuring a vibratory response in the component excited by the vibrations using the transducer (13) to provide sensor data (a vibratory response from the object to be tested received by array sensor 13 provides information on defects in the object; ¶ [0002]). Regarding claim 17 , Hayashi et al. discloses wherein the head of the inspection scope (10) further includes a vibration isolator (12) arranged between the transducer (13) and the support structure (damper member 12 is arranged between sensor array 13 and the support; figs. 1 and 2), and the vibration isolator (12) vibrationally isolates the transducer (13) from the support structure during the inducing of the vibrations (damper 12 absorbs vibrations from sensor array 13 and therefore, vibrationally isolates sensor array 13 from the support; ¶ [0014]). Hayashi et al. is silent on the inspection scope used to inspect a powerplant. Zombo et al. teaches inserting a head of an inspection scope (102) into an interior of a powerplant (combustion turbine; fig. 1), and the powerplant comprising a component within the interior of the powerplant (components in an interior of the combustion turbine are inspected; c. 1, ll. 59-63); arranging the head of the inspection scope (102) with the component within the interior of the powerplant (components in an interior of the combustion turbine are inspected; c. 1, ll. 59-63) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Hayashi et al. with the powerplant inspection of Zombo et al. to prevent failure of the powerplant by detecting cracks within turbines (Zombo et al., c. 1, ll. 31-35). Regarding claim 18 , Hayashi et al. discloses a system for inspecting a component (object to be inspected), the system comprising: an inspection scope (10) including a scope head (head of ultrasonic probe 10; figs. 1 and 2) and a scope body (support body at an end of damper member 12; figs. 1 and 2) that that extends longitudinally along a centerline to the scope head (ultrasonic probe 10 has a head and body that extend longitudinally in a y-direction along a centerline; figs. 1 and 2), the scope head including a transducer (13) and a vibration isolator (12) disposed between and vibrationally decoupling the transducer (13) and the scope body (damper 12 is disposed between sensor array 13 and the probe body and absorbs vibrations from sensor array 13; ¶ [0014]), the inspection scope (10) configured to abut the transducer (13) against a surface of the component (sensor array 13 abuts against the surface of the object to be inspected; ¶ [0027]), inducing vibrations in the component using the transducer (piezoelectric elements 17 of array sensor 13 induce vibrations in the object to be tested; ¶ [0084]), the transducer (13) configured to induce vibrations in the component (piezoelectric elements 17 of array sensor 13 induce vibrations in the object to be inspected; ¶ [0084]), the transducer (13) configured to measure a vibratory response in the component excited by the vibrations to provide sensor data (a vibratory response from the object to be tested received by array sensor 13 provides information on defects in the object; ¶ [0002]); and a processing system (computer; ¶ [0035]) configured to process the sensor data to determine a characteristic of the component based on the sensor data (data from sensor array 13 is used to determine locations and sizes of defects in the object; ¶ [0002]). Regarding claim 19 , Hayashi et al. discloses wherein the transducer (13) comprises a piezoelectric device (sensor array 13 comprises piezoelectric elements 17; ¶ [0010]). Hayashi et al. is silent on the inspection scope used to inspect a powerplant. Zombo et al. teaches inserting the inspection scope (102) configured for insertion of a scope head into an interior of a powerplant (components in an interior of the combustion turbine are inspected; c. 1, ll. 59-63). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Hayashi et al. with the powerplant inspection of Zombo et al. to prevent failure of the powerplant by detecting cracks within turbines (Zombo et al., c. 1, ll. 31-35). Regarding claim 20 , Hayashi et al. in view of Zombo et al. disclose the invention as set forth above with regard to claim 18 , and Hayashi et al. further discloses wherein the transducer (13) is wholly connected to the scope body through the vibration isolator (sensor array 13 is wholly connected to the body of ultrasonic probe 10 through damper member 12; figs. 1 and 2); and the inspection scope (10) is configured to apply a longitudinal force to the transducer (13) through the vibration isolator (12) to preload the transducer (13) against the surface of the component (ultrasonic probe 10 applies a longitudinal force to sensor array 13 through damper member 12 to urge sensor array 13 against the surface of the object to be inspected; ¶ [0027]). Hayashi et al. in view of Zombo et al. are silent on the particular frequency of vibrations damped by the vibration isolator. However, Hayashi et al. teaches setting a natural frequency of the transducer (17, 13) higher than the frequency required for defect detection, because the natural frequency of the transducer (17, 13) is decreased by the vibration isolator (¶ [0089]). Hayashi et al. further teaches the transducer frequency includes low-frequency waves of 5 MHz and high-frequency waves of 10 MHz (¶ [0020]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Hayashi et al. in view of Zombo et al. to optimize the vibration isolator to damp desired frequencies, such as equal or greater than 30 KHz, to provide the desired frequency of the transducer for detection of particular defects. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erika J. Villaluna whose telephone number is (571)272-8348. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 am - 5:30 pm. 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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at (571) 272-3555. 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. /ERIKA J. VILLALUNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852 Application/Control Number: 18/680,662 Page 2 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 18/680,662 Page 3 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 18/680,662 Page 4 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 18/680,662 Page 5 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 18/680,662 Page 6 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 18/680,662 Page 7 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 18/680,662 Page 8 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 18/680,662 Page 9 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 18/680,662 Page 10 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 18/680,662 Page 11 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 18/680,662 Page 12 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 18/680,662 Page 13 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 18/680,662 Page 14 Art Unit: 2852
Prosecution Insights