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 § 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.
Claims 1-3, 6-15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck et al. (US Publication 2015/0007660; IDS dated 11/21/2025 US Publication Cite No. 1; hereinafter Beck).
With regards to claim 1, Beck discloses an inspection method, comprising:
inserting a distal end (including 30; [0084-0085]) of an inspection probe (10; [0082-0083]) into an interior of a powerplant ([0079-0080, 0100-0101]), the inspection probe (10) including a body (including 22; [0092]) and a head (30) pivotally connected to the body (FIG. 2), the head comprising an actuator (35) and disposed at the distal end of the inspection probe ([0086]; FIG. 2), and the powerplant including a component within the interior of the powerplant ([0079-0080]);
arranging the head with the component ([0102-0103]), the arranging comprising pivoting the head relative to the body and abutting the head against a surface of the component ([0103-0104]; FIG. 7);
inducing vibrations in the component using the actuator ([0107-0108]); and
measuring a vibratory response in the component excited by the vibrations using a sensor to provide sensor data ([0107-0108]).
With regards to claim 2, Beck discloses the inspection method of claim 1, wherein a centerline of the head is angularly offset from a centerline of the body by an offset angle following the pivoting, the offset angle equal to or greater than fifteen degrees (see FIG. 2 and 6-7).
With regards to claim 3, Beck discloses the inspection method of claim 2, wherein the centerline of the head is at least within two degrees of parallel of the centerline of the body during the inserting (FIG. 5 shows the head is straight with the centerline of the body).
With regards to claim 6, Beck discloses the inspection method of claim 1, wherein the head further comprises the sensor ([0107]).
With regards to claim 7, Beck discloses the inspection method of claim 1, wherein the arranging further comprises preloading the head against the surface of the component [0103-0104]; FIG. 6-7).
With regards to claim 8, Beck discloses the inspection method of claim 1, further comprising abutting a distal end of the body against the component or another component within the interior of the powerplant while a distal end of the head is abutted against the surface of the component (see FIG. 5-7, the head 30 is abutting in POS 2 while the body touches the orifice in which 20 is inserted into).
With regards to claim 9, Beck discloses the inspection method of claim 1, further comprising detecting a defect internal to the component using the sensor data ([0107]).
With regards to claim 10, Beck discloses the inspection method of claim 1, further comprising, following the measuring, disengaging the head against the surface of the component and pivoting the head into alignment with the body (i.e. reversing the insertion process in [0103-0104] to remove the probe).
With regards to claim 11, Beck discloses the inspection method of claim 1, wherein the powerplant comprises a turbine engine ([0003, 0079]).
With regards to claim 12, Beck discloses the inspection method of claim 1, wherein the component is configured as a rotor disk ([0079]).
With regards to claim 13, Beck discloses the inspection method of claim 1, wherein the powerplant is installed with an aircraft during the inserting, the arranging, the inducing and the measuring ([0003, 0079]).
With regards to claim 14, Beck discloses an apparatus for inspection of a component, comprising:
an inspection probe (10; [0082-0083]) including a tubular body (including 22; [0092]), a head (30) and an actuation system (including 25);
the head (30) disposed at a distal end of the inspection probe and pivotally coupled to the tubular body (FIG. 2, 6 and 7), the head configured to pivot between a stowed position (POS1) and a deployed position (POS2) where the head (30) is inline with the tubular body (including 22) when in the stowed position (POS1; FIG. 6-7) and the head is angularly offset from the tubular body when in the deployed position (POS2; FIG. 6-7), the head including an
actuator (a part of 35 that emit ultrasound; [0107-0108]) and a sensor (a part of 35 to receive echo signals; [0106-0107]), the actuator configured to induce vibrations in the component when the head is in the deployed position and the head is abutted against a surface of the component ([0107]), and the sensor configured to measure a vibratory response in the component excited by the vibrations to provide sensor data ([0107-0108]); and
the actuation system configured to pivot the head between the stowed position (POS1; [0103]) and the deployed position (POS2; [0104]; FIG. 6-7).
With regards to claim 15, Beck discloses the apparatus of claim 14, further comprising a processing system configured to determine a characteristic of the component based on the sensor data ([0068, 0107]).
With regards to claim 18, Beck discloses the apparatus of claim 14, wherein the actuation system comprises a control cable (26)
operatively coupled to the head ([0093]).
With regards to claim 19, Beck discloses the apparatus of claim 14, wherein the actuation system comprises a fluid actuator ([0091]) within the inspection probe.
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.
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck et al. (US Publication 2015/0007660; IDS dated 11/21/2025 US Publication Cite No. 1; hereinafter Beck) in view of Motoki et al. (US Patent 6,036,636; hereinafter Motoki).
With regards to claim 17, Beck teaches the apparatus of claim 14. However, Beck is silent regarding wherein the actuation system comprises a spring within the inspection probe.
Motoki teaches an apparatus for inspection of a component comprising an inspection probe (101; FIG. 18) similar to Beck and the instant invention. Motoki further teaches the apparatus comprises an actuation system (including 126 and 106d) including a spring (106d; col. 11, lines 50-62; FIG. 21).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace one known type of actuation system such as those taught by Beck with another known type of actuation system such as those taught by Motoki with reasonable expectation of actuating the head as originally intended.
With regards to claim 20, Beck teaches an apparatus for inspection of a component, comprising:
an inspection probe (10; [0082-0083]) including an actuation system (including 25), an elongated rigid body (including 22; [0092]) and a head (30) disposed at a distal end of the inspection probe (FIG. 2, 6 and 7);
the head comprising a piezoelectric device (35) configured to operatively engage a surface of the component to facilitate the inspection of the component when the head is in the deployed position (POS2; [0106-0108; FIG. 6-7).
However, Beck is silent regarding the actuation system including a control cable and a spring, the control cable configured to move the head relative to the elongated rigid body from a stowed position to a deployed position where the head is angularly offset from the elongated rigid body, and the spring configured to move the head relative to the elongated rigid body from the deployed position to the stowed position.
Motoki teaches an apparatus for inspection of a component comprising an inspection probe (101; FIG. 18) similar to Beck and the instant invention. Motoki further teaches the apparatus comprises an actuation system (including 126 and 106d) including a control cable (19, 20) and a spring (106d), the control cable (126) configured to move the head relative to the elongated rigid body from a stowed position to a deployed position where the head is angularly offset from the elongated rigid body (col. 12, lines 11-25), and the spring (106d) configured to move the head relative to the elongated rigid body from the deployed position to the stowed position (col. 11, lines 50-62).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace one known type of actuation system such as those taught by Beck with another known type of actuation system such as those taught by Motoki with reasonable expectation of actuating the head as originally intended.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art on record fails to anticipate and/or suggest the combination of the claimed invention. Specifically, the prior arts fail to teach, inter alia, the limitations of “the arranging further comprises translating the extension relative to the base to abut the extension against the surface of the component” as required by claim 4 and “the extension includes the actuator and the sensor; and the actuation system is further configured to translate the extension longitudinally along the base and away from the tubular body when the head is in the deployed position” as required by claim 16.
The closest prior art on record, Beck (US Publication 2015/0007660), teaches an apparatus for inspection of a component as presented above. However, the inspection probe of Beck only move to a deployed position without an extension as evidenced by FIG. 6-7. Thus, modifying an extension into Beck would not be necessary as the deployed position already provide contact with the component to be monitored.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUANG X.L NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1585. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, STEPHEN D. MEIER can be reached at (571) 272-2149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/QXN/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights