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
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 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 – 6, 10 – 11, and 14 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nirmalan et al. (US 2017/0234772 A1 – hereafter “Nirmalan”) in view of Marcinuk et al. (US 2025/0290801 A1 – hereafter “Marcinuk”).
As per claim 1, Nirmalan an inspection system for inspecting an interior of high temperature process equipment (turbine engine 10 operating at 1000°C to 2000°C; see para [0002]), comprising:
an infrared camera (camera 108; see para [0024]);
to be inserted into a port of the high temperature process equipment to view the interior (hollow probe 118 extending through aperture 111 in radial wall 110 into interior 115, with an image receiving device 114 at its distal end; see para [0020] – [0021], [0026]);
and an optical relay relaying light output from the infrared camera (hollow probe 118 relays imagery from the image receiving device 114 to camera 108 along the longitudinal axis 112; see para [0025] – [0026]).
Nirmalan does not expressly teach that the optical element at the distal end of the probe is a first wedge prism and second wedge prism.
Marcinuk teaches a first wedge prism and second wedge prism (rotatable prisms 120, 138 of Risley prism assembly 144) that redirect and steer an incoming beam to a selected field of view location without translating or yawing the supporting structure, offering reduced size and actuation requirements compared to mechanical pointers (see para [0030] – [0033], [0036]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Nirmalan in view of Marcinuk to incorporate a rotatable wedge prism pair at the distal end of Nirmalan’s hollow probe in place of Nirmalan’s image receiving device, because Nirmalan expressly teaches that the image receiving device can include any optical element known for redirecting optical imagery, and because Marcinuk teaches that a rotatable wedge prism pair is a known compact alternative to mechanical pointing structures for redirecting and steering a field of view, such that a person of ordinary skill would have recognized that positioning Marcinuk’s wedge prism pair at the distal end of Nirmalan’s probe would allow the field of view to be steered by rotating the prism pair in place rather than translating and yawing the entire probe within the confined interior of the operating turbine engine, thereby reducing mechanical complexity and actuation force while yielding the predictable result of imaging different regions of the high temperature process equipment interior.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “The inspection system according to claim 1, wherein the first and second wedge prisms are individually rotatable relative to one another.”
Nirmalan fails to teach that the first and second wedge prisms are individually rotatable relative to one another.
Marcinuk teaches that the first and second wedge prisms (rotatable prisms 120, 138 of Risley prism assembly 144) are independently rotatable about a common axis (see para [0032]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Nirmalan in view of Marcinuk to configure the wedge prism pair at the distal end of the hollow probe to be individually rotatable relative to one another in order to enable steering of the field of view to any desired location within the interior of the high temperature process equipment by controlling the relative rotational positions of the two prisms.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “The inspection system according to claim 2, further comprising: a control circuit configured to control relative speed and direction of rotation of the first and second wedge prisms.”
Nirmalan fails to teach a control circuit configured to control relative speed and direction of rotation of the first and second wedge prisms.
Marcinuk teaches a controller (controller 204) comprising at least one processor configured to control the rotation of the prism elements via 220, 221 (see para [0037] – [0038]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Nirmalan in view of Marcinuk to incorporate a control circuit configured to control circuit configured to control relative speed and direction of rotation of the first and second wedge prisms in order to enable directed steering of the field of view to a selected location within the interior of the high temperature process equipment.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “The inspection system according to claim 3, wherein the control circuit is configured to automatically control relative speed and direction of rotation of the first and second wedge prisms based on a predetermined scan pattern.”
Nirmalan fails to teach a control circuit configured to automatically control relative speed and direction of rotation of the first and second wedge prisms based on a predetermined scan pattern.
Marcinuk teaches a controller (controller 204) configured to direct light from a selected region or frame within a field of interest, including selecting a region for imaging by a camera according to a predetermined operating configuration (see para [0039]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Nirmalan in view of Marcinuk to configure the control relative speed and direction of rotation of the first and second wedge prisms based on a predetermined scan pattern in order to enable automated, repeatable imaging of selected regions within the interior of the high temperature process equipment without requiring manual operator control.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “The inspection system according to claim 1, wherein the first and second wedge prisms are in positions fixed to one another and are rotatable together to create a circular scanning pattern.”
Nirmalan fails to teach that the first and second wedge prisms are in positions fixed to one another and are rotatable together to create a circular scanning pattern.
Marcinuk teaches that a prism element can comprise a group of two prisms that are fixed to each other and rotate as a unit, and that rotating both prisms of a Risley prism assembly together causes the impact point of the outgoing beam to vary about a circle on the target (see para [0032] – [0034]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Nirmalan in view of Marcinuk to configure the first and second wedge prisms at the distal end of the hollow probe to be in positions fixed to one another and rotatable together in order to generate a circular scanning pattern within the interior of the high temperature process equipment.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “The inspection system according to claim 5, further comprising: a control circuit configured to control rotation of the first and second wedge prisms.”
Nirmalan fails to teach a control circuit configured to control rotation of the first and second wedge prisms.
Marcinuk teaches a controller (controller 204) configured to control rotation of the prism elements via motors 220, 221 (see para [0037] – [0038]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Nirmalan in view of Marcinuk to incorporate a control circuit configured to control rotation of the first and second wedge prisms in order to enable controlled generation of the circular scanning pattern within the interior of high temperature process equipment.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites “The inspection system according to claim 1, further comprising a third wedge prism individually rotatable relative to the first and second wedge prisms.”
Nirmalan fails to teach a third wedge prism individually rotatable relative to the first and second wedge prisms.
Marcinuto teaches that, instead of a simple Risley prism assembly comprising two prisms, each prism element of the assembly can comprise a plurality of prisms to achieve refraction angles that are substantially independent of wavelength, including an achromatic embodiment in which each prism element includes a plurality of prisms (see para [0034]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Nirmalan in view of Marcinuk to incorporate a third wedge prism individually rotatable relative to the first and second wedge prisms in order to achieve refraction angles and beam steering that are substantially independent of wavelength when imaging across a range of infrared wavelengths within the high temperature process equipment.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites “The inspection system according to claim 1, wherein the first and second wedge prisms are final optical elements for capturing an image of the interior of high temperature process equipment.”
Nirmalan fails to teach that the first and second wedge prisms are final optical elements for capturing an image of the interior of high temperature process equipment.
Marcinuk teaches that the rotatable wedge prisms (prisms 120, 138 of Risley prism assembly 144) are positioned at the working end of the optical systems as the final optical elements that redirect and steer the incoming beam toward the camera (see para [0031] – [0032], [0035]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Nirmalan in view of Marcinuk to position the first and second wedge prisms as the final optical elements at the distal end of the hollow probe in order to redirect and steer the field of view within the interior of the high temperature process equipment immediately before the light enters the optical relay path toward the infrared camera.
As per claim 14, Nirmalan teaches a method for inspecting an interior of high temperature process equipment (gas turbine engine 10, operating at 1000°C to 2000°C; see para [0002]),
the method comprising: providing an optical relay (hollow probe 118) that relays light between an infrared camera (camera 108; see para [0024]) to view the interior (hollow probe 118 relays imagery from image receiving device 114 at its distal end to camera 108 along longitudinal axis 112, wherein the image receiving device can include any optical element known for redirecting optical imagery, see para [0021], [0025] – [0026]);
and controlling the interior of the high temperature process equipment (see para [0021], [0029] – [0030]; Nirmalan controls translation and yaw of the hollow probe to scan the interior).
Nirmalan does not expressly teach providing a first wedge prism and second wedge prism or controlling rotation of the first and second wedge prisms to scan the interior.
Marcinuk teaches providing a first wedge prism and second wedge prism (rotatable prisms 120, 138 of Risley prism assembly 144) and controlling rotation of the prisms via controller 204 to steer a beam to a selected location within a field of view (see para [0032] – [0033], [0037] – [0038]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Nirmalan in view of Marcinuk to provide a first wedge prism and second wedge prism at the distal end of the hollow probe and control rotation of the prisms to scan the interior of the high temperature process equipment, because Nirmalan expressly teaches that the image receiving device can include any optical element known for redirecting optical imagery, and because Marcinuk teaches that a rotatable wedge prism pair is a known compact alternative to mechanical pointing structures for redirecting and steering a field of view, such that a person of ordinary skill would allow the field of view to be steered to selected regions of the interior without requiring physical translation or yaw of entire probe, thereby reducing mechanical complexity while yielding the predictable result of scanning different regions of the high temperature process equipment interior.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites “The method according to claim 14, wherein the first wedge prism and the second wedge prism are in fixed positions relative to one another.”
Nirmalan fails to teach that the first wedge prism and the second wedge prism are in fixed positions relative to one another.
Marcinuk teaches that a prism element can comprise a group of two prisms that are fixed to each other and rotate as a unit (see para [0033] – [0034]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Nirmalan in view of Marcinuk to configure the first and second wedge prisms in fixed positions relative to one another in order to generate a circular scanning pattern within the interior of the high temperature process equipment by rotating the fixed prism pair together as a unit.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites “The method according to claim 14, wherein controlling rotation includes individually controlling rotation of the first wedge prism and the second wedge prism.”
Nirmalan fails to teach individually controlling rotation of the first wedge prism and the second wedge prism.
Marcunik teaches that controller 204 individually controls rotation of the first and second wedge prisms (rotatable prisms 120, 138) via motors 220, 221 to steer the outgoing beam to a desired location within the field of view (see para [0032], [0037] – [0038]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Nirmalan in view of Marcinuk to individually control rotation of the first and second wedge prisms in order to enable steering of the field of view to any desired location within the interior of the high temperature process equipment by controlling the relative rotational positions of the two prisms independently.
Claims 7 and 12 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nirmalan in view of Marcinuk in further view of Parikh et al. (US 5,476,385 A – hereafter “Parikh”).
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “The inspection system according to claim 5, further comprising a gear surrounding the first and second wedge prisms to mechanically rotate the first and second wedge prisms together.
Nirmalan in view of Marcinuk fails to teach a gear surrounding the first and second wedge prisms to mechanically rotate the first and second wedge prisms together.
Parikh teaches a gear surrounding the wedge prisms (spur gear portions of optical wedges 66 and 68 engaged by pinion gears 106a and 108a) to mechanically rotate the wedge prisms (see col. 3, lines 40 – 45; col. 6, lines 1 – 6).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Nirmalan in view of Marcinuk in further view of Parikh to incorporate a gear surrounding the first and second wedge prisms to mechanically rotate them together in order to provide a compact mechanical drive mechanism for rotating the wedge prism pair within the confined interior of the high temperature process equipment.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites “The inspection system according to claim 1, wherein there is an optical protective window in front of the first and second wedge prisms.
Nirmalan in view of Marcinuk fails to teach an optical protective window in front of the first and second wedge prisms.
Parikh teaches a transparent window 102 positioned in front of the optical wedges 66 and 68 to permit passage of optical signals therethrough (see col. 6, lines 61 – 65).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Nirmalan in view of Marcinuk in further view of Parikh to incorporate an optical protective window in front of the first and second wedge prisms in order to protect the wedge prisms from contamination and debris present in the interior of the high temperature process equipment while still permitting optical transmission therethrough.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites “The inspection system according to claim 1, further comprising a gear surrounding the pair of wedge prism to mechanically rotate the.
Nirmalan in view of Marcinuk fails to teach a gear surrounding the pair of wedge prism to mechanically rotate the.
Parikh teaches a gear surrounding the pair of wedge prisms (spur gear portions of optical wedges 66 and 68 engaged by pinion gears 106a and 108a) to mechanically rotate the wedge prisms (see col. 3, lines 40 – 45; col. 6, lines 1 – 6).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Nirmalan in view of Marcinuk in further view of Parikh to incorporate a gear surrounding the pair of wedge prisms to mechanically rotate them in order to provide a compact and reliable mechanical drive mechanism for rotating the wedge prism pair within the confined space of the high temperature process equipment inspection system.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nirmalan in view of Marcinuk in further view of Momi et al. (US 2023/0019043 A1 – hereafter “Momi”).
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites “The inspection system according to claim 1, further comprising, between the first and second wedge prisms and the optical relay: a focus lens; and a collimating lens.”
Nirmalan in view of Marcinuk fails to teach a focus lens and a collimating lens positioned between the first and second wedge prisms and the optical relay.
Momi teaches a focus lens (10) and a collimating lens positioned between a wedge prism (20) and an optical relay (fiber transmitting laser beam from laser oscillator 110 to the irradiation head 1), wherein the laser beam transmitted via the fiber enters the irradiation head after passing through the collimating lens and then the focus lens before reaching the wedge prism (see para [0094] – [0097], [0101]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Nirmalan in view of Marcinuk in further view of Momi to incorporate a focus lens and a collimating lens between the wedge prism pair and the optical relay in order to collimate and focus the optical beam transmitted through the relay before it reaches the wedge prisms, thereby conditioning the beam for proper deflection by the wedge prisms and improving the quality of the image captured by the infrared camera, Momi teaches that such a collimating and focusing arrangement between a relay and a wedge prism is known and effective configuration for optimizing beam characteristics prior to wedge prism deflection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Manuel Castellon whose telephone number is (571)272-4575. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 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, John Breene can be reached at 571-272-4107. 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.
/MANUEL SALVADOR CASTELLON JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN E BREENE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights