CTNF 18/747,619 CTNF 87316 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 AIA Claim(s) 1 , 14 - 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) & 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pirl ( EP-0471556-A1 ) . In regards to claim 1 , Pirl teaches a probe for non-destructive testing of a component, the probe comprising: (abstract; 1, 2 fig(s) 1A, ‘flexible hose-like delivery system’, ‘probe’) a head configured to transmit a signal or a wave to a surface of the component for non-destructive testing of the component, the head comprising a first head end facing away from the component and an opposing second head end facing the component, wherein the first head end is open; (3, 4, 11, 45-46 fig(s) 1A, 2A, ‘probe housing’, ‘coil’, ‘flexible inner shaft’, ‘proximal end’, ‘distal end’) a tube spaced apart from the head and comprising a first tube end distal to the head (15 fig(s) 1(A-B), ‘guide tube’) and an opposing second tube end proximal to the head, wherein each of the first tube end and the second tube end is open, (3 fig 2A, ‘probe housing’) the tube defining an internal passage therein extending between the first tube end and the second tube end; and (15 fig(s) 1(A-B), ‘guide tube’) a flexible actuator disposed between the head and the tube, wherein the flexible actuator is attached with the first head end of the head and the second tube end of the tube, the flexible actuator defining a longitudinal axis along its length ( 12(A-B), 13 fig(s) 2(A-B), ‘pair of coaxial cables’, ‘flexible outer housing’; 12(A-B) , 13 fig 3(A-B), ‘pair of coaxial cables’, ‘flexible outer housing‘) and configured to be actuated between a non-actuated state and an actuated state, wherein, in the non-actuated state, the flexible actuator extends for a non-actuated length along the longitudinal axis, wherein, in the actuated state, the flexible actuator expands axially along the longitudinal axis relative to the non-actuated state and extends for an actuated length along the longitudinal axis, and wherein the actuated length is greater than the non-actuated length, wherein, upon switching the flexible actuator from the actuated state to the non-actuated state, the flexible actuator returns to the non-actuated length, and wherein the flexible actuator is remotely actuatable from the first tube end between the non-actuated state and the actuated state. ( 53-58 col. 9 to 1-32 col. 10 , ‘ The operation of the system 1 of the invention may best be understood with reference to Figures 1A and 1B. First, the probe housing 3 and flexible cable 9 are unwound from the reel 9 and fed through the drive unit 21 of the pusher-puller mechanism 19 and from thence to the funnel 17 of the guide conduit 15. ’) In regards to claim 14 , Pirl teaches a probe of claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein the flexible actuator is integrally manufactured by additive manufacturing. ( Pirl: ‘The flexible cable 9 is formed from a rotatable inner shaft assembly 11 that is contained within a non-rotatable, flexible outer housing 13 which, in the preferred embodiment, is formed from plastic tubing.’, ‘additive manufacturing is known in the art for plastics and elastomeric tubings’) In regards to claim 15 , Pirl teaches a probe of claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein the flexible actuator is made of an elastomeric material. ( Pirl: The flexible cable 9 is formed from a rotatable inner shaft assembly 11 that is contained within a non-rotatable, flexible outer housing 13 which, in the preferred embodiment, is formed from plastic tubing.) 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pirl ( EP-0471556-A1 ), in view of, Bauer ( US-6487922 ) . Pirl teaches: In regards to claim 2 , Pirl teaches a probe of claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein the flexible actuator comprises: a tubular body extending along the longitudinal axis between a first body end facing the tube and an opposing second body end facing the head, the tubular body comprising an inner annular portion defining an actuator passage therethrough and an outer annular portion disposed around the inner annular portion, (abstract; 1, 2 fig(s) 1A, ‘flexible hose-like delivery system’, ‘probe’; 15 fig(s) 1(A-B), ‘guide tube’) It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Pirl to provide an inspecting probe that is relatively unexpensive and is configured to inspect tight spaces in automated machines such as turbines, compressors, engines, and the like. Pirl teaches an actuable flexible probe; however, the mechanism of actuation is different from the invention. Pirl does not teach: wherein the actuator passage fluidly connects the internal passage of the tube with the head, wherein the inner annular portion and the outer annular portion define an internal volume therebetween, such that the tubular body is inflatable; and an actuating pipe connected to the tubular body and extending along the longitudinal axis from the tubular body towards the first tube end of the tube, the actuating pipe comprising a first pipe end distal to the tubular body and an opposing second pipe end disposed in fluid communication with the internal volume of the tubular body, wherein the actuating pipe is configured to receive a pressurized fluid through the first pipe end; wherein, upon receiving the pressurized fluid within the internal volume of the tubular body, the tubular body inflates and axially expands along the longitudinal axis, thereby actuating the flexible actuator from the non-actuated state to the actuated state. Bauer teaches: wherein the actuator passage fluidly connects the internal passage of the tube with the head, wherein the inner annular portion and the outer annular portion define an internal volume therebetween, such that the tubular body is inflatable; and (abstract, 40 - 65 col. 6 ; 46, 48 , 52 fig(s) 2-3, ‘bladder assembly’, ‘trailing assembly’, ‘ liquid couplet hose/lines’ ; 36 - 45 col. 4 , ‘When inflated, bladders 46, 48 define a sealed volume 50 surrounding the ultrasonic transducers 42, 44 within the bore of the inlet sleeve 24. Liquid couplant (not shown) may be introduced into and drained from this sealed volume 50 by one or more couplant supply lines 52 having an opening into sealed volume 50’) an actuating pipe connected to the tubular body and extending along the longitudinal axis from the tubular body towards the first tube end of the tube, the actuating pipe comprising a first pipe end distal to the tubular body and an opposing second pipe end disposed in fluid communication with the internal volume of the tubular body, wherein the actuating pipe is configured to receive a pressurized fluid through the first pipe end; (abstract, 40 - 65 col. 6 ; 46, 48 , 52, 54 , 64 fig(s) 2-3, ‘bladder assembly’, ‘trailing assembly’, ‘liquid couplet hose/lines’, ‘ guide tube’ , ‘ hollow flex tube ’; 36 - 45 col. 4 , ‘When inflated, bladders 46, 48 define a sealed volume 50 surrounding the ultrasonic transducers 42, 44 within the bore of the inlet sleeve 24. Liquid couplant (not shown) may be introduced into and drained from this sealed volume 50 by one or more couplant supply lines 52 having an opening into sealed volume 50’) wherein, upon receiving the pressurized fluid within the internal volume of the tubular body, the tubular body inflates and axially expands along the longitudinal axis, thereby actuating the flexible actuator from the non-actuated state to the actuated state. (abstract, 40 - 65 col. 6 ; 46, 48 , 52, 54 , 64 fig(s) 2-3, ‘bladder assembly’, ‘trailing assembly’, ‘liquid couplet hose/lines’, ‘ guide tube’ , ‘ hollow flex tube ’; 36 - 45 col. 4 , ‘When inflated, bladders 46, 48 define a sealed volume 50 surrounding the ultrasonic transducers 42, 44 within the bore of the inlet sleeve 24. Liquid couplant (not shown) may be introduced into and drained from this sealed volume 50 by one or more couplant supply lines 52 having an opening into sealed volume 50’) It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Bauer to provide the method for actuation for an inspecting probe that is relatively unexpensive and is configured to inspect tight spaces in automated machines such as turbines, compressors, engines, and the like. In regards to claim 3 , Pirl & Bauer teach a probe of claim 2, (see claim rejection 2) wherein the tubular body further comprises a first end wall disposed at the first body end and a second end wall disposed at the second body end, ( Pirl: 12(A-B), 13 fig(s) 2(A-B), ‘pair of coaxial cables’, ‘flexible outer housing’; 12(A-B) , 13 fig 3(A-B), ‘pair of coaxial cables’, ‘flexible outer housing‘) wherein the first end wall is connected to the actuating pipe, wherein the first end wall and the second end wall together delimit the internal volume, and wherein the first end wall defines an opening therethrough disposed in fluid communication with the first pipe end and the internal volume. ( Bauer: abstract; 40, 42, 44 fig. 2, ‘inspection apparatus/insertion apparatus’, ‘ultrasonic transducers’; 6-8 col. 1; 46, 48, 50, 52 fig(s) 2-3; 52-54 col. 4, ‘ In one embodiment a hollow flexible conduit is used with a thin, flexible fiberglass rod for providing sufficient pushing force to insert the apparatus 40. ’) In regards to claim 4 , Pirl & Bauer teach a probe of claim 2, (see claim rejection 2) further comprising a fluid pipe at least partially received within the internal passage via the first tube end and fluidly connected to the first pipe end of the actuating pipe, wherein the fluid pipe is configured to supply the pressurized fluid to the actuating pipe via the first pipe end, such that the flexible actuator is remotely actuatable by the fluid pipe. ( Bauer : abstract, 40 - 65 col. 6 ; 46, 48 , 52, 54 , 64 fig(s) 2-3, ‘bladder assembly’, ‘trailing assembly’, ‘liquid couplet hose/lines’, ‘ guide tube’ , ‘ hollow flex tube ’; 36 - 45 col. 4 , ‘When inflated, bladders 46, 48 define a sealed volume 50 surrounding the ultrasonic transducers 42, 44 within the bore of the inlet sleeve 24. Liquid couplant (not shown) may be introduced into and drained from this sealed volume 50 by one or more couplant supply lines 52 having an opening into sealed volume 50’) In regards to claim 5 , Pirl & Bauer teach a probe of claim 4, (see claim rejection 4) further comprising a pumping device disposed in fluid communication with the fluid pipe and located outside the tube, wherein the pumping device is configured to supply the pressurized fluid to the fluid pipe. ( Bauer: ‘When inflated, bladders 46, 48 define a sealed volume 50 surrounding the ultrasonic transducers 42, 44 within the bore of the inlet sleeve 24. Liquid couplant (not shown) may be introduced into and drained from this sealed volume 50 by one or more couplant supply lines 52 having an opening into sealed volume 50. The leading and trailing bladders 46, 48 are attached directly or indirectly to a guide tube 54 that is adapted for insertion into a steam line connected to the turbine 10. The guide tube 54 may be extended to a length sufficient to move the apparatus 40 from an access port in the steam line , such as a disassembled main steam valve, to the area of the inlet sleeve 24 to be inspected. Alternatively, guide tube 54 may be connected directly or indirectly to a flexible conduit or other means for inserting the apparatus into the turbine. In one embodiment a hollow flexible conduit is used with a thin, flexible fiberglass rod for providing sufficient pushing force to insert the apparatus 40. ‘) 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pirl ( EP-0471556-A1 ), in view of, Bauer ( US-6487922 ) . Pirl teaches: In regards to claim 16 , Pirl & Bauer teach a probe of claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Pirl to provide an inspecting probe that is relatively unexpensive and is configured to inspect tight spaces in automated machines such as turbines, compressors, engines, and the like. Pirl does not teach: wherein the probe is an ultrasonic probe that is configured to transmit ultrasonic waves to the surface of the component. Bauer teaches: wherein the probe is an ultrasonic probe that is configured to transmit ultrasonic waves to the surface of the component. (42, 44 fig. 2, ‘ultrasonic transducers’) It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Bauer to provide the acoustic method for an inspecting probe that is relatively unexpensive and is configured to inspect tight spaces in automated machines such as turbines, compressors, engines, and the like . 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 17 - 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pirl ( EP-0471556-A1 ), in view of, Bauer ( US-6487922 ) . Pirl teaches: In regards to claim 17 , Pirl teaches a method for non-destructive testing of a component using the probe of claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) the method comprising the steps of: disposing, via the tube, the head proximal to a surface of the component; (abstract) actuating the flexible actuator from the non-actuated state to the actuated state, such that the second head end of the head is in contact with the surface of the component; and ( 12(A-B), 13 fig(s) 2(A-B), ‘pair of coaxial cables’, ‘flexible outer housing’; 12(A-B) , 13 fig 3(A-B), ‘pair of coaxial cables’, ‘flexible outer housing‘; 53-58 col. 9 to 1-32 col. 10 , ‘ The operation of the system 1 of the invention may best be understood with reference to Figures 1A and 1B. First, the probe housing 3 and flexible cable 9 are unwound from the reel 9 and fed through the drive unit 21 of the pusher-puller mechanism 19 and from thence to the funnel 17 of the guide conduit 15. ’) Pirl teaches an inspection probe; however, the probe is an eddy current probe as opposed to an acoustic transducer probe. Pirl does not teach: transmitting a signal or wave from the head to the surface of the component. Bauer teaches: transmitting a signal or wave from the head to the surface of the component. (Bauer: 42, 44, fig.2 , ‘ultrasonic transducers’) It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Bauer to provide the acoustic method for an inspecting probe that is relatively unexpensive and is configured to inspect tight spaces in automated machines such as turbines, compressors, engines, and the like. In regard to claim 18 , Pirl & Bauer teach a method of claim 17, (see claim rejection 17) wherein the component is an engine component. ( Pirl: abstract; 34 fig. 1A, ‘nuclear steam generator’) In regards to claim 19 , Pirl & Bauer teach a method of claim 18, (see claim rejection 18) wherein the engine component is a component of a gas turbine engine. ( Bauer: abstract, ‘steam turbine’) In regards to claim 20 , Pirl & Bauer teach a method of claim 17, (see claim rejection 17) wherein the component is a component of a pipeline, a nuclear plant, or a chemical plant. ( Pirl: abstract; 34 fig. 1A, ‘nuclear steam generator’) Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim (s) 6 - 13 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 Examiner completed a PE2E-Search, and a Similarity search 6/10/2026 . The prior-art searched did not teach the entire recitation of claim 6 , wherein the tubular body comprises a cylindrical outer surface extending along the longitudinal axis and a plurality of annular ribs disposed on the cylindrical outer surface and spaced apart from each other with respect to the longitudinal axis, wherein the plurality of annular ribs defines a plurality of annular grooves therebetween, such that each pair of adjacent annular ribs from the plurality of annular ribs defines therebetween a corresponding annular groove from the plurality of annular grooves. Claims 7 through 13 are dependent on claim 6 . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited Tokarek ( CA-2782563-A1 ), Yu ( CN-109580785-A ), and Driggers ( US-20210364480-A1 ) references further describe an inspection probe as described by the claims . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C BUTLER whose telephone number is (571)270-3973. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5. 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 E 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. /K.C.B/Examiner, Art Unit 2852 /STEPHANIE E BLOSS/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852 Application/Control Number: 18/747,619 Page 2 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 18/747,619 Page 3 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 18/747,619 Page 5 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 18/747,619 Page 6 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 18/747,619 Page 7 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 18/747,619 Page 8 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 18/747,619 Page 9 Art Unit: 2852
Prosecution Insights