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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Wind (US-20190011555-A1), in view of, Hatcher (US 20140053568-A1).
Wind teaches:
In regards to claim 1, Wind teaches an Optical Probe Testing System (OPTS) for identifying vibrations in a rotor blade of a turbine engine, the OPTS comprising: (abstract; para(s) [0002, 0034]; 100, 104, 104a, 104b, 113, 126, 140 fig(s) 2(A-B), ‘probe system'104-time of arrival probes’, ‘1st and 2nd probes’, ‘rotor assembly’, ‘plurality rotating blades’, ‘location’)
a probe body, (104A fig 2A) wherein the probe body defines a probe head cavity having a probe head cavity bottom opening, and a probe fastener cavity; (104A, 104B, 118 fig(s) 2(A-B)
a probe fastener, (para [0052], ‘attaching a probe 104 to rotor casing 110’) wherein the probe fastener is disposed within the probe fastener cavity, and wherein the probe fastener is configured to securely associate the probe body to a rotor casing of a turbine engine,(para [0030; 110; para [0052) wherein the rotor casing contains a plurality of rotor blades (para [0030]; 126) and defines a rotor casing opening; and(fig 2AA; 218)
a probe head including an optical probe sensor, (para [0030]; fig 2A)
WInd essentially discloses that the invention, however, a specific element in the form of a bolt with a cavity for attaching the probe body to the rotor casing although not shown would be obvious to a skilled person in the art even by other means of attachment.
It would have been an obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Wind to provide a method & optical probe testing system device. Also , a matter of design choice, wherein the probe fastener is disposed within the probe fastener cavity providing means for attachment of the probe to the rotor casing of the optical probe testing system. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with any other means of attachment obvious to the skilled person and does not imply an inventive step. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Wind does not teach:
wherein the probe head is disposed within the probe head cavity such that the optical probe sensor is aligned with the rotor casing opening.
Hatcher teaches:
wherein the probe head is disposed within the probe head cavity such that the optical probe sensor is aligned with the rotor casing opening. (fig(s) 2-3, 6, para(s) [0033-0034], ‘ w.r.t. the probe head is allowed to move with respect to the probe housing, thereby allowing further adjustment of the axial position of the probe with respect to the rotor blades, so that the probe can reliably detect the target location (see claim 9). The technical problem is thus seen as improving the reliability of detection of the target.’)
It would have been an obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Hatcher to provide a probe head that can be aligned with rotor casing opening; and adjustment of the axial position of the probe with respect to the rotor blades of a turbine and the like enabling the desired movement for inspection.
In regards to claim 2, Wind & Hatcher teach an OPTS of claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) further including an actuation device communicated with the probe head, wherein the probe head is movably disposed within the probe head cavity via the actuation device. (Hatcher: para [0034]; 50 fig(s) 2, 6, ‘motion control system’)
In regards to claim 3, Wind and Hatcher teach an OPTS of claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) further comprising an alignment pin, wherein the alignment pin is disposed within the probe head cavity to align the probe head with the rotor casing. (Hatcher: fig(s) 2-3, 6, para(s) [0033-0034], ‘ w.r.t. the probe head is allowed to move with respect to the probe housing, thereby allowing further adjustment of the axial position of the probe with respect to the rotor blades, so that the probe can reliably detect the target location (see claim 9). The technical problem is thus seen as improving the reliability of detection of the target.’)
In regards to claim 4, Wind & Hatcher teach an OPTS of claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein the probe head further includes an optical sensor, wherein when the probe head is disposed within the probe head cavity, the optical sensor is visually communicated with the probe head bottom cavity opening. (Wind: 104(a-b) fig(s) 2(A-B); para(s) [0002], ‘A NSMS may utilize optical sensors within Time Of Arrival (TOA) probes, to collect said structural data in engine components’)
In regards to claim 5, Wind & Hatcher teach an OPTS of claim 4, (see claim rejection 4) wherein the rotor casing opening is communicated with the plurality of rotor blades, and wherein the optical sensor is visually communicated with the plurality of rotor blades to have a clear line-of-sight with the plurality of rotor blades. (Wind: 104(a-b), 126 fig(s) 2(A-B); para(s) [0002], ‘A NSMS may utilize optical sensors within Time Of Arrival (TOA) probes, to collect said structural data in engine components’; ‘plurality rotating blades’)
In regards to claim 6, Wind & Hatcher teach an OPTS of claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein the probe head is communicated with an optical probe control device. (Wind: 112 fig(s) 2(A-B), ‘controller’)
In regards to claim 7, Wind & Hatcher teach an OPTS of claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein the probe head includes a probe head body and an optical sensor, and wherein the optical sensor is disposed to be adjacent to a bottom portion of the probe head body. (Wind: fig(s) 2(A-B))
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.
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.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Wind (US-20190011555-A1), in view of, Hatcher (US 20140053568-A1), in further view of, Thompson (US-20190032506-A1).
In regards to claim 8, Wind & Hatcher teach an OPTS of claim 7,(see claim rejection 7)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Wind & Hatcher to provide a method & optical probe testing system device for turbine blades and the like.
Wind & Hatcher don’t teach:
wherein the probe head body extends out of the probe body bottom.
Thompson teaches:
wherein the probe head body extends out of the probe body bottom. (fig(s) 2-4; para(s) [0019-0020])
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Thompson to provide the structure wherein the probe head body extends out of the probe body bottom for a method & optical probe testing system device for turbine blades and the like.
In regards to claim 9, Wind, Hatcher & Thompson teach an OPTS of claim 7, (see claim rejection 7) wherein when the probe body is securely associated with the rotor casing, Hatcher teaches the probe head is disposed within the rotor casing opening such that the optical sensor has a direct line-of-sight field of view with the plurality of rotor blades. (fig(s) 2-3, 6, para(s) [0033-0034], ‘ w.r.t. the probe head is allowed to move with respect to the probe housing, thereby allowing further adjustment of the axial position of the probe with respect to the rotor blades, so that the probe can reliably detect the target location (see claim 9). The technical problem is thus seen as improving the reliability of detection of the target.’)
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.
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.
Claim(s) 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Wind (US-20190011555-A1), in view of, Hatcher (US 20140053568-A1), in further view of, Claussen (US-20210140337-A1)
Wind teaches:
In regards to claim 10, Wind teaches a method for accurately positioning an optical tip-timing probe for identifying vibration in a rotor blade tip of a turbine engine, the method comprising: (abstract; para(s) [0002, 0034]; 100, 104, 104a, 104b, 113, 126, 140 fig(s) 2(A-B), ‘probe system'104-time of arrival probes’, ‘1st and 2nd probes’, ‘rotor assembly’, ‘plurality rotating blades’, ‘location’)
identifying a target location to be measured on a rotor blade tip of a plurality of rotor blades disposed within a rotor casing of a turbine engine; (140, 142 fig(s) 2(A-B), ‘location’; para [0030-0036])
associating a probe body having probe head cavity with the rotor casing, such that the probe head cavity is aligned with a rotor casing opening which exposes the plurality of rotor blades; (104a, 104b, 110, 126 fig(s) 2(A-B), ‘1st & 2nd probes’, ‘rotor casing’, ‘plurality of rotating blades’)
operating the optical tip-timing probe to identify the target location and precisely align the probe head with the target location and to generate an optical return signal having a predetermined pulse width. (para(s) [0025-0036])
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Wind to provide a method & optical probe testing system device for turbine blades and the like.
Wind does not teach:
marking the target location with a reflective material;
disposing the probe head within the probe head cavity to be movably aligned with the rotor casing opening;
centering the probe head within the probe head cavity to be located in a nominal starting position via an actuation device; and
Hatcher teaches:
disposing the probe head within the probe head cavity to be movably aligned with the rotor casing opening; (fig(s) 2-3, 6, para(s) [0033-0034], ‘ w.r.t. the probe head is allowed to move with respect to the probe housing, thereby allowing further adjustment of the axial position of the probe with respect to the rotor blades, so that the probe can reliably detect the target location (see claim 9). The technical problem is thus seen as improving the reliability of detection of the target.’)
centering the probe head within the probe head cavity to be located in a nominal starting position via an actuation device; and (fig(s) 2-3, 6, para(s) [0033-0034], ‘ w.r.t. the probe head is allowed to move with respect to the probe housing, thereby allowing further adjustment of the axial position of the probe with respect to the rotor blades, so that the probe can reliably detect the target location (see claim 9). The technical problem is thus seen as improving the reliability of detection of the target.’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Hatcher to provide further structure comprising a probe cavity as recited above for a method & optical probe testing system device for turbine blades and the like.
Hatcher does not teach:
marking the target location with a reflective material;
Claussen teaches:
marking the target location with a reflective material; (para(s) [0024, 0030],’target’, ‘paint applied onto the surface’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Claussen to provide the method of applying a reflective material to a target surface for for a method & optical probe testing system device for turbine blades and the like.
In regards to claim 11, Wind, Hatcher & Claussen teach a method of claim 10, (see claim rejection 10) Claussen teaches wherein marking the target location includes coating the target location with a reflective surface treatment. (Claussen: para(s) [0024, 0030],’target’, ‘paint applied onto the surface’)
In regards to claim 12, Wind, Hatcher & Claussen teach a method of claim 10, wherein the optical tip-timing probe includes an optical sensor, and wherein associating a probe body includes associating the probe body such that the probe head is disposed within the rotor casing opening. (Hatcher: fig(s) 2-3, 6, para(s) [0033-0034], ‘ w.r.t. the probe head is allowed to move with respect to the probe housing, thereby allowing further adjustment of the axial position of the probe with respect to the rotor blades, so that the probe can reliably detect the target location (see claim 9). The technical problem is thus seen as improving the reliability of detection of the target.’)
In regards to claim 13, Wind, Hatcher & Claussen teach a method of claim 10, (see claim rejection 10) wherein centering the probe head includes centering the probe head within the probe head cavity using an alignment pin. (Hatcher: fig(s) 2-3, 6, para(s) [0033-0034], ‘ w.r.t. the probe head is allowed to move with respect to the probe housing, thereby allowing further adjustment of the axial position of the probe with respect to the rotor blades, so that the probe can reliably detect the target location (see claim 9). The technical problem is thus seen as improving the reliability of detection of the target.’)
In regard to claim 14, Wind, Hatcher & Claussen teach a method of claim 10, (see claim rejection 10) wherein operating includes operating the optical tip-timing probe to sense the plurality of rotor blades and to return the optical return signal. (Wind: para [0030])
In regards to claim 15, Wind, Hatcher & Claussen teach a method of claim 14, (see claim rejection 14)wherein operating includes operating the optical tip-timing probe to generate an optical return signal, (Wind: 144(a-b) fig(s) 2(A-B)) and adjusting the probe head within the probe head cavity until a pulse width of the optical return signal returns an on-off transition. (Hatcher: fig(s) 2-3, 6, para(s) [0033-0034], ‘ w.r.t. the probe head is allowed to move with respect to the probe housing, thereby allowing further adjustment of the axial position of the probe with respect to the rotor blades, so that the probe can reliably detect the target location (see claim 9). The technical problem is thus seen as improving the reliability of detection of the target.’)
In regards to claim 16, Wind, Hatcher & Claussen teach a method of claim 14, (see claim rejection 14) wherein operating includes operating the optical tip-timing probe to generate an optical return signal, wherein if a change in the pulse width of the optical return signal is detected, a position of the probe head is adjusted until the pulse width of the optical return signal is equal to the predetermined pulse width. (Hatcher: fig(s) 2-3, 6, para(s) [0033-0034], ‘ w.r.t. the probe head is allowed to move with respect to the probe housing, thereby allowing further adjustment of the axial position of the probe with respect to the rotor blades, so that the probe can reliably detect the target location (see claim 9). The technical problem is thus seen as improving the reliability of detection of the target.’)
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.
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.
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Wind (US-20190011555-A1), in view of, Hatcher (US 20140053568-A1), in further view of, Claussen (US-20210140337-A1)
Wind teaches:
In regards to claim 17, Wind teaches a method of tracking the axial position of a target location on a tip of a rotor blade of a turbine engine during operation of the turbine engine using an optical probe, the method comprising: (abstract; para(s) [0002, 0034]; 100, 104, 104a, 104b, 113, 126, 140 fig(s) 2(A-B), ‘probe system'104-time of arrival probes’, ‘1st and 2nd probes’, ‘rotor assembly’, ‘plurality rotating blades’, ‘location’)
selecting a rotor blade from the plurality of rotor blades of the turbine engine, wherein the rotor blade includes a rotor blade tip having a surface of the rotor blade tip configured to change how the shape of the rotor blade tip is sensed by an optical sensor; (140, 142 fig(s) 2(A-B), ‘location’; para [0030-0036])
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Wind to provide a method & optical probe testing system device for turbine blades and the like.
Wind does not teach:
treating the surface of the rotor blade tip with a surface finish; and
operating the optical probe to determine if the location of the tip of the rotor blade has shifted.
Hatcher teaches:
operating the optical probe to determine if the location of the tip of the rotor blade has shifted. (fig(s) 2-3, 6, para(s) [0033-0034], ‘ w.r.t. the probe head is allowed to move with respect to the probe housing, thereby allowing further adjustment of the axial position of the probe with respect to the rotor blades, so that the probe can reliably detect the target location (see claim 9). The technical problem is thus seen as improving the reliability of detection of the target.’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Hatcher to provide further structure comprising a probe cavity as recited above for a method & optical probe testing system device for turbine blades and the like.
Hatcher does not teach:
treating the surface of the rotor blade tip with a surface finish; and
Claussen teaches:
treating the surface of the rotor blade tip with a surface finish; and
(para(s) [0024, 0030],’target’, ‘paint applied onto the surface’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Claussen to provide the method of applying a reflective material to a target surface for for a method & optical probe testing system device for turbine blades and the like.
In regards to claim 18, Wind, Hatcher & Claussen teach a method of claim 17, (see claim rejection 17) wherein the surface of the rotor blade tip includes a surface shape that changes how the width of the rotor blade tip is sensed by the optical sensor. (Wind: abstract; para(s) [0025-0036]; 100, 104, 104a, 104b, 113, 126, 140 fig(s) 2(A-B), ‘probe system'104-time of arrival probes’, ‘1st and 2nd probes’, ‘rotor assembly’, ‘plurality rotating blades’, ‘location’)
In regards to claim 19, Wind, Hatcher & Claussen teach a method of claim 17, (see claim rejection 17) Claussen teaches wherein treating a surface includes treating the surface to affect a reflectivity of the surface. (Claussen: para(s) [0024, 0030],’target’, ‘paint applied onto the surface’)
In regards to claim 20, Wind, Hatcher & Claussen teach a method of claim 17, (see claim rejection 17) wherein operating includes operating the optical probe to generate an optical return signal and identifying a change in a pulse width of the optical return signal. (Wind: abstract; para(s) [0025-0036]; 100, 104, 104a, 104b, 113, 126, 140 fig(s) 2(A-B), ‘probe system'104-time of arrival probes’, ‘1st and 2nd probes’, ‘rotor assembly’, ‘plurality rotating blades’, ‘location’)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited Warren (US-20240310246-A1), Kupper (US-20080292238-A1), and Twerdochib (US-20060171806-A1) references further describe a method & optical probe testing system device 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
Prosecution Insights