TEST BENCH FOR A TURBOMACHINE
FIRST OFFICE ACTION
This action takes into account the Applicant’s preliminary amendment of Oct. 18, 2024.
DRAWINGS
The drawings have been considered and approved.
TITLE
The title is objected to because it is vague and not clearly descriptive of the claimed invention.
ABSTRACT
The abstract has been considered and approved.
SPECIFICATION
The specification has been considered and approved.
CLAIMS
In the event that the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the rationale supporting the rejection would be the same.
Objections
Claim 19 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim can not depend from more than one claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, claim 19 and the claims dependent therefrom (claims 20 and 21) have not been further treated on the merits.
35 U.S.C. § 112
In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 12 - 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the joint inventors regard as the invention.
Independent claim 12 is indefinite as to how the turbomachine set forth in the preamble of the claim relates to the subject matter set forth in the body of the claim, for nothing in the body of the claim relates to a turbomachine.
Independent claim 12, line 7; the phrase “operating a difference” is indefinite as to the specific meaning thereof as well as what is being operated.
Independent claim 15, line 9; the phrase “operating a difference” is indefinite as to the specific meaning thereof as well as what is being operated.
35 U.S.C. § 103
In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 103, 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 of this title, 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 12 - 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colson (2017/0323484) in view of Mancinho et al. (8,875,589).
With respect to independent claim 12, Colson teaches a test bench having an installation zone of a turbomachine (Fig. 1).
Colson fails to teach the test bench having an upstream sensor measuring the quantity of upstream particles and a downstream sensor measuring the quantity of downstream particles relative to an installation zone.
However, Mancinho et al. set forth a test system (Fig. 1A) having an “installation zone” (160), comprising:
an upstream sensor measuring the quantity of particles in the air upstream of the installation zone (col. 5, lines 36 - 43);
a downstream sensor measuring the quantity of particles in the air downstream of the installation zone (col. 5, lines 36 - 43); and
a calculation unit operating a difference between the quantity of downstream particles
and the quantity of upstream particles (col. 5, lines 36-43).
As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art armed with these teachings to measuring and compare the quantity of particles in the air upstream and downstream of the installation zone of a turbomachine.
The motivation being to monitor Colson sets forth that such a test bench allows for dust in the turbomachine to be measured (paragraph 3). As such, one would have reason to measure and compare both upstream particles and downstream particles of the turbomachine to determine the origins of the dust and the extent of the problem on the inlet side and outlet side.
The Examiner also points out that nothing in the body of the claim requires the presence of a turbomachine, for the turbomachine as set forth in the preamble is set forth as an intended use of the installation zone. In addition, nothing in the claim sets forth specifics as to the “installation zone”. Thus, the installation zone has been interpreted as merely a location point of the turbomachine within the test system.
With respect to claim 13, Colson sets forth that the test bench comprises an air inlet chimney (8) and an air outlet chimney (10) with the installation zone (16) being arranged in a corridor arranged between the chimneys.
With respect to claim 14, Colson sets forth that the particles measured by the sensors are fine particles (ie. dust as per paragraph 3).
With respect to independent claim 15, Colson teaches a test bench having an installation zone of a turbomachine (Fig. 1) and operating the turbomachine while in the test bench.
Colson fails to teach the test bench having an upstream sensor measuring the quantity of upstream particles and a downstream sensor measuring the quantity of downstream particles relative to an installation zone.
However, Mancinho et al. set forth a test system (Fig. 1A) having an “installation zone” (160), comprising:
an upstream sensor measuring the quantity of particles in the air upstream of the installation zone (col. 5, lines 36 - 43);
a downstream sensor measuring the quantity of particles in the air downstream of the installation zone (col. 5, lines 36 - 43); and
a calculation unit operating a difference between the quantity of downstream particles
and the quantity of upstream particles (col. 5, lines 36-43).
As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art armed with these teachings to measuring and compare the quantity of particles in the air upstream and downstream of the installation zone of a turbomachine while the turbomachine is being operated in the test bench.
The motivation being to monitor Colson sets forth that such a test bench allows for dust in the turbomachine to be measured (paragraph 3). As such, one would have reason to measure and compare both upstream particles and downstream particles of the turbomachine to determine the origins of the dust and the extent of the problem on the inlet side and outlet side during operation.
The Examiner also points out that nothing in the body of the claim requires the presence of a turbomachine, for the turbomachine as set forth in the preamble is set forth as an intended use of the installation zone. In addition, nothing in the claim sets forth specifics as to the “installation zone”. Thus, the installation zone has been interpreted as merely a location point of the turbomachine within the test system.
With respect to claim 17, while Mancinho et al. fail to explicitly teach the averaging as claimed. Averaging measured values would be with the scope of one having ordinary skill in the art. The motivation to average being to eliminate the possibility of any erroneous measurements.
With respect to claim 18, the teaching of Mancinho et al. is capable of being repeated at different times.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 22 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claim 15, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of claim 15.
With respect to claim 16, the prior art fails to teach or suggest the operating step of the turbomachine consists of imposing an operating cycle with different engine speeds on the turbomachine and of drawing up, via the calculation unit, a correlation between the engine speeds and the quantity of particles emitted.
With respect to claim 22, the prior art fails to teach or suggest an analysis, diagnosis, or
action to identify/control a turbomachine whose pollutant emissions would be higher than a regulatory threshold or a threshold established by correlation between the pollutant emissions and a deterioration of the turbomachine.
CITED DOCUMENTS
The Applicant’s attention is directed to the “PTO-892” form for the relevant art made of record at the time of this Office Action.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the Examiner should be directed to Eric S. McCall whose telephone number is 571-272-2183. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. For questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is advised to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at:
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Eric S. McCall/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights