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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed 11/12/24 is acknowledged, the references therein relating to the general background of applicant’s invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Current language of “wherein the comparison … is used to select an image for use in the position comparison” creates a circular logic where the only previously defined “comparison” is produced and also a prerequisite for the method of claim 5. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows. Claim 20 is drawn to functional descriptive material recorded on one or more computer readable media. A machine readable medium can be defined as encompassing statutory medium, but it also encompasses non-statutory subject matter such as a signal or carrier wave.
A “signal” embodying functional descriptive material is neither a process nor a product (i.e., a tangible “thing”) and therefore does not fall within one of the four statutory classes of §101. Rather, “signal” is a form of energy, in the absence of any physical structure of tangible material. Paragraph 31 of the application publication specifically states that the medium can be a signal.
Because the full scope of the claim encompasses non-statutory subject matter, the claim as a whole is non-statutory. The examiner suggests amending the claim to "a non-transitory machine readable medium” Any amendment to the claim should be commensurate with its corresponding disclosure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 and 6-19 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claims 1 and 17, the prior art does not specifically teach a method of blade monitoring comprising an image of a blade, analyzing the image to detect portions of the blade, determining, using information on the detected portions, the position of the blade relative to an imaging device used to obtain the image, comparing the determined position of the blade relative to the imaging device with a reference position and determining and outputting a positional suitability of the imaging device position based on the comparison. Similar prior art such as U.S. patent application publication 2022/0044384 by Peters et al. discloses guiding a borescope to a predefined position to image blades in a turbine, but fails to disclose determining the position suitability dependent upon a comparison of a determined blade position relative to a camera with a reference position.
Claims 2-4, 6-16, 18 and 19 are allowed because they depend upon allowed claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN O DULANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2874. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at (571)270-5254. 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.
BENJAMIN O. DULANEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2676
/BENJAMIN O DULANEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights