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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in the United Kingdom on 1 December 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the GB 2318388.2 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
In particular, it appears that there was an attempt to electronically retrieve the foreign application on 5/1/2025 (see the priority document exchange failure status report mailed on 1 May 2025), but this attempt was unsuccessful. Accordingly, the examiner suggests resolving this issue prior to the issuance of another office action in an effort to expedite prosecution of the application towards potential allowability.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –
(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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Niemela et al. US PG-PUB 2017/0115197 A1 (hereafter Niemela), prior art of record as indicated on the IDS filed 30 April 2025.
As to claim 1: Niemela discloses a particulate sample collector (see fig. 9a) for collecting a particulate sample (see ¶ 92) deposited on a surface of a gas turbine engine component (see ¶ 71), the particulate sample collector comprising:
a collection media support (120; see fig. 9a and ¶ 89) comprising a support surface (not labeled but see ¶ 90 regarding the disclosed support element) that supports a collection media (FIL1; see fig. 9a and ¶ 90) between an inlet (not labeled but see fig. 9a regarding the portion of input flow FG0 entering at the top of the image) of the particulate sample collector and an exit (not labeled but see fig. 9a regarding the portion of flow FG1 or FG2 which are both located at exits) of the particulate sample collector (see fig. 9a); wherein:
the inlet is comprised within a hollow body (see fig. 9a regarding the inlet disposed within distributor 300);
the inlet and exit are fluidically coupled (see fig. 9a); and
the exit is comprised within the hollow body or the exit is comprised within the collection media support (see the bottom exit at least in fig. 9a through which the flow FG1 exits the hollow body 300 at the collection media support for collection media FIL1);
wherein:
an airflow carrying the particulate sample enters the particulate sample collector at the inlet (see fig. 9a and ¶ 214, and further details in ¶ 312-316);
the collection media (FIL1) collects the particulate sample (see figs. 8A-8C and ¶ 210);
the airflow exits the particulate sample collector at the exit (see fig. 9a; the airflow exits towards con2 as depicted by the arrows indicating flow);
the exit of the particulate sample collector is connectable to a vacuum source (pump1; see ¶ 80), the vacuum source (pump1) creating at least a partial vacuum within the hollow body such that the airflow and the particulate sample carried by the airflow enter the particulate sample collector via the inlet (see the direction of airflow and motion of particulates according to the pump1 connected flow depicted in fig. 9a and disclosed in ¶ 80 and 82-83);
a first seal (con1; see ¶ 83) is provided at a first interface between the hollow body and the collection media support (see fig. 9 regarding the relative positions of the hollow body 300 and the collection media support 120 in relation to the seal con1); and
a second seal (con3; see ¶ 87) is provided at a second interface between the exit of the particulate sample collector and the vacuum source (see fig. 9 and details in ¶ 87-88).
As to claim 3: Niemela discloses the particulate sample collector of claim 1, wherein the collection media (FIL1) is configured to collect particles having a characteristic particle size greater than 0.2 microns (see ¶ 76).
As to claim 5: Niemela discloses the particular sample collector of claim 1, wherein the hollow body comprises a nozzle (not labeled but see fig. 9a regarding the tapered shape of the fluid connector portion con1), the inlet located at the tip of the nozzle (see fig. 9a).
As to claim 6: Niemela discloses the particulate sample collector of claim 5, wherein the tip of the nozzle (not labeled but see fig. 9a regarding the tapered shape of the fluid connector portion con1) is inclined at an angle to a principal axis of the particulate sample collector (see fig. 9a regarding the angled/tapered shape of the tip of the nozzle).
As to claim 9: Niemela discloses the particulate sample collector of claim 1, wherein the inlet (not labeled but see fig. 9a regarding the portion of input flow FG0 entering at the top of the image) is configured to connect to a first end of a tube (Duc1; see fig. 1a), and the tube has a second end that has a second nozzle (see fig. 1a and ¶ 55 regarding nozzle 612).
As to claim 11: Niemela discloses the particulate sample collector of claim 9, wherein the tube (Duc1; see fig. 1a) is a flexible tube (see ¶ 71 and 72; a gas duct that may be used as a flue gas duct or exhaust gas duct has at least some flexibility to move under the effects of mechanical or thermal stresses when flows move therethrough).
As to claim 12: Niemela discloses the particulate sample collector of claim 9, wherein the tube (Duc1; see fig. 1a) is a portion of a borescope, or the tube is connectable to a borescope (the tube Duc1 is disclosed in ¶ 71 as being exemplified by a flue gas duct or an exhaust gas duct and because the relative dimensions of the tube and borescope may coincide if desired during fabrication of each, the tube is connected to be “connectable” to a borescope as claimed).
As to claim 14: Niemela discloses a method of determining the composition of particulate residue (see ¶ 3) on a surface of a gas turbine engine component (see fig. 9a and ¶ 71), the method comprising:
obtaining a particulate sample from a surface of the gas turbine engine component using a particulate sample collector of claim 1 (see ¶ 92 in view of previous details in ¶ 71); and
analysing the particulate sample to determine the composition of the particulate residue (see ¶ 207 and 208).
As to claim 15: Niemela discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the step of analysing the particulate sample (see ¶ 207 and 208) comprises at least one of: X-ray fluorescence (XRF), X-ray diffraction (XRD), Raman spectroscopy, scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis (see ¶ 207), energy dispersive X-ray (EDX) analysis, wet chemistry analysis, particle size distribution (PSD) analysis, inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS), transmission electron microscopy (TEM), electron microprobe, isotopic analysis and/or differential scanning calorimetry (DSC).
As to claim 18: Niemela discloses a system for collecting a particulate sample (see ¶ 92) deposited on a surface of a gas turbine engine component (see ¶ 71), the system comprising:
a particulate sample collector (see fig. 9a) of claim 1;
a tube (610; see fig. 1a and ¶ 55); and
a vacuum source (pump1; see ¶ 80) connected to an exit of the particulate sample collector (see ¶ 80 and 82-83);
wherein the tube (610) is connected at its first end to an inlet of the particulate sample collector (see fig. 1a; the tube 610 is connected to an inlet of the particulate sample collector 100), and a particulate sample is obtained at its second end due to the action of the vacuum source (see fig. 9a and ¶ 82); and
wherein the tube (610) is attachable to a borescope (the tube 610 is disclosed as being capable of being disconnected and moved/connected ant another location in ¶ 125; accordingly, because the relative dimensions of the tube and borescope may coincide if desired during fabrication of each, the tube is connected to be “attachable” to a borescope as claimed) or the tube is comprised within the borescope.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niemela et al. US PG-PUB 2017/0115197 A1 (hereafter Niemela), prior art of record as indicated on the IDS filed 30 April 2025 in view of Cho US PG-PUB 2012/0152038 A1 (hereafter Cho), prior art of record as indicated on the IDS filed 30 April 2025.
As to claim 2: Niemela teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including a support surface (not labeled but see ¶ 90 regarding the disclosed support element), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the support surface is porous or perforated.
However, Cho teaches a support surface that is porous or perforated (see ¶ 66 and 69-71).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Niemela’s support surface such that it is porous or perforated because such a porous or perforated surface is an art recognized means of achieving the useful and predictable result of both collecting particles on a filter for filtration purposes while also preventing moisture from collecting on said surface so as to prevent mildew or mold growth or allowing said mildew or mold from passing through a device, such as suggested in ¶ 69-71 of Cho. Accordingly, such a support surface being porous or perforated would improve the use of Niemela’s device by both filtering an airflow passing through and also preventing build of moisture in the flow passing though Niemela’s device.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niemela et al. US PG-PUB 2017/0115197 A1 (hereafter Niemela), prior art of record as indicated on the IDS filed 30 April 2025 in view of Tabaru et al. US PG-PUB 2017/0016820 A1 (hereafter Tabaru).
As to claim 4: Niemela teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including an airflow carrying a particulate sample at an inlet (see ¶ 55), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein a velocity of the airflow carrying the particulate sample is at least 0.1 meters/second.
However, Tabaru teaches a velocity of an airflow carrying a particulate sample being at least 0.1 meters/second (see ¶ 41).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Niemela’s device such that a velocity of the airflow carrying a particulate sample at an inlet is at least 0.1 meters/second because such a velocity is an art recognized means of achieving the useful and predictable result of creating a particle beam that may be analyzed by optical means, such as suggested in Tabaru ¶ 41 and which results in a high sensitivity of particle detection as also suggested in Tabaru ¶ 39. Accordingly, such a velocity would be advantageous in Niemela’s device by creating a particle beam that may then be analyzed with high sensitivity and thus improves the measuring accuracy of such a device.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niemela et al. US PG-PUB 2017/0115197 A1 (hereafter Niemela), prior art of record as indicated on the IDS filed 30 April 2025 in view of Hart et al. US PG-PUB 2019/0308191 A1 (hereafter Hart).
As to claim 13: Niemela teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including a particulate sample collector (see fig. 9a), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the particulate sample collector is formed by an additive manufacturing process.
However, Hart teaches that particulate sampling devices may be formed by an additive manufacturing process (see ¶ 45-46).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form Niemela’s particulate sample collector by an additive manufacturing process because several types of additive manufacturing, such as 3D printing, stereolithography, and laminated object manufacturing techniques are an art recognized means of achieving the useful and predictable result of producing complex geometries with precise and repeatable control techniques in a variety of different types of materials, such as suggested in ¶ 46 of Hart. Accordingly, the use of additive manufacturing would be useful to fabricate the particulate sample collector of Niemela because it would allow a designer of the collector to precisely control its shape and size in a repeatable manner while also allowing for complex shapes to be created, such as tapers and angles.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 and 17 are 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 7: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan a particulate sample collector wherein the angle is from 30° to 60°, when considered in combination with the limitations of parent claims 1, 5, and 6.
In particular, while Collins et al. US PG-PUB 2021/0255068 A1 (hereafter Collins) teaches that a surface portion of a collection arrangement can be angled (see ¶ 126), there does not appear to be an obvious modification of Niemela or the other available prior art that renders obvious a particulate sample collector with an angle from 30° to 60° when considered in combination with the limitations of parent claims 1, 5, and 6.
As to claim 8: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan a particulate sample collector wherein the tip of the nozzle includes a scraper surface, when considered in combination with the limitations of parent claims 1 and 5.
As to claim 9: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan a particulate sample collector wherein the second nozzle has a scraper surface at its tip, when considered in combination with the limitations of parent claims 1 and 9.
As to claim 17: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan a method comprising modifying a design feature of the gas turbine engine based upon the analysis of the particulate sample, when considered in combination with the limitations of parent claim 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M ROYSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30 E.S.T..
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/JOHN M ROYSTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights