Ex Parte Barrett et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 14, 201914597644 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 14, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/597,644 01/15/2015 26353 7590 05/16/2019 WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, LLC 1000 Westinghouse Drive Suite 141 Cranberry Township, PA 16066 Charles R. Barrett UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. NSD 2014-004 TRADL 4081 EXAMINER NOLAN, JOHN T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3646 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/16/2019 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): guerral@westinghouse.com spadacjc@westinghouse.com coldrerj@westinghouse.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHARLES R. BARRETT and KEVIN J. FOLEY1 Appeal2018-006361 Application 14/597,644 Technology Center 3600 Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse. 1 The Appeal Brief indicates that Westinghouse Electric Company LLC (Appellant) is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2018-006361 Application 14/597,644 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to ultrasonic phased array transducers, and methods of using such transducers, for inspecting pipes. Spec. ,r,r 2, 12, 13. Claim 1, reproduced below with emphases added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An ultrasonic phased array transducer assembly comprising a single ultrasonic probe housing in which a plurality of phased array transducers, respectively comprised of a plurality of transducer subassemblies, are mounted with at least two of the phased array transducers respectively positioned at a skewed angle relative to a leading face of the probe housing and all of the phased array transducers are mounted at skewed angles to each other, with each of the transducer subassemblies in the respective phased array transducers mounted on a common composite wedge within the housing. Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: De Briere Gimdt US 4,394,345 July 19, 1983 US 2008/0178678 Al July 31, 2008 REJECTIONS I. Claims 1, 2, and 4--7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(l) as anticipated by Gimdt. 2 2 Although not listed in the rejection heading, claim 5 is addressed under that heading in the Final Action. Final Act. 3. The Examiner, however, acknowledges that Gimdt does not explicitly teach the features in claim 5, but concludes those features "would be ... obvious variation." Id. Appellant treats claim 5 as rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appeal Br. 4, 7. 2 Appeal2018-006361 Application 14/597,644 II. Claims 3, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Gimdt and De Briere. III. Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over De Briere and Gimdt. OPINION Rejection I, Claims 1, 2, and 4-7 The Examiner finds that Gimdt discloses all of the elements recited in claim 1, and, specifically, finds that Figures 3 and 13 and paragraph 112 of Gimdt disclose transducer subassemblies, in respective phased array transducers, that are mounted on a common composite wedge within a housing. Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner also finds that Figures 3, 9, 10, and 13 and paragraphs 34 and 91 of Gimdt disclose phased array transducers disposed at skewed angles relative to a leading face of a probe housing as recited in claim 1. Id. at 3; Ans. 4. Appellant contends that Gimdt fails to disclose phased array transducers disposed at skewed angles as recited because the majority of the disclosure in Gimdt relates to composite transducers, not phased array transducers. See Appeal Br. 4---6. Therefore, according to Appellant, any disclosure of the skewed angles relates to a type of transducer different from what is claimed. See id. at 5---6. Further, Appellant asserts that any skewed angle of the transducers in Gimdt relates to the angle the transducers make with the item being scanned, not the transducers' housing, as claimed. Id. at 5. Appellant also argues that in Gimdt, "there is no mention or suggestion that each of the transducer subassemblies in the respective phased array transducers should be mounted on a common composite wedge 3 Appeal2018-006361 Application 14/597,644 within the housing." Appeal Br. 6. Appellant explains, "while Gimdt mentions that wedges can be used it does not explain how." Id. at 5. We agree with Appellant that Gimdt does not disclose phased array transducers comprised of subassemblies, each of which being mounted on a common composite wedge as required by claim 1. Paragraph 112 of Gimdt mentions a wedge a single time, stating, "[i]t will be apparent to those versed in the art that the embodied invention will also work using the contact method whereby the curved transducers are affixed to a wedge, the opposite dimension of which is machined to a radius to match the curvature of the tube being inspected." Gimdt ,r 112 ( emphasis added). Thus, paragraph 112 describes a wedge as used in conjunction with a curved transducer. Gimdt makes clear that a curved transducer is not the same as a phased array transducer. See Gimdt ,r,r 86-87 ( discussing the advantages and disadvantages of (i) phased array systems, (ii) flat single element systems, and (iii) curved composite systems). Therefore, paragraph 112 of Gimdt does not support the Examiner's finding that Gimdt discloses subassemblies of phased array transducers mounted on a common composite wedge having the recited geometries. Figures 3 and 13 also fail to support the Examiner's finding regarding subassemblies of phased array transducers mounted on a wedge. Figure 3 uses triangles to depict the coverage area provided by curved composite probes. Gimdt ,r,r 53, 90. The triangles shown in Figure 3 are not physical wedges that support any other object, and the depicted ultrasonic transducers are curved composite transducers, not phased array transducers. Figure 13 includes Figures 13A-13E, and, of these, only Figures 13D and 13E depict anything resembling a wedge. Specifically, Figures 13D and 13E depict 4 Appeal2018-006361 Application 14/597,644 triangular shapes encircling a central area. Gimdt does not disclose that these triangular shapes are meant to depict physical wedges. Regardless, assuming arguendo that Figures 13D and 13E depict wedges upon which transducers are mounted, Gimdt provides no indication that what is mounted on these wedges are subassemblies of phased array transducers. See Gimdt ,r,r 113-115. We do not address Appellant's arguments regarding "skewed angles" as recited in claim 1, other than to say that claim 1 requires "at least two of the phased array transducers respectively positioned at a skewed angle relative to a leading face of the probe housing." Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). It appears that none of Figures 3, 9, 10, and 13 and paragraphs 34 and 91 of Gimdt discloses a housing, or, therefore, any particular angle between a housing and phased array transducers. For the reasons discussed above, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 and claims 2 and 4--7 depending therefrom, as anticipated by Gimdt. Rejection II, Claims 3, 8, and 9 Claims 3, 8, and 9 depend from claim 1. The Examiner does not apply the teachings of De Briere in any manner that remedies the deficiencies discussed above regarding Rejection I. See Final Act. 4--5. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 3, 8, and 9 as unpatentable over Gimdt and De Briere. Rejection III, Claims 10 and 11 In the rejection of independent claim 10, the Examiner relies on Gimdt for the same teachings discussed above regarding Rejection I. See Final Act. 5-7. Therefore, for the same reasons discussed above with 5 Appeal2018-006361 Application 14/597,644 respect to Rejection I, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 10 and associated dependent claim 11 as unpatentable over De Briere and Gimdt. DECISION The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-11 is reversed. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation