Ex Parte Foley et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 13, 201813230434 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2018) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/230,434 09/12/2011 Kevin J. Foley NSD 2010-022 8047 26353 7590 03/15/2018 WF S TTN (TH OT TSF. FT FFTRIF POMP ANY T T C EXAMINER 1000 Westinghouse Drive Suite 141 GARNER, LILY CRABTREE Cranberry Township, PA 16066 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3646 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/15/2018 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 @ wes tinghou se. 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 KEVIN J. FOLEY, CHARLES R. BARRETT, and ROY MAY Appeal 2017-000904 Application 13/230,434 Technology Center 3600 Before THOMAS F. SMEGAL, LISA M. GUIJT, and JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) rejecting claims 1—4, 6—9, and 11, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm in part. 1 The real party in interest is identified as Westinghouse Electric Company LLC. Br. 1. Appeal 2017-000904 Application 13/230,434 Claimed Subject Matter The claimed subject matter relates generally to a submersible device used to move into position a tool for inspection of components within the containment of a nuclear power plant. Spec, paras. 2, 6.2 Claims 1, 9, and 11 are independent. Claims 1 and 9, reproduced below with selected limitations emphasized, illustrate the claimed subject matter. 1. A submersible machine structured to carry a tool to a limited access location within a nuclear containment, to become mounted to and to be driven along a structural portion of a reactor apparatus within the nuclear containment, and to insert at least a portion of the tool into the limited access location, the submersible machine comprising: a transport portion comprising a frame, at least a first flotation device disposed on the frame, and a number of thrusters mounted to the frame and structured to be actuated to move the frame through a fluid environment within the nuclear containment; an adjustment table comprising a first platform apparatus having a first translation mechanism and a second platform apparatus having a second translation mechanism, the first and second platform apparatuses being connected together, the first platform apparatus being connected with the frame, at least one of the first platform apparatus and the second platform apparatus being movable in a plane with respect to the other of the first platform apparatus and the second platform apparatus; a mount apparatus connected with the second platform apparatus and comprising a drive apparatus and a number of brace elements, the drive apparatus comprising a motor and a wheel, the wheel and at least a first brace element of the number of brace elements being cooperable to engage therebetween the structural portion of the reactor apparatus within the nuclear containment and to thereby mount the mount apparatus to the reactor apparatus, the motor being actuatable to transfer motile 2 Citations to the Specification are to the version filed September 12, 2011, as amended on October 24, 2012 and March 18, 2015. 2 Appeal 2017-000904 Application 13/230,434 force to the wheel to drive the submersible machine along the reactor apparatus; the second translation mechanism being operable independently of the motor to move the first platform apparatus along a direction in the plane with respect to the mount apparatus when the mount apparatus is mounted to the structural portion of the reactor apparatus, the direction being one of a radial direction and a tangential direction with respect to the reactor apparatus', the first translation mechanism being operable independently of the second translation mechanism to move the frame with respect to the second platfom apparatus along another direction in the plane that is transverse to the direction and that is the other of a radial direction and a tangential direction with respect to the reactor apparatus', and a mast apparatus mounted to the frame and comprising a mast that is structured to carry the tool, the mast apparatus being operable independently of the first translation mechanism to move the mast with respect to the frame. 9. A submersible machine structured to carry a tool to a limited access location within a nuclear containment, to become mounted to and to be driven along a structural portion of a reactor apparatus within the nuclear containment, and to insert at least a portion of the tool into the limited access location, the submersible machine comprising: a transport portion comprising a frame, at least a first flotation device disposed on the frame, and a number of thrusters mounted to the frame and structured to be actuated to move the frame through a fluid environment within the nuclear containment; an adjustment table comprising a first platform apparatus having a first translation mechanism and a second platform apparatus having a second translation mechanism, the first and second platform apparatuses being connected together, the first platform apparatus being connected with the frame, at least one of the first platform apparatus and the second platform apparatus 3 Appeal 2017-000904 Application 13/230,434 being movable in a plane with respect to the other of the first platform apparatus and the second platform apparatus; a mount apparatus connected with the second platform apparatus and comprising a drive apparatus and a number of brace elements, the drive apparatus comprising a motor and a wheel, the wheel and at least a first brace element of the number of brace elements being cooperable to engage therebetween the structural portion of the reactor apparatus within the nuclear containment and to thereby mount the mount apparatus to the reactor apparatus, the motor being actuatable to transfer motile force to the wheel to drive the submersible machine along the reactor apparatus', the second translation mechanism being operable independently of the motor to move the first platform apparatus along a direction in the plane with respect to the mount apparatus when the mount apparatus is mounted to the structural portion of the reactor apparatus; the first translation mechanism being operable independently of the second translation mechanism to move the frame with respect to the second platform apparatus along another direction in the plane that is transverse to the direction; a mast apparatus mounted to the frame and comprising a mast that is structured to carry the tool, the mast apparatus being operable independently of the first translation mechanism to move the mast with respect to the frame; the mount apparatus further comprising an engagement apparatus structured to move the wheel independently of operation of the motor into engagement with the structural portion of the reactor apparatus; the number of brace elements comprising a pair of rollers, the wheel being structured to compressively engage the structural portion of the reactor apparatus between the wheel and the pair of rollers; and wherein the engagement apparatus is operable to move the wheel independently of operation of the motor in a first direction generally toward the pair of rollers and in a second direction generally away from the pair of rollers. 4 Appeal 2017-000904 Application 13/230,434 Rejections I. Claims 1—4, 6—8, and 11 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rowell et al. (US 2008/0317912 Al, published Dec. 25, 2008) and Nakagawa et al. (US 2007/0189858 Al, published Aug. 16, 2007). Final Act. 6—19. II. Claim 9 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rowell, Nakagawa, and Judge, Jr. et al. (US 2007/0146480 Al, published June 28, 2007) (“Judge”). Final Act. 19-23. DISCUSSION Rejection I Claims 1^4 and 6—8 In the Final Action, the Examiner finds Rowell teaches the second translation mechanism recited in claim 1 because rails 1212, 1214 of first track 204 move first platform apparatus 506 in a direction “vertically tangential” to a side surface of the curved steam dam/shroud. Final Act. 7—8 (citing Rowell paras. 85, 87, Fig. 13). Appellants argue Rowell does not teach a translation mechanism that moves a platform apparatus along a “tangential direction with respect to the reactor apparatus,” as recited in claim 1. See Br. 7—8. Appellants contend “[t]he Examiner equates the Examiner’s contrived term ‘vertically tangent’ with the recited word ‘tangent,’ but Applicant would assert that from a linguistic standpoint the two cannot be considered to be equivalent.” Id. at 7. Appellants argue Rowell’s vertical movement is not in “a tangential direction,” but is instead axial movement, “meaning 5 Appeal 2017-000904 Application 13/230,434 movement in a direction parallel with (and space[d] from) the central axis of the approximately cylindrical reactor apparatus.” Id. at 8. It is evident that the Examiner considers Rowell’s movement along its vertical rails to be in “a tangential direction with respect to the reactor apparatus” because the rails allow movement in a plane that is tangential to the generally cylindrical reactor, and specifically in a vertical direction along the line in such plane that intersects the cylinder defined by the reactor. See Final Act. 3^4; Ans. 21—24. We agree with Appellants, however, that this movement is not in a “tangential direction” as recited in claim 1. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 1 ’s movement along a “tangential direction with respect to the reactor apparatus” means movement along a line that is tangent to the circular cross-section of the reactor at a given vertical location. The Specification provides that “adjustment table 178 enables the frame 180 and components mounted thereto to be repositioned with fine tuning in radial and tangential directions (with respect to the center of the steam dam 168).” Spec. para. 49. As the Examiner recognizes, in geometry a tangent is “a straight line or plane that touches a curve or curved surface at a point, but if extended does not cross it at that point.” Ans. 21 (citingwww.oxforddictionaries.com/us/defmition/ american_english/tangent). Movement along a “tangential direction” is only reasonably interpreted as along a tangent. Under this definition, only one point along the line defined by the direction will intersect the circular cross- section of the reactor apparatus, and movement in either direction from that point will not intersect the circle. This interpretation is consistent with the Specification, which only describes vertical movement through telescoping of mast 186. Spec. para. 41, Figs. 6, 8. 6 Appeal 2017-000904 Application 13/230,434 For the foregoing reasons, the vertical direction of movement in the mechanism of Rowell identified by the Examiner is not “a tangential direction” as properly interpreted. Because the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 was based on an unreasonably broad interpretation of a “tangential direction,” we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 and dependent claims 2—\ and 6—8 under § 103(a). Our decision does not preclude the Examiner from making findings based on the interpretation of “a tangential direction” discussed herein, should there be further prosecution, including any review for allowance. Claim 11 Independent claim 11 recites, in part, a mast that “is an elongated member that telescopes along its axis of elongation.” The Examiner considers Rowell’s effector 208 to be the claimed mast, and finds Rowell teaches the above-recited limitation because “effector bracket 322 may be spring-loaded or equivalent to influence effector 208 toward core shroud 110.” Final Act. 17 (quoting Rowell para. 66). Appellants argue “the feature known as ‘telescoping’ is well understood in the art, and it is not provided merely by something being spring biased.” Br. 10. Appellants also contend the “Examiner has not identified any axis of elongation of the effector bracket (322).” Id. We agree with Appellants that the spring-loaded bias in Rowell does not teach telescoping along the axis of elongation of the mast (i.e., effector 208 in Rowell). The Examiner defines telescoping as the capability to condense or conflate so as to occupy less space or time. Ans. 25—26 (citing www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/defmition/american_english/telescope?q= telescoping#telescope_7). Although the dictionary definition is consistent 7 Appeal 2017-000904 Application 13/230,434 with the Specification, it is unclear how the bias described at paragraph 66 of Rowell (and considering bracket 322 and effector 208 illustrated in Figure 3 of Rowell) can cause Rowell’s effector 208 to condense to occupy less space. Rather, considering the arrangement of bracket 322 and effector 208 in Figure 3 of Rowell, paragraph 66 appears to describe a spring-loaded pivot rather than a mast that condenses to occupy less space. The Examiner considers any spring to necessarily involve telescoping because a coil spring may be said to telescope when it is compressed or stretched along its axis. See Ans. 26—27. Without deciding whether a coil spring may be considered to “telescope” in such a manner, the rejection of claim 11 based on such a finding is deficient because Rowell’s effector 208 is not a coil spring. And even if a coil spring were used to accomplish Rowell’s spring-loaded pivot, it is the mast that must elongate according to claim 11. For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 11 under § 103(a). Rejection II Claim 9 recites, in part, a drive apparatus comprising a motor and a wheel, “the motor being actuatable to transfer the motile force to the wheel to drive the submersible machine along the reactor apparatus.” The claim further recites an engagement apparatus that “is operable to move the wheel independently of operation of the motor in a first direction generally toward the pair of rollers and in a second direction generally away from the pair of rollers.” Appellants argue Judge’s drive rollers 314 are stationary, “and that the pinch rollers (312) are what is moved to enable the steam dam (108) to 8 Appeal 2017-000904 Application 13/230,434 be engaged between the pinch roller (312) and the drive rollers (314).” Br. 10. We understand Appellants to contend Judge’s pinch rollers cannot be the “wheel” recited in claim 9 because the motor does not transfer motile force to the pinch rollers, and Judge’s drive rollers are not moved toward the pinch rollers (rather it is the pinch rollers that move toward the drive rollers. Appellants’ arguments do not inform us of error in the rejection of claim 9. In the rejection, the Examiner finds Rowell teaches driving the submersible machine along the reactor apparatus, and Nakagawa teaches an engagement apparatus structured to move a wheel independently of operation of the motor into engagement with the structural portion of the reactor apparatus. Final Act. 20—22. The only limitation the Examiner finds missing from the combined teachings of Rowell and Nakagawa is that “the wheel may be moved in a first direction generally toward the pair of rollers and in a second direction generally away from the pair of rollers.” Id. at 22. The Examiner finds Judge teaches wheels 312 are moved independently of operation of a motor in a first direction toward a pair of rollers 314, and in a second direction generally away from the pair of rollers. Id. at 22—23 (citing Judge para. 49, Fig. 3E). Appellants do not challenge the Examiner’s findings regarding what each reference teaches. Rather, Appellants’ argument that the “wheel” that moves toward and away from rollers in Judge is not the same “wheel” that is driven involves the way in which the teachings from Rowell, Nakagawa, and Judge are combined (e.g., to modify Nakagawa’s driven wheel to move toward rollers similar to how Judge’s pinch rollers move toward the drive rollers). Appellants do not, however, challenge the Examiner’s reasoning for combining the references in this manner. 9 Appeal 2017-000904 Application 13/230,434 Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and by the Examiner, we are not informed of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—4, 6—8, and 11 under § 103(a). We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 under § 103(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 10 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation