Ex Parte Foley et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 13, 2018

13230434 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2018)

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