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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 13, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-2, 4, 6, 9, 16, 25, 29, 32 and 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0182382 (Kruger).
With regards to claim 1, Kruger discloses an ultrasonic transducer for monitoring structural integrity comprising, as illustrated in Figures 1-4D, an ultrasonic structural health monitoring device (e.g. ultrasonic transducer assembly of Figure 1; paragraph [0034]) for monitoring a structure 10 (e.g. a tube; paragraph [0034]) comprising a bottom electrode 12 (e.g. bottom electrode; paragraph [0036]) disposable on the structure; a piezoelectric medium 13 (e.g. piezoelectric film; paragraph [0036]) disposed on the bottom electrode; a top electrode 14 (e.g. top electrode; paragraph [0036]) disposed on the piezoelectric medium; an acoustic insulation layer 15 (e.g. insulator layer formed of mica, polyimide, fiberglass textiles; paragraphs [0036],[0016]. Note that in paragraph [0110] of the Instant application that mica is indicated as a material for the acoustic insulation layer 208); a connector 16,16’,20,21 (e.g. electric conductors along with connection box and conductive cables; paragraph [0036]) to bring an electrical excitation for the piezoelectric medium and to conduct a generated electric response therefrom representative of structural health (e.g. paragraphs [0011],[0024],[0036]). (See, paragraphs [0034] to [0044]).
With regards to claim 2, Kruger further discloses the piezoelectric medium 13 transforms the electrical excitation into a corresponding ultrasonic wave that is reflected as an echo by the structure to produce the generated electric response representative of the structural health (e.g. piezoelectric film able to excite and detect ultrasonic pulses; paragraphs [0024],[0036]).
With regards to claim 4, Kruger further discloses the piezoelectric medium 13 comprises a piezoelectric layer deposited on the bottom electrode 12 (e.g. paragraph [0036]; observed in Figure 2,4C).
With regards to claim 6, Kruger further discloses a cover layer 19 (e.g. protective layer; paragraph [0043]; observed in Figure 4C).
With regards to claim 9, Kruger further discloses the piezoelectric medium 13 is made from a mix of a piezoelectric ceramic powder with a binding material and sprayed on the bottom electrode (e.g. piezoelectric powder; paragraphs [0013],[0023]).
With regards to claim 16, Kruger further discloses a sealant 11 (e.g. coupling layer like ultrasonic gel or polymeric adhesive material acts as a sealant; paragraph [0037]; Figures 2,3) that fills at least part of the device.
With regards to claim 25, Kruger further discloses a plastic film layer (e.g. an adhesive material like polymer glue is of plastic form; paragraph [0021]).
With regards to claim 29, Kruger further discloses two or more sensing elements (e.g. multi-element ultrasonic transducer assembly; Figure 3; paragraph [0039]); the connector 16,16’,20,21 is connected to each of the two or more sensing elements in series so to commonly bring the electrical excitation to each of the two or more sensing elements (e.g. paragraph [0039]; Figure 3).
With regards to claim 32, Kruger further discloses two or more sensing elements (e.g. multi-element ultrasonic transducer assembly; Figure 3; paragraph [0039]) sharing at least one of the bottom electrode, the piezoelectric medium, the top electrode, or the acoustic insulation layer (e.g. acoustic insulation 15; observed in Figure 3).
With regards to claim 35, Kruger further discloses the connector 16,16’,20,21 is operatively connected to a pulser/receiver 22 (e.g. paragraphs [0024],[0036]; Figure 2) operable to generate the electrical excitation and receive the generated electric response (e.g. paragraphs [0024],[0036]; observed in Figure 2).
With regards to claim 36, Kruger further discloses the acoustic insulation layer 15 is disposed over the top electrode 14 (e.g. paragraphs [0036],[0043]; observed in Figures 2,4C.
With regards to claim 37, Kruger further discloses the generated electric response representative of structural health is representative of at least one of structural wear, corrosion, pitting, icing or cracking (e.g. corrosion; paragraph [0002]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 3, 21 and 39-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0182382 (Kruger) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0019105 (Krohn et al.).
With regards to claim 3, Kruger does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the structure is represented by an elapsed time between the electrical excitation and the generated electric response such that a variation in the elapsed time is representative of the structural health. (See, paragraphs [0003],[0020] to [0022]).
Krohn et al. discloses a system for measuring material thickness comprising, as illustrated in Figures 1-9, an ultrasonic structural health monitoring device 100 (e.g. sensing device; paragraph [0027]) for monitoring a structure (e.g. pipeline; paragraph [0003]) comprising a bottom electrode 110 (e.g. ground electrode; paragraph [0027]) disposable on the structure; a piezoelectric medium 104,106 (e.g. piezoelectric element with a ceramic body; paragraph [0027]) disposed on the bottom electrode; a top electrode 108 (e.g. electrode; paragraph [0027]) disposed on the piezoelectric medium; an acoustic insulation layer 116,118 (e.g. polyimide-based film; paragraphs [0027],[0031]); a connector 122,360 (e.g. receiving electrodes, conductors; paragraph [0027],[0031],[0036]) to bring electrical excitation for the piezoelectric medium and to conduct a generated electric response therefrom representative of structural health; the piezoelectric medium transforms the electrical excitation into a corresponding ultrasonic wave that is reflected as an echo by the structure to produce the generated electric response representative of the structural health (e.g. paragraphs [0003],[0020] to [0022]); a thickness of the structure is represented by an elapsed time between the electrical excitation and the generated electric response such that a variation in the elapsed time is representative of the structural health (e.g. paragraphs [0003],[0020] to [0022]). (See, paragraphs [0019] to [0043]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have readily recognize the advantages and desirability of employing the concept of a thickness of the structure is represented by an elapsed time between the electrical excitation and the generated electric response such that a variation in the elapsed time is representative of the structural health as suggested as suggested by Krohn et al. to the system of Kruger to have the ability to determine various characteristics of the structure, like thickness, corrosion, erosion of the structure, by using time of flight analysis. (See, paragraphs [0003],[0022] of Krohn et al.).
With regards to claim 21, Krohn et al. further discloses a magnet to removably attach the device to the structure to be monitored (e.g. paragraph [0042]).
With regards to claim 39, Krohn et al. further discloses an ultrasonic structural health monitoring system (e.g. nondestructive testing system; paragraph [0002]) for monitoring a structure (e.g. pipeline; paragraph [0003]) comprising the ultrasonic structural health monitoring device 100; a pulser/receiver operable to generate the electrical excitation and receive the generated electric response (e.g. paragraph [0021]); a digital processor (e.g. signal processing electronics; paragraph [0021]) operable to output indication of the structural health as a function of an elapsed time between the electrical excitation and the generated electric response (e.g. paragraphs [0003],[0020] to [0022]).
With regards to claim 40, Krohn et al. further discloses the ultrasonic structural health monitoring device comprises multiple sensing elements 18,304,400 (e.g. paragraphs [0019],[0035],[0037]) connected in series via a common the connector to be concurrently excited via a same electrical excitation (e.g. observed in Figures 1,6,8); the digital processor is operable to output indication of a maximum wear as a function of a shortest elapsed time between the same electrical excitation and a first the generated electric response (e.g. paragraphs [0003],[0020] to [0022]).
With regards to claim 41, Krohn et al. further discloses an ultrasonic structural health monitoring method for monitoring a structure (e.g. pipeline; paragraph [0003]) comprising affixing to the structure the ultrasonic structural health monitoring device 100 (e.g. paragraph [0020]; observed in Figure 8); exciting the ultrasonic structural health monitoring device via the electrical excitation and conducting the generated electric response therefrom (e.g. paragraph [0020] to [0022]); using a digital processor (e.g. signal processing electronics; paragraph [0021]), monitoring an elapsed time between the electrical excitation and the generated electrical response to output an indication of the structural health as a function of the elapsed time (e.g. paragraphs [0003],[0020] to [0022]).
With regards to claim 42, Krohn et al. further discloses multiple sensing elements 18,304,400 (e.g. paragraphs [0019],[0035],[0037]) connected in series via a common connector to be concurrently excited via a same the electrical excitation (e.g. observed in Figures 1,6,8); the digital processor is operable to monitor for a shortest said elapsed time to output indication of a maximum wear as a function of the shortest the elapsed time (e.g. paragraphs [0003],[0020] to [0022]).
Claims 27 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0182382 (Kruger) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0260427 (Kim).
With regards to claim 27, Kruger does not disclose an edge cushion substantially covering at least one edge of the bottom electrode so as to protect the connector.
Kim discloses a system for identifying damage in a structure comprising, as illustrated in Figures 1A-18B, an ultrasonic structural health monitoring device 100 (e.g. patch sensor; paragraph [0077]) for monitoring a structure (e.g. airplane; paragraph [0130]) comprising a bottom electrode 112 (e.g. bottom conductive flake; paragraph [0077]) disposable on the structure; a piezoelectric medium 116 (e.g. piezoelectric layer; paragraph [0077]) disposed on the bottom electrode; a top electrode 114 (e.g. top conductive flake; paragraph [0077]) disposed on the piezoelectric medium; an acoustic insulation layer 120 (e.g. molding layer; paragraphs [0077],[0085]); a connector 118a,118b (e.g. electrical wires; paragraph [0077]) to bring an electrical excitation for the piezoelectric medium and to conduct a generated electric response therefrom representative of structural health (e.g. patch sensor affixed to a host structure to monitor the structural health condition; paragraphs [0077],[0089]); a plastic film layer 120 (e.g. molding layer of epoxy or an adhesive material like epoxy resin or a structural adhesive like cast thermosetting epoxy are considered a type of plastic for this plastic film layer; paragraphs [0085], [0089],[0078]; Figures 1B,1G); an edge cushion 104 (e.g. hoop layer; paragraphs [0077],[0086]; Figure 1B) substantially covering at least one edge of the bottom electrode 166 so as to protect the connector 158a,158b (e.g. observed in Figure 1B; paragraphs [0077],[0086]). (See, paragraphs [0077] to [0186]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have readily recognize the advantages and desirability to employing an edge cushion substantially covering at least one edge of the bottom electrode so as to protect the connector as suggested by Kim to the system of Kruger to have the ability to encircle the sensor elements mounted on the substrate to prevent the conductive components of the device from electrical shorting and protect the sensor elements of the device from hostile environmental conditions which can degrade the performance and reduce the lifetime of the device. (See, paragraphs [0086],[0085] of Kim).
With regards to claim 34, Kim further discloses the structure comprises a liner 172 (e.g. plurality of plies; paragraph [0089]) such that the device is embeddable between the structure and the liner so as to monitor liner thickness variation (e.g. paragraph [0089]; Figure 1G).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0182382 (Kruger) in view of U.S. Patent 3,427,481 (Colbert).
With regards to claim 15, Kruger further discloses the connector is formed of foil strip or any other electric conductor means known in the art (e.g. paragraph [0036]); however, the reference does not disclose the connector comprises an induction coil.
Colbert discloses an ultrasonic transducer comprising, as illustrated in Figures 1-3, an ultrasonic structural health monitoring device 10 (e.g. ultrasonic transducer; column 2, lines 65-69) for monitoring a structure 11 (e.g. part; column 2, lines 65-69) comprising a bottom electrode 15 (e.g. bottom electrode; column 3, lines 8-21) disposable on the structure; a piezoelectric medium 14 (e.g. piezoelectric transducer; column 3, lines 8-21) disposed on the bottom electrode; a top electrode 16 (e.g. top electrode; column 3, lines 8-21) disposed on the piezoelectric medium; a connector 20,21,22 (e.g. connector with lead; column 3, lines 8-21) to bring electrical excitation for the piezoelectric medium and to collect a generated electric response therefrom representative of structural health; the connector comprises an induction coil 23 (e.g. coil; column 3, lines 8-21). (See, column 2, line 65 to column 6, line 25).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have readily recognize the advantages and desirability of employing the connector comprises an induction coil as suggested by Colbert to the system of Kruger to have the ability to oppose changes in the current flowing through, thus developing a voltage proportional to the rate of change of the current. (See, column 3, lines 8-21 of Colbert). At the same time, it is known that a foil strip can be used with induction coil.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4,6,9,15-16,21,25,27,29,32,34-37,39-42 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection and/or because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Helen C Kwok whose telephone number is (571)272-2197. The examiner
can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:30 to 4:00 EST.
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.
/HELEN C KWOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855