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 .
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 1 and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 20200017651; English translation provided by the Examiner) in view of Asano et al. (JPH07244024; hereinafter “Asano”; English translation provided by the Examiner) in further view of Falter et al. (US 20170284973; hereinafter “Falter”).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a system (Figures 5-7) for a volumetric examination ([0022-0023, 0031-0032, 0035-0036, 0039-0041]) of a blade root (20) of a turbine blade (10), comprising:
an ultrasonic phased array probe (77; [0040]; Figures 5-7);
a bracket (763 and 78; Figure 6) defining a fixture (See Figure 6),
wherein the probe (77) is positioned within the fixture (See Figure 6) to position the probe (77) to a desired position (See Figures 6-7) for generation of a scan of a portion of the blade root ([0022-0023, 0031-0032, 0035-0036, 0039-0041]),
wherein the probe (77) is positioned within the fixture (See Figure 6) to position the probe for generation of the scan of the portion of the blade root ([0022-0023, 0031-0032, 0035-0036, 0039-0041]),
wherein the probe (77) is positionable within the fixture (763 and 78) to direct a wave in a direction to allow for scanning the portion of the blade root of the turbine blade (Figure 7 demonstrates the probe directing ultrasonic waves for scanning the blade root 20 of the blade 10; [0022-0023, 0031-0032, 0035-0036, 0039-0041]);
an ultrasonic signal source connected to the probe via a line that provides an ultrasonic pulse signal (an ultrasonic source needs to be connected to the probe through a line in order to emit the ultrasonic waved to the portion 40 of the blade root 10; See Figure 7; [0036]); and
a receiver connected to the probe via the line for receiving reflected ultrasonic pulse signals (receiving portion of the probe 77 that receives reflected waves from the portion 40 of the blade root 20; See Figure 7; [0036]),
wherein the scan of the portion of the blade root (20) is generated from the reflected ultrasonic pulse signals ([0007, 0010, 0036]),
wherein the bracket (763 and 78) is sized to fit between a first turbine stage and a second turbine stage ([0019, 0023]);
wherein the scan of the portion of the blade root (20) is initiated from at least one of the inlet side or the outlet side of the blade root ([0019, 0023]; See Figure 7).
Park teaches the bracket and associated structure along with the probe but does not expressly teach the bracket carried by and conforming to the geometry of a turbine shaft, wherein the bracket translates around the turbine shaft relative to a longitudinal axis, and the probe is positioned within the fixture to position the probe to a desired offset gap for generation of the scan of the portion of the blade root.
However, Asano teaches the bracket (20, 22-23, 25 and 28; Figures 1-3) carried by and conforming to the geometry of a turbine shaft (2; See Figures 1-3), wherein the bracket (20, 22 and 28) translates around the turbine shaft relative to a longitudinal axis ([0014-0015, 0018]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Asano’s bracket structure implemented as Park’s bracket in order to move the ultrasonic probe through different blades and blade roots in a circular manner to inspect a plurality of blades and blade roots without having to attach the probe to every single blade, as demonstrated by Park.
The combination of Park and Asano teach the probe and the blade root but does not expressly teach the probe is positioned within the fixture to position the probe to a desired offset gap for generation of the scan of the portion of the blade root.
However, Falter teaches that is known in the art to have a probe (24; Figure 1; [0022-0026]) is positioned within a fixture (See Figure 1) to position the probe (24) to a desired offset gap ([0030]) for generation of the scan ([0022-0026, 0035]) of the portion of a structure (12, 14 and 16; Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Falter’s offset gap implemented between Park and Asano’s probe and blade root in order to introduce a fluid medium between the probe and the blade root, this will reduce any air gaps and/or the size of air gaps between the ultrasonic probe and the surface of the blade root that would otherwise interfere with the transmission of the ultrasonic signals (See Falter [0030]).
Regarding claim 4, Park teaches wherein the portion of the blade root (20) that is in the scan is located on the opposite side of the turbine blade than the side of the turbine blade that the scan was initiated (Figure 7 demonstrates that scanned portion 40 of the blade root 20 is located on the opposite side of the blade 10 than the side of the blade 10 in which the probe 77 is located, i.e. where the scan is initiated).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Park, Asano and Falter teaches the bracket (20, 22-23, 25 and 28: Asano) conforms to a feature (21; Figures 1-3: Asano) of an outer diameter of the turbine shaft (2; Figures 1-3: Asano).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Park, Asano and Falter teaches wherein the feature (21; Figures 1-3: Asano) of the turbine shaft (2; Figures 1-3: Asano) is a sealing feature ([0014-0015, 0018-0019]: Asano).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Park, Asano and Falter teaches wherein the bracket (20, 22-23, 25 and 28: Asano) further comprises a scanning side (side where the probe 27 is located; Figures 1-3: Asano) and an offset gap between the scanning side of the bracket and the inlet or outlet side of a platform of the turbine blade (Figures 2-3 demonstrates an offset gap between the scanning side of the portion 20 bracket 20, 22-23, 25 and 28 and the inlet or outlet side of a platform of the turbine blade 4: Asano).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Park, Asano and Falter teaches the bracket (20, 22-23, 25 and 28: Asano) further comprises a plurality of rollers (22 and 23; Figures 1-3: Asano) that allow for radial translation of bracket (20, 22-23, 25 and 28: Asano) about an outer diameter of the turbine shaft (2; Figures 1-3: Asano) relative to the longitudinal axis and define a bracket offset gap (See Figures 1-3: Asano).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Park, Asano and Falter teaches wherein the bracket (20, 22-23, 25 and 28: Asano) further comprises a probe mount (28; Figures 1-3: Asano) that is positionable within in the fixture to define a probe offset gap (See Figures 1-3: Asano).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Park, Asano and Falter teaches wherein the probe mount (28: Asano) defines an offset angle (See Figures 1-3: Asano) between an orientation of the probe (27: Asano) and a plane perpendicular to the inlet or outlet side of the blade root of the turbine blade and colinear with a longitudinal axis of the turbine shaft (See Figures 1-3: Asano).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Park, Asano and Falter teaches the offset angle but does not expressly teach the offset angle being within a range of 0 to 20 degrees.
However, the Examiner takes the position that one of ordinary skill in the at would have the requisite skill to modify the offset angle, including having an offset angle within a range of 0 to 20 degrees, in order to provide an offset that would provide the best scanning of the structure.
Furthermore, the courts have ruled that a claimed structure was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed structure was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Park, Asano and Falter in further view of Guo et al. (CN 109490420; hereinafter “Guo”; English translation provided by the Examiner).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Park, Asano and Falter teaches the blade root of the turbine blade but does not expressly teach wherein the blade root of the turbine blade is a T-root configured to be mated with a T-slot in the turbine shaft.
However, Guo teaches that is known in the art to examine through ultrasonics a T-root configured to be mated with a T-slot in the turbine shaft ([0002, 0004, 001-0024]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Guo’s structural blade root configuration implemented as Park, Asano and Falter’s blade root sine T-root blades are easier to design and manufacture and easier installation and removal in comparison to the fir tree blade of Park.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Park, Asano, Falter and Guo teach wherein the portion of the blade root includes at least one fillet (See Figures 5-7 of Park and Figure 2 of Guo).
Claims 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Asano.
Regarding claim 12, Park teaches a nondestructive method for a volumetric examination ([0022-0023, 0031-0032, 0035-0036, 0039-0041]) of a blade root (20) of at least one turbine blade (10) of a steam turbine ([0002]), the method comprising:
attaching a bracket (763 and 78; Figure 6) to the turbine blade (10; Figures 5-7);
positioning an ultrasonic phased array probe (77; [0040]; Figures 5-7) within a mount formed in the bracket (See Figure 6) to enable the probe (77) for generation of a scan of a least one portion of the blade root ([0022-0023, 0031-0032, 0035-0036, 0039-0041]),
generating the scan ([0022-0023, 0031-0032, 0035-0036, 0039-0041]) of the at least one portion (40) of the blade root (20) from the desired position by directing ultrasonic waves ([0036]) via the ultrasonic phased array probe (77; [0036]), the generating including: generating the scan by directing ultrasonic waves ([0022-0023, 0031-0032, 0035-0036, 0039-0041]) from the probe (77) positioned on a side of the turbine blade (See Figures 6) to positions on an opposite side of the turbine blade (10) so that the scan includes a reference geometry of the blade root ([0022-0023, 0031-0032, 0035-0036, 0039-0041]; See Figures 5-7) and each of all of a plurality of fillets (40) located on the opposite side of the turbine blade (See Figures 5-7), and
capturing reflected ultrasonic waves ([0022-0023, 0031-0032, 0035-0036, 0039-0041]) by a receiver (receiving portion of the probe 77 that receives reflected waves from the portion 40 of the blade root 20; See Figure 7; [0036]) to generate the scan (receiving portion of the probe 77 that receives reflected waves from the portion 40 of the blade root 20; See Figure 7; [0036]).
Park teaches the blade, the bracket and the probe but does not expressly teach the turbine blade is installed in a turbine shaft of a steam turbine, attaching a bracket to the turbine shaft, the bracket conforming to the geometry of the turbine shaft and turbine blade; enable the probe to translate along the geometry of the turbine shaft and turbine blade relative to a longitudinal axis to a desired position for generation of a scan; and comparing the scan to a reference scan of the turbine blade to determine defects within the blade root.
However, Asano teaches the turbine blade is installed in a turbine shaft of a steam turbine, attaching a bracket (20, 22-23, 25 and 28; Figures 1-3) to the turbine shaft (2; See Figures 1-3), the bracket (20, 22-23, 25 and 28; Figures 1-3) conforming to the geometry of the turbine shaft (2; See Figures 1-3) and turbine blade (See Figures 1-3); enable the probe (27; Figures 1-3) to translate along the geometry of the turbine shaft ([0014-0015, 0018]) and turbine blade relative to a longitudinal axis to a desired position for generation of a scan ([0014-0015, 0018]); and comparing the scan to a reference scan of the turbine blade ([0026]) to determine defects within the blade root ([0026]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Asano’s bracket structure and comparison implemented as Park’s bracket in order to move the ultrasonic probe through different blades and blade roots in a circular manner to inspect a plurality of blades and blade roots without having to attach the probe to every single blade, as demonstrated by Park, to determine the defects within the blade.
Regarding claim 13, Park and Asano teaches the step of translating the bracket around the turbine shaft (2: Asano) relative to the longitudinal axis ([0014-0015, 0018] : Asano) to produce a scan of all of the turbine blades (Figure 9: Asano) installed in a turbine stage of the turbine shaft ([0014-0015, 0018]: Asano).
Regarding claim 14, Park teaches wherein the desired position of the ultrasonic phased array probe (77) is on an inlet or outlet side of a platform of the turbine blade ([0019, 0023]; See Figures 5-7).
Regarding claim 15, Park teaches scanning a reference geometry ([0022-0023, 0031-0032, 0035-0036, 0039-0041]) to establish a location within the blade root of the turbine ([0022-0023, 0031-0032, 0035-0036, 0039-0041]; location of element 40; Figures 5-7).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Park and Asano teaches the step of distinguishing between a first turbine blade and a second turbine blade ([0006, 0019]: Asano) by the repetition of the corresponding reference geometry in the scan ([0022-0023, 0031-0032, 0035-0036, 0039-0041]: Park and [0026]: Asano).
Regarding claim 17, Park teaches wherein the reference geometry is a reference fillet (See Figure 7).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY W MEGNA FUENTES whose telephone number is (571)272-6456. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8AM-4PM.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/ANTHONY W MEGNA FUENTES/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/LAURA MARTIN/SPE, Art Unit 2855