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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satzger et al. (U.S. 9,535,012, hereafter referred to as Satzger) in view of Prior Art I (GB 785,775, hereafter referred to as PAI).
Regarding claim 1, Satzger teaches a method for inspecting an aircraft propulsion system component for defects using non-destructive testing (see column 1, lines 36-37), the method comprising: applying a fluorescent penetrant to one or more surfaces of a component (see column 2, lines 5-9); removing excess fluorescent penetrant from the one or more surfaces (see column 2, lines 10 -11); and inspecting the component by illuminating the component with ultraviolet (UV) light and, while illuminating the component, identifying a presence or an absence of one or more defects at the one or more surfaces indicated by the fluorescent penetrant (see column 2, lines 18-20).
However, Satzger does not explicitly teach the step of resonating the component with a resonance test assembly, and measuring a resonance frequency of the component with the resonance test assembly.
PAI teaches a non-destructive testing method which incorporates method steps similar to the teaching of Satzger, and additionally references the step of resonating the component with a resonance test assembly, while the fluorescent penetrant is applied to the one or more surfaces, and measuring a resonance frequency of the component with the resonance test assembly (see page 3, lines 44-63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Satzger with the teaching of PAI in order to identify additional flaws in the test component.
Regarding claim 6, Satzger further teaches cleaning the one or more surfaces prior to applying the fluorescent penetrant to the one or more surfaces (see column 2, lines 3-4).
Regarding claim 9, Satzger further teaches applying a developer to the one or more surfaces subsequent to removing excess fluorescent penetrant and prior to identifying the presence or the absence of the one or more defects (see Abstract; see column 2, lines 12-13).
Claim(s) 2, 3, 10-12 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satzger in view of PAI, and further in view of Jauriqui et al. (U.S. 11,143,630, hereafter referred to as Jauriqui).
Regarding claim 2, neither Satzger nor PAI explicitly teach comparing the resonance frequency to a resonant frequency threshold range for the component to identify the component has passed or failed a resonance test.
Jauriqui teaches a resonance test assembly wherein a frequency response may be compared to a resonance standard to evaluate the part; the frequency response of known good and/or known bad parts may be determined and used to generate the resonance standard against which a frequency response of a part-under-test is compared for evaluation of the part; In any regard, a resonance standard may provide analytical criteria so as to facilitate characterization of a part as either a good part or a bad part based on a comparison of the frequency response of the part to the resonance standard (see column 1, lines 30-54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Satzger and PAI with the teaching of Jauriqui which provides structure for the resonance frequency testing.
Regarding claim 3, neither Satzger nor PAI explicitly teach wherein the resonance test assembly includes a nest, one or more input transducers, and one or more output transducers.
Jauriqui teaches a resonance test assembly which includes a nest 119, one or more input transducers 18, and one or more output transducers (22, 24); resonating the component with the resonance test assembly includes applying a vibration to the component using the one or more input transducers with the component disposed in the nest, and measuring the resonance frequency of the component includes measuring the resonance frequency of the component using the one or more output transducers with the component disposed in the nest (see figures 2 and 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Satzger and PAI with the teaching of Jauriqui which provides structure for the resonance frequency testing.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Satzger teaches a method for inspecting an aircraft propulsion system component for defects using non-destructive testing (see column 1, lines 36-37), the method comprising: applying a fluorescent penetrant to one or more surfaces of a component (see column 2, lines 5-9); removing excess fluorescent penetrant from the one or more surfaces (see column 2, lines 10 -11); and inspecting the component by illuminating the component with ultraviolet (UV) light and, while illuminating the component, identifying a presence or an absence of one or more defects at the one or more surfaces indicated by the fluorescent penetrant (see column 2, lines 18-20).
However, Satzger does not explicitly teach the step of resonating the component with a resonance test assembly, and measuring a resonance frequency of the component with the resonance test assembly.
PAI teaches a non-destructive testing method which incorporates method steps similar to the teaching of Satzger, and additionally references the step of resonating the component with a resonance test assembly, while the fluorescent penetrant is applied to the one or more surfaces, and measuring a resonance frequency of the component with the resonance test assembly (see page 3, lines 44-63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Satzger with the teaching of PAI in order to identify additional flaws in the test component.
neither Satzger nor PAI explicitly teach wherein the resonance test assembly includes a nest, one or more input transducers, and one or more output transducers.
Jauriqui teaches a resonance test assembly which includes a nest 119, one or more input transducers 18, and one or more output transducers (22, 24); resonating the component with the resonance test assembly includes applying a vibration to the component using the one or more input transducers with the component disposed in the nest, and measuring the resonance frequency of the component includes measuring the resonance frequency of the component using the one or more output transducers with the component disposed in the nest (see figures 2 and 3).
neither Satzger nor PAI explicitly teach comparing the resonance frequency to a resonant frequency threshold range for the component to identify the component has passed or failed a resonance test.
Jauriqui teaches a resonance test assembly wherein a frequency response may be compared to a resonance standard to evaluate the part; the frequency response of known good and/or known bad parts may be determined and used to generate the resonance standard against which a frequency response of a part-under-test is compared for evaluation of the part; In any regard, a resonance standard may provide analytical criteria so as to facilitate characterization of a part as either a good part or a bad part based on a comparison of the frequency response of the part to the resonance standard (see column 1, lines 30-54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Satzger and PAI with the teaching of Jauriqui which provides structure for the resonance frequency testing.
Regarding claim 12, Satzger further teaches cleaning the one or more surfaces prior to applying the fluorescent penetrant to the one or more surfaces (see column 2, lines 3-4).
Regarding claim 15, Satzger further teaches wherein the one or more defects 14 include a crack, a fracture, a lap, or a seem of a component material 18 of the component at the one or more surfaces (see figures 1a-1c; see column 4, line 37).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Satzger teaches a method for inspecting an aircraft propulsion system component for defects using non-destructive testing (see column 1, lines 36-37), the method comprising: applying a fluorescent penetrant to one or more surfaces of a component (see column 2, lines 5-9); removing excess fluorescent penetrant from the one or more surfaces (see column 2, lines 10 -11); and inspecting the component by illuminating the component with ultraviolet (UV) light and, while illuminating the component, identifying a presence or an absence of one or more defects at the one or more surfaces indicated by the fluorescent penetrant (see column 2, lines 18-20).
However, Satzger does not explicitly teach the step of resonating the component with a resonance test assembly and measuring a resonance frequency of the component with the resonance test assembly.
PAI teaches a non-destructive testing method which incorporates method steps similar to the teaching of Satzger, and additionally references the step of resonating the component with a resonance test assembly, while the fluorescent penetrant is applied to the one or more surfaces, and measuring a resonance frequency of the component with the resonance test assembly (see page 3, lines 44-63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Satzger with the teaching of PAI in order to identify additional flaws in the test component.
neither Satzger nor PAI explicitly teach wherein the resonance test assembly includes a nest, one or more input transducers, and one or more output transducers.
Jauriqui teaches a resonance test assembly which includes a nest 119, one or more input transducers 18, and one or more output transducers (22, 24); resonating the component with the resonance test assembly includes applying a vibration to the component using the one or more input transducers with the component disposed in the nest, and measuring the resonance frequency of the component includes measuring the resonance frequency of the component using the one or more output transducers with the component disposed in the nest (see figures 2 and 3).
neither Satzger nor PAI explicitly teach comparing the resonance frequency to a resonant frequency threshold range for the component to identify the component has passed or failed a resonance test.
Jauriqui teaches a resonance test assembly wherein a frequency response may be compared to a resonance standard to evaluate the part; the frequency response of known good and/or known bad parts may be determined and used to generate the resonance standard against which a frequency response of a part-under-test is compared for evaluation of the part; In any regard, a resonance standard may provide analytical criteria so as to facilitate characterization of a part as either a good part or a bad part based on a comparison of the frequency response of the part to the resonance standard (see column 1, lines 30-54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Satzger and PAI with the teaching of Jauriqui which provides structure for the resonance frequency testing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 13, 14 and 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMEL E WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-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, John Breene can be reached at (571)272-4107. 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.
/JAMEL E WILLIAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855