FINAL REJECTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that:
“Applicants submit Cheong does not teach or suggest such a method. The Office Action does not contend that the above-underlined features of claim 1 are anticipated by, nor obvious in view of Cheong.
Regarding the above-underlined features of claim 1 (the features of former claim 16) page 7 of the Office Action contends U.S. Publication No. 2009/0120192 (hereinafter "Suzuki") discloses "a UT sensor rotating knob 6, a UT sensor fixing arm 7, an arm rotating knob 8, and a spring 9 for pressing the UT sensor 2 against a side surface of the fork together with the arm 7 (paragraph 32, figure 2A)".
However, paragraph [0032] of Suzuki discloses the "UT sensor mounting tool 3 is a sensor mounting means for mounting the UT sensor on a flat portion on a side surface of the turbine fork in a state that the turbine blades are joined to the turbine disc. Notably, the FIG. 2B of Suzuki illustrates the magnetic holder - not the UT sensor 2 - abuts a surface of the disc. There is no disclosure, teaching or suggestion in Suzuki that the alleged specimen component could be suitably modified to be "configured as a rotor disk" as recited in claim 1.
Applicants submit therefore that even if Cheong were combined with Suzuki as alleged in the Office Action (assuming without admitting proper combination), such a combination does not disclose at least the step of "arranging a piezoelectric device with a specimen component of a turbine engine, the arranging comprising abutting the piezoelectric device against a surface of the specimen component, and the specimen component configured as a rotor disk" recited in claim 1. For at least the foregoing reasons, this rejection of claim 1 should be withdrawn” (pages 7 and 8, remarks).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 currently describes “abutting the piezoelectric device against a surface of the specimen component, and the specimen component configured as a rotor disk” which is not equivalent to abutting the piezoelectric device directly against a surface of the specimen component. The combined teaching of Cheong as modified by Suzuki teaches the UT sensor 2 abuts the rotor disc through the arm 7, fixing pawl 4, and magnet holder 5. Therefore, the UT sensor 2 abuts against a surface of the rotor disc as described in the claim.
With respect to the arguments regarding the 103 rejections of claims 2-14 and 17-29, applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 9-11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheong et al. KR20120060449 (citations from translation) in view of Suzuki et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0120192.
With respect to claims 1, 9-11, and 13, Cheong teaches arranging a piezoelectric device with a specimen component of a powerplant (detection device 10 having a piezoelectric sensor 11 that is arranged to inspect pipes of a power plant, page 5, figure 1), the arranging comprising abutting the piezoelectric device against a surface of the specimen component (piezoelectric exciter element 11 adhered to the subject/object 12, page 5); providing an electrical current to the piezoelectric device at a fixed electrical voltage, the providing of the electrical current to the piezoelectric device energizing the piezoelectric device and inducing vibrations in the component across a frequency range (interpreted as the excitation voltage that is provided to the piezoelectric exciter element 11 to induce vibrations in the object 12, page 4); monitoring the electrical current provided to the piezoelectric device during the energizing of the piezoelectric device and the inducing of the vibrations in the specimen component to determine a plurality of measured resonant frequencies of the specimen component within the frequency range (the resonance frequencies of object 12 are measured by the piezoelectric receiver element 13, pages 4-5); and determining a measured resonance signature for the specimen component based on the plurality of measured resonant frequencies of the specimen component (the resonance of the object is determined from the measured resonance frequencies, pages 4-5).
Cheong fails to teach inserting a head of an inspection scope into an interior of the powerplant, the head of the inspection scope configured with the piezoelectric device, and the specimen component disposed within the interior of the powerplant during the inducing of the vibrations in the specimen component, wherein the arranging of the piezoelectric device includes abutting the piezoelectric device against the surface of the specimen component and fixing a position of the head of the inspection scope within the interior of the powerplant to maintain contact and a preload between the piezoelectric device and the surface of the specimen component during the inducing of the vibrations in the specimen component, wherein the powerplant is installed with an aircraft during the inserting, the arranging and the inducing of the vibrations in the specimen component, wherein the piezoelectric device comprises a piezoelectric stack or a piezoelectric patch, wherein the powerplant comprises a turbine engine, wherein the specimen component is configured as a rotor disk.
Suzuki teaches an ultrasonic testing apparatus for a turbine fork of a turbine blade joined to a turbine disc (abstract) wherein the ultrasonic testing apparatus includes an ultrasonic test equipment 1, a UT sensor 2, a UT sensor mounting tool 3, and a signal line 101 connecting between the ultrasonic test equipment 1 and the UT sensor 2 (paragraph 31). Further, the ultrasonic transmitting and receiving element of the UT sensor 2 (the tip of the tool being the “head”) uses a piezoelectric device and the UT sensor mounting tool 3 has fixing pawls 4 for the blades, a magnet holder 5 for fixing the UT sensor mounting tool to the blades, a UT sensor rotating knob 6, a UT sensor fixing arm 7, an arm rotating knob 8, and a spring 9 for pressing the UT sensor 2 against a side surface of the fork together with the arm 7 (paragraph 32, figure 2A) and the UT sensor 2 abuts the disc through the arm 7, fixing pawl 4, and magnet holder 5, and wherein the piezoelectric device consists of a piezoelectric stack (paragraph 55, figure 9) or a single crystal piezoelectric device.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Cheong with the piezoelectric sensor stack device being part of a scope/tool having a head and being insertable into an interior of a power plant as taught by Suzuki in order to achieve non-destructive inspection of turbine forks without having to disassemble them (paragraph 8, Suzuki).
Claim(s) 2-8 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheong et al. KR20120060449 (citations from translation) in view of Suzuki et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0120192 and further in view of Hunter et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0074600 and further in view of Luo et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0068349.
With respect to claims 2-8 and 17-18, Cheong teaches arranging a piezoelectric device with a specimen component of a powerplant (detection device 10 having a piezoelectric sensor 11 that is arranged to inspect pipes of a power plant, page 5, figure 1), the arranging comprising abutting the piezoelectric device against a surface of the specimen component (piezoelectric exciter element 11 adhered to the subject/object 12, page 5); providing an electrical current to the piezoelectric device at a fixed electrical voltage, the providing of the electrical current to the piezoelectric device energizing the piezoelectric device and inducing vibrations in the component across a frequency range (interpreted as the excitation voltage that is provided to the piezoelectric exciter element 11 to induce vibrations in the object 12, page 4); monitoring the electrical current provided to the piezoelectric device during the energizing of the piezoelectric device and the inducing of the vibrations in the specimen component to determine a plurality of measured resonant frequencies of the specimen component within the frequency range (the resonance frequencies of object 12 are measured by the piezoelectric receiver element 13, pages 4-5); and determining a measured resonance signature for the specimen component based on the plurality of measured resonant frequencies of the specimen component (the resonance of the object is determined from the measured resonance frequencies, pages 4-5) and a crack being present in the object when determined factors are present the resonance frequencies (pages 4-5).
Cheong as modified by Suzuki fails to teach determining a characteristic of the specimen component by comparing the measured resonance signature for the specimen component to a model resonance signature for a model component, wherein the specimen component and the model component comprise a common configuration, identifying presence of a defect internal to the specimen component by comparing the measured resonance signature for the specimen component to a model resonance signature for a model component, wherein the specimen component and the model component share a common manufacturer component identification, wherein the comparing of the measured resonance signature for the specimen component to the model resonance signature for the model component comprises comparing the plurality of measured resonant frequencies of the specimen component to a plurality of model resonant frequencies of the model component, determining the specimen component does not meet a component specification when at least one of the plurality of measured resonant frequencies of the specimen component does not match, or is outside of tolerance of, a respective one of the plurality of model resonant frequencies of the model component, wherein the internal defect has a dimension equal to or less than one hundred and fifty mils, wherein the model component is a computer modeled component and wherein the model component is a previously inspected component, and wherein the piezoelectric device is a single crystal piezoelectric device.
Hunter teaches a part evaluation system and method using resonance and vibration wherein a resonance inspection of a first in-service part 120 (figure 3) is conducted pursuant to step 152 of the sort protocol 150 (figure 6) and the frequency response of the first in-service part is compared with a resonance standard pursuant to step 154 (paragraph 86), where the resonance standard associated with step 154 of the sort protocol 150 may also be provided by mathematical modeling (paragraph 91, figure 6 box 162c), and the resonance data acquired from the execution of the resonance inspection protocol 130 (figure 5) may be compared to the modeled inspection defects of a part over its life (model by a computer pursuant to its step 136 and is interpreted as a previously inspected component as well we a plurality of models, paragraphs 58 and 91) for purposes of identifying defects for step 286 of the part evaluation protocol 280 (any size of defect is interpreted as being detected, paragraph 113, figure 14) and rejecting the part if the comparison shows a defect (paragraph 86).
Luo teaches a sensor disposed within the rotary machine for sensing vibration of the rotor wherein a piezoelectric component 850 includes a block of piezoelectric material 852 wherein the material is formed as a single crystal (paragraph 24).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the inspection method of Cheong as modified by Suzuki with the method of comparing data to models to determine a defect in the test component as taught by Hunter in order to provide a method that is highly accurate not only in determining the position of a defect, but also in estimating its size and shape (paragraph 4, Hunter) and modify the piezoelectric device to be a single crystal piezoelectric device as taught by Luo in order to provide more reliable sensing device.
Claim(s) 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheong et al. KR20120060449 (citations from translation) in view of Suzuki et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0120192 and further in view of Jauriqui et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0096881.
With respect to claims 12 and 14, Cheong as modified by Suzuki teaches the claimed invention except wherein a lower bound of the frequency range is equal to or greater than thirty kilohertz, and wherein the piezoelectric device comprises a single crystal piezoelectric device.
Jauriqui teaches a waveform generator and a signal analyzer are respectively provided in electrical communication with an input transducer and an output transducer capable of conversion between electrical and acoustic signals, and in mechanical communication with the part (abstract) wherein each transducer 112 and 116 provides conversion between electrical signals and acoustic vibrations, such as may be provided through the use of crystals or ceramics that have piezoelectric and/or magnetostrictive properties (paragraph 20), and the waveform generator 210 is generally capable of producing waveforms over a frequency range sufficiently large that it encompasses a large number of smaller sets of frequency ranges that are each suitable for the acoustic testing of a variety of different kinds of parts over a frequency range of dc-50 MHz, which may encompass such smaller frequency ranges as 100-200 kHz, 50-100 kHz, 75- 150 kHz (paragraph 25).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the device of Cheong as modified by Suzuki with the piezoelectric crystal transducer capable of operation at many frequencies as taught by Jauriqui in order to more accurate and adjustable measuring system.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheong et al. KR20120060449 (citations from translation) in view of Hunter et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0074600 further in view of in view of Suzuki et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0120192 and further in view of Luo et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0068349.
With respect to claim 19, Cheong teaches arranging a piezoelectric device with a specimen component of a powerplant (detection device 10 having a piezoelectric sensor 11 that is arranged to inspect pipes of a power plant, page 5, figure 1), the arranging comprising abutting the piezoelectric device against a surface of the specimen component (piezoelectric exciter element 11 adhered to the subject/object 12, page 5); providing an electrical current to the piezoelectric device at a fixed electrical voltage, the providing of the electrical current to the piezoelectric device energizing the piezoelectric device and inducing vibrations in the component across a frequency range (interpreted as the excitation voltage that is provided to the piezoelectric exciter element 11 to induce vibrations in the object 12, page 4); monitoring the electrical current provided to the piezoelectric device during the energizing of the piezoelectric device and the inducing of the vibrations in the specimen component to determine a plurality of measured resonant frequencies of the specimen component within the frequency range (the resonance frequencies of object 12 are measured by the piezoelectric receiver element 13, pages 4-5); and determining a measured resonance signature for the specimen component based on the plurality of measured resonant frequencies of the specimen component (the resonance of the object is determined from the measured resonance frequencies, pages 4-5) and a crack being present in the object when determined factors are present the resonance frequencies (pages 4-5).
Cheong fails to teach an inspection scope, a head of the inspection scope including a piezoelectric device, the inspection scope configured for insertion of the head of the inspection scope into the interior of the powerplant to abut the piezoelectric device against a surface of the component, a processing system configured for determining a characteristic of the specimen component by comparing the measured resonance signature for the specimen component to a model resonance signature for a model component, wherein the specimen component and the model component comprise a common configuration, identifying presence of a defect internal to the specimen component by comparing the measured resonance signature for the specimen component to a model resonance signature for a model component, wherein the specimen component and the model component share a common manufacturer component identification, wherein the piezoelectric device is a single crystal piezoelectric device.
Hunter teaches a part evaluation system and method using resonance and vibration wherein a resonance inspection of a first in-service part 120 (figure 3) is conducted pursuant to step 152 of the sort protocol 150 (figure 6) and the frequency response of the first in-service part is compared with a resonance standard pursuant to step 154 (paragraph 86), where the resonance standard associated with step 154 of the sort protocol 150 may also be provided by mathematical modeling (paragraph 91, figure 6 box 162c), and the resonance data acquired from the execution of the resonance inspection protocol 130 (figure 5) may be compared to the modeled inspection defects of a part over its life (model by a computer pursuant to its step 136 and is interpreted as a previously inspected component as well we a plurality of models, paragraphs 58 and 91) for purposes of identifying defects for step 286 of the part evaluation protocol 280 (any size of defect is interpreted as being detected, paragraph 113, figure 14) and rejecting the part if the comparison shows a defect (paragraph 86).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the inspection method of Cheong with the method of comparing data to models to determine a defect in the test component as taught by Hunter in order to provide a method that is highly accurate not only in determining the position of a defect, but also in estimating its size and shape (paragraph 4, Hunter).
Suzuki teaches an ultrasonic testing apparatus for a turbine fork of a turbine blade joined to a turbine disc (abstract) wherein the ultrasonic testing apparatus includes an ultrasonic test equipment 1, a UT sensor 2, a UT sensor mounting tool 3, and a signal line 101 connecting between the ultrasonic test equipment 1 and the UT sensor 2 (paragraph 31). Further, the ultrasonic transmitting and receiving element of the UT sensor 2 (the tip of the tool being the “head”) uses a piezoelectric device and the UT sensor mounting tool 3 has fixing pawls 4 for the blades, a magnet holder 5 for fixing the UT sensor mounting tool to the blades, a UT sensor rotating knob 6, a UT sensor fixing arm 7, an arm rotating knob 8, and a spring 9 for pressing the UT sensor 2 against a side surface of the fork together with the arm 7 (paragraph 32, figure 2A), and wherein the piezoelectric device consists of a piezoelectric stack (paragraph 55, figure 9) or a single crystal piezoelectric device.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further modify the invention of Cheong as modified by Hunter with the piezoelectric sensor stack device being part of a scope/tool having a head and being insertable into an interior of a power plant as taught by Suzuki in order to achieve non-destructive inspection of turbine forks without having to disassemble them (paragraph 8, Suzuki).
Luo teaches a sensor disposed within the rotary machine for sensing vibration of the rotor wherein a piezoelectric component 850 includes a block of piezoelectric material 852 wherein the material is formed as a single crystal (paragraph 24).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the piezoelectric device of Cheong as modified by Hunter as modified by Suzuki with the single crystal piezoelectric device as taught by Luo in order to provide more reliable sensing device.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDDIE KIRKLAND III whose telephone number is (571)272-2232. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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.
FREDDIE KIRKLAND III
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
/Freddie Kirkland III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 9/11/2026
Prosecution Insights