DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Amendment
1- The amendment filed on 01/05/2022 has been entered and fully considered. Claims1-9,11,13-18 and 21-22 remain pending in the application, where the independent claims have been amended.
Response to Arguments
2- Applicant’s amendments and their corresponding arguments, with respect to the rejection of the pending claims under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
3- Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
4- However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made over the prior art used in the previous office action mailed 9/05/2025 in view of Palmer et al. (PGPUB 20090177433).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5- 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
6- Claims 1-5, 14-15 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mamidipudi et al. (PGPUB No. 2013/0114066) in view of Hu et al. (Patent No. 7301165, cited by Applicants), and further in view of Palmer et al. (PGPUB 20090177433).
As to amended claims 1-2 and 14, Mamidipudi teaches a turbine system (Fig. 1, turbine machine 110) comprising: a plurality of blades (106) rotatable about an axis of the turbine system (Fig. 1-4), and a system, and the method of use thereof, for detecting damage of the plurality of blades rotatable within a turbine system (Abstract and Figs. 1-4), the system comprising: an emitter mounted to the turbine system (in LDV 102 or 220) and orientated to emit a plurality of light pulses along an emission axis intersecting the plurality of blades (Figs. 1-2; ¶ 29-31, 39-41 for ex.); and a first receiver mounted to the turbine system and (claim 2) wherein the first receiver is collocated with the emitter to receive back scatter light returns, and wherein the emitter and the first receiver are mounted to the turbine system upstream from the plurality of blades (inside LDV 102 or 220, and upstream of the blades) that has a first field of view intersecting the emission axis to define a first interrogation volume through which the plurality of blades rotates during operation of the turbine system, and wherein the emitter and the first receiver are mounted to the turbine system upstream from the plurality of blades relative to a direction of air flow through the plurality of blades during operation of the turbine system (Fig. 1; module 102 with respect to blades 106); and (claim 2) wherein the controller outputs the indication of damage based on a change in backscatter light return amplitude and the threshold light amplitude change (Fig. 1, Abstract and ¶ 30-31 and the process of measurement explained in ¶ 39-41); a controller in communication with the emitter and the first receiver, the controller comprising a processor and computer-readable memory (detailed in Fig. 2; 218) encoded with instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the system to: emit the plurality of light pulses from the emitter toward the plurality of blades as the blades rotate within the turbine system; receive, at the first receiver, a plurality of first light returns scattered by the plurality of blades within the first interrogation volume; identify by the controller a subset of the plurality of the first light returns (a subset of a set is arbitrarily selected to comprise the whole set or any subset of the set of signals); determine, by the controller, a first amplitude change of the subset of the first light returns; and output, by the controller, an indication of topographical damage to the blades based on a comparison between the first light amplitude change of the light returns and a threshold light amplitude change (¶ 29-38, 43-44 and Figs. 3; “In general, reflection signatures change over time and such changes indicate changes in material properties. Examples, of measured signatures are discussed below” where the reflection changes is construed as a difference between at least two reflected light amplitudes, one of them is considered as a threshold or reference. Moreover, one can consider “meaningful comparisons can be made between a measured reflection signature and a reference signature on the timeline” in ¶ 38 as reading on the threshold reference amplitude. Mamidipudi teaches using multiple lights beams 104, i.e. different fields of view FOVs, that are measured by different receivers).
Mamidipudi teaches the claims, except wherein the turbine system is a turbomachine;
the system to expressly receive, at the first receiver, an ambient light level; determine, by the controller, a plurality of first times of flight of the plurality of first light returns; identify, by the controller, a subset of the plurality of first light returns associated with the plurality of blades based on a time-of-flight range and the plurality of first times of flight; and determine, by the controller, the first amplitude change of the first light returns based on an amplitude of the first light returns and the ambient light level.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Hu teaches optical apparatus and methods for inspecting objects such as engine or compressor blades (Abstract, Col/ll. 2 54-62 and Figs. 1-4) wherein the apparatus receives, at the first receiver, an ambient light level (Col/ll. 1/31-42, 2/63-3/35, 4/22-28, 5/8-15; multiple sensors 24 are used, i.e. first, second and more, ambient light is considered as a noise source to be eliminated); and determine, by the controller, at least one of a first amplitude change of the first light returns based on an amplitude of first light returns and the ambient light level (see rejection of claim 1, in addition to the suggestions by Hu to measure the ambient light eliminate/reduce the ambient light, either at the same time using filters or during the off times of the pulsing laser. See MPEP § 2143 Sect. I. B-D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus and method of Mamidipudi in view of Hu’s suggestions, so that the turbine system is a turbomachine so as to receive, at the first receiver, an ambient light level; and determine, by the controller, the first amplitude change of the first light returns based on an amplitude of the first light returns and the ambient light level, with the advantage suggested by Hu of effectively reducing the optical noise in the measurements and increase the SNR of the measurement signals.
The combination of Mamidipudi and Hu still fails to disclose expressly the system and method wherein determine, by the controller, a plurality of first times of flight of the plurality of first light returns; identify, by the controller, a subset of the plurality of first light returns associated with the plurality of blades based on a time-of-flight range and the plurality of first times of flight.
However, and in a similar field of endeavor, Palmer teaches apparatus/method inside of and monitoring gas turbine blades (Abstract, Figs. 1-11); the method comprising determine, by the controller, a plurality of first times of flight of the plurality of first light returns; identify, by the controller, a subset of the plurality of first light returns associated with the plurality of blades based on a time-of-flight range and the plurality of first times of flight (Figs. 1-1 and ¶ 19, 34-39, 143-144 for ex.; a plurality of TOFs is determined and portions are identified and used in a given range of TOFs and the sums/differentials thereof).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus and method of Mamidipudi/Hu in view of Palmer’s suggestions, so that the system and method wherein determine, by the controller, a plurality of first times of flight of the plurality of first light returns; identify, by the controller, a subset of the plurality of first light returns associated with the plurality of blades based on a time-of-flight range and the plurality of first times of flight, with the advantage, taught by Palmer, of effectively optimizing the measurement of physical parameters of the blades (¶ 34).
Moreover, Mamidipudi discloses:
(claims 3-4) wherein the first receiver is spaced from the emitter to receive forward/side light scatter (the receiver has to necessarily be physically separated from the head of the emitter LASER source in the LDV. It is an official notice here that the received light is also necessarily forward/side scattered by the front/side surfaces and lenses, and edges thereof, used in LDV from the light on its way back from the blades. Nothing in the claim clearly identify the forward/side scattering to occur at the blades and or its edges), and wherein the controller outputs the indication of damage based on a change in forward/side scatter light return amplitude and the threshold light amplitude change (Fig. 1, Abstract and ¶ 30-31 and the process of measurement explained in ¶ 39-41).
(claims 5, 15) wherein the computer-readable memory is encoded with instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the system to: determine, by the controller, a first subset of light returns corresponding to a plurality of first rotations of the plurality of blades; and determine, by the controller, a second subset of light returns corresponding to a plurality of second rotations of the plurality of blades; wherein the indication of topographical damage is output by the controller based on a change in light return amplitude between the plurality of first rotations and the plurality of second rotations (Figs. 3, ¶ 31-32; it is understood that since measurements are performed over period of times, reflection signatures, i.e. amplitudes at different frequencies, are compared to determined stress or fatigue status of the blade(s)).
7- Claims 6-8, 16-18, 21-22 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mamidipudi, Hu and Palmer in view of Schleif et al. (PGPUB No. 2019/0376410)
As to claims 6, 16, the combination of Mamidipudi, Hu and Palmer teaches the system/method of claims 1/14.
(Amended Independent Claim 6) a turbomachine (Fig. 1, turbine machine 110) comprising: a plurality of blades (106) rotatable about an axis of the turbine system, and a system for detecting damage of the plurality of blades, the system comprising: an emitter mounted to the turbomachine and orientated to emit a plurality of light pulses along an emission axis intersecting the plurality of blades; a first receiver mounted to the turbomachine that has a first field of view intersecting the emission axis to define a first interrogation volume through which the plurality of blades rotates during operation of the turbomachine, and wherein the emitter, the first receiver is mounted to the turbomachine upstream from the plurality of blades relative to a direction of air flow through the plurality of blades during operation of the turbine system; and a controller in communication with the emitter and the first receiver, and the second receiver, the controller comprising a processor and computer-readable memory encoded with instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the system to: emit the plurality of light pulses from the emitter toward the plurality of blades as the blades rotate within the turbomachine; receive, at the first receiver, a plurality of first light returns scattered by the plurality of blades within the first interrogation volume; receive, at the first receiver, an ambient light level; determine, by the controller, a first amplitude change of the first light returns based on an amplitude of the subset of first light returns and the ambient light level; determine, by the controller, a second amplitude change of the second light returns based on an amplitude of the second light returns and the ambient light level; and output, by the controller, an indication of damage to the blades based on a comparison of the first light amplitude change of the light returns and a first threshold light amplitude change and a second comparison between the second amplitude change of light returns and a second threshold light amplitude change (See rejection of claim 1; with two detectors taught by Hu). Moreover, the combination Mamidipudi/Hu suggests wherein the computer-readable memory is encoded with instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the system to: receive, at the second receiver, a plurality of second light returns scattered by the plurality of blades within the second interrogation volume; and determine, by the controller, a second amplitude change of the second light returns; wherein the indication of topographical damage is output based on the first amplitude change and the second amplitude change (see rejection of claim 1 with the multiple detectors taught by Hu).
The combination does not teach expressly further comprising: a second receiver having a second field of view intersecting the emission axis to define a second interrogation volume through which the plurality of blades rotates during operation of the turbomachine system; wherein the computer-readable memory is encoded with instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the system to: receive, at the second receiver, a plurality of second light returns scattered by the plurality of blades within the second interrogation volume; and determine, by the controller, a second amplitude change of the second light returns; wherein the indication of topographical damage is output based on the first amplitude change and the second amplitude change; determine, by the controller, a plurality of first times of flight of the plurality of first light returns; identify, by the controller, a subset of the plurality of first light returns associated with the plurality of blades based on a time-of-flight range and the plurality of first times of flight; determine, by the controller, a plurality of second times of flight of the plurality of second light returns; identify, by the controller, a subset of the plurality of second light returns associated with the plurality of blades based on the time-of-flight range and the plurality of second times of flight.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Schleif teaches a system and method for turbomachine system blade diagnostics (Abstract and Figs. 1-9) further comprising: a second receiver having a second field of view intersecting the emission axis to define a second interrogation volume through which the plurality of blades rotates during operation of the turbomachine system (Figs. 4-6 and ¶ 26-27, 38 for ex; multiple sensors with different field of views 120-22-24 of a laser light, ¶20-21, on each blade 28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus of Mamidipudi and Hu in view of Schleif’s suggestions so that a second receiver having a second field of view intersecting the emission axis to define a second interrogation volume through which the plurality of blades rotates during operation of the turbomachine system; wherein the computer-readable memory is encoded with instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the system to: receive, at the second receiver, a plurality of second light returns scattered by the plurality of blades within the second interrogation volume; and determine, by the controller, a second amplitude change of the second light returns; wherein the indication of damage is output based on the first amplitude change and the second amplitude change, with the advantage taught by Schleif of effectively and thoroughly characterizing a blade, or multiple blades at a same time (¶ 37-38).
Moreover, The combination of Mamidipudi, Hu and Schleif still fails to disclose expressly the system and method wherein to determine, by the controller, a plurality of first times of flight of the plurality of first light returns; identify, by the controller, a subset of the plurality of first light returns associated with the plurality of blades based on a time-of-flight range and the plurality of first times of flight; determine, by the controller, a plurality of second times of flight of the plurality of second light returns; identify, by the controller, a subset of the plurality of second light returns associated with the plurality of blades based on the time-of-flight range and the plurality of second times of flight.
However, and in a similar field of endeavor, Palmer teaches apparatus/method inside of and monitoring gas turbine blades (Abstract, Figs. 1-11); the method comprising to determine, by the controller, a plurality of first times of flight of the plurality of first light returns; identify, by the controller, a subset of the plurality of first light returns associated with the plurality of blades based on a time-of-flight range and the plurality of first times of flight; determine, by the controller, a plurality of second times of flight of the plurality of second light returns; identify, by the controller, a subset of the plurality of second light returns associated with the plurality of blades based on the time-of-flight range and the plurality of second times of flight (Figs. 1-1 and ¶ 19, 34-39, 143-144 for ex.; a plurality of TOFs is determined and portions are identified and used in a given range of TOFs and the sums/differentials thereof). Duplicating the measurements appears to be obvious to one PHOSITA to increase the measurements and obtain more reliable measurement averages (See MPEP 2143 Sect. I. B-D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus and method of Mamidipudi/Hu/Schleif in view of Palmer’s suggestions, so that the system and method wherein to determine, by the controller, a plurality of first times of flight of the plurality of first light returns; identify, by the controller, a subset of the plurality of first light returns associated with the plurality of blades based on a time-of-flight range and the plurality of first times of flight; determine, by the controller, a plurality of second times of flight of the plurality of second light returns; identify, by the controller, a subset of the plurality of second light returns associated with the plurality of blades based on the time-of-flight range and the plurality of second times of flight, with the advantage, taught by Palmer, of effectively optimizing the measurement of physical parameters of the blades (¶ 34).
Moreover, Mamidipudi discloses:
(claims 7, 17) wherein the first receiver is collocated with the emitter to receive back scatter light returns, and wherein the second receiver is spaced from the emitter to receive forward scatter light returns (claim 7) or side scatter light returns (see rejections of claims 3-4).
(claims 8, 21, 18) wherein the first amplitude change exceeds the first threshold light amplitude change of the plurality of first light returns and the second amplitude exceeds the second threshold light amplitude change of the plurality of second light returns; (claims 18, 21) wherein the first amplitude change is indicative of an increase in back scatter light returns that exceed a first threshold light amplitude change of the plurality of first light returns and the second amplitude change is indicative of a decrease in forward light scatter returns that exceed a second threshold light amplitude change of the plurality of second light returns; wherein the first amplitude change is indicative of an increase in backscatter light returns, and wherein the second amplitude change is indicative of a decrease in forward scatter light returns or side scatter light returns (see rejection of claim 2, which can be generalized to multiple sensors, with comparisons between the measurement changes with averaged changes, with values that can exceed by increase or decrease, reference threshold changes).
(claim 22) wherein the emitter, the first receiver, and the second receiver are mounted to a surface of the turbomachine surrounding and facing the plurality of blades, and wherein the emitter, the first receive, and the second receiver are circumferentially spaced about a rotational axis of the plurality of blades along the surface (Schleif; Fig. 3, ¶ 26-27, 36-38; sensors 90 disposed around the rotating blades).
8- Claims 9, 11, 13 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mamidipudi, Hu and Palmer.
As to claims 9, 11, 13, the combination of Mamidipudi, Hu and Palmer teaches the system/method of claims 1/14.
The combination does not teach expressly wherein the computer-readable memory is encoded with instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the system to: determine a rotational speed of the plurality of blades based on the plurality of first light returns; (claim 11) wherein the first emitter includes a lens, the lens comprising a rounded inlet surface that diverges outward along the emission axis and terminates at an outlet surface normal to the emission axis, and wherein each light pulse of the plurality of light pulses refracts to form a light line upon passing through the lens; (claims 13) wherein a frequency of the plurality of first light pulses is greater than a rotational frequency of the plurality of blades times a number of blades.
. However, Mamidipudi teaches clearly that the technique is used to measure surface velocity, understood as possibly one of the limited genus rotational and/or linear speed of the blade surface by one PHOSITA (See MPEP 2144.08 II A- 4(a). Sections 4 (c-e) can also be considered). Similarly, and as to claim 11, it is an official notice by the Examiner, that one PHOSITA would find it obvious to use light sheets/lines, in optical measurements such LDV; light sheets that are produced by cylindrical lenses with the claimed geometry. Moreover, one PHOSITA, aware of the fundamental Nyquist sampling theorem in signal processing, would find it obvious to select a light pulse frequency that is high enough to resolve the images of the rotating blades which sweep at a frequency that equal the number of blades times the angular frequency of the blades (See MPEP §2143 Sect. I. B-D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus and method of Mamidipudi, Hu and Palmer, so that the computer-readable memory is encoded with instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the system to: determine a rotational speed of the plurality of blades based on the plurality of first light returns; wherein the first emitter includes a lens, the lens comprising a rounded inlet surface that diverges outward along the emission axis and terminates at an outlet surface normal to the emission axis, and wherein each light pulse of the plurality of light pulses refracts to form a light line upon passing through the lens; wherein a frequency of the plurality of first light pulses is greater than a rotational frequency of the plurality of blades times a number of blades, with the advantage taught by effectively characterizing the motion parameters of the measured blades.
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).
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED AMARA whose telephone number is (571)272-7847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 9:00-17:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on (571)272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mohamed K AMARA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877