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 .
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 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.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Griffin et al. (hereafter Griffin – WO 2021150579).
Claim 1 recites “a method.” Griffin teaches such a method, as will be shown.
Griffin teaches (Figs. 1-9) a method, comprising:
receiving, via a processor 802, scanner data from an inspection system for a bladed rotor (scanner data from optical scanner 120, see para. 0041), the scanner data including a point cloud defining an inspected bladed rotor (surface shape data, see para. 0041), the scanner data including a first data size (original data size);
generating, via the processor, a reduced data set from the scanner data, the reduced data set having a second data size that is less than the first data size (reduced order model would have smaller data size, see para. 0063-0064); and
transmitting, via the processor, the reduced data set to an analysis system for the inspected bladed rotor (para. 0064, 0074).
Regarding Claim 2, Griffin teaches (Figs. 1-9) the method of claim 1, further comprising determining, via the processor a repair blend profile for a defect in the inspected bladed rotor prior to transmitting the reduced data set (para. 0069).
Regarding Claim 3, Griffin teaches (Figs. 1-9) the method of claim 1, wherein generating the reduced data set includes generating two-dimensional section files of a blade of the inspected bladed rotor (when applying a single blade section FEM para. 0010).
Regarding Claim 4, Griffin teaches (Figs. 1-9) the method of claim 3, wherein the two-dimensional section files are spaced apart along a span of the blade (Fig. 4A, 4B).
Regarding Claim 5, Griffin teaches (Figs. 1-9) the method of claim 1, further comprising determining, via the processor, a defect on a blade of the inspected bladed rotor (para. 0066).
Regarding Claim 6, Griffin teaches (Figs. 1-9) the method of claim 5, further comprising determining, via the processor, whether the defect meets serviceable limits (threshold, see para. 0066).
Regarding Claim 7, Griffin teaches (Figs. 1-9) the method of claim 6, further comprising determining, via the processor, a repair blend profile for the defect in response to the defect not meeting serviceable limits (para. 0069).
Regarding Claim 8, Griffin teaches (Figs. 1-9) the method of claim 7, further comprising generating at least one section file in a plurality of section files based at least in part on the repair blend profile (para. 0069-0070).
Regarding Claim 9, Griffin teaches (Figs. 1-9) the method of claim 7, further comprising adding repair blend profile details to a data point in the reduced data set corresponding to the repair blend profile (inherently necessary to perform analyses in steps 515, 521, 523).
Regarding Claim 10, Griffin teaches (Figs. 1-9) the method of claim 9, wherein the repair blend profile details include a blend depth (grinding depth, para. 0071) and a radius of curvature (para. 0079) for the repair blend profile.
Claim 11 recites an article of manufacture including a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (para. 0101) having instructions stored thereon (para. 0101) that, in response to execution by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations (para. 0101) comprising: features of the method of Claim 1 which are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 12, Griffin teaches (Figs. 1-9) the article of manufacture of claim 11, wherein the reduced data set is at least 100 times smaller relative to the point cloud from the scanner data (reduced order model may be much smaller than 100 times smaller).
Claim 13 recites the same features of claim 3 which are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 14 recites the same features of claim 2 which are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 15, Griffin teaches (Figs. 1-9) the article of manufacture of claim 14, wherein the operations further comprise generating a repair blend data for the repair blend profile prior to transmitting the reduced data set, the reduced data set including the repair blend data (see para. 0069).
Regarding Claim 16, Griffin teaches (Figs. 1-9) the article of manufacture of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise receiving, via the processor, a disposition of the repair blend profile, the disposition received across a network from the analysis system (applicant specification para. 0163 defines disposition as any result which may include any identification, see para. 0069).
Claim 17 recites a system, comprising: an inspection system comprising a scanner 120, the scanner configured to scan at least a portion of an inspected bladed rotor, the scanner configured to generate a point cloud from the scan; a processor 802 in electronic communication with the scanner; and a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations (para. 0101) comprising: features of the method of Claim 1 which are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 18, Griffin teaches (Figs. 1-9) the system of claim 17, wherein the scanner comprises one of a coordinate measurement machine (CMM) and a structured light scanner (optical scanner 120).
Claim 19 recites the same features of claim 2 which are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 20, Griffin teaches (Figs. 1-9) the system of claim 17, further comprising: a network 880; the analysis system in communication with the inspection system across the network (see para. 0100-0107), the analysis system configured to: receive the reduced data set; compare the reduced data set to a digital representation of an ideal bladed rotor; and transform the digital representation of the ideal bladed rotor to a second digital representation of the portion of the inspected bladed rotor (see Fig. 5 steps 515, 521, 523).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See cited references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW BUI whose telephone number is (571) 272-0685. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Courtney Heinle can be reached on (571) 270-3508. 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).
/ANDREW THANH BUI/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745