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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 27th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 31st, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues amended claims 1 and 10 include two-tier conditional evaluation flow, and that neither Morris nor Chakrabarti teaches performing analysis in response to determining the experience-based criteria is not met and that no motivation has been identified. Applicant further argues Chakrabarti teaches away from the claimed approach because Chakrabarti teaches utilizing surrogate models is more efficient than performing an individual high fidelity simulation. These arguments are not persuasive.
Morris teaches the problem that the modification solves. Morris discloses that when criteria are not met, “the blend solution…is determined to be invalid” and the system iterates to evaluate alternative blend profiles. Each iteration requires generating a new blend profile, creating a new finite element model, and running new simulations. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that before incurring this iteration cost, it would be rational to verify whether the current blend would be acceptable under more rigorous, physics-based analysis. Chakrabarti provides the deterministic analysis capability (Paragraphs 44, 78). The analysis explicitly relates acceptance criteria to material properties and fatigue thresholds, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the deterministic structural and aerodynamic analysis tools of Chakrabarti would serve as a second-tier verification applied to a specific blend candidate that failed the screening in Morris.
Applicant cites Paragraph 32 of Chakrabarti as teaching away from the combination. However, this passage address a different context. The efficiency concern cited in Chakrabarti relates to the initial design phase. In that context, surrogate models are more efficient than running high-fidelity analysis on every design in a large population, not against running it on a specific candidate as a second-chance verification as proposed by the combination. To the extent Applicant argues Chakrabarti teaches only replacement of the criteria for the blend, the Examiner disagrees. Recognizing that a criterion is over-conservative does not mandate discarding it. A person of ordinary skill in the art could retain the conservative screen as a fast first pass and apply a more accurate check only when the conservative screen rejects, a common engineering strategy that minimizes computational cost while improving accuracy.
Applicant argues the Examiner relies on impermissible hindsight reasoning and has not identified motivation in the art. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the motivation arises from the cited art. Morris identifies the cost of iteration, Chakrabarti provides a means to avoid unnecessary iteration and explicitly identifies that experienced-based limits are over-conservative. A person of ordinary skill in the art would then read the discard on failure workflow of Morris alongside the teaching that experience-based limits are overly conservative of Chakrabarti would have reason to apply a physics-grounded check before discarding because there may be a false negative. This achieves a predictable result: reducing unnecessary iteration and salvage of acceptable repair blends.
The rejections are maintained.
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, 3 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris (US 20200102827) in view of Bengea (US 10378455), Chakrabarti (US 20220100919), and further in view of Scott (US 10174623).
Regarding claims 1 and 10;
Morris discloses an article of manufacture including a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that cause a processor to perform operations according to a method, the method comprising: generating, via the processor, a digital representation of a portion of a repaired bladed rotor, the digital representation based on a geometrical dimensions determined from an inspection of an inspected bladed rotor and a repair blend profile for a defect of the inspected bladed rotor (Paragraphs 50-52); performing, via the processor, a structural simulation on a structural model, the structural model based on the digital representation of the repaired bladed rotor (Paragraphs 51-52) , wherein empirical results are compared to a threshold zone of acceptance (Paragraph 53); performing, via the processor, an aerodynamic simulation on an aerodynamic model, the aerodynamic model based on the digital representation of the repaired bladed rotor (Paragraph 51) , wherein the aerodynamic model with the repair blend profile modeled and a cold to hot analysis provided as an input is analyzed (Paragraph 51; Morris discloses transforming the inspection-state (cold) model to operating conditions (hot) for analysis); determining, via the processor, whether results from the structural simulation and the aerodynamic simulation meet an experience based criteria for the repaired bladed rotor (Paragraphs 10 and 53).
Morris fails to teach the structural model including boundary conditions for a gas turbine engine from a load data database, the aerodynamic model including boundary conditions for the gas turbine engine from the load data database, wherein the threshold zone of acceptance is based on material properties and a margin of safety, the hot/cold analysis provided as an input via computational fluid dynamics, and outputting, via the processor, at least one repair process for the bladed rotor through a user interface (UI) directly to a user device, and determining, via the processor, in response to determining that the results do not meet the experience-based criteria, whether results from the structural simulation and the aerodynamic simulation meet a deterministic criteria for the repaired bladed rotor with the output in response to determining that the results do not meet the deterministic criteria.
Morris further discloses the simulation during hot conditions which represent operating conditions of the engine (Paragraph 51), and the blend template is transmitted to the material removal machine and provided to a technician via any computerized output (Paragraph 55). This teaches the output of the repair process via computerized means.
Bengea teaches: “The base point database 208 includes a plurality of base points that corresponds to different operating conditions of the gas turbine engine 20” and “The ECU 202 may receive measured or detected parameter data from the sensor 212 and may compare the detected parameter data to the base point database 208” (Col. 6, Lines 34-55).
Chakrabarti teaches: “the Goodman scale factor (GSF) is a scalar number by which, when the modal stresses are scaled, puts at least one location of the structure (e.g., an airfoil) on the Goodman curve” (Paragraph 31). The Goodman diagram is a known method of determining material fatigue limits that implicitly incorporates material properties and safety margins. Chakrabarti further teaches: “generating, using the computing system, a probabilistic distribution of a high cycle fatigue capability of a material of the airfoil” (Paragraph 78; claim 12), which explicitly relates acceptance criteria and material properties. Chakrabarti further teaches “example parameters include tip clearance axial gap, and measurements based on CFD” (Paragraph 43), and “The blend design space visualization enables a user to interactively update the constraints or assumptions on design variables and evaluate its effects on the allowable blend design space” (Paragraph 28). Chakrabarti teaches that current methods of assessing airfoil high cycle fatigue and airfoil blend limits are often overly conservative (Paragraph 4) because the blend limits are based on legacy engine values (Paragraph 24).
Scott teaches “the theoretical operational (aerodynamic/rotational) forces acting on the theoretical hot running geometry at the specified design condition are calculated using CFD software” (Col. 6, lines 29-32) and utilizing the CFD output together with FEA: “The output from the CFD software is then used to reverse engineer back to a tip portion geometry…using mechanical finite element analysis” (Col. 6, Lines 33-38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Morris to include the structural model including boundary conditions for a gas turbine engine from a load data database, the aerodynamic model including boundary conditions for the gas turbine engine from the load data database as taught by Bengea; Bengea teaches storing operating conditions in a database for use by the control systems, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to store and retrieve boundary conditions from a database to ensure consistent and accurate simulation inputs across multiple repair assessments, as databases storage enables interpolation between known operating points.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Morris wherein the threshold zone of acceptance is based on material properties and a margin of safety and determining, via the processor, in response to determining that the results do not meet the experience-based criteria, whether results from the structural simulation and the aerodynamic simulation meet a deterministic criteria for the repaired bladed rotor with the output in response to determining that the results do not meet the deterministic criteria as taught by Chakrabarti for the purposes of providing acceptance limits and avoiding unnecessary rejection of acceptable repair blends by applying more accurate physics-based acceptance criteria before discarding a repair solution, reducing computing resources and cost. Chakrabarti teaches that material-property-based acceptance criteria provides “physics-grounded” limits rather than “legacy-based blanket design limits”. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to base acceptance thresholds on material properties and safety margins (e.g. using Goodman diagram analysis) to ensure scientifically valid and defensible acceptance criteria for turbine blade repairs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Morris wherein the hot/cold analysis provided as an input via computational fluid dynamics as taught by Chakrabarti and Scott. Scott explicitly demonstrates using CFD to calculate aerodynamic forces on turbine blade geometry at hot running conditions, which is directly applicable to Morris’s blade repair analysis; one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use CFD because it is the industry standard method for aerodynamic analysis of turbine components, providing the detailed aerodynamic analysis required for accurate assessment of the repaired blade performance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Morris such that outputting, via the processor, at least one repair process for the bladed rotor through a user interface (UI) directly to a user device as taught by Chakrabarti. Chakrabarti teaches that interactive visualization enables engineers to evaluate repair options in real time; one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide repair process output through a user interface to enable interactive review and approval before repair execution, improving workflow efficiency and reducing errors.
Regarding claims 3, 8, and 12, Morris in view of Bengea, Chakrabarti, and Scott teaches the method and article of manufacture according to claims 1 and 10 above and claim 7 below. Morris further discloses the experience based criteria includes a modal assurance criteria (MAC), a resonant frequency, an aerodynamic efficiency, and determining whether the modal analysis meets a modal assurance criteria (MAC), and whether a change in resonant frequency is within a predetermined range from nominal of an ideal bladed rotor (Paragraphs 10 and 49).
Regarding claim 7, Morris in view of Bengea, Chakrabarti, and Scott as taught by the method according to claim 1 above. Morris further discloses the structural simulation includes a modal analysis (Paragraphs 10 and 51).
Regarding claims 9 and 11, Morris in view of Bengea, Chakrabarti, and Scott as taught by the method and article of manufacture according to claims 1 and 10 above. Morris further discloses the structural analysis stimulation and the aerodynamic analysis simulation are performed in parallel (the structural analysis simulation and aerodynamic analysis simulation are performed in singular step 630).
Claims 5-6 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris (US 20200102827) in view of Bengea (US 10378455), Chakrabarti (US 20220100919) and Scott (US 10174623), and further in view of Czerniewicz (EP2889601).
Regarding claims 5-6 and 13;
Morris in view of Bengea, Chakrabarti, and Scott teaches the method an article of manufacture according to claims 1 and 10 above. Morris further discloses converting via the processor a firs digital representation of an ideal bladed rotor to the digital representation of the repaired bladed rotor based on the data set (Figure 6, Paragraphs 50 and 52-53).
Morris fails to explicitly teach the inspection system retrieving the data set and the data set based on a point cloud generated from scanning the inspected bladed rotor.
Czerniewicz teaches generating point cloud data by optically scanning turbine blades (claim 2, Paragraphs 9 and 20). The point cloud is converted into surface modes for subsequent analysis (Paragraph 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Morris inspection step utilizing optical scanning tog generate a point cloud as taught by Czerniewicz for the purposes of obtaining high-resolution three-dimensional geometry quickly with few images, a recognized advantage over tactile measurement for complex curved surfaces.
Regarding claim 14;
Morris in view of Bengea, Chakrabarti, Scott, and Czerniewicz as taught by the method and article of manufacture according to claim 13 above.
While Morris transmits data between different processing units, an explicit network for transmission of the data is not taught. Morris then fails to teach the data set is transmitted over a network.
Chakrabarti teaches an article of manufacture that details steps to scan and repair a turbine blade component. Chakrabarti teaches the data can be transmitted over a network (Figure 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the article of manufacture of Morris such that the data set is transmitted over a network as taught by Chakrabarti for the purposes of enhancing communication, resource sharing, and improving efficiency. It allows for faster, more reliable data transfer, and facilitates collaboration among geographically dispersed users.
Claims 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris (US 20200102827) in view of Yin (US 11703322), and further in view of Chakrabarti (US 20220100919).
Regarding claim 15;
Morris discloses a system, comprising: an inspection system (Paragraph 49); and an analysis system in electronic communication with the inspection system, the analysis system comprising a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions operations comprising (Paragraphs 49-50 and 55); generate, via the processor, a digital representation of a second portion of a repaired bladed rotor, the digital representation based on the data set and a repair blend profile for a defect of the inspected bladed rotor (Paragraphs 50-52); perform, via the processor, a set of simulations of models based on the digital representation (Paragraphs 51-52); determine, via the processor, whether an experience based criteria is met (Paragraphs 10, 51, and 53; Figure 6), and determining, via the processor, an aerodynamic criteria is met (separate aerodynamic criteria evaluation such as “aerodynamic efficiency, aerodynamic operability” (Paragraph 51), and the aerodynamic parameters are independently evaluated as part of the repair assessment (Paragraph 52). The aerodynamic criteria are evaluated separately from the structural criteria).
Morris fails to teach including at least one of a structured scanner or a coordinate measuring machine (CMM), the inspection system configured to scan an inspected bladed rotor and generate a point cloud of at least a portion of the inspected bladed rotor, performing, via the processor, a structural analysis and an aerodynamic analysis in response to determining the experience based criteria is not met; determining, via the processor, whether a deterministic structural criteria is met.
Yin teaches including at least one of a structured scanner or a coordinate measuring machine (CMM), the inspection system configured to scan an inspected bladed rotor and generate a point cloud of at least a portion of the inspected bladed rotor (Col. 4, Lines 7-33).
Morris further discloses that when criteria are not met, “the blend solution…is determined to be invalid” (Paragraph 53) and the loop runs and iterates to alternate other blend profiles (Figure 6),
Chakrabarti teaches: “the Goodman scale factor (GSF) is a scalar number by which, when the modal stresses are scaled, puts at least one location of the structure (e.g., an airfoil) on the Goodman curve” (Paragraph 31). The Goodman diagram is a known method of determining material fatigue limits that implicitly incorporates material properties and safety margins. Chakrabarti further teaches: “generating, using the computing system, a probabilistic distribution of a high cycle fatigue capability of a material of the airfoil” (Paragraph 78; claim 12), which explicitly relates acceptance criteria and material properties. Chakrabarti further teaches “example parameters include tip clearance axial gap, and measurements based on CFD” (Paragraph 43), and “The blend design space visualization enables a user to interactively update the constraints or assumptions on design variables and evaluate its effects on the allowable blend design space” (Paragraph 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Morris such that at least one of a structured scanner or a coordinate measuring machine (CMM), the inspection system configured to scan an inspected bladed rotor and generate a point cloud of at least a portion of the inspected bladed rotor as taught by Yin for the purposes of obtaining high-resolution 3D point cloud data of the blade geometry necessary for accurate finite element modeling of defects and repair blend profiles; structured light scanning technique is known to be suited for the complex surfaces of turbine blades.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Morris such that performing, via the processor, a structural analysis and an aerodynamic analysis in response to determining the experience based criteria is not met; determining, via the processor, whether a deterministic structural criteria is met as taught by Chakrabarti for the purposes of avoiding unnecessary rejection of acceptable repair blends and reducing material waste by applying more accurate, physics-based acceptance criteria before discarding a repair solution.
Regarding claim 17, Morris in view of Yin and Chakrabarti teaches the system according to claim 15 above. Morris further discloses the operations further comprise transmitting an acceptability of the repair blend profile from to the inspection system in response to the experience-based criteria being met (Paragraph 55, Figure 6).
Regarding claims 18-20, Morris in view of Yin and Chakrabarti teaches the system according to claim 15 above. Morris further discloses generating the digital representation is further based on transforming an ideal digital representation corresponding to nominal dimensions of a designed bladed rotor to the digital representation based on the ideal digital representation, the data set, and the repair blend profile (Paragraphs 50-53), the repair blend profile is based on a defect shape (Paragraphs 50-52), and the set of simulations of models includes an aerodynamic simulation and a structural simulation (Paragraphs 51-52).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN D SEABE whose telephone number is (571)272-4961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00-5:30.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at 571-272-8648. 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.
/JUSTIN D SEABE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights