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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 2-4, 8-14, 17, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “a percentage difference” and “a percentage difference threshold”. It is unclear what the percentages are referring to.
Claim 8 recites “a threshold percentage difference”. It is unclear what the percentage is referring to.
Claims 8 and 20 recite “adding projected effects of blade modes from all other blades in the inspected bladed rotor to form a reduced order model”. It is unclear what projected effects encompass and how they form a reduced order model.
Claim 17 recites “a percentage difference” It is unclear what the percentages are referring to.
Claim 18 recites “a threshold percentage difference”. It is unclear what the percentage is referring to.
All other claims are rejected due to their dependence on one of the above rejected claims.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Griffin et al. (hereafter Griffin – US 20040243310).
Claim 1 recites “a method.” Griffin teaches such a method, as will be shown.
Griffin teaches (Figs. 1-22) a method of projecting effects of blade modes onto rotor modes, the method comprising:
receiving, via a processor, a modal domain for an ideal bladed rotor and each blade of an inspected bladed rotor (para. 0195-0196, modal domains for inspected bladed are compared to “benchmark”, of an ideal bladed rotor);
determining, via the processor, whether a mode in the modal domain is at least one of an isolated mode and within a cluster of modes (para. 0116, 0201, teaches determining isolated or clustered modes to perform proper analysis);
analyzing, via the processor, the mode individually in response to the mode being isolated (para. 0116); and
analyzing, via the processor, the cluster of modes together in response to the mode being within the cluster of modes (para. 0116).
Regarding Claim 2, Griffin teaches (Figs. 1-22) the method of claim 1, further comprising: calculating a percentage difference between the mode and an adjacent mode to the mode; and comparing the percentage difference to a percentage difference threshold (para. 0007 and Fig. 3, it is known to determine isolated vs. clustered modes, an isolated mode would be “flat” which would be greater than a threshold percentage as best understood).
Regarding Claim 3, Griffin teaches (Figs. 1-22) the method of claim 2, wherein the mode is determined to be the isolated mode in response to the percentage difference being greater than the percentage difference threshold for all adjacent modes to the mode (para. 0007 and Fig. 3, it is known to determine isolated vs. clustered modes, an isolated mode would be “flat” which would be greater than a threshold percentage as best understood).
Regarding Claim 4, Griffin teaches (Figs. 1-22) the method of claim 2, wherein the mode and the adjacent mode are within the cluster of modes in response to the percentage difference being less than the percentage difference threshold (see para. 0116, higher frequency families are often clustered close together, have a significant amount of strain energy in the disk, and span a large frequency range which would be less than a threshold percentage as best understood).
Regarding Claim 5, Griffin teaches (Figs. 1-22) the method of claim 1, wherein a first modal domain for the ideal bladed rotor is determined from a modal analysis of the ideal bladed rotor (para. 0196).
Regarding Claim 6, Griffin teaches (Figs. 1-22) the method of claim 5, wherein a second modal domain for the inspected bladed rotor is determined from a second modal analysis of each blade of the inspected bladed rotor (para. 0195).
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.
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 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claims 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin in view of Feiner et al. (hereafter Feiner – US 20200159879).
Regarding Claim 7, Griffin teaches (Figs. 1-22) the method of claim 6.
However, Griffin does not teach a first blade of the inspected bladed rotor is modeled in the second modal analysis with a potential repair blend profile.
Feiner teaches a method wherein a first modal domain for the ideal bladed rotor is determined from a modal analysis of the ideal bladed rotor (para. 0032) wherein a second modal domain for the inspected bladed rotor is determined from a second modal analysis of each blade of the inspected bladed rotor (para. 0033-0036), and a first blade of the inspected bladed rotor is modeled in the second modal analysis with a potential repair blend profile (para. 0041).
Feiner further teaches this more accurately predicts the vibrational mistuning of the disk and can be used to evaluate a proposed modification of the before the hardware is actually modified, and to evaluate the actual modification if there is a difference between the proposed and actual modifications (abstract).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Feiner to the method of Griffin to have a first blade of the inspected bladed rotor is modeled in the second modal analysis with a potential repair blend profile, as both references and Applicant’s invention are directed to methods for analyzing an inspected bladed rotor with a potential repair blend profile. Doing so would result accurately predicting repair blend profiles before modifying hardware, as recognized by Feiner.
Claim 8 recites “a method.” Griffin teaches such a method, as will be shown.
Griffin teaches (Figs. 1-22) a method of analyzing an inspected bladed rotor with a potential repair blend profile, the method comprising: performing a first finite element modal analysis of an ideal bladed rotor (para. 0196);
However, Griffin does not teach performing a second finite element modal analysis of an inspected blade having the potential repair blend profile modeled thereon; projecting effects of blade modes from the second finite element modal analysis onto rotor modes from the first finite element modal analysis, the blade modes including a cluster of modes within a threshold percentage difference; adding projected effects of blade modes from all other blades in the inspected bladed rotor to form a reduced order model; and analyzing the reduced order model.
Feiner teaches (Figs. 1-7) a method comprising performing a first finite element modal analysis of an ideal bladed rotor (para. 0032), performing a second finite element modal analysis of an inspected blade having the potential repair blend profile modeled thereon (para. 0033-0036); projecting effects of blade modes from the second finite element modal analysis onto rotor modes from the first finite element modal analysis (para. 0036), the blade modes including a cluster of modes within a threshold percentage difference (see para. 0026, overlapping frequencies would be within a threshold percentage difference as best understood); adding projected effects of blade modes from all other blades in the inspected bladed rotor to form a reduced order model; and analyzing the reduced order model (para. 0034-0035).
Feiner further teaches this more accurately predicts the vibrational mistuning of the disk and can be used to evaluate a proposed modification of the before the hardware is actually modified, and to evaluate the actual modification if there is a difference between the proposed and actual modifications (abstract).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Feiner to the method of Griffin to have performing a second finite element modal analysis of an inspected blade having the potential repair blend profile modeled thereon; projecting effects of blade modes from the second finite element modal analysis onto rotor modes from the first finite element modal analysis, the blade modes including a cluster of modes within a threshold percentage difference; adding projected effects of blade modes from all other blades in the inspected bladed rotor to form a reduced order model; and analyzing the reduced order model, as both references and Applicant’s invention are directed to methods for analyzing an inspected bladed rotor with a potential repair blend profile. Doing so would result accurately predicting repair blend profiles before modifying hardware, as recognized by Feiner.
Regarding Claim 9, Griffin, as modified with Feiner above, teaches (Fig 1-22) the method of claim 8, wherein the cluster of modes are analyzed together (para. 0026).
Regarding Claim 10, Griffin, as modified with Feiner above, teaches (Fig 1-22) the method of claim 8, wherein the projecting effects of blade modes onto the rotor modes includes determining whether a blade mode in the blade modes is in the cluster of modes (para. 0116, 0201, teaches determining isolated or clustered modes to perform proper analysis).
Regarding Claim 11, Griffin, as modified with Feiner above, teaches (Fig 1-22) the method of claim 10, wherein the determining whether the blade mode in the blade modes is in the cluster of modes includes calculating a percentage difference between the blade mode and an adjacent mode in one of the blade modes and the rotor modes (see para. 0116, higher frequency families are often clustered close together, have a significant amount of strain energy in the disk, and span a large frequency range which would be less than a threshold percentage as best understood).
Regarding Claim 12, Griffin, as modified with Feiner above, teaches (Fig 1-22) the method of claim 11, wherein the determining whether the blade mode in the blade modes is in the cluster of modes includes comparing the percentage difference to the threshold percentage difference (see para. 0116, higher frequency families are often clustered close together, have a significant amount of strain energy in the disk, and span a large frequency range which would be less than a threshold percentage as best understood).
Regarding Claim 13, Griffin, as modified with Feiner above, teaches (Fig 1-22) the method of claim 12, wherein determining whether the blade mode in the blade modes is in the cluster of modes further includes determining the blade mode is in the cluster of modes in response to the percentage difference being less than the threshold percentage difference (para. 0007 and Fig. 3, it is known to determine isolated vs. clustered modes, an isolated mode would be “flat” which would be greater than a threshold percentage as best understood).
Regarding Claim 14, Griffin, as modified with Feiner above, teaches (Fig 1-22) the method of claim 8, wherein the ideal bladed rotor includes a plurality of identical blades disposed circumferentially around a rotor disk (para. 0109).
Claim 15 recites “a system.” Griffin teaches such a system, as will be shown.
Griffin teaches (Figs. 1-22) a system, comprising:
an inspection system configured to scan an inspected bladed rotor and generate a point cloud of an inspected blade of the inspected bladed rotor (para. 0206); 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 stored thereon that, in response to execution by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations (para. 0199) comprising:
receive, via the processor, a first finite element modal analysis of an ideal bladed rotor from a database in the analysis system (para. 0196);
receive, via the processor, a data set based on the point cloud (para. 0195);
However, Griffin does not teach to generate, via the processor, a digital representation of the inspected blade with a potential repair blend profile based on the data set; perform, via the processor, a second finite element modal analysis of the inspected blade with the potential repair blend profile; and project, via the processor, blade modes from the second finite element modal analysis onto rotor modes from the first finite element modal analysis.
Feiner teaches (Figs. 1-7) a system comprising processor operations to generate, via the processor, a digital representation of the inspected blade with a potential repair blend profile based on the data set; perform (para. 0033-0036), via the processor, a second finite element modal analysis of the inspected blade with the potential repair blend profile (para. 0036); and project, via the processor, blade modes from the second finite element modal analysis onto rotor modes from the first finite element modal analysis (para. 0035).
Feiner further teaches this more accurately predicts the vibrational mistuning of the disk and can be used to evaluate a proposed modification of the before the hardware is actually modified, and to evaluate the actual modification if there is a difference between the proposed and actual modifications (abstract).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Feiner to the method of Griffin to have to generate, via the processor, a digital representation of the inspected blade with a potential repair blend profile based on the data set; perform, via the processor, a second finite element modal analysis of the inspected blade with the potential repair blend profile; and project, via the processor, blade modes from the second finite element modal analysis onto rotor modes from the first finite element modal analysis, as recognized by Feiner.
Regarding Claim 16, Griffin teaches (Figs. 1-22) the system of claim 15, wherein projecting the blade modes onto the rotor modes further comprises determining whether a blade mode in the blade modes is in a cluster of modes (para. 0116, 0201, teaches determining isolated or clustered modes to perform proper analysis).
Regarding Claim 17, Griffin teaches (Figs. 1-22) the system of claim 16, wherein the determining whether the blade mode in the blade modes is in the cluster of modes includes calculating a percentage difference between the blade mode and an adjacent mode in one of the blade modes and the rotor modes (see para. 0116, higher frequency families are often clustered close together, have a significant amount of strain energy in the disk, and span a large frequency range which would be less than a threshold percentage as best understood).
Regarding Claim 18, Griffin teaches (Figs. 1-22) the system of claim 17, wherein determining whether the blade mode in the blade modes is in the cluster of modes further includes determining the blade mode is in the cluster of modes in response to the percentage difference being less than a threshold percentage difference (see para. 0116, higher frequency families are often clustered close together, have a significant amount of strain energy in the disk, and span a large frequency range which would be less than a threshold percentage as best understood).
Regarding Claim 19, Griffin teaches (Figs. 1-22) the system of claim 15, wherein the ideal bladed rotor includes a plurality of identical blades disposed circumferentially around a rotor disk (para. 0109).
Regarding Claim 20, Griffin teaches (Figs. 1-22) the system of claim 16, wherein the operations further comprise: adding projected effects of blade modes from all other blades in the inspected bladed rotor to form a reduced order model; and analyzing the reduced order model (Feiner para. 0034-0035).
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
Prosecution Insights