DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is a first Office Action on the merits of the application. Claims 1 - 20 are presented for examination. Claims 1 - 20 are rejected.
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 .
Drawings Objections
The drawings are objected to because element 606 in FIG. 7 should be amended to recite element 608, to correspond with the language in paragraph [00120] of the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Element 108 in FIG. 1B is not disclosed in the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 15, line 12 recites “simulation results form the…”, but it is recommended the phrase is amended to recite “simulation results from the...” Appropriate correction is required.
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 8 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 lacks antecedent basis for “the second data set” (Claim 8, line 3).
Suggested language: Amend the phrase to recite “a second data set”.
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 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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4 - 10, 12 - 14, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris et al (U.S. PG Pub 2020/0102827 A1), hereinafter “Morris, and further in view of Morris et al. (U.S. PG Pub 2017/0370220 A1), hereinafter “Morris 2”.
As per claim 1, Morris discloses:
a method, comprising receiving, via a processor, a digital representation of a potentially repaired blade from an inspection system, the digital representation including a repair blend profile (Morris, par [0005] discloses creating a model of a damaged component, repairing the component to provide a repaired component model, with par [0017] discloses measurements received regarding damages to an integrally bladed rotor, and creating a finite element model of the rotor, with par [0018] adding the bladed rotor includes a blended integrally bladed rotor.)
the digital representation based on an inspected blade of an inspected bladed rotor (Morris, par [0017] discloses a corrective model based on correctly removing material from a damaged integrally bladed rotor, creating a repaired integrally bladed rotor.)
generating, via the processor, an airfoil definition file corresponding to the digital representation (Morris, par [0051] discloses the model sent to an airfoil blend module to determine a blend procedure.)
inputting, via the processor, the airfoil definition file into an aerodynamic simulator (Morris, par [0052] discloses from the blend procedure determination, an expected result and its version of the finite element model created to obtain aerodynamic expected results under certain conditions for the component.)
receiving, via the processor, simulation results from the aerodynamic simulator of the potentially repaired blade (Morris, par [0017] discloses simulations performed in obtaining a repaired integrally bladed rotor, and par [0052] discloses obtaining an output of the expected aerodynamic process regarding the finite element model of the repaired component profile.)
inputting, via the processor, a plurality of simulation results into an aerodynamic effect translator (Morris, par [0059] discloses the finite element model of the repaired component provided in a measure/analyze results procedure for the validity of the repaired component.)
The step of providing an analysis of the results regarding the finite element model of the repaired component is interpreted as a translator, to evaluate the results for validity of the component.
analyzing, via the processor, an overall engine impact of the potentially repaired blade based on the simulation results (Morris, par [0046] discloses the performance and remaining life of an engine based on the operational characteristics meeting different criteria, including aerodynamic criteria, regarding the blend applied to the repaired integrally bladed rotor of an engine, and par [0059] adds analyzing the finite element model of the repaired component for validity to install the repaired component.)
Morris does not expressly disclose:
receiving, via the processor, a translated impact for local effect of a repaired bladed rotor with the potentially repaired blade; and
determining, via the processor, whether the translated impact meets a deterministic criteria for the repaired bladed rotor.
Morris 2 however discloses:
receiving, via the processor, a translated impact for local effect of a repaired bladed rotor with the potentially repaired blade (Morris 2, par [0045] discloses repairing an engine component, including blade and compressor, using blend geometries in a model, and par [0052] adding a blend of a component for an engine to assess the overall health of an engine and its stall margin.)
determining, via the processor, whether the translated impact meets a deterministic criteria for the repaired bladed rotor (Morris 2, par [0046] discloses the blended airfoils and model impacting the stall margin, and par [0066] discloses an assessment of blending regarding the airfoil and the turbine engine to determine if a stalled foil or component affected by blending provides a stall, resulting in the engine failing to operate.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the repaired integrally bladed rotor, modeling and blending teaching of Morris with the stall margin regarding the engine and repaired components, including airfoil teaching of Morris 2. The motivation to do so would have been because Morris 2 discloses the benefit of the use of statistical models for optimal blend geometries that enables a system to rapidly customize a blend solution for an engine for the engine to return to service quickly and safely (Morris 2, par [0045]).
As per claim 9, Morris discloses:
an article of manufacture including 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 comprising (Morris, par [0050] discloses a computer system to perform the steps including creating the finite element models and predicting how a component reacts under conditions, with the computer system is interpreted to include at least one processor and at least one form of memory.)
receiving, via the processor, a plurality of section data sets of each blade of an inspected bladed rotor (Morris, par [0005] discloses receiving component measurements of an integrally bladed rotor that was damaged.)
comparing, via the processor, each section data set in the plurality of section data sets to an ideal blade (Morris, par [0005] discloses a comparison of the measurement of the damaged integrally bladed rotor and a finite element model of an ideal version of the integrally bladed rotor.)
transforming, via the processor, a first section data set in the plurality of section data sets into a potentially repaired section data set corresponding to a potentially repaired blade (Morris, par [0017] discloses using the result of the finite element model of the damaged component to create a corrective finite element model of the component under hot (operating) conditions.)
inputting, via the processor, the overall engine impact of the potentially repaired blade into an aerodynamic effect translator to determine a local effect of the potentially repaired blade (Morris, par [0059] discloses the finite element model of the repaired component provided in a measure/analyze results procedure and checked with pre-determined criteria for the validity of the repaired component if installed.)
The step of providing an analysis of the results regarding the finite element model of the repaired component is interpreted as a translator, to evaluate the results for validity of the component.
analyzing, via the processor, an overall engine impact of the potentially repaired blade (Morris, par [0046] discloses the performance and remaining life of an engine based on the operational characteristics meeting different criteria, including aerodynamic criteria, regarding the blend applied to the repaired integrally bladed rotor of an engine, and par [0059] adds analyzing the finite element model of the repaired component for validity to install the repaired component.)
Morris does not expressly disclose:
receive, via the processor, a translated impact for the local effect of the potentially repaired blade; and
determining, via the processor, whether the translated impact meets a deterministic criteria for the repaired bladed rotor.
Morris 2 however discloses:
receive, via the processor, a translated impact for the local effect of the potentially repaired blade (Morris 2, par [0045] discloses repairing an engine component, including blade and compressor, using blend geometries in a model, and par [0052] adding a blend for an engine to assess the overall health of an engine and its stall margin.)
determining, via the processor, whether the translated impact meets a deterministic criteria for the repaired bladed rotor (Morris 2, par [0046] discloses the blended airfoils and model impacting the stall margin, and par [0066] discloses an assessment of blending regarding the airfoil and the turbine engine to determine if a stalled foil or component affected by blending provides a stall, resulting in the engine failing to operate.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the repaired integrally bladed rotor, modeling and blending teaching of Morris with the stall margin regarding the engine and repaired components, including airfoil teaching of Morris 2. The motivation to do so would have been because Morris 2 discloses the benefit of the use of statistical models for optimal blend geometries that enables a system to rapidly customize a blend solution for an engine for the engine to return to service quickly and safely (Morris 2, par [0045]).
For claim 2: The combination of Morris and Morris 2 discloses claim 2: The method of claim 1, wherein
the deterministic criteria includes at least one of a stall margin and a fuel burn impact (Morris, par [0046] discloses a stall margin regarding components, including blended airfoils impact on engine compressors.)
As per claim 10, note the rejections of claim 2 above. The instant claim 10 recites substantially the same limitations as the above rejected claim 2, and is therefore rejected under the same prior art teachings.
For claim 4: The combination of Morris and Morris 2 discloses claim 4: The method of claim 1, wherein
analyzing the overall engine impact includes performing a simulation with a repaired bladed rotor digital representation having each blade in accordance with the potentially repaired blade (Morris, par [0017] discloses a simulation performed using a modeled damaged integrally bladed rotor during certain conditions, along with obtaining and simulating a repaired version of the integrally bladed rotor under the same conditions.)
For claim 5: The combination of Morris and Morris 2 discloses claim 5: The method of claim 1, wherein
the plurality of simulation results includes ideal simulation results of an ideal bladed rotor with each blade in accordance with an ideal blade (Morris, par [0017] disclosing using a created finite element model (FEM) of an ideal integrally bladed rotor to generate a damaged FEM version of the component, and simulations performed to obtain a corrective, repaired FEM version of the component.)
It is interpreted that a simulation of the ideal FEM version was performed under hot conditions (defined as operating conditions in par [0050]) to compare how the damaged FEM version would perform under operating conditions.
For claim 6: The combination of Morris and Morris 2 discloses claim 6: The method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, via the processor, a second digital representation of a second potentially repaired blade from the inspection system, the second digital representation including a second repair blend profile (Morris, par [0005] discloses creating a model of a damaged component, repairing the component to provide a repaired component model, with par [0017] discloses measurements received regarding damages to an integrally bladed rotor, and creating a finite element model of the rotor, with par [0018] adding the bladed rotor includes a blended integrally bladed rotor.)
Par [0019] discloses a second corrective removal operation different from the first corrective removal operation of material, as it includes the simulation results when the predetermined criteria is not initially met, and thus, interpreted to includes similar steps as the first corrective removal operation.
the second digital representation based on a second inspected blade of the inspected bladed rotor (Morris, par [0017] discloses a corrective model based on correctly removing material from a damaged integrally bladed rotor, creating a repaired integrally bladed rotor.)
generating, via the processor, a second airfoil definition file corresponding to the second digital representation (Morris, par [0051] discloses the model sent to an airfoil blend module to determine a blend procedure.)
inputting, via the processor, the second airfoil definition file into the aerodynamic simulator (Morris, par [0052] discloses from the blend procedure determination, an expected result and its version of the finite element model created to obtain aerodynamic expected results under certain conditions for the component.)
receiving, via the processor, additional simulation results from the aerodynamic simulator of the second potentially repaired blade (Morris, par [0052] discloses obtaining an output of the expected aerodynamic process regarding the finite element model of the repaired component profile.)
analyzing, via the processor, a second overall engine impact of the second potentially repaired blade based on the additional simulation results (Morris, par [0046] discloses the performance and remaining life of an engine based on the operational characteristics meeting different criteria, including aerodynamic criteria, regarding the blend applied to the repaired integrally bladed rotor of an engine, and par [0059] adds analyzing the finite element model of the repaired component for validity to install the repaired component.)
For claim 7: The combination of Morris and Morris 2 discloses claim 7: The method of claim 6, wherein
inputting the overall engine impact of the potentially repaired blade and the second potentially repaired blade into the aerodynamic effect translator (Morris, par [0046] discloses the performance and remaining life of an engine based on the operational characteristics meeting different criteria, including aerodynamic criteria, regarding the blend applied to the repaired integrally bladed rotor of an engine, par [0052] discloses obtaining an output of the expected aerodynamic process regarding the finite element model of the repaired component profile, and par [0059] adds analyzing the finite element model of the repaired component for validity to install the repaired component.)
As disclosed regarding claim 6, par [0019] discloses a second corrective removal operation different from the first corrective removal operation of material, as it includes the simulation results when the predetermined criteria is not initially met, and thus, interpreted to includes similar steps as the first corrective removal operation.
For claim 8: The combination of Morris and Morris 2 discloses claim 8: The method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, via the processor, a section data set of the inspected blade (Morris, par [0005] discloses receiving component measurements of an integrally bladed rotor that was damaged.)
comparing, via the processor, the second data set to an ideal blade (Morris, par [0005] discloses a comparison of the measurement of the damaged integrally bladed rotor and a finite element model of an ideal version of the integrally bladed rotor.)
transforming, via the processor, the section data set into the digital representation based on the section data set and the ideal blade (Morris, par [0005] discloses the creation of a finite element of the damaged integrally bladed rotor based on the measurement of the damaged rotor and the finite element model of the ideal integrally bladed rotor.)
For claim 12: The combination of Morris and Morris 2 discloses claim 12: The article of manufacture of claim 9, wherein the operations further comprise:
generating, via the processor, an airfoil definition file corresponding to the potentially repaired section data set (Morris, par [0051] discloses the model sent to an airfoil blend module to determine a blend procedure, with an expected result of the blend to provide an expected repaired component in par [0052].)
and inputting, via the processor, the airfoil definition file into an aerodynamic simulator (Morris, par [0052] discloses from the blend procedure determination, an expected result and its version of the finite element model created to obtain aerodynamic expected results under certain conditions for the component.)
For claim 13: The combination of Morris and Morris 2 discloses claim 13: The article of manufacture of claim 12, wherein
the operations further comprise receiving, via the processor, simulation results from the aerodynamic simulator of the potentially repaired blade (Morris, par [0052] discloses obtaining an output of the expected aerodynamic process regarding the finite element model of the repaired component profile.)
For claim 14: The combination of Morris and Morris 2 discloses claim 14: The article of manufacture of claim 9, wherein
receiving the plurality of section data sets is received from an inspection system configured to inspect the inspected bladed rotor (Morris, par [0049] discloses an inspection performed on the component to identify damages and determining structural parameters of blade criteria, including edge damage, mistuning characteristics from a non-operating state.)
For claim 19: The combination of Morris and Morris 2 discloses claim 19: The system of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise:
comparing, via the processor, the data set of each blade in an inspected bladed rotor to an ideal blade (Morris, par [0005] discloses a comparison of the measurement of the damaged integrally bladed rotor and a finite element model of an ideal version of the integrally bladed rotor.)
transforming, via the processor, a first data set of the potentially repaired blade into the airfoil definition file (Morris, par [0051] discloses the model sent to an airfoil blend module to determine a blend procedure.)
For claim 20: The combination of Morris and Morris 2 discloses claim 20. The system of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise:
inputting, via the processor, the overall engine impact of the potentially repaired blade into an aerodynamic effect translator to determine a local effect of the potentially repaired blade (Morris, par [0051] - [0052] discloses the computer system performing a process to determine the reaction of the engine with the damaged component under conditions, and a process to perform the step with repaired component under the same conditions, and par [0059] adds results regarding the finite element model of the repaired component in a procedure for the validity of the repaired component.)
The step of providing an analysis of the results regarding the finite element model of the repaired component is interpreted as a translator, to evaluate the results for validity of the component.
analyzing, via the processor, the overall engine impact of the potentially repaired blade based on the simulation results (Morris, par [0046] discloses the performance and remaining life of an engine based on the operational characteristics meeting different criteria, including aerodynamic criteria, regarding the blend applied to the repaired integrally bladed rotor of an engine, and par [0059] adds analyzing the finite element model of the repaired component for validity to install the repaired component.)
receive, via the processor, a translated impact for the local effect of the potentially repaired blade (Morris 2, par [0045] discloses repairing an engine component, including blade and compressor, using blend geometries in a model, and par [0052] adding a blend for the component of an engine to assess the overall health of an engine and its stall margin.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the repaired integrally bladed rotor, modeling and blending teaching of Morris with the stall margin regarding the engine and repaired components, including airfoil teaching of Morris 2, and the additional teaching of the overall health of an engine. The motivation to do so would have been because Morris 2 discloses the benefit of the use of statistical models for optimal blend geometries that enables a system to rapidly customize a blend solution for an engine for the engine to return to service quickly and safely (Morris 2, par [0045]).
Claims 3, 11, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris et al (U.S. PG Pub 2020/0102827 A1), in view of Morris et al. (U.S. PG Pub 2017/0370220 A1), and further in view of Czerner et al. (EP 2655005 A1), hereinafter “Czerner”.
As per claim 3, the combination of Morris and Morris 2 discloses:
wherein the deterministic criteria for the stall margin is met in response to a predicted stall margin from the translated impact falling within a stall margin envelope (Morris 2, par [0046] discloses if the repair, including the blended airfoil repairs affect the stall margin, and par [0066] adds a stall regarding the proposed blended airfoil fails, and the stall component causes the engine to fail as it is not sufficient to provide the proper amount of thrust.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the repaired integrally bladed rotor, modeling and blending teaching of Morris with the stall margin regarding the engine and repaired components, including airfoil teaching of Morris 2, and the additional teaching of the blended airfoil causing stalling and results in insufficient thrust from an engine, also found in Morris 2. The motivation to do so would have been because Morris 2 discloses the benefit of the use of statistical models for optimal blend geometries that enables a system to rapidly customize a blend solution for an engine for the engine to return to service quickly and safely (Morris 2, par [0045]).
The combination of Morris and Morris 2 does not expressly disclose:
the deterministic criteria is met for the fuel burn impact in response to a predicted thrust specific fuel consumption falling below a threshold thrust specific fuel consumption.
Czerner however discloses:
the deterministic criteria is met for the fuel burn impact in response to a predicted thrust specific fuel consumption falling below a threshold thrust specific fuel consumption (Czerner, par [0015] discloses a comparison of the operation of a repaired gas turbine component and a replaced gas turbine component, in that the efficiency is not satisfactory compared with a replaced gas turbine, with par [0018] adds the efficiency analyzed for the repaired gas turbine component includes its fuel consumption, in CFD analysis.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the repaired integrally bladed rotor, modeling and blending teaching of Morris and the stall margin regarding the engine and repaired components, including airfoil teaching of Morris 2 with the efficiency, including fuel consumption, in the analysis to compare a repaired versus a replaced gas turbine component teaching of Czerner. The motivation to do so would have been because Czerner discloses the benefit of using a tolerance range to determine the repairability of a gas turbine component, obtaining various repair options of the component for simulation, including providing several different shapes for repairing the component (Czerner, par [0017]).
As per claim 11, note the rejections of claim 3 above. The instant claim 11 recites substantially the same limitations as the above rejected claim 3, and is therefore rejected under the same prior art teachings.
As per claim 15, Morris discloses:
a system, comprising an analysis system in electronic communication with an 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 comprising (Morris, par [0050] discloses a computer system to create a finite element model of a component, with the computer system interpreted to include at least a processor and at least one form of memory.)
generate, via the processor, an airfoil definition file of a potentially repaired blade of a potentially repaired bladed rotor based on the data set (Morris, par [0051] discloses the model sent to an airfoil blend module to determine a blend procedure, with an expected result of the blend to provide an expected repaired component in par [0052].)
input, via the processor, the airfoil definition file into an aerodynamic simulator (Morris, par [0017] discloses simulations performed in obtaining a repaired integrally bladed rotor, and par [0052] discloses from the blend procedure determination, an expected result and its version of the finite element model created to obtain aerodynamic expected results under certain conditions for the component.)
receive, via the processor, simulation results form the aerodynamic simulator (Morris, par [0052] discloses obtaining an output of the expected aerodynamic process regarding the finite element model of the repaired component profile.)
analyze via the processor, an overall engine impact of the potentially repaired blade based on the simulation results (Morris, par [0046] discloses the performance and remaining life of an engine based on the operational characteristics meeting different criteria, including aerodynamic criteria, regarding the blend applied to the repaired integrally bladed rotor of an engine, and par [0059] adds analyzing the finite element model of the repaired component for validity to install the repaired component.)
determine, via the processor, whether a predicted stall margin from of the potentially repaired bladed rotor falls within a stall margin envelope (Morris 2, par [0046] discloses if the repair, including the blended airfoil repairs affect the stall margin, and par [0066] adds a stall regarding the proposed blended airfoil fails, and the stall component causes the engine to fail as it is not sufficient to provide the proper amount of thrust.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the repaired integrally bladed rotor, modeling and blending teaching of Morris with the stall margin regarding the engine and repaired components, including airfoil teaching of Morris 2, and the additional teaching of the blended airfoil causing stalling and results in insufficient thrust from an engine, also found in Morris 2. The motivation to do so would have been because Morris 2 discloses the benefit of the use of statistical models for optimal blend geometries that enables a system to rapidly customize a blend solution for an engine for the engine to return to service quickly and safely (Morris 2, par [0045]).
The combination of Morris and Morris 2 does not expressly disclose:
receive, via the processor, a data set based on a point cloud generated from the inspection system; and
whether a predicted thrust specific fuel consumption is below a threshold thrust specific fuel consumption.
Czerner however discloses:
receive, via the processor, a data set based on a point cloud generated from the inspection system (Czerner, par [0032] discloses obtaining measurement data regarding the gas turbine component, and capturing the component as point cloud.)
whether a predicted thrust specific fuel consumption is below a threshold thrust specific fuel consumption (Czerner, par [0015] discloses efficiency of a repaired component not satisfactory compared to a replaced component, with par [0018] adds the efficiency of the repaired component analyzed and includes its fuel consumption.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the repaired integrally bladed rotor, modeling and blending teaching of Morris and the stall margin regarding the engine and repaired components, including airfoil teaching of Morris 2 with the point cloud data and efficiency, including fuel consumption, in the analysis to compare a repaired versus a replaced gas turbine component teaching of Czerner. The motivation to do so would have been because Czerner discloses the benefit of using a tolerance range to determine the repairability of a gas turbine component, obtaining various repair options of the component for simulation, including providing several different shapes for repairing the component (Czerner, par [0017]).
As per claim 16, the combination of Morris and Morris 2 discloses:
wherein the operations further comprise determining a deterministic criteria is met in response to the predicted stall margin falling within the stall margin envelope (Morris 2, par [0046] discloses if the repair, including the blended airfoil repairs affect the stall margin, and par [0066] adds a stall regarding the proposed blended airfoil fails, and the stall component causes the engine to fail as it is not sufficient to provide the proper amount of thrust.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the repaired integrally bladed rotor, modeling and blending teaching of Morris with the stall margin regarding the engine and repaired components, including airfoil teaching of Morris 2, and the additional teaching of the blended airfoil causing stalling and results in insufficient thrust from an engine, also found in Morris 2. The motivation to do so would have been because Morris 2 discloses the benefit of the use of statistical models for optimal blend geometries that enables a system to rapidly customize a blend solution for an engine for the engine to return to service quickly and safely (Morris 2, par [0045]).
The combination of Morris and Morris 2 does not expressly disclose:
the predicted thrust specific fuel consumption being below the threshold thrust specific fuel consumption.
Czerner however discloses:
the predicted thrust specific fuel consumption being below the threshold thrust specific fuel consumption (Czerner, par [0015] discloses a comparison of the operation of a repaired gas turbine component and a replaced gas turbine component, in that the efficiency is not satisfactory compared with a replaced gas turbine, with par [0018] adds the efficiency analyzed for the repaired gas turbine component includes its fuel consumption, in CFD analysis.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the repaired integrally bladed rotor, modeling and blending teaching of Morris and the stall margin regarding the engine and repaired components, including airfoil teaching of Morris 2 with the efficiency, including fuel consumption, in the analysis to compare a repaired versus a replaced gas turbine component teaching of Czerner. The motivation to do so would have been because Czerner discloses the benefit of using a tolerance range to determine the repairability of a gas turbine component, obtaining various repair options of the component for simulation, including providing several different shapes for repairing the component (Czerner, par [0017]).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris et al (U.S. PG Pub 2020/0102827 A1), in view of Morris et al. (U.S. PG Pub 2017/0370220 A1), and further in view of Rahman et al. (U.S. PG Pub 2022/0001500 A1), hereinafter “Rahman”.
As per claim 17, the combination of Morris and Morris 2 discloses the system of claim 15.
The combination of Morris and Morris 2 does not expressly disclose:
further comprising the inspection system, wherein the inspection system comprises a structured scanner.
Rahman however discloses:
further comprising the inspection system, wherein the inspection system comprises a structured scanner (Rahman, par [0097] discloses obtaining measurements using three dimensional scans.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the repaired integrally bladed rotor, modeling and blending teaching of Morris and the stall margin regarding the engine and repaired components, including airfoil teaching of Morris 2 with the scans to obtain measurements teaching of Rahman. The motivation to do so would have been because Rahman discloses the benefit of repairing a component of an engine that can reduce material and repair costs by reusing base material of the part instead of completely replacing the part (Rahman, par [0067] - [0068])
For claim 18: The combination of Morris, Morris 2 and Rahman discloses claim 18: The system of claim 17, wherein
the inspection system is configured to transmit the data set to the analysis system (Morris, par [0055] discloses transmitting information regarding material removal in the blending process.)
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicants’ disclosure:
Chakrabarti (U.S. PG Pub 2022/0100919 A1) discloses creating simulated airfoils and using aerodynamic design tools to perform a simulation using parameters from the simulated airfoils, and discloses aerodynamic forcing generated from on geometric features of an airfoil, and measurements from computational fluid dynamics.
Knapke et al (“Blended Fan Blade Effects on Aerodynamic Forces”) discloses integrally bladed rotors (IBR) in engines that have blades fixed to a central area, with FIGS. 1 and 3 shows the blades connected to a central area, a mesh generated representing blades and different blend sizes analyzed using simulation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRIC D JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7089. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 4:30am - 2:00pm, F 4:30am - 11:30am.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at 571-270-1104. 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.
/Cedric Johnson/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
February 18, 2026