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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/24/2025 has been entered.
Status of the claims
The amendment received on has been acknowledged and entered. Claims 1-7 are amended. Thus, claims 1-7 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on December 24, 2025 with respect to claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
On the pages 9-10 of the Remarks, Applicant alleges that “[T]he claim limitation is not a "mental processes," or "disembodied mathematical algorithms and formulas" (see MPEP 2106.04) and can be effectively verified by a skilled person from a turbomachine part.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements of “evaluating a lifetime of a turbomachine part having a wear developing with turbomachine operating time, the wear modifying a geometry of the turbomachine part such that the turbomachine part undergoes propagating damage” is mathematical calculations or mental processes (evaluation/judgment) based on mathematical calculations. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation (see MPEP 2016.04(a)(2)C).
On the page 11 of the Remarks, Applicant alleges that “[A]dditional element 1) ensures that the judicial exception is applied to a particular machine (see MPEP §2106.05(b)), here a specific turbomachine part, and not a generically recited turbomachine part. It also integrates the judicial exception into a particular field of use (see MIPEP§2106.05(h)). Additional element 2) ensures that the claim effects a transformation or reduction of this particular turbomachine part to a different state (repaired) or thing (replacement) (see MPEP §2106.05(c)). This transformation is applied to a particular turbomachine part as highlighted above. Therefore, the mere recitation of a judicial exception does not mean that the claim is "directed to" that judicial exception under Step 2A Prong 2. Since the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, claim 1 recites a practical application under Prong 2 of Step 2A.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s claimed feature is not a particular machine. The additional elements such as turbomachine or turbomachine part are recited at a high-level of generality (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Further, the additional elements of “repairing or replacing the turbomachine part turbomachine operating time corresponds time of the turbomachine part in order to withdraw the part from use before the geometry of the turbomachine part is modified causing a physical failure of the turbomachine part or causing the turbomachine part to become no longer functional” do not include the additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements/steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on prior art of record (Jiang (US 20170169141 A1) and Veitch et al. (US 2017/0169141 A1)).
On the page 12 of the Remarks, Applicant alleges that “[A]pplicant respectfully disagrees, and submits that it is not a well-understood or routine activity to replace or repair such turbomachine part in the manner required by the claim.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements of “repairing or replacing the turbomachine part turbomachine operating time corresponds time of the turbomachine part in order to withdraw the part from use before the geometry of the turbomachine part is modified causing a physical failure of the turbomachine part
or causing the turbomachine part to become no longer functional” do not include the additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements/steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on prior art of record (Jiang (US 20170169141 A1) and Veitch et al. (US 2017/0169141 A1)). Therefore, the amended claim is not patent subject matter for 101 rejection.
Applicant’s amendments filed December 24, 2025 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection. However, since the rejection below relies on previously cited prior art, Applicant’s arguments with respect to Salm are addressed as follows:
On the pages 9-10 of the Remarks, Applicant alleges that “[S]alm describes a system for adaptively machining the shroud of a blade. The turbomachine blade of Salm is "subject to high amounts of distortion and twists" ([0002]). However, though its geometry is modified, the turbomachine part does not undergo propagating damage. The machining of Salm precisely intervenes before such propagating damage occurs ([0027]). Indeed, the method of Yahia is not adapted to a turbomachine part "having a wear developing with turbomachine operating time, the wear modifying a geometry of the turbomachine part such that the turbomachine part undergoes propagating damage". Combining the method of Yahia with the turbomachine blade of Salm would solely lead to an unreliable evaluation of the lifetime of the turbomachine blade. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to incorporate the teachings of Salm into Yahia with a reasonable likelihood of success.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. When combining reference to support an obviousness rejection, the Examiner is not required to incorporate all features of Salm into Yahia. Rather, Examiner believes that a person of ordinary skill in the art, upon reviewing Salm, would be motivated to modify Salm to incorporate feature of wear during turbomachine operation of Salm, since feature of wear during turbomachine operation provides the advantageous feature of accurately repairing the device. See MPEP 2145 III, which notes that “the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a known technique of the geometric location data including geometric location data of device exposed to wear during turbomachine operation (paras. [0006], [0023] of Salm) to known device, evaluating a lifetime of a turbomachine part (as disclosed by Yahia) in order to allow the change in position of a structure to be used to more accurately repairing the device (see para. [0015] of Salm) because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A method for evaluating a lifetime of a turbomachine part having a wear developing with turbomachine operating time, the wear modifying a geometry of the turbomachine part such that the turbomachine part undergoes propagating damage, comprising the following steps:
S1: determining an average damage of the turbomachine part as a function of turbomachine operating time based on a relationship expressing the stresses applied to the turbomachine part as a function of the wear of the turbomachine part and of a relationship expressing the wear of the turbomachine part as a function of turbomachine operating time;
S2: determining a damage at failure of the turbomachine operating part;
S3: determining a cumulative damage of the turbomachine operating part corresponding to the damage at failure of the turbomachine operating part, said cumulative damage corresponding to the integral of the average damage as a function of turbomachine operating time between an initial time and a final time:
E_cum = E_rupt =
∫
t
t
_
r
u
p
t
E
_
m
o
y
(
t
)
d
t
;
S4: deducing therefrom the lifetime of the turbomachine operating part, said lifetime corresponding to the final time; and
S5: repairing or replacing the turbomachine part based on when the turbomachine operating time corresponds to the lifetime of the turbomachine part in order to withdraw the turbomachine part from use, before the geometry of the turbomachine part is modified causing a physical failure of the turbomachine part or causing the turbomachine part to become no longer functional.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Step 1: under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Step 2A, Prong One: under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation that falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
For example, limitation of “evaluating a lifetime of a turbomachine part having a wear developing with turbomachine operating time, the wear modifying a geometry of the turbomachine part such that the turbomachine part undergoes propagating damage” is mathematical calculation (see page 10, line 11-16: For a defined wear u, the lifetime at constant wear of the part is evaluated based on thermomechanical stresses (stresses and temperatures) corresponding to the defined wear u. The lifetime at constant wear of the part can be determined on the basis of a model of propagation of wear and/or based on a database). Further, the limitation of “determining an average damage of the turbomachine part as a function of turbomachine operating time based on a relationship expressing the stresses applied to the turbomachine part as a function of the wear of the turbomachine part and of a relationship expressing the wear of the turbomachine part as a function of turbomachine operating time; (page 10, lines 17-22: the average damage of the part corresponds to an average damage of the part per unit of time),” “determining a damage at failure of the turbomachine operating part (page 13, lines 16-20: t_rupt at the time of failure of the part),” “determining a cumulative damage of the turbomachine operating part corresponding to the damage at failure of the turbomachine operating part, said cumulative damage corresponding to the integral of the average damage as a function of turbomachine operating time between an initial time and a final time: E_cum = E_rupt =
∫
t
t
_
r
u
p
t
E
_
m
o
y
(
t
)
d
t
, (page 13, lines 10-15: cumulative damage)” and “deducing therefrom the lifetime of the turbomachine operating part, said lifetime corresponding to the final time (page 3, lines 16-21)” are mathematical calculations. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind and mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping and “Mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Therefore, none of the additional elements indicate a practical application.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: turbomachine or turbomachine part; repairing or replacing the turbomachine part based on when the turbomachine operating time corresponds to the lifetime of the turbomachine part in order to withdraw the turbomachine part from use, before the geometry of the turbomachine part is modified causing a physical failure of the turbomachine part or causing the turbomachine part to become no longer functional.
The additional elements such as turbomachine or turbomachine part recited at a high-level of generality (MPEP 2106.05(d)). The additional element of “repairing or replacing the turbomachine part based on when the turbomachine operating time corresponds to the lifetime of the turbomachine part in order to withdraw the turbomachine part from use, before the geometry of the turbomachine part is modified causing a physical failure of the turbomachine part or causing the turbomachine part to become no longer functional” is insignificant extra-solution activity (post-solution activity) that cannot reasonably integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Therefore, the claim is directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements/steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant art based on the prior art of record (Jiang (FR 2967724 A1) and Veitch et al. (US 2017/0169141 A1)). For example, Jiang and Veitch teach repairing or replacing the turbomachine part based on when the turbomachine operating time corresponds to the lifetime of the turbomachine part in order to withdraw the turbomachine part from use, before the geometry of the turbomachine part is modified causing a physical failure of the turbomachine part or causing the turbomachine part to become no longer functional (page 4, lines 32-35 of Jiang; paras [0032], [0037] of Veitch).
The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 2-7,
All features recited in these claims are abstract ideas, as all features found in these claims are directed towards mathematical calculations. The explanation for the rejection of claim 1 therefore is incorporated herein and applied to claims 2-7. These claims therefore stand rejected for similar reasons as explained in above claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yahia et al. (FR 3087241 A1,” hereinafter referred to as “Yahia”) (cited in IDS dated July 05, 2023) in view of Salm et al. (US 2017/0044900 A1,” hereinafter referred to as “Salm”) further in view of Jiang et al. (FR 2967724 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yahia teaches a method for evaluating a lifetime of a turbomachine part (page 4, lines 39: the invention can in particular be applied to an aircraft engine gearbox, or an industrial machine or engine gearbox; page 13, lines 36-37: a very large number of Monte-Carlo simulations makes it possible to obtain as large a number of different results and to deduce therefrom more representative trends of the average lifetime of the parts 6 in the event of real operation) page 7, lines 30-31: the operating model is further configured to be filled with data from the operating history of a transmission device in an operating situation) comprising the following steps:
S1: determining an average damage of the part as a function of time based on a relationship expressing the stresses applied to the part as a function of the wear of the part (page 4, lines 3-4; Modeling of the damage suffered by the part studied, during which is produced an operating model of the transmission device configured to simulate the forces of the transmission device and estimate their effects on the aging of the parts; page 7, lines 30-31: the operating model is further configured to be filled with data from the operating history of a transmission device in an operating situation, note that the above feature of “modeling of the damage related to the forces of the transmission device” in page 4, lines 3-4 and “data from the operating history” in page 7, lines 30-31 reads on “determining an average damage of the part as a function of time based on a relationship expressing the stresses applied to the parts (i.e., forces of the transmission device) as a function of the wear of the part (i.e., data from the operating history of a transmission device in an operating situation because determining an average damage of the part with data from the operating history of a transmission device is inherent functional property or obvious variation of such method)” and of a relationship expressing the wear of the part as a function of time (page 4, lines 3-4; Modeling of the damage suffered by the part studied, during which is produced an operating model of the transmission device configured to simulate the forces of the transmission device and estimate their effects on the aging of the parts; page 7, lines 30-31: the operating model is further configured to be filled with data from the operating history of a transmission device in an operating situation, note that the above feature of “modeling of the damage related to the forces of the transmission device” in page 4, lines 3-4 and “data from the operating history” in page 7, lines 30-31 reads on “a relationship expressing the wear of the part (i.e. modeling of the damage) as a function of time (i.e., data from the operating history of a transmission device in an operating situation).”
S2: determining a damage at failure of the part (page 4, lines 3-4: see above; page 12, lines 21-22: when the cumulative damage to part 6 reaches a predefined threshold, part 6 will be considered as broken and will therefore be replaced by another part 6 of the same definition);
S3: determining a cumulative damage of the part corresponding to the damage at failure of the part (page 12, lines 21-22: when the cumulative damage to part 6 reaches a predefined threshold, part 6 will be considered as broken and will therefore be replaced by another part 6 of the same definition), said cumulative damage corresponding to the integral of the average damage ((page 12, lines 21-22: see above) as a function of time between an initial time and a final time: E_cum = E_rupt =
∫
t
t
_
r
u
p
t
E
_
m
o
y
(
t
)
d
t
(page 12, lines 27-28: a cumulative damage index Di is assigned to each part 6. In one embodiment, the cumulative damage index Di is a damage counter which can be expressed as a sum, note that the above feature of page 12, lines 21-22 and “the cumulative damage index” in page 12, lines 27-28 reads on “said cumulative damage corresponding to the integral of the average damage as a function of time between an initial time and a final time)”; and
S4: deducing therefrom the lifetime of the part, said lifetime corresponding to the final time (page 13, lines 28-29: These simulations make it possible to establish a distribution of the instants of rupture of the parts 6 of the transmission device 2, which makes it possible to establish a probable lifetime of the different parts 6 as a function of the aging of the transmission device 2).
Yahia do not specifically teach a wear developing and the wear modifying a geometry of the turbomachine part such that the turbomachine part undergoes propagating damage.
However, Salm teaches a wear developing and the wear modifying a geometry of the turbomachine part (para. [0023]: adaptive machining system 106 (FIG. 1) extracts geometric location data from 3D model 132 of shroud 134 after use in the turbomachine. The geometric location data may include data of: a hard face plane(s) D1, D2 of shroud 134 exposed to wear during turbomachine operation) such that the turbomachine part undergoes propagating damage (para. [0029]: The computer-usable medium may include a propagated data signal with the computer-usable program code embodied therewith, either in baseband or as part of a carrier wave).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a known technique of the geometric location data including geometric location data of device exposed to wear during turbomachine operation (paras. [0006], [0023] of Salm) to known device, evaluating a lifetime of a turbomachine part (as disclosed by Yahia) in order to allow the change in position of a structure to be used to more accurately repairing the device (see para. [0015] of Salm) because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Further, when combining reference to support an obviousness rejection, the Examiner is not required to incorporate all features of Salm into Yahia. Rather, Examiner believes that a person of ordinary skill in the art, upon reviewing Salm, would be motivated to modify Salm to incorporate feature of wear during turbomachine operation of Salm, since feature of wear during turbomachine operation provides the advantageous feature of accurately repairing the device. See MPEP 2145 III, which notes that “the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art."
Yahia and Salm do not specifically teach repairing or replacing the turbomachine part based on when the turbomachine operating time corresponds to the lifetime of the turbomachine part in order to withdraw the turbomachine part from use, before the geometry of the turbomachine part is modified causing a physical failure of the turbomachine part or causing the turbomachine part to become no longer functional.
However, Jiang teaches repairing or replacing the turbomachine part based on when the turbomachine operating time corresponds to the lifetime of the turbomachine part in order to withdraw the turbomachine part from use, before the geometry of the turbomachine part is modified causing a physical failure of the turbomachine part or causing the turbomachine part to become no longer functional (page 4, lines 32-35: the turbine system 10 can then be subjected to preventive maintenance to inspect and / or replace the rotor wheel. In fact, these predictive possibilities make it possible to obtain a more optimal lifetime and improved performance of the turbomachine, such as the turbine system 10. As a result, the predictive possibilities of the techniques described here make it possible to optimize the life of the rotor. (block 86)).
Yahia and Jiang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of turbomachinery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the repairing or replacing the turbomachine part such as is described in Jiang into Yahia, in order to require periodic maintenance or replacement (Jiang, page 7, lines 4).
Regarding claim 2, Yahia in view of Salm and Jiang teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Yahia teaches that the step S1 of determining an average damage of the part as a function of time (page 12, lines 11: a distribution is estimated giving the operating state of the influence parameter at a given time; page 12, lines 18-19: if at least one of the operating phases has a torqu12, lines e value greater than the threshold acceptable by the part 6 then the damage suffered on the operating phase concerned will be summed to the cumulative damage since entry into service from Exhibit 6; page 13, lines 36-37: trends of the average lifetime of the parts 6 in the event of real operation) comprises
a step S11 wherein are defined several different wears of the part, and comprises the following steps, carried out for each defined wear of the part (page 4, lines 7-8: the operating model is configured to simulate the forces applied to each of the parts of the transmission device as a function of operating phases, stress influence parameters, respective probability distributions of the influence parameters and the damage to the part):
S12: determining a part geometry (page 4, lines 7-8: operating model) based on wear defined in step S11, such as to determine a relationship expressing the part geometry as a function of wear (page 4, lines 7-8: the operating model is configured to simulate the forces applied to each of the parts of the transmission device as a function of operating phases, stress influence parameters, respective probability distributions of the influence parameters and the damage to the part; page 9, lines 51-53: the operating phases are chosen here because they are identified as being the operating phases during which the parts 6 of the transmission device 2 during which the parts are the most loaded, these operating modes therefore being the most representative modes of wear of parts 6, note that the above feature of “operating model” and “a function of operating phases” in page 4, lines 7-8 and “most representative modes of wear of parts” in page 9, lines 51-53 reads on “determining a part geometry based on wear defined in step S11, such as to determine a relationship expressing the part geometry as a function of wear”),
S13: determining stresses (page 4, lines 7-8: the operating model as a function of operating phases, stress influence parameters) applied to the part based on the part geometry determined in step S12 (page 4, lines 7-8: see above; page 9, lines 51-53: see above), such as to determine a relationship expressing the stresses applied to the part as a function of wear (page 4, lines 7-8: the operating model is configured to simulate the forces applied to each of the parts of the transmission device as a function of operating phases, stress influence parameters, respective probability distributions of the influence parameters and the damage to the part; page 9, lines 51-53: the operating phases are chosen here because they are identified as being the operating phases during which the parts 6 of the transmission device 2 during which the parts are the most loaded, these operating modes therefore being the most representative modes of wear of parts 6, note that the above feature of “operating model” and “a function of operating phases, stress influence parameters” in page 4, lines 7-8 and “most representative modes of wear of parts” in page 9, lines 51-53 reads on “determining stresses applied to the part based on the part geometry determined in step S12, such as to determine a relationship expressing the stresses applied to the part as a function of wear”),
S14: determining a lifetime (page 4, lines 31-33: estimation of a lifetime of the part studied) at constant wear of the part based on the stresses applied to the part determined in step S13 (page 4, lines 7-8: see above; page 9, lines 51-53: see above), such as to determine a relationship expressing the lifetime at constant wear of the part as a function of wear (page 9, lines 51-53: modes of wear of parts 6),
S15: determining an average damage of the part based on the lifetime at constant wear of the part determined in step S14 (page 4, lines 7-8: see above; page 4, lines 31-33: see above; page 9, lines 51-53: see above), such as to determine a relationship expressing the average damage of the part as a function of wear (page 9, lines 51-53: the operating phases are chosen here because they are identified as being the operating phases during which the parts 6 of the transmission device 2 during which the parts are the most loaded, these operating modes therefore being the most representative modes of wear of parts 6; page 12, lines 18-19: if at least one of the operating phases has a torqu12, lines e value greater than the threshold acceptable by the part 6 then the damage suffered on the operating phase concerned will be summed to the cumulative damage since entry into service from Exhibit 6; page 13, lines 36-37: a very large number of Monte-Carlo simulations makes it possible to obtain as large a number of different results and to deduce therefrom more representative trends of the average lifetime of the parts 6 in the event of real operation, note that the above feature of “representative modes of wear of parts 6” in page 9, lines 51-53, “cumulative damage” in page 4, lines 7-8 and “deduce therefrom more representative trends of the average lifetime of the parts” in page 13, lines 36-37 reads on “determine a relationship expressing the average damage of the part as a function of wear”).
Yahia do not specifically teach turbomachine part as a function of turbomachine operating time and turbomachine part as a function of wear.
However, Salm teaches turbomachine part as a function of turbomachine operating time (para. [0023]: adaptive machining system 106 (FIG. 1) extracts geometric location data from 3D model 132 of shroud 134 after use in the turbomachine. The geometric location data may include data of: a hard face plane(s) D1, D2 of shroud 134 exposed to wear during turbomachine operation) and
turbomachine part as a function of wear (para. [0023]: adaptive machining system 106 (FIG. 1) extracts geometric location data from 3D model 132 of shroud 134 after use in the turbomachine. The geometric location data may include data of: a hard face plane(s) D1, D2 of shroud 134 exposed to wear during turbomachine operation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a known technique of turbomachine part as a function of turbomachine operating time and turbomachine part as a function of wear (paras. [0005]-[0006], [0023], [0034] of Salm) to known device, evaluating a lifetime of a turbomachine part (as disclosed by Yahia) in order to allow the change in position of a structure to be used to more accurately repairing the device (see para. [0015] of Salm) because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, Yahia in view of Salm and Jiang teaches all the limitation of claim 2, in addition, Yahia teaches that the step S1 of determining an average damage of the part as a function of time further (page 9, lines 51-53: see claim 1 above; page 12, lines 11:see claim 1 above) comprises a step S16 consisting in determining the average damage of the part as a function of time based on the relationship expressing the average damage of the part as a function of wear and of the relationship expressing the wear as a function of time (page 9, lines 51-53: the operating phases are chosen here because they are identified as being the operating phases during which the parts 6 of the transmission device 2 during which the parts are the most loaded, these operating modes therefore being the most representative modes of wear of parts 6; page 12, lines 11: a distribution is estimated giving the operating state of the influence parameter at a given time; page 12, lines 18-19: if at least one of the operating phases has a torqu12, lines e value greater than the threshold acceptable by the part 6 then the damage suffered on the operating phase concerned will be summed to the cumulative damage since entry into service from Exhibit 6; page 13, lines 36-37: a very large number of Monte-Carlo simulations makes it possible to obtain as large a number of different results and to deduce therefrom more representative trends of the average lifetime of the parts 6 in the event of real operation, note that the above feature of “representative modes of wear of parts 6” in page 9, lines 51-53, “operating state of the influence parameter at a given time” in operating state of the influence parameter at a given time, “cumulative damage” in page 12, lines 8-19, “a very large number of Monte-Carlo simulations” and “the average lifetime of the parts 6” in page 13, lines 36-37 reads on “determining the average damage of the part as a function of time based on the relationship expressing the average damage of the part as a function of wear and of the relationship expressing the wear as a function of time”).
Yahia do not specifically teach turbomachine part as a function of turbomachine operating time and wear.
However, Salm teaches turbomachine part as a function of turbomachine operating time and wear. (para. [0023]: adaptive machining system 106 (FIG. 1) extracts geometric location data from 3D model 132 of shroud 134 after use in the turbomachine. The geometric location data may include data of: a hard face plane(s) D1, D2 of shroud 134 exposed to wear during turbomachine operation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a known technique of turbomachine part as a function of turbomachine operating time and wear (paras. [0005]-[0006], [0023], [0034] of Salm) to known device, evaluating a lifetime of a turbomachine part (as disclosed by Yahia) in order to allow the change in position of a structure to be used to more accurately repairing the device (see para. [0015] of Salm) because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, Yahia in view of Salm and Jiang teaches all the limitation of claim 2, in addition, Yahia teaches that the relationship expressing the average damage of the part as a function of wear (page 9, lines 51-53: see claim 3 above; page 12, lines 18-19: see claim 3 above; page 13, lines 36-37: see claim 3 above) is equal to the inverse of the relationship expressing the lifetime at constant wear of the part as a function of wear (page 14, lines 32-33: the second result of this Monte Carlo simulation is a torque spectrum. This is the average time (in hours) spent in different torque levels over the life of the engine, note that “torque levels” and “operating phase” reads on “inverse of the relationship expressing the lifetime).
Yahia do not specifically teach turbomachine part as a function of wear.
However, Salm teaches turbomachine part as a function of wear (para. [0023]: adaptive machining system 106 (FIG. 1) extracts geometric location data from 3D model 132 of shroud 134 after use in the turbomachine. The geometric location data may include data of: a hard face plane(s) D1, D2 of shroud 134 exposed to wear during turbomachine operation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a known technique of turbomachine part as a function of wear (paras. [0005]-[0006], [0023] of Salm) to known device, evaluating a lifetime of a turbomachine part (as disclosed by Yahia) in order to allow the change in position of a structure to be used to more accurately repairing the device (see para. [0015] of Salm) because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, Yahia in view of Salm and Jiang teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Yahia teaches that the relationship expressing the wear of the part as a function of time (u(t)) is a relationship expressing the wear depth as a function of time (page 4, lines 53-54: Estimation of the life 55 of the part 6, the maintenance method 1 further comprising a step 7 of replacing the part 6 when the remaining life of the part 6 reaches a predetermined threshold; page 9, lines 51-53: the operating phases are chosen here because they are identified as being the operating phases during which the parts 6 of the transmission device 2 during which the parts are the most loaded, these operating modes therefore being the most representative modes of wear of parts 6; page 12, lines 11: a distribution is estimated giving the operating state of the influence parameter at a given time, note that the above feature of “representative modes of wear of parts 6” in page 9, lines 51-53, “the remaining life of the part 6 reaches a predetermined threshold” in page 4, lines 53-54 and “operating state of the influence parameter at a given time“ in page 12, lines 11 reads on “the relationship expressing the wear of the part as a function of time (u(t)) is a relationship expressing the wear depth as a function of time”).
Yahia do not specifically teach turbomachine part as a function of operating time.
However, Salm teaches turbomachine part as a function of operating time (para. [0023]: adaptive machining system 106 (FIG. 1) extracts geometric location data from 3D model 132 of shroud 134 after use in the turbomachine. The geometric location data may include data of: a hard face plane(s) D1, D2 of shroud 134 exposed to wear during turbomachine operation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a known technique of turbomachine part as a function of operating time (paras. [0005]-[0006], [0023], [0034] of Salm) to known device, evaluating a lifetime of a turbomachine part (as disclosed by Yahia) in order to allow the change in position of a structure to be used to more accurately repairing the device (see para. [0015] of Salm) because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 7, Yahia in view of Salm and Jiang teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Yahia teaches that the damage at failure of the part is equal to 1 (page 4, lines 14-15: Estimation of the life 55 of the part 6, the maintenance method 1 further comprising a step 7 of replacing the part 6 when the remaining life of the part 6 reaches at the step of estimating a lifetime comprises a plurality of steps for simulating the aging of the transmission device are implemented so as to estimate a probability distribution of the instants of rupture of the part; predetermined threshold, note that the above feature of “estimate a probability distribution of the instants of rupture of the part, predetermined threshold” in page 4, lines 14-15 reads on “the damage at failure of the part is equal to 1” because the estimating a probability distribution of the instant of rupture of the part can be 1).
Yahia do not specifically teach that part is turbomachine part.
However, Salm teaches turbomachine part (para. [0023]: adaptive machining system 106 (FIG. 1) extracts geometric location data from 3D model 132 of shroud 134 after use in the turbomachine. The geometric location data may include data of: a hard face plane(s) D1, D2 of shroud 134 exposed to wear during turbomachine operation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a known technique that part is turbomachine part (paras. [0005]-[0006], [0023]-[0024], [0027] of Salm) to known device, evaluating a lifetime of a turbomachine part (as disclosed by Yahia) in order to allow the change in position of a structure to be used to more accurately repairing the device (see para. [0015] of Salm) because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yahia in view of Salm further in view of Jiang further in view of Perrier et al. (US 2018/0334907 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Yahia in view of Salm and Jiang teaches all the limitation of claim 1. Yahia do not specifically teach that the turbomachine part is a low-pressure compressor disc.
However, Perrier teaches that the turbomachine part is a low-pressure compressor disc (para. [0017]: the invention proposes a one-piece bladed disk of a turbomachine fan, comprising a plurality of blades which are made in a single part with a disk portion, said disk portion being adapted to be shrunk onto a low-pressure compressor shaft, note that the above feature of “said disk portion being adapted to be shrunk onto a low-pressure compressor shaft” reads on “a low-pressure compressor disc”).
Yahia and Perrier are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of turbomachine. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the turbomachine part such as is described in Perrier into Yahia, in order to allow a structure to exist which is both a one-piece bladed disk and a multi-stage low pressure compressor and which does not have the disadvantages of the structures with a one-piece bladed disk (Perrier, para. [0032]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
De Prosperis et al. (US 9,507,342 B2) teaches a device and a method for determining a residual life expectancy of a rotor of a gas turbine. The method includes receiving at a computer operating conditions of the gas turbine, receiving a gas turbine rotor inspection result, updating, based on the operating conditions of the gas turbine and the gas turbine rotor inspection result, a database for a fleet corresponding to the gas turbine, and calculating the residual life expectancy of the rotor of the gas turbine.
Anderson et al. (US 10,025,893 B2) teaches a life consumption of a component in a machine may be predicted. Load data may be received from a load session of the machine. A plurality of parameter sets may be accessed, each associated with a critical point of the component, which point is considered to have critical life consumption.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANGKYUNG LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3669. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:00pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached on (571)270-5628. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SANGKYUNG LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858