Response to Amendment
This communication is in response to the amendment filed on 10/21/2025. Claims 1-2 and 4 are pending.
Claim Objections
The objection to Claim 4 is overcome by the amendments dated 10/21/2025, and the objections to Claims 5-6, 9, and 11 are rendered moot by cancellation.
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: the claim should be amended to recite “…a rotational speed of the gas turbine engine; and…” in line 22, and “…metal temperature Tm; and…” in line 24. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejections of Claims 1-2 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112 are overcome by the amendments dated 10/21/2025, and the rejections of Claims 3 and 5-9 are rendered moot by cancellation.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 has been amended to recite “obtaining a rotor unbalance work of the gas turbine engine based on a rotor acceleration rate, a rotational inertia, and a rotational speed of the gas turbine engine” and “repairing the gas turbine engine based on the degradation factor X”. These features are not supported by the Specification or Claims as filed. There is no mention of rotor unbalance work anywhere in the Specification or Claims as filed, much less rotor unbalance work based on a rotor acceleration rate, a rotational inertia, and a rotational speed of the gas turbine engine. While the Specification does mention obtaining a surplus power based on a rotor acceleration rate, a rotational inertia, and a rotational speed of the gas turbine engine in at least paragraph [0013] and cancelled Claim 3, there is no discussion anywhere of any relationship between surplus power and any rotor unbalance work. Further, there is no mention of repairing a gas turbine engine anywhere in the Specification as filed, much less repairing the gas turbine engine based on the degradation factor X as is recited in amended Claim 1. Claims 2 and 4 are rejected due to their dependence on Claim 1.
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 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the Claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of Matter?
Independent claims 1 recites a method. Thus, the claims are to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A: Prong One: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea?
Independent claim 1 recites:
A method comprising:
Step 1: establishing an engine nonlinear component-level model of a gas turbine engine [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites mathematical concepts, and also a mental process because they can be performed by a human using pen and paper];
Step 2: capturing dynamic effects of a transient maneuver in the engine nonlinear component-level model [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites mathematical concepts, and also a mental process because they can be performed by a human using pen and paper];
Step 3: outputting an estimated value of an engine observation parameter of the gas turbine engine by the engine nonlinear component-level model;
Step 4: measuring an actual value ZActual of the engine observation parameter of the gas turbine engine from the gas turbine engine while the gas turbine engine is rotating; and
Step 5: updating a degradation factor X through a solver, thereby minimizing a difference f(X) between a predicated value ZPredict of the engine observation parameter obtained from a fault diagnosis model and the actual value ZActual,
ZPredict - ZActual = f(X)
[the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites mathematical concepts, and also a mental process because they can be performed by a human using pen and paper];
wherein in Step 2, capturing the dynamic effects comprises:
obtaining a rotor unbalance work of the gas turbine engine based on a rotor acceleration rate, a rotational inertia, and a rotational speed of the gas turbine engine;
obtaining a gas temperature and an engine metal temperature based on the engine metal temperature Tm;
Step 6: repairing the gas turbine engine based on the degradation factor X.
Step 2A: Prong Two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Abstract Idea Into a Practical Application?
The elements that are not underlined above are the additional elements (i.e., “outputting an estimated value of an engine observation parameter of the gas turbine engine by the engine nonlinear component-level model”; “measuring an actual value ZActual of the engine observation parameter of the gas turbine engine from the gas turbine engine while the gas turbine engine is rotating”, “obtaining a rotor unbalance work of the gas turbine engine based on a rotor acceleration rate, a rotational inertia, and a rotational speed of the gas turbine engine”; “obtaining a gas temperature and an engine metal temperature based on the engine metal temperature Tm”; and “Step 6: repairing the gas turbine engine based on the degradation factor X”).
The examiner submits that each of the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps of Claim 1 are performed. The outputting step merely recites outputting of a result of the mathematical concepts/mental process (i.e., the engine non-linear component level model), and the measuring, obtaining, and obtaining steps recite mere gathering of data from generic sensors for use in the abstract idea. The repairing step merely recites an insignificant application of a result of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g)); further, the repairing step is not supported by the Specification as filed (see the 112(a) rejection of Claim 1, above).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Amount to Significantly More Than the Abstract Idea?
The examiner submits that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent Claims 2 and 4 are also not patent eligible. Claims 2 and 4 merely recite further details of the mathematical concepts/mental process.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunell et al (U.S. 2004/0123600, hereinafter “Brunell”) in view of Sun (CN-110991017-A) and Minto et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0100248, hereinafter “Minto”).
Regarding Claim 1, Brunell teaches method comprising: Step 1: establishing an engine nonlinear component-level model of a gas turbine engine (paragraphs [0033]-[0035], nonlinear model); Step 2: capturing dynamic effects of a transient maneuver in the engine nonlinear component-level model (paragraph [0035], model replicates transient performance); Step 3: outputting an estimated value of an engine observation parameter of the gas turbine engine by the engine nonlinear component-level model (Fig. 2, process model predicts future process outputs); Step 4: measuring an actual value ZActual of the engine observation parameter from the gas turbine engine while the gas turbine engine is rotating (Fig. 2, take process measurements); and Step 5: updating a degradation factor X through a solver, thereby minimizing a difference f(X) between a predicated value ZPredict of the engine observation parameter obtained from a fault diagnosis model and the actual value ZActual (sensors 14, paragraph [0031]),
ZPredict - ZActual = f(X)
(Fig. 2, Solve above optimization problem; paragraphs [0039]-[0042], reduce the error between engine sensors and model sensors, and detect deterioration, which is equated to the claimed degradation factor, based on differences between real engine 51 and engine model 52, which is equated to ZPredict - ZActual, and predict future behavior of system based on the detected deterioration; paragraph [0043], solving the problem based on optimization algorithm; paragraphs [0053]-[0055]); and Step 6: repairing the gas turbine engine based on the degradation factor X (paragraph [0028], optimized action to regain as much performance and/or operability as possible is equated to claimed repairing).
Brunell does not specifically teach wherein in Step 2, capturing the dynamic effects comprises: obtaining a rotor unbalance work of the gas turbine engine based on a rotor acceleration rate, a rotational inertia, and a rotational speed of the gas turbine engine. However, Sun teaches, in Claim 6, modeling a turbine that includes balancing determinations that are based on rotating acceleration, rotating inertia, and shaft speed. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the balancing determination of Sun in the system of Brunell, in order to provide an integrated real-time model building method (see Sun, first paragraph in the summary of the invention section).
Brunell does not specifically teach obtaining a gas temperature and an engine metal temperature based on the engine metal temperature Tm. However, Minto teaches modeling a turbine based on gas and metal temperatures in paragraph [0062]. It would have been obvious to include the gas and metal temperatures taught in Minto in the system of Brunell, because the gas and metal temperatures are operational parameters of the turbine and may be used to improve system controls of the turbine (see Minto, paragraph [0062]).
Regarding Claim 2, Brunell in view of Sun and Minto teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Brunell does not specifically teach further comprising, in Step 1, establishing the engine nonlinear component-level model using a Newton-Raphson iterative method. However, Brunell does teach that the model includes objective functions and optimizations (see paragraph [0005]). Further, Sun teaches, in the second paragraph of the Background section, in the last paragraph on page 8, and in Claim 6, using a Newton-Raphson iterative method for modeling an aircraft engine. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the Newton-Raphson method of Sun in the system of Brunell, in order to provide an integrated real-time model building method (see Sun, first paragraph in the summary of the invention section).
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Ge et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0345377) teaches, in paragraph [0031], determining balancing in a turbine engine model based on moment inertia of a shaft, rotational velocity, and rotational acceleration.
Brunell et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0193739) teaches, in paragraph [0032], a gas turbine model that includes balancing determination based on spool acceleration, inertial and speed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Although there is no prior art rejection for Claim 4, the Examiner cannot comment on its allowability until all rejections under 35 U.S.C 101 and 112 are satisfactorily addressed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 101 rejection, Applicant argues on page 5 that measuring an actual value of an engine observation parameter (Feature A) and repairing the gas turbine engine (Feature B) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The Examiner disagrees. Feature A is mere data gathering from a gas turbine engine, which is a well-known and generic component (see, for example, the Gee and Brunell references cited in the Prior Art of Record section, in addition to the Brunell, Sun, and Minto references cited in the 103 rejection, all of which are directed to gas turbine engines). Feature B is a broadly-claimed insignificant application of a result of the abstract idea. Further, feature B is not supported by the Specification as filed (see the 112(a) rejection of Claim 1, above), and therefore cannot integrate the claim into a practical application. An updated 101 rejection of the Claims is provided above.
Regarding the prior art rejections, new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments are provided above. It is noted that the newly added claim features do not appear to be supported by Applicant’s Specification as filed, or by Chinese Application that the instant Application claims priority to (see the 112(a) rejection of Claim 1, above).
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CYNTHIA L DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-1599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am to 4pm.
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, Catherine T Rastovski can be reached at 571-270-0349. 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.
/CYNTHIA L DAVIS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2863
/Catherine T. Rastovski/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863