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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 12/23/2025 have been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending. Claims 1, 5-7, 10, 14, & 18 have been amended.
Applicant's amendments and arguments, see "Applicant Amendments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" with regard to the Drawings objection to claim 5, page 6 lines 16-22, filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant's amendments and arguments, see "Applicant Amendments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" with regard to the 112(b) rejections to claim 5, page 7 lines 1-8, filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Amendments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" with regard to the Drawings objection to claim 7, page 6 lines 16-22, filed 12/23/2025, with respect to claim 7 and "none of these sensors are shown arranged along a chord (chord of an airfoil: 'the straight-line between an airfoil's leading edge and its trailing edge')" have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Amendments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" with regard to "Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) to claim 7, page 7 lines 1-8, filed 12/23/2025, with respect to claim 7 and "This is unclear because an airfoil (at least for a 2-dimensional airfoil shape such as "airfoil shape complementary to each fan blade") has a unique chord so there cannot be a second chord for a particular airfoil" have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding prior art rejections:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore,:
C. Fig. 3 & 4 show sensors 110 but none of these sensors are shown arranged along a chord (chord of an airfoil: ‘the straight-line between an airfoil’s leading edge and its trailing edge’).
Feature(s) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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 7 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.
Regarding “Failure to particularly point out & distinctly claim [indefinite]”:
Claim 7 in lines 2-4 recites the limitation "with at least two sensors of the at least four sensors arranged at a first chord-wise position and at least two sensors of the at least four sensors arranged at a second chord-wise position". This is unclear because an airfoil (at least for a 2-dimensional airfoil shape such as “airfoil shape complementary to each fan blade”) has a unique chord so there cannot be a second chord for a particular airfoil.
For the purposes of examination (and as supported by Fig. 4), limitations directed towards multiple chords on an airfoil will be interpreted as ‘multiple lines of sensors’.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 1-14, & 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20100043576 A1 (previously cited, Craig) in view of US 8813382 B1 (Buttrick)
Regarding claim 1, Craig teaches a clearance measurement system for measuring a fan blade tip clearance (Abstract: “An apparatus for measuring a blade tip clearance for a gas turbine engine”) in a turbine engine (Fig. 1 – 100 “gas turbine engine”) for a blade tip for a set of fan blades (Fig. 4 & 5 – 120 “fan blades”, para 0016: “The fan assembly 102 may include a rotor 118, which may receive a plurality of fan blades 120”) spaced from a fan casing assembly to define a gap (Fig. 4-5 – 134 “gap”, para 0017: “FIGS. 3-7 illustrate an exemplary embodiment of a measurement tool 136 for measuring the height of the gap 134 or the distance between the blade tip 124 and the inner surface 132 of the fan shroud 130”, fan blade tip clearance/(“height of the gap”)), the clearance measurement system comprising:
Craig does not as explicitly teach a pad removably located within the gap and having a sensor outputting a signal indicative of a distance between the pad and the blade tip, wherein the pad is laid flat on the fan casing assembly.
Buttrick teaches a pad removably located within the gap (Fig. 4-220: “gap”) and having a sensor (Fig. 3-212: “capacitance sensors”) outputting a signal indicative of a distance between the pad and the blade tip (Fig. 4-224: “thickness 224 of the gap being measured”), wherein the pad is laid flat on the fan casing assembly (Fig. 3-210: “template” & Fig. 4-210: “template”, Fig. 4-214: “a first side or portion 214”, the pad/(“template”) would be placed on the side of the engine casing/(“first side or portion 214”))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Craig with the teachings of Buttrick. One would have added to the “Apparatus For Measuring Blade Tip Clearance” of Craig the “Shim Measurement System And Method Of Operating The Same” with shim measuring device of Buttrick. The motivation to combine would have been that the gap measurement sensors of Buttrick would provide a better indication of the distance between the blade tip and the side of the engine casing (see Buttrick Abstract: “gap measurement sensors configured to measure a distance between the first and second parts” & Fig. 3)
Regarding claim 2, Craig in view of Buttrick teaches the clearance measurement system of claim 1
Craig further teaches wherein the pad removably rests on the fan casing assembly (Fig. 4 – 130 “The fan shroud”, para 0016: “The fan shroud 130 has a radially inner surface 132”, para 0018: “As shown in FIG. 5, the arm 158 may have a protrusion 168 for contacting the surface 132 and stabilizing the sensor 162.”, casing assembly/(“fan shroud”)).
Regarding claim 3, Craig in view of Buttrick teaches the clearance measurement system of claim 1
Craig further teaches further comprising a marking (Fig. 5 – 162 “sensors”, the sensor would be a visible and specific point on the blade and thus a marking at least under the broadest reasonable interpretation) on the pad (Fig. 5 – 168 “protrusion”, pad/(“protrusion”)).
Regarding claim 4, Craig in view of Buttrick teaches the clearance measurement system of claim 3
Craig further teaches wherein the marking includes an airfoil shape complementary to each fan blade of the set of fan blades (Fig. 6 – 172 “the leading edge” and 174 “the trailing edge”, para 0017: “Any number of arms 158 may be used and any number of sensors 162 may be used on each arm 158. The arm 158 may be any length or width so long as when the measurement tool 136 is attached to the fan case assembly 126, the sensor or sensor 162 are placed in appropriate measurement locations such as, but not limited to, the center of the blade 170, the leading edge 172, and/or the trailing edge 174.”, sensors 162 are arranged according to the shape of blade profile or equivalently at locations such as the leading and trailing edge of the blade, arranging sensor elements around the leading and trailing edges of the blade will create a complementary airfoil shape).
Regarding claim 5, Craig in view of Buttrick teaches the clearance measurement system of claim 4
Craig further teaches wherein the sensor is a first sensor, and the pad further includes a second sensor (Fig. 6 – 172 “the leading edge” and 174 “the trailing edge”, para 0017: “Any number of arms 158 may be used and any number of sensors 162 may be used on each arm 158).
Regarding claim 6, Craig in view of Buttrick teaches the clearance measurement system of claim 5
Craig further teaches wherein the first and second sensors are aligned on the pad via the marking to correspond to a pressure side and a suction side of the set of fan blades (Fig. 6 – 172 “the leading edge” and 174 “the trailing edge”, para 0017: “the sensor or sensor 162 are placed in appropriate measurement locations such as, but not limited to, the center of the blade 170, the leading edge 172, and/or the trailing edge 174.”, pressure side/(“leading edge”) & suction side/(“trailing edge”), blades and sensing elements have to be ‘aligned’ in order for sensing elements to detect the blades).
Regarding claim 7, Craig in view of Buttrick teaches the clearance measurement system of claim 6.
Craig further teaches wherein the pad further comprises third and fourth sensors, with at least two sensors of the first, second, third and fourth sensors arranged at a first chord-wise position and at least two sensors of the first, second, third and fourth sensors arranged at a second chord-wise position (Fig. 6 – 170 “center of the blade”, para 0017: the sensor or sensor 162 are placed in appropriate measurement locations such as, but not limited to, the center of the blade 170, the leading edge 172, and/or the trailing edge 174.”, chord-wise position/(“center of the blade”).
Regarding claim 8, Craig in view of Buttrick teaches the clearance measurement system of claim 1
Buttrick further teaches further comprising a CPU communicatively coupled to the sensor to receive the signal (Fig. 1-30: “Data Acquisition System”, column 3 lines 63: “The DAS 30 includes a central processing unit (CPU) or computer 34 to process the file 22 and generate the shim model 32”).
Regarding claim 9, Craig in view of Buttrick teaches the clearance measurement system of claim 1
Buttrick further teaches further comprising a display coupled to the sensor for displaying the signal (Fig. 1-30: “Data Acquisition System”, column 8 lines 8-11: “the DAS 30 also may be implemented as part of one or more computers or processors. The computer or processor may include a computing device, an input device, a display unit and an interface,”).
Regarding claim 10, Craig teaches a clearance measurement system for measuring a fan blade tip clearance (Abstract: “An apparatus for measuring a blade tip clearance for a gas turbine engine”) for a set of fan blades (Fig. 4 & 5 – 120 “fan blades”, para 0016: “The fan assembly 102 may include a rotor 118, which may receive a plurality of fan blades 120”) spaced from an exterior casing (Fig. 4-5 – 134 “gap”, para 0017: “FIGS. 3-7 illustrate an exemplary embodiment of a measurement tool 136 for measuring the height of the gap 134 or the distance between the blade tip 124 and the inner surface 132 of the fan shroud 130”, spaced/(“height of the gap”), …; and a sensor (Fig. 5 – 162 “sensor”, para 0018: “The sensor 162 may be any sensor known in the art that can measure the distance between two points”) arranged in the pad for generating a signal indicative of the fan blade tip clearance for the set of fan blades (Fig. 5 – 162 “sensor”, para 0019: “Once the measurement tool 136 is locked into position, the sensor 162 may begin to take measurements as the fan blades 120 are rotated”).
Craig does not as explicitly teach the clearance measurement system comprising: a pad configured to lay flat on the exterior casing.
Buttrick teaches the clearance measurement system comprising: a pad configured to lay flat on the exterior casing (Fig. 3-210: “template” & Fig. 4-210: “template”, Fig. 4-214: “a first side or portion 214”, the pad/(“template”) would be placed on the side of the exterior casing/(“first side or portion 214”));
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Craig with the teachings of Buttrick. One would have added to the “Apparatus For Measuring Blade Tip Clearance” of Craig the “Shim Measurement System And Method Of Operating The Same” with shim measuring device. The motivation to combine would have been that the gap measurement sensors of Buttrick would provide a better indication of the distance between the blade tip and the side of the engine casing (see Buttrick Abstract: “gap measurement sensors configured to measure a distance between the first and second parts” & Fig. 3)
Regarding claim 11, Craig in view of Buttrick teaches the clearance measurement system of claim 10
Craig further teaches further comprising a marking (Fig. 5 – 162 “sensors”, the sensor would be a visible and specific point on the blade and thus a marking at least under the broadest reasonable interpretation) provided on the pad (Fig. 5 – 168 “protrusion”, pad/(“protrusion”)).
Regarding claim 12, Craig in view of Buttrick teaches the clearance measurement system of claim 10
Buttrick further teaches further comprising a CPU coupled to the sensor for receiving the signal (Fig. 1-30: “Data Acquisition System”, column 3 lines 63: “The DAS 30 includes a central processing unit (CPU) or computer 34 to process the file 22 and generate the shim model 32”).
Regarding claim 13, Craig in view of Buttrick teaches the clearance measurement system of claim 10
Buttrick further teaches further comprising display for displaying the signal (Fig. 1-30: “Data Acquisition System”, column 8 lines 8-11: “the DAS 30 also may be implemented as part of one or more computers or processors. The computer or processor may include a computing device, an input device, a display unit and an interface,”).
Regarding claim 14, Craig teaches a method of measuring fan blade tip clearance (Abstract: “An apparatus for measuring a blade tip clearance for a gas turbine engine”) between a set of fan blades (Fig. 4 & 5 – 120 “fan blades”, para 0016: “The fan assembly 102 may include a rotor 118, which may receive a plurality of fan blades 120”) and a fan casing assembly (Fig. 4 – 130 “The fan shroud”, para 0016: “The fan shroud 130 has a radially inner surface 132”, para 0018: “As shown in FIG. 5, the arm 158 may have a protrusion 168 for contacting the surface 132 and stabilizing the sensor 162.”, casing assembly/(“fan shroud”)) for a turbine engine (Fig. 1 – 100 “gas turbine engine”), …; and measuring the fan blade tip clearance (Abstract: “An apparatus for measuring a blade tip clearance for a gas turbine engine”) for at least one fan blade of the set of fan blades with the sensor.
Craig does not as explicitly teach the method comprising: positioning a pad having a sensor within a gap between the set of fan blades and the fan casing assembly, wherein the pad is laid flat on the fan casing assembly.
Buttrick teaches the method comprising: positioning a pad having a sensor (Fig. 3-212: “capacitance sensors”)) within a gap (Fig. 4-220: “gap”) between the set of fan blades and the fan casing assembly ((Fig. 3-210: “template” & Fig. 4-210: “template”, Fig. 4-214: “a first side or portion 214”, the pad/(“template”) would be placed on the side of the engine casing/(“first side or portion 214”))), wherein the pad is laid flat on the fan casing assembly (Fig. 3-210: “template” & Fig. 4-210: “template”, Fig. 4-214: “a first side or portion 214”, the pad/(“template”) would be placed on the side of the engine casing/(“first side or portion 214”))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Craig with the teachings of Buttrick. One would have added to the “Apparatus For Measuring Blade Tip Clearance” of Craig the “Shim Measurement System And Method Of Operating The Same” with shim measuring device. The motivation to combine would have been that the gap measurement sensors of Buttrick would provide a better indication of the distance between the blade tip and the side of the engine casing (see Buttrick Abstract: “gap measurement sensors configured to measure a distance between the first and second parts” & Fig. 3)
Regarding claim 18, Craig in view of Buttrick teaches the method of claim 14
Craig further teaches further comprising aligning a first blade of the set of fan blades with the pad and aligning the first blade with a marking on the pad (Fig. 4 & 5 – 162 & 120, blades and sensing elements have to be ‘aligned’ in order for sensing elements to detect the blades).
Regarding claim 19, Craig in view of Buttrick teaches the method of claim 14
Buttrick further teaches further comprising displaying the measured fan blade tip clearance for the at least one fan blade on a display (Fig. 1-30: “Data Acquisition System”, column 8 lines 8-11: “the DAS 30 also may be implemented as part of one or more computers or processors. The computer or processor may include a computing device, an input device, a display unit and an interface,”).
Regarding claim 20, Craig in view of Buttrick teaches method of claim 14
Craig further teaches further comprising calibrating the sensor to measure the fan blade tip clearance for the set of fan blades (a sensor/detector is necessarily calibrated to be useful otherwise the sensor/detector would be sending useless data; if a sensor/detector sends useful data then at least under the broadest reasonable interpretation it is ‘calibrated’).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20100043576 A1 (previously cited, Craig) in view of US 8813382 B1 (Buttrick) in further view of US 8177474 B2 (previously cited, Andarawis).
Regarding claim 15, Craig in view of Buttrick teaches the method of claim 14
Neither Craig nor Buttrick as explicitly teach further comprising comparing the measured fan blade tip clearance for the at least one fan blade to a first threshold.
Andarawis teaches further comprising comparing the measured fan blade tip clearance for the at least one fan blade to a first threshold (Fig. 3 – “Clearance Estimation”, column 3 lines 20-22: “he processor 60 is further configured to monitor the height h versus time data in order to determine whether a change in the height data exceeds a threshold value h.sub.threshold,”, first threshold/(threshold on height data)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Craig in view of Buttrick with the teachings of Andarawis. One would add to the “Apparatus For Measuring Blade Tip Clearance” with “Shim measurement system and Method of Operating the same” of Craig in view of Buttrick the “System and method for turbine engine clearance control with rub detection” of Andarawis. The motivation would have been that accurate monitoring of the clearance of the turbine blades would improve the maintaining of optimum performance (see Andarawis column 1 lines 40-45: “It would therefore be desirable to provide a clearance control method and system using clearance sensor data for rub detection. It would further be desirable for the clearance control method and system to provide enhanced sensitivity and accuracy for rub detection, so that active clearance control strategies could be beneficially employed.”).
Regarding claim 16, Craig in view of Buttrick in further view of Andarawis teaches the method of claim 15.
Andarawis further teaches further comprising comparing the measured fan blade tip clearance for a subset of fan blades of the set of fan blades to a second threshold (column 3 lines 23-26: “and to output a rub detection signal when the change in the height data exceeds the threshold value h.sub.threshold. The rub detection system further includes a controller 70 configured to receive the rub detection signal.”, data indicating rubbing would be a second threshold).
Regarding claim 17, Craig in view Buttrick in further view of Andarawis teaches the method of claim 16
Andarawis further teaches wherein the first threshold and the second threshold are different (Fig. 3 – “Clearance Estimation” & “Rub Detection”, if there is clearance between the blade then there is no rubbing so rubbing is a different threshold).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11499430 B2 "Turbine Rotor Blade, Turbine, And Tip Clearance Measurement Method" (Kitada) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 2 & Fig. 3.
US 9151175 B2 "Turbine Abradable Layer With Progressive Wear Zone Multi Level Ridge Arrays" (Tham) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 6 & Fig. 16.
US 6717420 B2 "Play Measuring Sensor By Multiple Depth Abrasion" (Eyraud) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1.
US 11156455 B2 "System And Method For Measuring Clearance Gaps Between Rotating And Stationary Components Of A Turbomachine" (Thimmegowda) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1 & Fig. 7.
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 MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-3178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am-5:00 pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571) 272-7924. 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.
/MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858