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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“measuring device” and “installation” in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The claimed “measuring device” has been construed as a contact measuring machine, such as a coordinate measuring machine (CMM) or a multi-dimensional measuring bench, or a non-contact measuring device such as a three-30 dimensional scanner, or a one- or two-dimensional scanner.
The claimed “installation” has been construed as installation 10 shown in FIG. 1.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
In claim 1, the phrase “determining by a self-learning algorithm, trained on a plurality of parts of the same type, of the appropriate force to apply to said part …” should be amended to “determining by a self-learning algorithm, trained on a plurality of parts of the same type, [[of]] the appropriate force to apply to said part …”, to correct the grammatical error.
In claim 4, the phrase “the first and the second set of data comprises …” should be amended to “the first and the second set of data comprise[[s]] …”, to correct the grammatical error.
In claim 6, the semicolon at the end should be replaced by a period, to correct the grammatical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites a limitation “the turbine” which lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For continuing examination purpose, the limitation has been construed as “[[the]] a turbine”.
Claim 1 recites a limitation “the appropriate” which lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For continuing examination purpose, the limitation has been construed as “[[the]] an appropriate”.
The term "at a sufficient probability" in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "at a sufficient probability" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For continuing examination purpose, the term in claim 1 has been construed as being deleted. For more details please see MPEP 2173.05(b).
Claims 2-11 are also rejected for the same reasons above since they depend on claim 1 and have inherited the same deficiencies above.
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 1-5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mika (US 20040262277 A1, hereinafter as “Mika”) in view of Marko (US 20200150626 A1, hereinafter as “Marko”).
Regarding claim 1, Mika teaches:
A process for shaping a part of equipment of a turbine or compressor type vane ([Abstract]: reworking an airfoil blade), the shaping process comprising the following steps:
- providing a part comprising a blade in an initial shape (airfoil blade 20 in FIG. 4 and [0024]), said blade extending along an axis (axis 30 in FIG. 4), and comprising at least one first gripping area located at one axial end of the blade (FIG. 4 and [0024]: one axial end of blade 20 comprise a gripping area hold by a holder 32);
- providing a nominal definition representing the part in a nominal shape, said nominal definition comprising a set of nominal dimensions and associated tolerances (FIG. 8 and [0049]: “At step 340, the deviation determination module 124 calculates point deviation values for the points used to determine expected point positions. These values represent the difference between the measured point position and the expected point position along a line parallel to a predetermined axis. At step 360 the point deviations are used to determine the surface regions that include points having deviations falling within predetermined ranges”);
- acquiring in three dimensions a first set of data representing the part in the initial shape (step 320 in FIG. 8 and [0049]);
- comparing the first set of data with the nominal definition to determine a compliance or non-compliance of at least one data item in the first data set (FIG. 8 and [0051]: “At step 392, the required treatment determination module126 will determine whether or not the deviation regions are within a programmed tolerance”);
- for non-compliant data, determining an appropriate force to apply to said part so that the non-compliant data at least is subsequently determined to be compliant (steps 392 and 396 in FIG. 8 and [0051]; and [0024]: “The shot may be delivered via gravity or by force, depending on the required surface treatment”; and [0044]: “required treatment determination module 126 may directly receive the output from the deviation determination module 124 for yielding a real-time prediction of the required treatment”);
- applying the force determined in the previous step to the part to obtain a deformed shape (step 396 in FIG. 8 add [0051]),
- acquiring in three dimensions a second data set representing the part in the deformed shape (FIG. 8 and [0051]: “After the part 10 is reworked to the required specifications, then the flow of the method 300 will continue to step 320 where the part 10 is remeasured and deviation regions are recalculated”);
- comparing the second set of data with the nominal definition to determine the compliance or non-compliance of one or more data items in the second data set (as recited above in FIG. 8 and [0051]);
- measuring and recording the parameters of the first force applied, the first and second data sets, and the compliance and non-compliance characteristics determined in the comparison steps (as recited above in FIG. 8 and [0051]).
Mika teaches all the limitations except the appropriate force is determined by a self-learning algorithm, trained on a plurality of parts of the same type; and training the self-learning algorithm based on the measurements and recordings taken in the previous step.
However, Marko teaches in an analogous art:
for non-compliant data, determining by a self-learning algorithm, trained on a plurality of parts of the same type, an appropriate force to apply to said part so that the non-compliant data at least is subsequently determined to be compliant (FIG. 1 and [0025]: “It is preferred that for this optimization the forces that are applied so as to deform the component and the positions that are calculated are determined by means of an algorithm. In other words, after each deformation in which forces and positions have been specified and after the actual component has been checked and compared, the data is captured and optimized in the system or computer by means of an algorithm with the result that the more cycles or the more actual components that are re-shaped, the fewer cycles are required since the method is optimized by means of the algorithm or the artificial intelligence. In other words, in the optimum case, only one further cycle is required”; and [0032]: “The system then performs a deformation procedure of the actual component on the basis of the forces that are calculated and the positions for introducing the forces. During the first cycle, these forces and positions are based preferably exclusively on the FEM model, in each further cycle, whether it is on the same component or on another identically-shaped component which the method is implemented on, the data and consequently the positions and the forces that are applied are already optimized by means of empirical values of previously re-shaped components”); and
training the self-learning algorithm based on the measurements and recordings taken in the previous step ([0032]: “The deviation with respect to the desired model is consequently determined again and a deformation procedure is again performed by means of the newly obtained data and the collected data, which is provided in the system by means of previous cycles, said deformation procedure that is performed again being determined by means of an algorithm that is optimized after each cycle and as a consequence forms a self-learning method. The repetition of the cycles ends if the actual component corresponds to the desired model”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mika based on the teaching of Marko, to make the process to further comprise steps of for non-compliant data, determining by a self-learning algorithm, trained on a plurality of parts of the same type, an appropriate force to apply to said part so that the non-compliant data at least is subsequently determined to be compliant; and training the self-learning algorithm based on the measurements and recordings taken in the previous step. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so that the reshaping “cycles may be reduced”, as Marko teaches in [0026].
Regarding claim 2, Mika-Marko teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on.
Mika further teaches:
the force is chosen between:
a bending force, perpendicular to the blade axis (FIG. 4 and [0024]: shot 34 is applying a bending force perpendicular to axis 30);
a torsional force about said blade axis; and
a combined bending and torsional force.
Regarding claim 3, Mika-Marko teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on.
Mika further teaches:
at least one three-dimensional acquisition is performed using contact or non-contact measuring equipment (FIG. 6 and [0029]” the measurement station 110 may include a digital imaging device 114 that can be used to scan one or more surfaces of the part. The digital imaging device 114 can nearly instantaneously capture a series of two dimensional images of a surface that can then be transmitted to the data processor 120 where they are processed to provide a three dimensional map of the surface. An advantage of the optical based system is that it can provide in a matter of seconds a surface map based on thousands of measurement points. It also provides the advantage that measurements can be taken without physical contact with the part”).
Regarding claim 4, Mika-Marko teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on.
Mika further teaches:
each of the nominal definition, the first and the second set of data comprise at least one data item from among: a set of dimensions of a section of the blade (FIG. 6 and [0029]” the measurement station 110 may include a digital imaging device 114 that can be used to scan one or more surfaces of the part. The digital imaging device 114 can nearly instantaneously capture a series of two dimensional images of a surface that can then be transmitted to the data processor 120 where they are processed to provide a three dimensional map of the surface”), a twist angle, a thickness of a leading edge of the blade, a thickness of a trailing edge of the blade, a position of a key point on an outer surface of the part, or a combination of any of these data items.
Regarding claim 5, Mika-Marko teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on.
Mika further teaches:
during the application of force to the blade, a grip is exerted on at least the first gripping area (FIG. 4 and [0024]).
Regarding claim 11, Mika-Marko teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim 1.
Mika further teaches:
Assembly for implementing a process according to claim 1, comprising:
- a measuring device (measurement station 110 in FIG. 6 and [0029]), capable of acquiring three-dimensional data of the part, in the initial shape and/or in the deformed shape;
- an installation capable of applying force to the part (reworking station 200 in FIG. 6 and [0027]); and
- an electronic device (data processing system 120 in FIG. 6 and [0031]) comprising a data memory and at least one self-learning algorithm trained on a plurality of parts of the same type as the part, said measuring device, the installation and the electronic device being linked by at least one communication channel.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mika in view of Marko, and in further view of Lawrence (US 20040118175 A1, hereinafter as “Lawrence”).
Regarding claim 6, Mika-Marko teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on, but do not teach during the application of force to the blade, a second gripping area of the part is held stationary relative to a frame.
However, Lawrence teaches in an analogous art:
during the application of force to the blade, a second gripping area of the part is held stationary relative to a frame (FIG.s 2-6 and [0035, 0047]: assembly 160 provides a second gripping area for blade w. [0035]: “A rotation or twist restricting member 280 is connected to swivel bearing 102 to restrict rotational movement of that bearing during bending correction of workpiece W by the press ram to a plane including the longitudinal support axis of the workpiece”. So the bearing 102/(assembly 160) is held stationary relative to frame 104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mika-Marko based on the teaching of Lawrence, to make the process in which, during the application of force to the blade, a second gripping area of the part is held stationary relative to a frame. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can allow “bending and/or twist correction” of the blade, as Lawrence teaches in [Abstract].
Regarding claim 7, Mika-Marko-Lawrence teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on.
Lawrence further teaches:
the force is a bending force, perpendicular to the axis of the blade; said bending force being applied by exerting pressure on a bearing area of the blade, said bearing area being located between the first and second gripping areas of said part (FIG.s 1-6 and [0035]: “a rotation or twist restricting member 280 is connected to swivel bearing 102 to restrict rotational movement of that bearing during bending correction of workpiece W by the press ram to a plane including the longitudinal support axis of the workpiece”. The bending force is applied by the press 12 perpendicular to the axis of the blade W between the first and second gripping areas).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Mika-Marko based on the teaching of Lawrence, to make the process in which the force is a bending force, perpendicular to the axis of the blade; said bending force being applied by exerting pressure on a bearing area of the blade, said bearing area being located between the first and second gripping areas of said part. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can allow “bending correction” of the blade, as Lawrence teaches in [Abstract].
Regarding claim 8, Mika-Marko-Lawrence teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on.
Lawrence further teaches:
the force is a torsional force applied around the axis of the blade (FIG.s 2-6 and [0035]: ”a rotation or twist imparting member 300 is connected to bearing 202 to impart rotational movement and twist correction to the workpiece W”. A rotation force is applied along the axis of the blade to do a twist correct of the blade by relative rotation of the first and second gripping area: one is held stationary and the other is rotating);
one of the gripping elements and the second portion of the part is held stationary relative to a frame (see above); and
the torsional force is applied by rotating, relative to the frame, the other of said first and second gripping areas (see above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Mika-Marko based on the teaching of Lawrence, to make the process in which the force is a torsional force applied around the axis of the blade; one of the gripping elements and the second portion of the part is held stationary relative to a frame; and the torsional force is applied by rotating, relative to the frame, the other of said first and second gripping areas. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can allow “twist correction” of the blade, as Lawrence teaches in [Abstract].
Regarding claim 9, Mika-Marko-Lawrence teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on.
Lawrence further teaches:
the force is a torsional force applied around the axis of the blade; and
the torsional force is applied by rotating the first and second gripping areas relative to each other (FIG.s 2-6 and [0035]: ”a rotation or twist imparting member 300 is connected to bearing 202 to impart rotational movement and twist correction to the workpiece W”. A rotation force is applied along the axis of the blade to do a twist correct of the blade by relative rotation of the first and second gripping area: one is held stationary and the other is rotating).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Mika-Marko based on the teaching of Lawrence, to make the process in which the force is a torsional force applied around the axis of the blade; and the torsional force is applied by rotating the first and second gripping areas relative to each other. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can allow “twist correction” of the blade, as Lawrence teaches in [Abstract].
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mika in view of Marko, and in further view of XU (US 20200209819 A1, hereinafter as “XU”).
Regarding claim 10, Mika-Marko teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on, but do not teach the part further comprises an identifier, the process additionally comprising the following steps: reading the identifier; determining the nominal definition corresponding to the part from a plurality of nominal definitions; and identifying the self-learning algorithm corresponding to part from a plurality of self-learning algorithms.
However, XU teaches in an analogous art:
a part comprises an identifier ([0056]: “the identifier of the appliance may be a unique identifier of the appliance, such as a serial number of the appliance”. This teaches each part/appliance has its unique ID), a process comprising the following steps:
reading the identifier ([0059]: “After receiving the parameter acquiring request, the cloud server may analyze the parameter acquiring request to obtain an identifier (a serial number) of the cleaning robot in the parameter acquiring request”);
determining parameter corresponding to the part from a plurality of parameters [0059]: “acquire a recommended parameter configuration list corresponding to the identifier of the cleaning robot”); and
identifying the self-learning algorithm corresponding to part from a plurality of self-learning algorithms ([0066]: “after receiving the parameter acquiring request, the cloud server may first analyze the parameter acquiring request to obtain the identifier of the appliance, and then query in a database of the cloud server according to the identifier of the appliance to obtain the machine learning model corresponding to the identifier”).
Since the nominal definition in Mika is corresponding parameter related to the part, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mika-Marko based on the teaching of XU, to make the process wherein the part further comprises an identifier, the process additionally comprising the following steps: reading the identifier; determining the nominal definition corresponding to the part from a plurality of nominal definitions; and identifying the self-learning algorithm corresponding to part from a plurality of self-learning algorithms. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since “there is no need for the user to manually configure individual” part, as XU teaches in [0005].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES CAI whose telephone number is (571)272-7192. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached on 571-272-2279. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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.
/CHARLES CAI/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights