DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in the present application.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1/26/2024 and 3/4/2025 were filed. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 7, there is a lack of antecedent basis for the phrase “the staggering angle of the profile elements”. For the purpose of examination, the phrase has been read as “the parameter value is a staggering angle, wherein the staggering angle of the profile elements”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 13, 14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nolcheff et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0141242 A1, hereinafter Nolcheff).
Regarding claim 1, Nolcheff teaches a method for determining the shape of a mistuned blade of an impeller of a turbomachine (see Abstract; see also Fig. 14-16; see also [0080], method for determining shape of mistuned blade 114 described) comprising the following steps: providing a nominal blade which has multiple radially threaded-on profile elements (see Fig. 4, 5, [0041], [0049], and [0051], nominal blade 112 includes chordal profile elements 6-6, 5-5, and 7-7 considered radially threaded-on profile elements), providing an initially mistuned blade which has multiple radially threaded-on profile elements (see Fig. 4, 5A, [0041], [0049], and [0051], mistuned blade 114 includes chordal profile elements 6-6, 5-5, and 7-7 considered radially threaded-on profile elements), the initially mistuned blade having a reduced or increased thickness at at least one of the profile elements compared with the nominal blade (see Fig. 7 and [0050], mistuned blade 114 and nominal blade 112 have reduced/increased relative thickness LT1/LT2 as described), determining the shape of the nominal blade in the hot state of the nominal blade (see Fig. 14-16 and [0076]-[0080], shape of the nominal blade 112 determined in hot state), determining the shape of the initially mistuned blade in the hot state of the initially mistuned blade (see Fig. 14-16 and [0076]-[0080], shape of the mistuned blade 114 determined in hot state), comparing the two shapes determined in the hot state and determining at least one parameter of the initially mistuned blade, the value of which differs from the corresponding parameter value for the nominal blade in the hot state (see Fig. 14-16 and [0076]-[0080], each respective shape (parameter) of the nominal blade 112 and mistuned blade 114 in the hot state compared with the cold states and with adjacent blades, thus including each nominal blade 112 adjacent to each mistuned blade 114), changing the value of this parameter for the initially mistuned blade in the cold state in such a way that a difference between the values of this parameter for the mistuned blade and the nominal blade in the hot state no longer exists (see Fig. 14-16 and [0076]-[0080], mistuned blade 114 shape changed based on hot/cold transformations and adjacent blade frequency based on the shape of the nominal blade 112 such that the shape and resonant frequencies of all the blades are within range of one another).
Regarding claim 6, Nolcheff above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Nolcheff teaches that the parameter of the initially mistuned blade, the value of which differs from the corresponding parameter value for the nominal blade in the hot state, is determined for all profile elements and a correction of this parameter in the initially mistuned blade is carried out for all profile elements (see [0077]-[0080], entire shape of the mistuned blades 114 and nominal blades 112 determined for correction, including along each chord 5-5, 6-6-, and 7-7 of Fig. 4).
Regarding claims 13, Nolcheff above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Nolcheff teaches that a change in thickness of the initially mistuned blade occurs exclusively on the pressure side of the blade (see [0052], mistuned blades have the same suction side shape but different pressure side shape, thus considered to have a thickness change exclusively on the pressure side of the blade).
Regarding claims 14, Nolcheff above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Nolcheff teaches that the method is carried out as a computer-implemented method, wherein the individual method steps are calculated and the final shape of the mistuned blade is only produced after it has been determined (see [0059]).
Regarding claims 18, Nolcheff above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Nolcheff teaches a blade for an impeller of a turbomachine, produced by carrying out the steps of the method according to Claim 1 and then producing the blade according to the shape determined by the method steps (see [0005], blade and blade shape manufactured according to the method of claim 1).
Regarding claims 19, Nolcheff above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Nolcheff teaches an impeller of a turbomachine, which has: multiple blades arranged adjacently to each other in the circumferential direction of the impeller, wherein the blades form a first group and at least one further group of blades, wherein the blades of the first group are nominal blades, and wherein the blades of the at least one further group are blades according to Claim 18 (see Fig. 3, impeller 120a of turbomachine 104 includes alternating blades of a first group of nominal blades 112 and second group of mistuned blades 114 as described in claim 18).
Regarding claims 20, Nolcheff above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Nolcheff teaches that the blades of the first group and the blades of the at least one further group are arranged in one of the following sequences: AB (see Fig. 3, AB configuration of first group blades 112 and second blades 114).
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.
Claims 8-11 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nolcheff.
Regarding claims 8-11, Nolcheff above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Nolcheff above fails to specifically teach that, as a further parameter of the initially mistuned blade, the center of gravity of the initially mistuned blade is determined for at least some of the profile elements and compared with the center of gravity of the corresponding profile element of the nominal blade, wherein if the centers of gravity differ, the center of gravity of the profile element of the initially mistuned blade is shifted by shifting the profile element to the center of gravity of the nominal blade in the cold state (claim 8); wherein the respective profile element is shifted in the axial direction and/or in the circumferential direction in order to shift the center of gravity of the initially mistuned blade (claim 9); wherein the center of gravity of the initially mistuned blade in the cold state is compared with the center of gravity of the corresponding profile element of the nominal blade (claim 10); wherein the center of gravity of the profile elements of the initially mistuned blade is compared with the center of gravity of the corresponding profile element of the nominal blade for at least those profile elements for which the initially mistuned blade realizes a change in thickness with respect to the nominal blade, and for these profile elements the center of gravity is shifted to the center of gravity of the corresponding profile element of the nominal blade (claim 11).
However, Nolcheff teaches that method includes that the shapes, including blade thickness and curvature, of the nominal and mistuned blades are determined based on a series of physics based assessments (see [0071], [0083], and [0085]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Nolcheff such that the center of gravity was included in the hot/cold state consideration and modification of the mistuned blades. This is because it is well known in the art of turbine blade manufacturing that the shape correlates directly to the center of gravity of the blade, wherein the center of gravity and shape are directly correlated to the natural vibrational frequency of the blades and thus of critical importance to the operation of the turbine.
Regarding claim 15, Nolcheff teaches a method for determining the shape of a mistuned blade of an impeller of a turbomachine (see Abstract; see also Fig. 14-16; see also [0080], method for determining shape of mistuned blade 114 described) comprising the following steps: providing a nominal blade which has multiple radially threaded-on profile elements (see Fig. 4, 5, [0041], [0049], and [0051], nominal blade 112 includes chordal profile elements 6-6, 5-5, and 7-7 considered radially threaded-on profile elements), providing an initially mistuned blade which has multiple radially threaded-on profile elements (see Fig. 4, 5A, [0041], [0049], and [0051], mistuned blade 114 includes chordal profile elements 6-6, 5-5, and 7-7 considered radially threaded-on profile elements), the initially mistuned blade having a reduced or increased thickness at at least one of the profile elements compared with the nominal blade (see Fig. 7 and [0050], mistuned blade 114 and nominal blade 112 have reduced/increased relative thickness LT1/LT2 as described), determining the shape of the nominal blade profile elements (see Fig. 14-16 and [0076]-[0080], shape of the nominal blade 112 along each chord 5-5, 6-6, and 7-7), determining the shape of the initially mistuned blade profile elements (see Fig. 14-16 and [0076]-[0080], shape of the mistuned blade 114 along each chord 5-5, 6-6, and 7-7), comparing the two shapes and determining at least one parameter of the initially mistuned blade (see Fig. 14-16 and [0076]-[0080], each respective shape (parameter) of the nominal blade 112 and mistuned blade 114 are compared with adjacent blades), and changing the value of this parameter for the mistuned blade and the nominal blade if a significant difference is determined in the cold state (see Fig. 14-16 and [0076]-[0080], mistuned blade 114 shape changed based adjacent blade natural frequency based on the shape of the nominal blade 112 such that the resonant frequencies of all the blades are within range of one another).
Nolcheff fails to specifically teach determining the center of gravity of at least the profile elements of the initially mistuned blade with reduced or increased thickness, determining the center of gravity of the profile elements for the corresponding profile elements of the nominal blade, comparing the centers of gravity of the profile elements of the initially mistuned blade and the nominal blade, if the centers of gravity are different, shifting the centers of gravity of the profile elements of the initially mistuned blade to the centers of gravity of the corresponding profile elements of the nominal blade in the cold state of the initially mistuned blade.
However, Nolcheff teaches that method includes that the shapes, including blade thickness and curvature, of the nominal and mistuned blades are determined based on a series of physics based assessments (see [0071], [0083], and [0085]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Nolcheff such that the center of gravity was included in the shape consideration and modification of the mistuned blades. This is because it is well known in the art of turbine blade manufacturing that the shape correlates directly to the center of gravity of the blade, wherein the center of gravity and shape are directly correlated to the vibrational frequencies of the blades and thus of critical importance to the operation of the turbine.
Regarding claim 16, Nolcheff above taches all of the limitations of claim 15.
Nolcheff fails to specifically teach that the respective profile element is shifted in the axial direction and/or in the circumferential direction in order to shift the centers of gravity of the initially mistuned blade.
However, as described above, Nolcheff teaches that method includes that the shapes, including blade thickness and curvature, of the nominal and mistuned blades are determined based on a series of physics based assessments (see [0071], [0083], and [0085]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Nolcheff such that the center of gravity was included in the shape consideration and modification of chordal profiles of the mistuned blades. This is would allow for the manufacturing of the turbine blade based on the center of gravity of the blade, wherein the center of gravity and shape are directly correlated to the vibrational frequencies of the blades and thus of critical importance to the operation of the turbine.
Regarding claim 17, Nolcheff above taches all of the limitations of claim 15.
Furthermore, Nolcheff teaches that the comparison of the centers of gravity (or shapes as in rejected claim 15 above) of the profile elements of initially mistuned blade and nominal blade is carried out in the cold state (see [0053], difference in shapes initially carried out in the static (cold) state of the airfoil based on the working shapes as described).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 2-5 and 12, Nolcheff represents the best art of record. However, Nolcheff fails to encompass all of the limitations of dependent claims 2 and 12.
Specifically, Nolcheff fails to critically teach that the parameter of the initially mistuned blade, which is determined in the hot state, is the staggering angle of at least one profile element of the blade, the staggering angle of the initially mistuned blade being changed in the cold state in such a way that the change in the staggering angle is canceled out in the hot state (claim 2); OR wherein the provisioning of an initially mistuned blade having a reduced or increased thickness compared to the nominal blade in at least one of the profile elements comprises that the difference between the distortion energy and the kinetic energy of an excited nominal blade is determined and the thickness of the nominal blade is increased or reduced as a function of the determined difference between the distortion energy and the kinetic energy in a region under consideration (claim 12).
Hence the best prior art or record fails to teach the invention as set forth in dependent claims 2 and 12 and the examiner can find no teachings for a method for determining the shape of a mistuned blade of an impeller as particularly claimed and including the above limitations, nor reasons within the cited prior art or on his own to combine the elements of these references other than the applicant's own reasoning to fully encompass the current pending claims.
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 7, Nolcheff represents the best art of record. However, Nolcheff fails to encompass all of the limitations of dependent claim 7.
Specifically, Nolcheff fails to critically teach that the parameter value is a staggering angle, wherein the staggering angle of the profile elements of the initially mistuned blade is changed to a greater extent with increasing span of the blade in the cold state (claim 7).
Hence the best prior art or record fails to teach the invention as set forth in dependent claim 7 and the examiner can find no teachings for a method for determining the shape of a mistuned blade of an impeller as particularly claimed and including the above limitations, nor reasons within the cited prior art or on his own to combine the elements of these references other than the applicant's own reasoning to fully encompass the current pending claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL T WOODWARD whose telephone number is (571)270-0704. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 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, Patrick Assouad can be reached at (571) 272-2210. 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.
/NATHANIEL T WOODWARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855