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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 20220403752 (herein Garnier) in view of US 20160010496 (herein Hatcher).
Regarding claim 1, Garnier teaches A method of inspecting fan blades of a turbine engine comprising:
obtaining images of a plurality of fan blades during rotation
sensing a time of arrival for each of the plurality of fan blades (sensor 71 detects and counts the passages of the tips of the blades 111 to 115 with respect to a time base, [0096]);
defining a signature indicative of a time of arrival for each individual one of the plurality of fan blades (time signal S.sub.1 relating to the movable blades 111 to 115 of an impeller 11, [0093]);
correlating the obtained images of the plurality of fan blades stored in the memory device with the signature indicative of the time of arrival of each of the individual fan blades (passage times (TOA) specific to each blade 111 to 115 can then be deduced from the measured data by the main processing unit 711e, here via a calculation module 713 internal to the main processing unit 711e, [0096]); and
identifying a feature of a specific one of the plurality of fan blades based on the obtained images and the signature indicative of the time of arrival of the individual one of the plurality of fan blades (In order to be able to identify each blade 111 to 115, independently of their state, the main processing unit 711e is configured to analyze the different time signals S.sub.1 relative to an angular reference, [0100]).
Additionally regarding claim 1, Garnier does not teach, “obtaining images of a plurality of fan blades during rotation with a camera and storing the obtained images”. However, Hatcher teaches an optical camera 34 that captures optical, visible images of a turbine blade with image storage 38 ([0020]).
Regarding claim 2, Garnier teaches wherein the defined signatures of the time of arrival for each individual one of the plurality of fan blades is obtained in an operating condition such that the defined signature represents unique physical characteristics of each of the plurality of fan blades and not characteristics of each of the plurality of fan blades induced by operating loads ([0146]-[0150] teach using tip-timing sensor and blade passage times/instances to identify damage, which is not a characteristic induced by operating loads).
Regarding claim 3, Garnier teaches wherein the defined signatures of the time of arrival for each of individual one of the plurality of fan blades is obtained in the operating condition so that the defined signature response of each of the plurality of fan blades is not indicative of during rotation at speeds that do not induce a vibrational response for any of the plurality of fan blades (the tip-timing sensor 71 or 72 of an impeller 11 or 12 carries out measurements relating to the passage times/instants of the top of each movable blade in line with the sensor. The processing means 11 then perform a conditioning of the measurements originating in the tip-timing sensor 71 or 72, [0146]).
Regarding claim 4, Garnier teaches indexing each of the plurality of blades and matching multiple images of each of the plurality of blades based on the indexing of each of the plurality of blades (signature allows identifying each blade in particular, [0049]; Note that tip-timing sensor 71 of [0096] is taught to be optical sensor in [0027], which will result in images to determine time signal during acquisition step 7).
Regarding claim 5, Garnier does not teach, “a plurality of images for each of the plurality of fan blades during a plurality of rotations.” However, However, Hatcher teaches it is known in the art to use a camera to take one or more images taken at different times ([0017]).
Regarding claim 8, Garnier teaches comprising sensing the time of arrival of each of the fan blades with a signal generated by an eddy current sensor mounted proximate a tip of each of the plurality of fan blades (tip-timing sensor 71 can be of the Foucault [i.e. Eddy] current type, [0143]).
Regarding claim 9, Garnier teaches wherein a plurality of the signatures indicative of the time of arrival for each individual one of the plurality of fan blades are obtained and used to verify an identification of an individual one of the fan blades (comparison of the passage time of the blades of the first impeller to the passage time of the blades of the second impeller consecutively allows identifying a pattern, i.e. a signature. This signature allows identifying each blade in particular and defining it as being the Top-Turn, [0049]).
Regarding claim 10, Garnier teaches evaluating the identified feature with a processing system and generating a signal to prompt a further maintenance action based on the identified feature including a predetermined characteristic (information captured by the sensor 71 or 72 is delivered to the local processing unit 71e or 72e, [0078]; alarm indicating damage to the blade 111 is then transmitted (step E8) to the alarm means, maintenance can be triggered during the transmission of the alarm, [0158]).
Regarding claim 11, Garnier teaches An inspection system for fan blades of a turbine engine (detection assembly 1, [0072]) comprising:
a tip sensing system where a signal indicative of a time of arrival of each of a plurality of fan blades is generated (sensor 71 detects and counts the passages of the tips of the blades 111 to 115 with respect to a time base, [0096]);
an
a controller programed to generate a signature indicative of an individual one of the plurality of fan blades and correlate the generated signature with each each of the images is correlated to an individual one of the plurality of fan blades (time signal S.sub.1 relating to the movable blades 111 to 115 of an impeller 11, [0093]; In order to be able to identify each blade 111 to 115, independently of their state, the main processing unit 711e is configured to analyze the different time signals S.sub.1 relative to an angular reference, [0100]; signature allows identifying each blade in particular, [0049]).
Additionally regarding claim 11, Garnier does not teach, “an image capture device where images of each of the plurality of fan blades are captured during rotation” and “a controller programmed to receive and store images of each of the plurality of fan blades from the image capture device.” However, Hatcher teaches an optical camera 34 that captures optical, visible images of a turbine blade with monitoring system 35 and image storage device 38 that receive and store images ([0020]).
Regarding claim 12, Garnier teaches wherein the tip sensing system comprises at least one eddy current sensor disposed at a location where a tip of each of the plurality of fan blades passes during rotation (tip-timing sensor 71 can be of the Foucault [i.e. Eddy] current type, [0143]).
Regarding claim 13, Garnier teaches wherein the image capture device captures images in an operating condition such that the generated signature represents unique physical characteristics of each of the plurality of fan blades and not characteristics of each of the plurality of fan blades induced by operating loads (the tip-timing sensor 71 or 72 of an impeller 11 or 12 carries out measurements relating to the passage times/instants of the top of each movable blade in line with the sensor. The processing means 11 then perform a conditioning of the measurements originating in the tip-timing sensor 71 or 72, [0146]; [0146]-[0150] teach using tip-timing sensor and blade passage times/instances to identify damage, which is not a characteristic induced by operating loads).
Regarding claim 14, Garnier teaches wherein the controller is further programmed to generate a plurality of signatures for each of the plurality of fan blades and to utilized the plurality of signatures to index each of the plurality of blades to corresponding images for each of the individual fan blades (comparison of the passage time of the blades of the first impeller to the passage time of the blades of the second impeller consecutively allows identifying a pattern, i.e. a signature. This signature allows identifying each blade in particular and defining it as being the Top-Turn, [0049]).
Regarding claim 15, Garnier teaches wherein the controller further comprises a memory device for storing the images of each of the plurality of fan blades and the generated signatures for each of the plurality of fan blades (storage unit 711c is a read-only memory of the NVRAM type for storing results, [0074]).
Regarding claim 16, Garnier teaches wherein the controller is further programmed to identify a feature of a specific one of the plurality of fan blades from the images and generate a signal to prompt a further maintenance action based on a characteristic of the identified feature (alarm indicating damage to the blade 111 is then transmitted (step E8) to the alarm means 9 (via, for example audible and/or display means). Likewise, messages to be sent or to be made available to maintenance can be triggered during the transmission of the alarm, [0158]).
Regarding claim 17, Garnier teaches A turbine engine (turbine, [0071]) comprising:
a plurality of fan blades rotatable about an axis (blades, [0071]);
a core engine where shaft power is generated to rotate the plurality of fan blades (turbine engine 10, [0071]);
a fan case circumscribing the plurality of fan blades (main housing 711, [0073]);
a tip sensing system disposed within the fan case, the tip sensing system generating a signal indicative of a time of arrival of a tip of each of a plurality of fan blades (sensor 71 detects and counts the passages of the tips of the blades 111 to 115 with respect to a time base, [0096]);
an each of the plurality of fan blades are captured during rotation (optical sensor to detect passage of fan blades, [0027]); and
a controller programed to generate a signature indicative of an individual one of the plurality of fan blades and correlate the generated signature with each of the images such that each of the images is correlated to an individual one of the plurality of fan blades (time signal S.sub.1 relating to the movable blades 111 to 115 of an impeller 11, [0093]; In order to be able to identify each blade 111 to 115, independently of their state, the main processing unit 711e is configured to analyze the different time signals S.sub.1 relative to an angular reference, [0100]; signature allows identifying each blade in particular, [0049]).
Additionally regarding claim 17, Garnier does not teach, “an image capture device where images of each of the plurality of fan blades are captured during rotation” and “a controller programmed to store images of each of the plurality of fan blades from the image capture device.” However, Hatcher teaches an optical camera 34 that captures optical, visible images of a turbine blade with monitoring system 35 and image storage device 38 that receive and store images ([0020]).
Regarding claim 18, Garnier teaches wherein the tip sensing system comprises at least one eddy current sensor disposed at a location within the fan case where a tip of each of the plurality of fan blades passes during rotation (tip-timing sensor 71 can be of the Foucault [i.e. Eddy] current type, [0143]).
Regarding claim 19, Garnier teaches wherein the controller is further programmed to generate a plurality of signatures for each of the plurality of fan blades and to utilize the plurality of signatures to index each of the plurality of blades to corresponding images for each of the individual fan blades (comparison of the passage time of the blades of the first impeller to the passage time of the blades of the second impeller consecutively allows identifying a pattern, i.e. a signature. This signature allows identifying each blade in particular and defining it as being the Top-Turn, [0049]).
Regarding claim 20, Garnier teaches wherein the controller is further programmed to identify a feature of a specific one of the plurality of fan blades from the images and generate a signal to prompt a further maintenance action based on a characteristic of the identified feature (alarm indicating damage to the blade 111 is then transmitted (step E8) to the alarm means 9 (via, for example audible and/or display means). Likewise, messages to be sent or to be made available to maintenance can be triggered during the transmission of the alarm, [0158]).
For the above claims 1-5, 8-20, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to simply substitute the optical sensor of Garnier with the optical camera of Hatcher because both are sensors used to monitor turbine blades. The above findings satisfies the Graham factual inquiries stated in MPEP 2143 B regarding simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garnier and Hatcher as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20130113916 (herein Scheid).
Regarding claim 6, Garnier and Hatcher do not teach, “obtaining the images of the plurality of blades during rotation at different fields of view.” However, Scheid teaches it is known in the art to take several images in different fields of view ([0020]) to determine defects in turbines ([0002]).
Regarding claim 7, Garnier teaches wherein the defined signature of each of the plurality of fan blades is indexed to match the images of each of the fan blades at the different fields of view (In order to be able to identify each blade 111 to 115, independently of their state, the main processing unit 711e is configured to analyze the different time signals S.sub.1 relative to an angular reference, [0100]; signature allows identifying each blade in particular, [0049]). Garnier and Hatcher do not each different fields of view. However, Scheid teaches it is known in the art to take several images in different fields of view ([0020]) to determine defects in turbines ([0002]), and Scheid shows it is known in the art to label images and associate with a particular inspected blade (Fig. 3, [0015]).
For claims 6-7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to incorporate the plural fields of view of Scheid into the optical sensor of Garnier. One would have been motivated to do so for at least the purpose of enlarging the inspection area view ([0020]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/19/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Garnier remains relevant as presented in Office Action filed 10/17/2025, which includes an optical sensor as a means of detecting time of arrival. Hatcher is presented to teach that an optical camera as an optical sensor that one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to substitute.
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 PHILIP FADUL whose telephone number is (571)272-5411. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8pm-6pm.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/PHILIP T FADUL/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights