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 . The rejections from the Office Action of 1/4/2024 are hereby withdrawn. New grounds for rejection are presented below.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-9, and 11-14 were amended with Applicant’s response dated 7/8/2026. Claims 1, 3-9, and 11-14 are rejected.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) are:
“an obtaining module configured to obtain a plurality of samples of at least one analogue time signal acquired by means of at least one fixed proximity sensor…”
“a calculation module configured to calculate a deflection of said at least one blade for each of said samples”
“a determination module configured to determine, in the form of a linear combination of sinusoidal signals…”
“a monitoring module configured to monitor the vibratory behavior of said at least one blade…”
in claim 12.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The identified corresponding structure of the obtaining module is “integrated with the communication means 5” and includes “a communication interface able to exchange data between the monitoring device 12 and another entity,” “wired, non-wired, computer bus…ethernet, Wi-Fi, Blueooth…” See Inst. Spec. Paragraphs [0078]-[0080]. The corresponding structure of the calculation, determination, and monitoring modules is “a recording medium in accordance with the invention, readable by the processor 1 and on which a computer program PROG in accordance with the invention is recorded, including instructions for the execution of steps…PROG defines functional modules of the monitoring device 12, which rely on or control the hardware elements 1 to 5 of said monitoring device 12…” See Inst. Spec. Paragraph [0077].
If applicant does not intend to have 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1,3-9, and 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
See MPEP 2106 for details. The following is the two-prong analysis for subject matter eligibility. Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A method for monitoring a turbomachine, said method including, for at least one blade of a rotor equipping the turbomachine, steps of:
obtaining a plurality of samples of at least one analog time signal acquired by means of at least one fixed proximity sensor and representative of a passage of said at least one blade in front of said at least one proximity sensor,
said at least one proximity sensor being characterized by a response time adapted to the time signal being representative of the progressiveness of appearance and disappearance of said at least one blade during its passage,
calculating a deflection of said at least one blade for each of said samples,
determining, in the form of a linear combination of sinusoidal signals, a signal called approximation signal,
minimizing a cost function evaluating a deviation between said calculated deflections and said approximation signal,
calculating, from samples of said at least one time signal, a quantity characterizing the duration of the passage of said at least one blade in front of said at least one proximity sensor,
monitoring the vibratory behavior of said at least one blade from frequencies and/or amplitudes and/or phases of the sinusoidal signals forming said approximation signal and said quantity characterizing the duration of the passage of said at least one blade in front of said at least one proximity sensor, and
determining, based on said quantity characterizing the duration of the passage of said at least one blade in front of said at least one proximity sensor, that the at least one blade is defective.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been underlined below; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.” Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claim 12.
Step 1:
Claim 1 describes a method and falls under the four statutory categories. Likewise, Claim 12 is an apparatus claim.
Step 2A - Prong One:
Under Step 2A, prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
In the instant case, Claim 1 is found to recite at least one judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea), that being a mental process and mathematical concept. Calculating a deflection of at least one blade is a standard calculation in the art [See Inst. Spec. Paragraph [0122] as well as Diamond et. al. (WO 2018002818 A1), Eq. [1]]. Determining the approximation signal is “conventionally carried out by means of an interpolation and extrapolation algorithm by Discrete Fourier transform…” [See Inst. Spec. Paragraph [0133], Eq. [3]]. Similarly, minimizing the cost function is calculated [See Inst. Spec. Paragraph [0141], Eq. [5]]. Calculating a quantity characterizing the duration of a passage of a blade from time signal samples also amounts to a mathematical calculation. All four limitations are mathematical calculations and mental processes based on data evaluations, and/or judgements and are capable of being performed mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper. Monitoring the vibratory behavior is a mental process, an observation capable of being made by the human eye. Further, the use of the frequency, amplitude, and phase of sinusoidal signals requires the calculation of the frequency, amplitude, and/or phase and thus, the monitoring of the vibratory behavior is also a mathematical calculation. Similarly, determining that a blade is defective based on the calculation amounts to a judgement based on the result of the calculation and is thus a mental process and mathematical calculation.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claim 12.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
Claims 1 and 12 do not amount to the recitation of a particular practical application as they do not recite any specific steps that would improve upon the performance of monitoring a turbomachine.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B:
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2.
In addition to the abstract ideas recited in claims 1 and 12, the claimed method recites the following additional elements: “obtaining a plurality of samples of at least one analog time signal acquired by means of at least one fixed proximity sensor and representative of a passage of said at least one blade in front of said at least one proximity sensor, said at least one proximity sensor being characterized by a response time adapted to the time signal being representative of the progressiveness of appearance and disappearance of said at least one blade during its passage,” The additional elements of Claim 12, “an obtaining module configured to obtain a plurality of samples of at least one analog time signal acquired by means of at least one fixed proximity sensor and representative of a passage of at least one blade of a rotor equipping the turbomachine in front of said at least one proximity sensor, said at least one proximity sensor being characterized by a response time adapted to the time signal being representative of the progressiveness of appearance and disappearance of said at least one blade during its passage,” “a calculation module,” “a determination module” and “a monitoring module,” are substantively similar to those of Claim 1. Monitoring a turbomachine by obtaining a plurality of samples of at least one analog time signal acquired by means of at least one fixed proximity sensor is a data gathering step and amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Having the proximity sensor(s) be characterized by a response time corresponding to the appearance and disappearance of the blade defines parameters for the insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.” Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document).
Regarding Claim 12, the device for monitoring, obtaining module, calculation module, determination module, and monitoring module are all computer components recited so generically as to amount to no more than components of a general use computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The generic data gathering, processing, and output steps, are recited at such a high level of generality they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. This can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that Claims 1 and 12, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With regards to the dependent claims, Claims 3-11, 13, and 14 merely further expand upon the algorithm/abstract idea and do not set forth further additional elements that integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Therefore, these claims are found ineligible for the reasons described for parent claims 1 and 12. Specifically:
Claims 3-6 all recite calculations and thus are within the abstract idea of parent claim 1. Note that the mention of the passage of the blade in claims 2 and 3 merely defines the source of the data used in the calculation and thus amounts to routine data gathering, which amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. As such, Claims 2-6 do not contain any additional elements that integrate the claims into practical application, nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 7 and 8 recite an optical sensor and specify the number of proximity sensors, which both amount to no more than attempts to generally link the abstract idea to the technological environment of optical sensors and therefor do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application, nor amount to significantly more.
Claim 9 recites the acquisition of a plurality of analogue time signals. This is a routine data gathering step and thus amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 11 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium, recited at such a high level of generality as to amount to no more than a general use computer. Neither of these claims contain elements that integrate the claims into practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 13 recites acquisition means, at least one fixed proximity sensor, acquiring “at least one time signal representative of a passage of at least one blade of a rotor…,” sampling “said at least one time signal into a plurality of samples”, and a monitoring device. The monitoring device, acquisition means, fixed proximity sensor, acquisition of the time signal, and sampling of the time signal into a plurality of samples have already been shown to be part of a data gathering step and thus insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 14 recites an aircraft including a turbomachine with rotor blades and monitoring system. This aircraft is recited with such a level of generality as to be no more than generally linking the judicial exception of Claims 12 and 13 to the field of aviation. The turbomachine and rotor blades do not provide any limitations to integrate the claim into practical application and the monitoring system according to claim 13 amounts to no more than mental processes and mathematical calculations. Thus the claim is not integrated this claim into practical application nor does it amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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, 3, 6, 8, 9, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diamond et. al. (WO 2018002818 A1) in view of Pla et. al. (US 5789678 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Diamond discloses a method for monitoring a turbomachine, said method including, for at least one blade of a rotor equipping the turbomachine [Pg. 4 Ln. 8-11 – “Accordingly, the invention provides a method of determining or estimating blade tip deflection characteristics of moving rotor blades in a turbomachine…”], steps of: obtaining a plurality of samples of at least one analog time signal [Pg. 4 Ln. 14-18 – “calculating, by a control module based on measurements by at least one shaft encoder or derivation from proximity probe measurements, a shaft Instantaneous Angular Position (IAP) as a function of time; storing, in a memory module, at least temporarily, a plurality of measured proximity signals and associated shaft lAPs;” – see also the analog time signals in Figs. [5a], [5b], and [7]] acquired by means of at least one fixed proximity sensor and representative of a passage of said at least one blade in front of said at least one proximity sensor [Pg. 4 Ln. 10-13 – “and at least one proximity probe mounted to the housing, the method including: measuring, by the proximity sensor, a proximity signal caused by a presence of a proximate tip of a moving rotor blade;” – IAP indicates passing of blade in front of proximity sensor],
said at least one proximity sensor being characterized by a response time adapted to the time signal being representative of the progressiveness of appearance and disappearance of said at least one blade during its passage [Pg. 3, Ln. 35 – Pg. 4, Ln. 5 – “It is also imperative for the sampling rate of the data acquisition system to be high enough. It has already been demonstrated in Eq. (3) that a timing resolution of 1 ps (corresponding to a sampling rate of 1 MHz) can result in a large tip deflection measurement error. It is for this reason that commercial BTT systems often report immensely high sampling rates. Some of the highest sampling rates reported in literature are 500 MHz [8] and 100 MHz [9]. These sampling rates are generally regarded as very high and require specialized data acquisition hardware. Although such data acquisition systems are available, they are not prevalent and can be prohibitively expensive. This is especially the case if several proximity probe signals must be sampled simultaneously.” – see also Fig. [1], which is prior art showing the time of arrival of the rotor blade tip; Pg. 5, Ln. 11-12 - “The method may include measuring a tip deflection every time that the associated rotor blade passes the sensor.” – in passing the sensor, the rotor blade appears and disappears],
calculating a deflection of said at least one blade for each of said samples [Pg. 4 Ln. 29-31 – “calculating, by the control module, local phase shifts between each expressed signal and a reference signal, thereby to calculate the blade tip deflection characteristics.”], and
determining, in the form of a linear combination of sinusoidal signals, a signal called approximation signal [Pg. 11, Ln. 21-26 – “An aim of the localisation process (block 416) is to determine a pulse position through manipulation of the local phase information in an image. As an illustration, consider a simple example of two sinusoids with a phase difference of π/2, shown in FIG. 7. FIG. 7 a) shows the two sinusoids in the time domain, one shifted by radians. Although the amplitudes of these sinusoids are identical, the phase difference between them is quantifiable and allows one to determine the shift between the two sinusoids. This is a graphical illustration of the Fourier Shift Theorem.” – see also block diagram in Fig. [4], 416-422, and Fig [7], which shows a discrete Fourier transform, which is a linear combination of sinusoidal signals].
Diamond does not disclose minimizing a cost function evaluating a deviation between said calculated deflections and said approximation signal.
However, Pla discloses minimizing a cost function evaluating a deviation between said calculated deflections and said approximation signal [Col. 2, Ln. 20-39 – “In a third preferred embodiment of the invention, the method is for reducing the total vibration of at least two generally-identical, rotating machines each rotating at generally the same rotational speed and each rotating at a relative phase angle. The method includes steps a) through e). Step a) includes the step of measuring the total vibration at at-least-one predetermined location and the corresponding relative phase angle of each of the rotating machines. Step b) includes the step of estimating the vibration contribution to the total vibration measured in step a) of each of the rotating machines at a predetermined reference relative phase angle. Step c) includes the step of defining a cost function which includes the vibration contributions estimated in step b) and each rotating machine's relative phase angle. Step d) includes the step of calculating an optimum relative phase angle for each of the rotating machines which minimizes the cost function defined in step c). Step e) includes the step of adjusting each rotating machine's relative phase angle to its associated optimum relative phase angle calculated in step d).”examiner notes that the machine must necessarily bend to vibrate so vibration is a deflection].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to evaluate the deviation between the deflection and approximation signal of Diamond by using the cost function of Pla in order to minimize error in the approximation signal.
The combination discloses calculating, from samples of said at least one time signal, a quantity characterizing the duration of the passage of said at least one blade in front of said at least one proximity sensor [Diamond, Pg. 9, Ln. 6-12 – “In general terms, it is known that a proximity probe reacts to the presence of rotor blade tips as they pass underneath the probe. If the presence of the rotor tip is short lived, due to a faster rotational speed, it stands to reason that the proximity probe signal pulse will span over a short interval. This is true if one is working in the time domain. If, however, the signal can be order tracked, the angular position and width of these pulses will nominally be constant. Each revolution of the shaft will therefore, given the absence of rotor blade vibration and noise, appear identical in the order domain.” – proximity probe signal pulse is quantity characterizing duration of passage of said at least one blade],
monitoring the vibratory behavior of said at least one blade from frequencies and/or amplitudes and/or phases of the sinusoidal signals forming said approximation signal [Diamond, Pg. 4, Ln. 24-31 – “performing, by the control module, a pulse localisation process, which includes: filtering, by the control module using a complex filter, the proximity signal yielding a complex-valued response; expressing, by the control module, the complex-valued response in terms of a local amplitude and phase; and calculating, by the control module, local phase shifts between each expressed signal and a reference signal, thereby to calculate the blade tip deflection characteristics.” - pulse amplitude and phase are being considered] and said quantity characterizing the duration of the passage of said at least one blade in front of said at least one proximity sensor [Diamond, Pg. 4, Ln. 14-16 – “…calculating, by a control module based on measurements by at least one shaft encoder or derivation from proximity probe measurements, a shaft Instantaneous Angular Position (IAP) as a function of time;”; Diamond, Pg. 9, Ln. 6-9 – “In general terms, it is known that a proximity probe reacts to the presence of rotor blade tips as they pass underneath the probe. If the presence of the rotor tip is short lived, due to a faster rotational speed, it stands to reason that the proximity probe signal pulse will span over a short interval.”], and
determining, based on said quantity characterizing the duration of the passage of said at least one blade in front of said at least one proximity sensor, that the at least one blade is defective [Diamond, Pg. 4, Ln. 33-Pg. 5 Ln. 3 – “Order tracking may be performed on the proximity signals and the shaft IAP in order to convert the measured signals from having constant time increments to constant angular increments. Methods exist to perform order tracking, some more complicated than others [14, 15, 1 6]. The method may include raising an alert in response to the estimated deflection characteristics exceeding a first threshold (e.g., a maintenance threshold). The method may include raising an alert by sending an alert message to a designated recipient (e.g., a plant administrator). The method may include automatically stopping the turbomachine in response to the calculated blade tip deflection characteristics exceeding a second threshold (e.g., a failure threshold). The control module may be connected to a control system of the turbomachine. The method may include sending, by the control module, an interrupt message to the control system of the turbomachine.” – see above for passage of blade.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Diamond and Pla discloses the method according to claim 1, said method further including a step of calculating a quantity characterizing an advance or a delay of said at least one time signal relative to a reference signal representative of a passage in front of said at least one proximity sensor of a blade not undergoing vibration and of the same type as said at least one blade from which said at least one time signal was acquired [Diamond, Pg. 4, Ln. 29-31 – “…and calculating, by the control module, local phase shifts between each expressed signal and a reference signal, thereby to calculate the blade tip deflection characteristics.” – deflection is the advance or delay of the time signal; Pg. 12, Ln. 28-29 – “The reference revolution is usually taken as the first revolution of the acquisition.” – reference revolution comes from same blades being monitored and so is of the same type; Pg. 13, Ln. 1-3 – “Note that the calculated tip deflections assume that the pulses during the reference revolution were generated by non-vibrating blades (step 422).”],
the calculation of said quantity being implemented from samples of said at least one time signal as well as from said reference signal, and the monitoring step also being executed by using said quantity [Diamond, Pg. 4, Ln. 24-31 – “performing, by the control module, a pulse localisation process, which includes: filtering, by the control module using a complex filter, the proximity signal yielding a complex-valued response; expressing, by the control module, the complex-valued response in terms of a local amplitude and phase; and calculating, by the control module, local phase shifts between each expressed signal and a reference signal, thereby to calculate the blade tip deflection characteristics.”- a blade tip deflection characteristic is the quantity].
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Diamond and Pla discloses the method according to claim 1 of wherein the minimization of the cost function includes the execution of an iteratively reweighted least squares algorithm [Pla, Col. 2, Ln. 48-58 – “The method includes steps a) through c). Step a) includes the step of measuring the gradient of a weighted sum of a measure of the magnitude of the amplitude of the total vibration, with the gradient taken with respect to relative phase angle, and with the weighted sum taken over the at-least-one predetermined location. Step b) includes the step of adjusting the relative phase angle for each of the at-least-one slave rotating machine by a predetermined increment of the negative of the associated gradient measured in step a). Step c) includes the step of repeating steps a) and b) until the gradient measured in step a) is within a predetermined limit.” – iteratively reweighted; Col. 8 Ln. 17-21 – “Since the cost function has a single minimum, there is usually one value of the phase function which corresponds to the "minimum-noise" situation. This value can be used to derive the propeller phases which minimize noise inside the cabin.” – recall that vibratory behavior is included in the “noise” measurement; Pla, Col. 8, Ln. 25-30 – “In the indirect method, the minimum value is obtained iteratively using a gradient descent algorithm such as the multiple-input, multiple-output LMS (least-mean-square) algorithm or Newton's method. The advantage of the indirect method compared to the direct one is reduced computational complexity.” – least squares].
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Diamond and Pla discloses the method according to claim 1 wherein the number of proximity sensors is less than or equal to three [Diamond, Pg. 6, Ln. 29-31 – “FIG. 2 shows a schematic view of a system configured to determine or estimate blade tip deflection characteristics of moving rotor blades in a turbomachine, in accordance with the invention” – see Fig. [2] which shows one sensor; Pg. 8, Ln. 19-20 – “The system 200 includes a plurality of sensors 202 mounted to a housing of the turbine 10. In another embodiment, the system 200 may include only a single sensor 202.” - a single sensor is less than three; Abstract – “…and at least one proximity probe (202)…”].
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Diamond and Pla discloses the method according to claim 1 wherein a plurality of analog time signals are acquired due to a plurality of passages of said at least one blade in front of each proximity sensor [Diamond, Pg. 4, Ln. 12-13 – “measuring, by the proximity sensor, a proximity signal caused by a presence of a proximate tip of a moving rotor blade;”; Pg. 4, Ln. 17-18 - “storing, in a memory module, at least temporarily, a plurality of measured proximity signals and associated shaft lAPs;” – plurality of passages, see also the analog time signals in Figs. [5a], [5b], and [7];].
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Diamond and Pla discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium havinq stored thereon instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to implement the method of claim 1 [Diamond, Pg. 6, Ln. 18-20 – “The invention extends to a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon a computer program which, when executed by a computer, causes the computer to perform the method as defined above.”].
Regarding Claim 12, Diamond discloses a device for monitoring a turbomachine [Pg. 8, Ln. 28-34 – “The processor 210 embodies a control module 212 which is configured to process BTT measurements in accordance with the complex filter 224 thereby to measure ToA more accurately and to estimate rotor blade deflection. The control module 212 is a conceptual module corresponding to a functional task performed by the processor 210. It is to be understood that the processor 212 may be one or more microprocessors, controllers, Digital Signal Processors (DSPs) , or any other suitable computing device, resource, hardware, software, or embedded logic.”], said device including: an obtaining module configured to obtain a plurality of samples of at least one analog time signal acquired by means of at least one fixed proximity sensor [Pg. 4, Ln. 10-13 – “and at least one proximity probe mounted to the housing, the method including: measuring, by the proximity sensor, a proximity signal caused by a presence of a proximate tip of a moving rotor blade;” – see also the analog signals in Figs. [5a], [5c], and [7]] and representative of a passage of at least one blade of a rotor equipping the turbomachine in front of said at least one proximity sensor [Pg. 4, Ln. 14-18 – “calculating, by a control module based on measurements by at least one shaft encoder or derivation from proximity probe measurements, a shaft Instantaneous Angular Position (IAP) as a function of time; storing, in a memory module, at least temporarily, a plurality of measured proximity signals and associated shaft lAPs;” – IAP indicates passing of blade in front of proximity sensor],
said at least one proximity sensor being characterized by a response time adapted to the time signal being representative of the progressiveness of appearance and disappearance of said at least one blade during its passage[Pg. 3, Ln. 35 – Pg. 4, Ln. 5 – “It is also imperative for the sampling rate of the data acquisition system to be high enough. It has already been demonstrated in Eq. (3) that a timing resolution of 1 ps (corresponding to a sampling rate of 1 MHz) can result in a large tip deflection measurement error. It is for this reason that commercial BTT systems often report immensely high sampling rates. Some of the highest sampling rates reported in literature are 500 MHz [8] and 100 MHz [9]. These sampling rates are generally regarded as very high and require specialized data acquisition hardware. Although such data acquisition systems are available, they are not prevalent and can be prohibitively expensive. This is especially the case if several proximity probe signals must be sampled simultaneously.” – see also Fig. [1], which is prior art showing the time of arrival of the rotor blade tip] ,
a calculation module configured to calculate a deflection of said at least one blade for each of said samples [Pg. 4, Ln. 29-31 – “calculating, by the control module, local phase shifts between each expressed signal and a reference signal, thereby to calculate the blade tip deflection characteristics.”], and
a determination module configured to determine [Pg. 4, Ln. 24 – “performing, by the control module, a pulse localisation process,”], in the form of a linear combination of sinusoidal signals, a signal called approximation signal [Pg. 11, Ln. 21-26 – “An aim of the localisation process (block 416) is to determine a pulse position through manipulation of the local phase information in an image. As an illustration, consider a simple example of two sinusoids with a phase difference of , shown in FIG. 7. FIG. 7 a) shows the two sinusoids in the time domain, one shifted by radians. Although the amplitudes of these sinusoids are identical, the phase difference between them is quantifiable and allows one to determine the shift between the two sinusoids. This is a graphical illustration of the Fourier Shift Theorem.” – see also block diagram in Fig. [4], 416-422, and Fig [7], which shows a discrete Fourier transform, which is a linear combination of sinusoidal signals].
Diamond does not disclose minimizing a cost function evaluating a deviation between said calculated deflections and said approximation signal.
However, Pla discloses minimizing a cost function evaluating a deviation between said calculated deflections and said approximation signal [Col. 2, Ln. 20-39 – “In a third preferred embodiment of the invention, the method is for reducing the total vibration of at least two generally-identical, rotating machines each rotating at generally the same rotational speed and each rotating at a relative phase angle. The method includes steps a) through e). Step a) includes the step of measuring the total vibration at at-least-one predetermined location and the corresponding relative phase angle of each of the rotating machines. Step b) includes the step of estimating the vibration contribution to the total vibration measured in step a) of each of the rotating machines at a predetermined reference relative phase angle. Step c) includes the step of defining a cost function which includes the vibration contributions estimated in step b) and each rotating machine's relative phase angle. Step d) includes the step of calculating an optimum relative phase angle for each of the rotating machines which minimizes the cost function defined in step c). Step e) includes the step of adjusting each rotating machine's relative phase angle to its associated optimum relative phase angle calculated in step d).”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to evaluate the deviation between the deflection and approximation signal of Diamond by using the cost function of Pla in order to minimize error in the approximation signal.
The combination discloses a calculation module configured to calculate, from samples of said at least one time signal [Diamond, Pg. 4, Ln. 14-16 – “…calculating, by a control module based on measurements by at least one shaft encoder or derivation from proximity probe measurements, a shaft Instantaneous Angular Position (IAP) as a function of time;”], a quantity characterizing the duration of the passage of said at least one blade in front of said at least one proximity sensor [Diamond, Pg. 9, Ln. 6-12 – “In general terms, it is known that a proximity probe reacts to the presence of rotor blade tips as they pass underneath the probe. If the presence of the rotor tip is short lived, due to a faster rotational speed, it stands to reason that the proximity probe signal pulse will span over a short interval. This is true if one is working in the time domain. If, however, the signal can be order tracked, the angular position and width of these pulses will nominally be constant. Each revolution of the shaft will therefore, given the absence of rotor blade vibration and noise, appear identical in the order domain.” – proximity probe signal pulse is quantity characterizing duration of passage of said at least one blade],
a monitoring module configured to monitor the vibratory behavior of said at least one blade from frequencies and/or amplitudes and/or phases of the sinusoidal signals forming said approximation signal [Diamond, Pg. 4, Ln. 24-31 – “performing, by the control module, a pulse localisation process, which includes: filtering, by the control module using a complex filter, the proximity signal yielding a complex-valued response; expressing, by the control module, the complex-valued response in terms of a local amplitude and phase; and calculating, by the control module, local phase shifts between each expressed signal and a reference signal, thereby to calculate the blade tip deflection characteristics.” - pulse amplitude and phase are being considered] and said quantity characterizing the duration of the passage of said at least one blade in front of said at least one proximity sensor [Diamond, Pg. 4, Ln. 14-16 – “…calculating, by a control module based on measurements by at least one shaft encoder or derivation from proximity probe measurements, a shaft Instantaneous Angular Position (IAP) as a function of time;”; Diamond, Pg. 9, Ln. 6-9 – “In general terms, it is known that a proximity probe reacts to the presence of rotor blade tips as they pass underneath the probe. If the presence of the rotor tip is short lived, due to a faster rotational speed, it stands to reason that the proximity probe signal pulse will span over a short interval.”], and
a determination module configured to determine, based on said quantity characterizing the duration of the passage of said at least one blade in front of said at least one proximity sensor, that the at least one blade is defective [Pg. 4, Ln. 33-Pg. 5 Ln. 3 – “Order tracking may be performed on the proximity signals and the shaft IAP in order to convert the measured signals from having constant time increments to constant angular increments. Methods exist to perform order tracking, some more complicated than others [14, 15, 1 6]. The method may include raising an alert in response to the estimated deflection characteristics exceeding a first threshold (e.g., a maintenance threshold). The method may include raising an alert by sending an alert message to a designated recipient (e.g., a plant administrator). The method may include automatically stopping the turbomachine in response to the calculated blade tip deflection characteristics exceeding a second threshold (e.g., a failure threshold). The control module may be connected to a control system of the turbomachine. The method may include sending, by the control module, an interrupt message to the control system of the turbomachine.” – see above for passage of blade].
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Diamond and Pla discloses the system for monitoring a turbomachine [Diamond, Pg. 8, Ln. 11-12 – “FIG. 2 illustrates a system 200 configured to determine or estimate blade tip deflection characteristics of moving rotor blades in a turbomachine.”], said system including acquisition means including at least one fixed proximity sensor and configured to: acquire at least one analog time signal representative of a passage of at least one blade of a rotor equipping the turbomachine in front of said at least one proximity sensor [Diamond, Pg. 4 Ln. 10-13 – “and at least one proximity probe mounted to the housing, the method including: measuring, by the proximity sensor, a proximity signal caused by a presence of a proximate tip of a moving rotor blade;” – see also the analog signals in Figs. [5a], [5c], and [7]], said at least one proximity sensor being characterized by a response time adapted to the time signal being representative of the progressiveness of appearance and disappearance of said at least one blade during its passage [Diamond, Pg. 3 Ln. 35 – Pg. 4 Ln. 5 – “It is also imperative for the sampling rate of the data acquisition system to be high enough. It has already been demonstrated in Eq. (3) that a timing resolution of 1 ps (corresponding to a sampling rate of 1 MHz) can result in a large tip deflection measurement error. It is for this reason that commercial BTT systems often report immensely high sampling rates. Some of the highest sampling rates reported in literature are 500 MHz [8] and 100 MHz [9]. These sampling rates are generally regarded as very high and require specialized data acquisition hardware. Although such data acquisition systems are available, they are not prevalent and can be prohibitively expensive. This is especially the case if several proximity probe signals must be sampled simultaneously.” – see also Fig. [1], which is prior art showing the time of arrival of the rotor blade tip],
sample said at least one time signal into a plurality of samples, said system further including a monitoring device according to claim 12 [Diamond, Pg. 4, Ln. 12-18 – “measuring, by the proximity sensor, a proximity signal caused by a presence of a proximate tip of a moving rotor blade; calculating, by a control module based on measurements by at least one shaft encoder or derivation from proximity probe measurements, a shaft Instantaneous Angular Position (IAP) as a function of time; storing, in a memory module, at least temporarily, a plurality of measured proximity signals and associated shaft lAPs;” – plurality of proximity signals and IAPs are sampled during the measurement by the proximity sensor].
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Diamond and Pla discloses an aircraft including a turbomachine equipped with a rotor provided with blades as well as a monitoring system according to claim 3 [Pla, Col. 4, Ln. 33-51 – “Step e) is portrayed in block 18 of FIG. 1 as "Adjust Phase Angles To Optimum Values". Step e) includes adjusting each rotating machine's relative phase angle to its associated optimum relative phase angle calculated in step d)...Typically, the system continuously monitors its performance, making small adjustments to ensure optimum conditions. For significant changes in operating conditions (to be determined by experimentation, such as aircraft configuration and flight conditions when the rotating machines are aircraft engines), it might be necessary to re-initialize the system. In that case, steps a) through d) are performed again.” – see also Fig. [1] and Fig. [2], where air craft engines 20, 22, 24, and 26 are pictured with rotating blades].
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diamond et. al. in view of Pla et. al., in further view of Li et. al, Adaptive Iterative Approach for Efficient Signal Processing of Blade Tip Timing, IEEE, 2021 [hereinafter “Li”].
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Diamond and Pla discloses the method according to claim 1.
The combination does not disclose wherein the deviation between said calculated deflections and said approximation signal is evaluated by means of a norm |p, p being a strictly positive real number.
However, Li discloses wherein the deviation between said calculated deflections and said approximation signal is evaluated by means of a norm Ip, p being a strictly positive real number [Li, Section 2c – “The LS fitting criterion in (4) can be rewritten in the following vector form (for f=fk ): ∥y−Akθk∥2,k=1,…,K where ∥⋅∥ denotes the Euclidean norm. The LS estimation of θk can be written as θ^k=(ATkAk)−1ATky. In practice, y in (14) can be a signal combining with multiple frequency components and noise. Here, we do not consider the noise explicitly. Instead, the contribution of noise is considered according to the spectrum.” – see also Eq. [14] and note that this is the approximation signal].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to evaluate the deflections and approximation signal disclosed by Diamond and Pla using the vector norm of Li in order to improve calculations of the deviation between the two values.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Diamond, Pla, and Li discloses the method according to claim 4, wherein the index p of the norm Ip is strictly comprised between 0 and 2 [Li, Section 2c – “The LS fitting criterion in (4) can be rewritten in the following vector form (for f=fk ): ∥y−Akθk∥2,k=1,…,K where ∥⋅∥ denotes the Euclidean norm. The LS estimation of θk can be written as θ^k=(ATkAk)−1ATky. In practice, y in (14) can be a signal combining with multiple frequency components and noise. Here, we do not consider the noise explicitly. Instead, the contribution of noise is considered according to the spectrum.” – see also Eq. [14] and note that p=2].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diamond et. al. in view of Pla et. al., in further view of Gwashavanhu et. al, A Rotating blade vibration analysis using photogrammetry and tracking laser Doppler vibrometry, Elsevier, 2016 [hereinafter “Gwashavanhu”].
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Diamond and Pla discloses the method according to claim 1.
Although Diamond discloses proximity probe images, the combination does not explicitly disclose wherein said at least one sensor is an optical sensor.
However, Gwashavanhu discloses wherein said at least one sensor is an optical sensor [Abstract, Paragraphs 2-3 – “Advances in technology now allow for the use of optical non-contact methods to analyse the dynamics of rotating structures. These include photogrammetry and tracking laser Doppler vibrometry (TLDV)….Through a frequency based characterisation approach of the dynamics of the two scanning mirrors inside the scanning head of a scanning laser Doppler vibrometer (SLDV), TLDV is employed in developing a system that can be used to achieve a perfect circular scan with a Polytec SLDV, (PSV 300). Photogrammetry out-of-plane displacements of a laser dot focused on a specific point on a rotating blade are compared to displacements captured by the laser scanning system…”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the optical sensor of Gwashavanhu as one of the proximity monitors in the method of Diamond and Pla in order to better monitor and analyze the vibratory behavior of the blades.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
119
512
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The objections to the claims are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image2.png
408
515
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner agrees. Rejections of Claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image3.png
174
510
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
53
500
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner agrees. Rejections of Claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image5.png
434
526
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. No detail is recited regarding how the defect is determined or how the determination is used to improve the monitoring method. The claim limitation is written so broadly that the determination of a defect can amount to mentally deciding whether or not the data gathered by the sensor, which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity as per the previous discussion, meets some standard value or trend. Accordingly, this limitation is a mental process.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image6.png
149
505
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
112
498
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Diamond is not relied upon for “minimizing a cost function…” Rather, the cost function of Pla is used to address this limitation. Further, Diamond does disclose “calculating from samples…” and “monitoring the vibratory behavior…” as demonstrated in the rejection of Claims 1 and 12 above.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image8.png
292
519
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
266
518
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
410
509
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Pla is not relied upon for the “calculating…” and “monitoring…” limitations recited above. Rather, Diamond does disclose these limitations, as demonstrated in the rejections of Claims 1 and 12.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20240027302 A1, METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR DETERMINING ONE OR MORE DEFECTS IN A ROTATING MACHINE OF AN AIRCRAFT
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 JANELLE A HOLMES whose telephone number is (571)272-4336. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 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, Arleen M Vazquez can be reached at (571) 272-2619. 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.
/J.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights