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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9, 11-13, and 15-20 are pending. Claims 10 and 14 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p.7, filed 04/07/2026, with respect to the rejection of Claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the cancellation of Claim 14. Therefore, the rejection of Claim 14 under this section of the Rules has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see p.7, filed 04/07/2026, with respect to the rejection of Claims 8, 12-13, 16, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of Claims 8, 12-13, 16, and 20 under this section of the Rules has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see p.7-14, filed 04/07/2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-9, 11-13, and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are moot because Applicant’s amendments of the independent claims has altered the scope of the claims, and therefore, necessitated new grounds of rejection which are presented below.
However, Applicant argues that the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based on improper hindsight reasoning since there is no reasonable rationale articulated to modify the cited references. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagrees due to a reasonable rationale articulated to modify each of the cited references. The instant application is in the field of image processing, and in particular, the determination and support for processing damaged blades. Eastment is in an analogous field of endeavor of image processing for detecting blade damage on a turbine, and Eastment, Para. 5, teaches the motivation of combination to be to improve the diagnosing and detecting of foreign object damage and domestic object damage. Finn is in an analogous field of endeavor of image processing of blade shapes, and Finn, Para. 4, teaches the motivation of combination to be to improve defect detection. Jensen is in an analogous field of endeavor of image processing for repair of the damage around a leading edge of a blade, and Jensen, Para. 6, teaches the motivation of combination to be to improve the speed and precision of turbine blade maintenance. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Therefore, the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is not based on improper hindsight reasoning since there is reasonable rationale articulated to modify the cited references as well as only taking into account knowledge within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made without gleaning knowledge from the applicant’s disclosure.
Furthermore, Applicant argues that the disclosure of Eastment relates to engine condition monitoring and is silent to the generation of repair data for use by a technician, and therefore, a person skilled in the art cannot be expected to combine such a disclosure with a simple repair teaching as that of Tanner. Examiner respectfully disagrees due to Eastment being directed to simply teaching the capturing of an image of a damaged blade area. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Eastment, Para. 5, teaches the motivation of combination to be to improve the diagnosing and detecting of foreign and domestic object damage. Therefore, it would be reasonable for a person skilled in the art to combine the disclosure of Tanner in the field of processing a damaged area of a blade with the disclosure of Eastment in the field of capturing images of the damaged area of a blade to improve diagnostics and detection of damage.
Additionally, Applicant argues that Finn does not disclose that a "contour for processing" is determined or used in which Finn discloses overlaying the blade image data with a 3-D CAD model of the shape of the blade. Applicant further argues that such a contour of an undamaged blade would be helpful for additive repair, it would not be fundamentally useful in the field of mechanical processing or removal or material. Examiner respectfully disagrees due to Finn being direct to simply teach the claim language "Generating output image data with a superimposition of the first image and the contour for processing” in which Finn, Para. 26, teaches image data of a blade may be overlaid on a 3D CAD model of the shape of the blade wherein the shape of the 3D model may be fit to the image of the blade, i.e., output image data is generated being the overlaid or superimposed image data and the fit shape of the 3D model being the contour. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore, Finn discloses an output image data with a superimposition of the first image and the contour wherein the combination of references teaches the use of the contour for mechanical processing.
Lastly, Applicant argues that Jensen does not disclose "mechanically processing a damaged area" or outputting any image data for mechanical processing "along a contour for processing". Applicant further argues that the damaged area itself is only cleaned and filled with one or more layers of coating, so it is not mechanically processed. Additionally, Applicant argues that the sanding down, cleaning, and filling measures do not require operating "along" any "contour for processing" and that the reference cannot be understood to suggest that the image data is used for processing along any contour and that the image data will simply be used to locate the damaged area. Examiner respectfully disagrees due to Jensen, Para. 53, teaching a method for automatically repairing damage around a leading edge of a blade wherein the method includes scanning the blade to image the damaged area, sanding down a surface of the blade around the damaged area and cleaning the same, and repairing the damage, i.e., scanning the blade for imaging is image data that enables the mechanical processing of the blade being the sanding of the surface blade along the contour for processing being the damaged leading edge of the blade. Therefore, Jensen discloses the mechanically processing a damaged area by teaching sanding down the surface of the blade, and Jensen discloses the mechanical processing being “along a contour for processing” due to the method involving the repair of damage around a leading edge of a turbine blade. The method of Jensen teaches the repair of damage around a leading edge in which the blade is scanned to image the damaged area around the leading edge and then sanding down and repairing the damage; therefore, it is logical to state that the sanding down measure operates along the leading edge or contour of the blade for processing. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-9, 12, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanner et al. (US 20050033555 A1) in view of Eastment (US 20200056501 A1), Finn et al. (US 20160314571 A1), Jensen et al. (US 20230048890 A1), and Becker et al. (US 20100209247 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Tanner teaches "A method for supporting processing of damage to a blading of a turbomachine having a plurality of blades, the method comprising: Determining a contour for processing for mechanically processing a damaged area of a first blade of the blading"; (Tanner, Abstract and Paras. 16 and 28-29, teaches generating a proposed blade repair geometry based on the blade damage measurements and the selected blade damage geometry category which guides a technician when machining the damaged blade and wherein the system determines whether the repair geometry should be triangular in shape or rectangular in shape depending on predetermined criteria for blade repair and the dimension of the damaged area of the blade in which there are established repair outlines, i.e., determine a contour for mechanically processing a damaged area of a blade of the blading).
However, Tanner does not explicitly teach "Capturing a first image of a blade area of the first blade having the damaged area; Generating output image data with a superimposition of the first image and the contour for processing; Outputting the output image data to enable mechanical processing of the first blade along the contour for processing; and Determining an imbalance parameter of the turbomachine depending on at least the contour for processing”.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Eastment teaches "Capturing a first image of a blade area of the first blade having the damaged area"; (Eastment, Abstract, teaches a method of detecting blade damage on a turbine by taking an image of a rotor blade and processing the image to produce a blade profile using an edge detection algorithm and determining a rotor blade error by comparing the blade profile with a geometric model of a corresponding blade, i.e., capturing a first image of a blade area of a first blade having a damaged area).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Tanner by including the capturing of an image of the blade area having the damage taught by Eastment. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it improves the diagnosing of damage (Eastment, Para. 5, teaches the motivation of combination to be to improve the diagnosing and detecting of foreign object damage and domestic object damage).
However, the combination of references of Tanner in view of Eastment does not explicitly teach “Generating output image data with a superimposition of the first image and the contour for processing; Outputting the output image data to enable mechanical processing of the first blade along the contour for processing; and Determining an imbalance parameter of the turbomachine depending on at least the contour for processing”.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Finn teaches "Generating output image data with a superimposition of the first image and the contour for processing"; (Finn, Para. 26, teaches image data of a blade may be overlaid on a 3D CAD model of the shape of the blade wherein the shape of the 3D model may be fit to the image of the blade, i.e., generate output image data with a superimposition of the first image of the blade that is damaged and the contour for processing being the shape of the 3D model).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Tanner and Eastment by including the superimposition of the image and the contour for processing taught by Finn. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it improves defect detection (Finn, Para. 4, teaches the motivation of combination to be to improve defect detection).
However, the combination of references of Tanner in view of Eastment and Finn does not explicitly teach “Outputting the output image data to enable mechanical processing of the first blade along the contour for processing; and Determining an imbalance parameter of the turbomachine depending on at least the contour for processing”.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Jensen teaches "Outputting the output image data to enable mechanical processing of the first blade along the contour for processing"; (Jensen, Para. 53, teaches automatically repairing damage around a leading edge of a turbine blade wherein the method includes scanning the blade to image the damaged area, sanding down a surface of the blade around the damaged area and cleaning the same, and then repairing the damage, i.e., image data is output to enable mechanical processing or repair of the blade along the contour or leading edge).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Tanner, Eastment, and Finn wherein the output image data is a superimposition of the first image of a blade area with the damaged are and the contour by including the output of the image data to enable mechanical processing of the blade along the contour taught by Jensen. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it improves the speed and precision of maintenance (Jensen, Para. 6, teaches the motivation of combination to be to improve the speed and precision of turbine blade maintenance).
However, the combination of references of Tanner in view of Eastment, Finn, and Jensen does not explicitly teach "and Determining an imbalance parameter of the turbomachine depending on at least the contour for processing ".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Becker teaches "and Determining an imbalance parameter of the turbomachine depending on at least the contour for processing"; (Becker, Paras. 5, 27, and 30, teaches aerodynamic imbalances may arise because of blade angle errors, unequal rotor blade profile shapes, and rotor blade damage wherein minimization of the imbalances of the rotor is desirable and wherein the bending and/or rotation of the blade relative to the longitudinal axis of the blade is determined from the signals from the inclinometer arrangements for each blade, from which then conclusions are drawn on a mass imbalance and an aerodynamic imbalance of the respective rotor blade in which the controller takes into consideration input signals being representative of the detected rotor imbalance of the respective blade and the controller assists in the compensation of imbalances of the rotor, i.e., an imbalance parameter is determined based on input signals depending on unequal rotor blade profile shapes and rotor blade damage being the contour).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Tanner in view of Eastment, Finn, and Jensen by including the determination of an imbalance parameter of the turbomachine depending on the contour for processing taught by Becker. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it prevents the reduction of service life of the turbine (Becker, Para. 5, teaches the motivation of combination to minimize the imbalances of the rotor to prevent reduced service life of the turbine).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of references of Tanner in view of Eastment, Finn, Jensen, and Becker teaches "The method according to claim 1, wherein an identification for assigning a positioning of the first blade in the turbomachine is recognized at least before or during the capturing of the first image"; (Eastment, Paras. 56-58, teaches the controller can request an image from the camera based on the expected position of the rotor wherein the controller calculates the expected position from extrapolating from a historical position using the time elapses since the historical position and the rotational speed of the rotor, i.e., identification for assigning a positioning of the blade in the turbomachine before or during the capturing of the image).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Tanner, Eastment, Finn, Jensen, and Becker references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, applies to claim 2. Thus, the method recited in claim 2 is met by Tanner in view of Eastment, Finn, Jensen, and Becker.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of references of Tanner in view of Eastment, Finn, Jensen, and Becker teaches "The method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: Performing a data acquisition process for capturing data from at least one of the blades of a blade ring of the turbomachine"; (Finn, Paras. 11 and 16, teaches a processing unit to automatically process the images to determine whether there are any defects or potential defects within any of the blades of the turbines or engines and whether there are any changes/propagations of defects from previous inspections including information such as the type of defect, the location of the defect, and the size of the defect, i.e., perform data acquisition to capture data from at least one of the blades of the blade ring of the turbomachine).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Tanner, Eastment, Finn, Jensen, and Becker references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, applies to claim 3. Thus, the method recited in claim 3 is met by Tanner in view of Eastment, Finn, Jensen, and Becker.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of references of Tanner in view of Eastment, Finn, Jensen, and Becker teaches "The method according to claim 1, wherein geometry data, of the first blade is recognized at least during the capturing of the first image or during data acquisition process"; (Eastment, Abstract and Para. 16, teaches taking an image of a rotor blade and processing the image to produce a blade profile using an edge detection algorithm wherein the profile of the blade may be converted into a plurality of three dimensionally located data points, i.e., geometry data of the blade is recognized during the capturing of the image or during data acquisition being the conversion into 3D data points of the blade profile).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Tanner, Eastment, Finn, Jensen, and Becker references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, applies to claim 4. Thus, the method recited in claim 4 is met by Tanner in view of Eastment, Finn, Jensen, and Becker.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of references of Tanner in view of Eastment, Finn, Jensen, and Becker teaches "The method according to claim 1, wherein an outer shape contour of the blade area is recognized during the capturing of the first image"; (Eastment, Abstract and Paras. 20-21, teaches taking an image of a rotor blade and processing the image to produce a blade profile comprising the leading edge or trailing edge of the blade, i.e., outer shape contour of the blade area is recognized during image capture);
"wherein at least the determination of the contour for processing or the superimposition of the first image with the contour for processing takes place depending on the shape contour"; (Eastment, Abstract and Paras. 20-21, teaches taking an image of a rotor blade and processing the image to produce a blade profile using an edge detection wherein the profile of the blade comprises only the leading or trailing edge of the blade to reduce processing time, i.e., determination of contour being the blade profile depends on the shape contour being the outer shape of the leading or trailing edge).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Tanner, Eastment, Finn, Jensen, and Becker references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, applies to claim 5. Thus, the method recited in claim 5 is met by Tanner in view of Eastment, Finn, Jensen, and Becker.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of references of Tanner in view of Eastment, Finn, Jensen, and Becker teaches "The method according to claim 1, wherein, depending on geometry data, when the first image and the contour for processing are superimposed, the contour for processing is aligned with the damaged area in the output image data"; (Finn, Paras. 26-28, teaches image data of a blade may be overlaid on a 3D CAD model of the shape of the blade wherein the shape of the 3D model may be fit to the image of the blade wherein a possible defect detected via the comparison between the image data of a blade overlaid on the 3D CAD model of the shape of the blade may then trigger analysis of the manufacturing record of the blade, i.e., contour for processing is aligned or fit with the damaged area of the blade image when the image and contour are superimposed depending on the geometry data or shapes of the blades).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Tanner, Eastment, Finn, Jensen, and Becker references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, applies to claim 6. Thus, the method recited in claim 6 is met by Tanner in view of Eastment, Finn, Jensen, and Becker.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of references of Tanner in view of Eastment, Finn, Jensen, and Becker teaches "The method according to claim 1, wherein a damage analysis process for automatically evaluating the damaged area is performed and taken into account when determining the contour for processing"; (Tanner, Abstract, teaches selecting a blade damage geometry category corresponding to the damage of the blade from a plurality of blade damage geometry categories and measuring the blade damage and generating a repair geometry for the blade based on the blade damage measurements and the selected blade damage geometry category, i.e., automatically evaluate the damaged area being the measuring of the blade damage and take it into account when determining the contour for processing being the generation of the repair geometry based on the blade damage measurements)
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of references of Tanner in view of Eastment, Finn, Jensen, and Becker teaches "The method according to claim 1, wherein the determination of the contour for processing comprises a calculation of the contour for processing taking into account the damaged area and geometry data"; (Tanner, Abstract, teaches selecting a blade damage geometry category corresponding to the damage of the blade from a plurality of blade damage geometry categories and measuring the blade damage and generating a repair geometry for the blade based on the blade damage measurements and the selected blade damage geometry category, i.e., determining the contour for processing comprises a calculation of the contour by taking into account the damaged area and the geometry data being the generation of repair geometry for the blade based on the blade damage measurements and the selected blade damage geometry category).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of references of Tanner in view of Eastment, Finn, Jensen, and Becker teaches "The method according to claim 1, wherein machine-specific processing data of the turbomachine are read out from a database in order to determine the contour for processing"; (Tanner, Para. 6, teaches using a computer system accessing a database of blade repair information including the generation of the repair geometry for the blade based on the blade damage measurements and the selected blade damage geometry category, i.e., machine specific processing data of the turbomachine is read out from a database to determine the contour).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of references of Tanner in view of Eastment, Finn, Jensen, and Becker teaches "The method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: Determining an additional contour for processing a second blade (Eastment, Paras. 24-25, teaches the geometric model may be a blade profile of a second blade and processing a second blade profile using an edge detection algorithm and comparing the blade profiles to process a rotor blade error, i.e., determine an additional contour for processing of a second blade);
"The method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: Determining an a (Tanner, Abstract and Paras. 16 and 28-29, teaches generating a proposed blade repair geometry based on the blade damage measurements and the selected blade damage geometry category which guides a technician when machining the damaged blade and wherein the system determines whether the repair geometry should be triangular in shape or rectangular in shape depending on predetermined criteria for blade repair and the dimension of the damaged area of the blade in which there are established repair outlines, i.e., determine a contour for mechanically processing a damaged area of a blade depending on the contour);
"Capturing a second image of at least one region of the second blade"; (Eastment, Para. 73, teaches a second image of a second blade is taken at a later time step, i.e., capturing a second image of at least one region of the second blade);
"Generating further output image data with a superimposition of the second image with the additional contour for processing"; (Finn, Paras. 25-28, teaches receiving updates to the image based defect data and the image or video data of a plurality of blades wherein the image data of a blade may be overlaid on a 3D CAD model of the shape of the blade wherein the shape of the 3D model may be fit to the image of the blade wherein the detection of possible defects may trigger analysis to see a defect trend persisting across a family of similar or different blades, i.e., generate output image data with a superimposition of the additional image for a plurality of the blades that is damaged and the contour for processing being the shape of the 3D model);
"Outputting the further output image data to enable the additional processing of the second blade along the additional contour for processing"; (Jensen, Paras. 15 and 53, teaches automatically repairing damage around a leading edge of turbine blades wherein the method includes scanning the blade to image the damaged area, sanding down a surface of the blade around the damaged area and cleaning the same, and then repairing the damage, i.e., image data is output to enable mechanical processing or repair of the blades along the contour or leading edge).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Tanner, Eastment, Finn, Jensen, and Becker references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, applies to claim 12. Thus, the method recited in claim 12 is met by Tanner in view of Eastment, Finn, Jensen, and Becker.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of references of Tanner in view of Eastment, Finn, Jensen, and Becker teaches "A system for supporting the processing of damage to a blading of a turbomachine having a plurality of blades, comprising: a display device for displaying output image data, and a computing device for executing a method according to claim 1"; (Eastment, Paras. 82-83 and 87, teaches a visual display to convey information to a user and a controller comprising circuitry to perform the methods, i.e., display device for displaying output image data and a computing device).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Tanner, Eastment, Finn, Jensen, and Becker references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, applies to claim 15. Thus, the method recited in claim 15 is met by Tanner in view of Eastment, Finn, Jensen, and Becker.
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of references of Tanner in view of Eastment, Finn, Jensen, and Becker teaches "The method according to claim 2, wherein the identification is recognized during data acquisition process"; (Eastment, Paras. 56-58, teaches the controller can request and received the rotor position and speed and the controller can request an image from the camera based on the expected position of the rotor wherein the controller calculates the expected position from extrapolating from a historical position using the time elapses since the historical position and the rotational speed of the rotor, i.e., identification for assigning a positioning of the blade in the turbomachine is recognized during data acquisition being the acquisition of the blade position and speed).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Tanner, Eastment, Finn, Jensen, and Becker references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, applies to claim 16. Thus, the method recited in claim 16 is met by Tanner in view of Eastment, Finn, Jensen, and Becker.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of references of Tanner in view of Eastment, Finn, Jensen, and Becker teaches "The method according to claim 4, wherein the geometry data is in a form of three-dimensional geometry data"; (Eastment, Abstract and Para. 16, teaches taking an image of a rotor blade and processing the image to produce a blade profile using an edge detection algorithm wherein the profile of the blade may be converted into a plurality of three dimensionally located data points, i.e., geometry data of the blade is in the form of 3D geometry data).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Tanner, Eastment, Finn, Jensen, and Becker references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, applies to claim 17. Thus, the method recited in claim 17 is met by Tanner in view of Eastment, Finn, Jensen, and Becker.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of references of Tanner in view of Eastment, Finn, Jensen, and Becker teaches "The method according to claim 7, wherein a geometry parameter is compared with at least one geometry threshold value"; (Eastment, Paras. 75-76, teaches comparing the 3D data points in the blade profile to the closest 3D data points in the geometric model and comparing the deviation to a threshold, i.e., geometry parameter is compared with a threshold).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Tanner, Eastment, Finn, Jensen, and Becker references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, applies to claim 18. Thus, the method recited in claim 18 is met by Tanner in view of Eastment, Finn, Jensen, and Becker.
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanner in view of Eastment, Finn, Jensen, Becker, and Davis et al. (US 20020125215 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of references of Tanner in view of Eastment, Finn, Jensen, and Becker does not explicitly teach "The method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: Determining a second blade of the blading for additional processing depending on the imbalance parameter".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Davis teaches "The method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: Determining a second blade of the blading for additional processing depending on the imbalance parameter"; (Davis, FIG. 3 and Abstract, teaches a method for chemical milling of a gas turbine engine blisk having a hub and a plurality of blades for the purpose of changing the dimensional characteristics of the plurality of blades wherein the blades are treated with a chemical etchant of the metal to correct the rotationally imbalanced blisk, i.e., additional blades or a second blade undergo additional processing depending on the imbalance of the blisk).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Tanner, Eastment, Finn, Jensen, and Becker by including the determination of a second blade for additional processing depending on the imbalance taught by Davis. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it prevents the increase of stress (Davis, Para. 5, teaches the motivation of combination to be to prevent the increase of overall system stresses).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of references of Tanner in view of Eastment, Finn, Jensen, Becker, and Davis teaches "The method according to claim 11, wherein the second blade is determined depending on data acquisition process"; (Finn, Paras. 11 and 16, teaches a processing unit to automatically process the images to determine whether there are any defects or potential defects within any of the blades of the turbines or engines and whether there are any changes/propagations of defects from previous inspections including information such as the type of defect, the location of the defect, and the size of the defect, i.e., perform data acquisition to capture data from additional blades or a second blade).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Tanner, Eastment, Finn, Jensen, and Becker references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, applies to claim 19. Thus, the method recited in claim 19 is met by Tanner in view of Eastment, Finn, Jensen, Becker, and Davis.
Claims 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanner in view of Eastment, Finn, Jensen, Becker, and Reese et al. (US 20160236414 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of references of Tanner in view of Eastment, Finn, Jensen, and Becker does not explicitly teach "The method according to claim 1, wherein geometry data is updated after processing only for processed blades (11.1, 11.2)".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Reese teaches "The method according to claim 1, wherein geometry data is updated after processing only for processed blades (11.1, 11.2)"; (Reese, Abstract and Para. 41, teaches updating the printed object model along with slicing parameters and tool path instructions after repairing defects wherein the object model is of a 3D object that displays in 3D space the structural geometry and inherent properties of an object, i.e., geometry data is updated after processing the objects).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Tanner, Eastment, Finn, Jensen, and Becker wherein the object is a blade of a turbomachine after processing by including the updating of geometry data after processing of the objects taught by Reese. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it improves the printing process (Reese, Abstract, teaches the motivation of combination to be to improve printing process for subsequent objects).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of references of Tanner in view of Eastment, Finn, Jensen, Becker, and Reese teaches "The method according to claim 12, wherein the geometry data is updated after processing only for the first and second blades"; (Reese, Abstract and Para. 41, teaches updating the printed object model along with slicing parameters and tool path instructions after repairing defects wherein the object model is of a 3D object that displays in 3D space the structural geometry and inherent properties of an object, i.e., geometry data is updated after processing the objects).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Tanner, Eastment, Finn, Jensen, Becker, and Reese references presented in the rejection of Claim 13, applies to claim 20. Thus, the method recited in claim 20 is met by Tanner in view of Eastment, Finn, Jensen, Becker, and Reese.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 ANDREW STEVEN BUDISALICH whose telephone number is (703)756-5568. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amandeep Saini can be reached on (571) 272-3382. 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.
/ANDREW S BUDISALICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights