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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 5, 7-8, 11, 13, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0102827 A1 (hereinafter: ‘827) in view of Chen, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0231334 A1 (hereinafter: ‘334).
As per claim 1, ‘827 discloses a method comprising:
generating a digital representation of a component, wherein the digital representation is based on geometrical dimensions of a component (e.g., See ‘827; [0005], which discloses generating a finite element model of a damaged component from measurements of the damaged component);
identifying at least one region of a plurality of regions within the digital representation of the component as showing damage to the component, wherein the at least one region includes a boundary (e.g., See ‘827; [0042], which discloses applying a blending mask to a location of wear on a computer simulation, with the blending mask identifying a portion associated with the wear);
executing a process within the plurality of regions of the digital representation using a labeled finite element model having the at least one region showing the damage to the component (e.g., See ‘827; [0050] – [0051], which discloses using the damaged component finite element model that reflects specific damage or wear in a Calculate Blend Solution step to determine a suggested blend procedure including a blend location and blend depth); and
generating an output file having the damage removed within the at least one region of the digital representation (e.g., See ‘827; [0051] – [0052], which discloses generating a finite element model of an expected resultant component representing an expected repaired component profile after the suggested blend procedure).
However, ‘827 does not specifically disclose executing a morphing process within the plurality of regions or applying a displacement field on the plurality of regions.
‘334 discloses these missing features by disclosing a CAD free morphing process that directly deforms a 3D CAE mesh model (e.g. See ‘334; [0004]) and applying a maximum displacement to affected mesh nodes in a region and deforming the rest of the region by scaling the maximum deformation (e.g., See ‘334; [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teachings of ‘334 into ‘827 for the purpose of distributing deformation across an affected mesh region to control alteration smoothness, thereby providing the smooth and gradual blend transition desired by ‘827.
As per claim 2, ‘827 in view of ‘334 further discloses interpolating based on a node location within the at least one region (e.g., See ‘334; [0065], which discloses interpolating a parameter value for an affected 3D mesh node based on the nodes projected location and surrounding 2D mesh nodes with in the region).
As per claim 3., ‘827 in view of ‘334 further discloses executing the morphing process based on the node location (e.g., See ‘334; [0065] and [0068], which disclose transforming the 3D mesh feature using the interpolated parameter value assigned to the affected 3D mesh node based on the nodes projected location).
As per claim 5, ‘827 in view of ‘334 further discloses smoothing the at least one region of the digital representation using the morphing process (e.g., See ‘334; [0015], which discloses controlling the smoothness of alternation of the affected region of the 3d CAE mesh model during the morphing process).
As per claim 7, ‘827 in view of ‘334 further discloses generating a new digital representation of the component prior to the damage (e.g., See ‘827; [0050], which discloses an original finite element model of an ideal component, and ‘334; [0032], which discloses generating a computer-generated geometric model through CAD, CAM, or CAE techniques).
As per claim 8, ‘827 in view of ‘334 further discloses the component is a blade of a bladed rotor (e.g., See ‘827; [0038] and [0062], which disclose applying the repair process to an individual airfoil blade of the integrally bladed rotor).
As per claim 11, ‘827 discloses a method comprising:
generating a digital representation of a blade or a bladed rotor having damage, wherein the digital representation is based on geometrical dimensions of a component (e.g., See ‘827; [0017] and [0038], which disclose generating a finite element model of a damaged integrally bladed rotor from measurements of the damaged integrally bladed rotor, the rotor having multiple airfoil blades);
marking a boundary around the damage to the blade within the digital representation (e.g., See ‘827; [0042], which discloses applying a blending mask to a location of wear on a computer simulation, with the blending mask identifying a portion associated with the wear);
identifying a region based on the boundary within the digital representation of the blade showing the damage (e.g., See ‘827; [0042], which discloses identifying the portion associated with the wear based on the blending mask);
executing a process within the plurality of regions of the digital representation using a labeled finite element model having the region showing the damage to the component (e.g., See ‘827; [0050] – [0051], which disclose using the damaged component finite element model that reflects specific damage or wear in a Calculate Blend Solution step to determine a suggested blend procedure including a blend location and blend depth); and
generating a new digital representation of the blade having the damage removed (e.g., See ‘827; [0051] – [0052], which discloses generating a finite element model of an expected resultant component representing an expected repaired component profile after the suggested blend procedure).
However, ‘827 does not specifically disclose interpolating based on a node location within the boundary of the region, executing a morphing process within the plurality of regions, or applying a displacement field on the plurality of regions.
‘334 discloses these missing features by disclosing interpolating values for 3D mesh nodes projected interior to a 2D mesh boundary curve (e.g., See ‘334; [0073]), a CAD free morphing process that directly deforms a 3D CAE mesh model (e.g. See ‘334; [0004]), and applying a maximum displacement to affected mesh nodes in a region and deforming the rest of the region by scaling the maximum deformation (e.g., See ‘334; [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teachings of ‘334 into ‘827 for the purpose of distributing deformation across an affected mesh region to control alteration smoothness, thereby providing the smooth and gradual blend transition desired by ‘827.
As per claim 13, the rationale as set forth above with respect to the rejection of claim 5, from above, is incorporated by reference.
As per claim 15, the rationale as set forth above with respect to the rejection of claim 1, from above, is incorporated by reference since claim 15 recites corresponding limitations in computer readable medium form. ‘334 further discloses CAE software embedded in computer readable and accessible by a computer system (e.g., See ‘334; [0013]).
As per claim 16, the rationale as set forth above with respect to the rejection of claim 2, from above, is incorporated by reference.
As per claim 17, the rationale as set forth above with respect to the rejection of claim 3, from above, is incorporated by reference.
As per claim 18, the rationale as set forth above with respect to the rejection of claim 5, from above, is incorporated by reference.
As per claim 20, the rationale as set forth above with respect to the rejection of claim 8, from above, is incorporated by reference.
Claims 4, 6, 12, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0102827 A1 (hereinafter: ‘827) in view of Chen, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0231334 A1 (hereinafter: ‘334), as applied to claims 1, 11 and 15, from above, and further in view of Euler, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0297232 A1 (hereinafter: ‘232).
As per claim 4, ‘827 in view of ‘334 does not specifically disclose that the identified at least one region is marked as an interpolation region for an inspection process using the digital representation.
‘232 discloses the missing features by disclosing identifying a potentially defective surface region during inspection, assigning the region between points A and B, and calculating an interpolated intact surface profile within the region based on the surrounding surface profile (e.g., See ‘232; [0036] – [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teachings of ‘232 into ‘827 in view of ‘334 for the purpose of using interpolation within an identified damage region during inspection to distinguish actual surface defects from non-defect indications, thereby improving defect identification.
As per claim 12, the rationale as set forth above with respect to the rejection of claim 4, from above, is incorporated by reference.
As per claim 6, ‘827 in view of ‘334 does not specifically disclose scanning the component into a surface geometry model as the digital representation.
‘232 discloses the missing features by disclosing surveying a turbine blade with a scanner to generate a three-dimensional model of the blade (e.g., See ‘232; [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teachings of ‘232 into ‘827 in view of ‘334 for the purpose of obtaining measured surface geometry of the damaged component for use in the digital model, thereby improving representation of the component geometry.
As per claims 14 and 19, the rationale as set forth above with respect to the rejection of claim 6, from above, is incorporated by reference.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0102827 A1 (hereinafter: ‘827) in view of Chen, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0231334 A1 (hereinafter: ‘334), as applied to claim 1, from above, and further in view of Oxholm, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0118594 A1 (hereinafter: ‘594).
As per claim 9, ‘827 in view of ‘334 does not specifically disclose generating a sequence of intermediate images for the at least one region within the boundary.
‘594 discloses the missing feature by disclosing updating a bounded target region in a first video frame and propagating the change through second and third video frame to generate modified frames across a sequence (e.g., See ‘594; [0025] – [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teachings of ‘594 into ‘827 in view of ‘334 for the purpose of propagating a modified region though a sequence of images to reduce accumulated error, thereby producing a more accurate modified representation.
As per claim 10, ‘827 in view of ‘334 and ‘594 further disclose applying the sequence of intermediate images to the at least one region to remove the damage identified in the digital representation (e.g., See ‘594; [0027], which discloses updating color data within a target region and propagating the change through successive video frames to remove the target object from the region).
References Considered but Not Relied Upon
The following references were considered but were not relied upon with respect to any prior art rejections:
(1) US 8,910,361 B2, which discloses scanning a badly damaged gas turbine part, building a CAD replacement part, and joining the replacement into a cut out portion;
(2) US 9,902,024 B2, which discloses a system using optical inspection and stored geometry as well as damage data to plan machining, welding, and reinspection of aircraft or gas turbine components;
(3) US 8,996,156 B2, which discloses digitizing a damaged machine component, machining a trough using the scan data, rescanning the component, and controlling material buildup from the updated geometry;
(4) US 2023/0315069 A1, which discloses converting bladed rotor scan point clouds into section files, determining blade defects, and adding repair details for later analysis and repair;
(5) US 11,676,007 B2, which discloses building a morphed 3D surface model that removes manufacturing defects by learning from image comparative analysis; and
(6) US 2018/0211373 A1, which discloses capturing partial point clouds, merging them into a 3D model, and dividing the model into regions, and outputting detected defects.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD D HARTMAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3684. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 4:30 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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at (571) 272-4105. 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.
/RONALD D HARTMAN JR/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119 September 24, 2026; /RDH/
