DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-16 of application 18/875,928, filed on 17-December-2024, are presented for examination. The IDS received on the same date has been considered.
The present application, filed on or after 16-March-2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
2.1 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
2.2 As per MPEP § 2111.4, claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(A) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(B) "wherein" clauses; and
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(C) "whereby" clauses.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 283 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding that a "wherein" clause limited a process claim where the clause gave "meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps"). In In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1378, 109 USPQ2d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the court found that an "adapted to" clause limited a machine claim where "the written description makes clear that 'adapted to,' as used in the [patent] application, has a narrower meaning, viz., that the claimed machine is designed or constructed to be used as a rowing machine whereby a pulling force is exerted on the handles." In Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court held that when a "‘whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention." Id. However, the court noted that a "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
2.3 Claims 13-15 are rejected, because the phrase “adapted to” on lines 3, 6 and 7 of claim 13, line 2 of claim 14, and line 6 of claim 15, is optional language that does not further limit the claim to a particular structure. Amending the claims to say “configured to” would obviate the rejection.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
3.1 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
3.2 Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanner et al, USP Publication 2005/0033555.
3.3 Tanner discloses:
Claim 1: A method of repairing a continuous flow engine component providing a damage [¶0001], wherein the method contains the steps of comprising:
identifying the continuous flow engine component based on a unique identifier [0007 (an interactive damaged blade disposition form generated by said computer system, where the disposition form includes data fields for entering blade identification information, damage type and blade damage dimensions); 0021 (The form includes identifying database fields 82, which are linked to the corresponding databases 52, for entering information to identify the machine serial number, customer name, machine size and other identifying information useful in determining the blades that have been damaged…the blade technician enters the blade part number (or numbers if multiple blades are damages) into a database fields 83 for the blade identifying information.)],
retrieving inspection data of the continuous flow engine component from an inspection database containing data of a damage of the continuous flow engine component [0006 (the invention is a method for evaluating a damaged blade in a compressor or turbine using a computer system accessing a database of blade repair information, where the method includes: selecting a blade damage geometry category corresponding to the damage of the blade from a plurality of blade damage geometry categories); 0007 (a system for evaluating a damaged blade in a compressor or turbine having a computer system accessing a database of blade repair information; an interactive damaged blade disposition form generated by said computer system, where the disposition form includes data fields for entering blade identification information, damage type and blade damage dimensions); 0015 (Damaged blades are generally detected when a turbine or compressor is stopped and opened for inspection. During inspection, each row of blades of the turbine and compressor are visually reviewed to determine whether the geometry of any blade has been damaged.); 0024-0025 (By comparing the damaged blade diagrams to the actual blade damage, a technician selects the proper blade damage category…measurements to be made of the damage to the blade, for each type of blade damage.)],
retrieving component data from at least one continuous flow engine component database [0006 (the invention is a method for evaluating a damaged blade in a compressor or turbine using a computer system accessing a database of blade repair information, where the method includes: selecting a blade damage geometry category corresponding to the damage of the blade from a plurality of blade damage geometry categories); 0007 (a system for evaluating a damaged blade in a compressor or turbine having a computer system accessing a database of blade repair information; an interactive damaged blade disposition form generated by said computer system, where the disposition form includes data fields for entering blade identification information, damage type and blade damage dimensions); 0026 (The database of 52 includes information regarding blades and the geometry limits on permissible repairs that may be made by grinding the blade.)],
automatically evaluating the damage of the continuous flow engine component based on the inspection data and the component data [0005 (An automated system has been developed for use in categorizing and evaluating damaged blades of a turbine or compressor…may be implemented in software that automatically generates diagnostic, design and repair information such as damage assessment, blade geometry, performance impact, evaluation); 0006-0007; 0012 (An automated computer software system has been developed to allow an engineer or field technician to categorize the damage on a blade, evaluate whether the blade needs to be or should be repaired, and generate a repair geometry for a damaged turbine or compressor blade.); 0013 (The software package assists in the diagnosis of damaged blades by assisting an engineer or technician to determine whether the damage blade deviates from acceptable dimensions and, if so, whether the blade is repairable.); 0027 (The system 50 determines if the damaged portion of the blade is within repairable limits, in step 68. The measurements of the damaged portions of the blade are compared to the repairable limits to determine if the blade may be repaired while in place on the compressor turbine.)], and
automatically generating an output, wherein the output contains data whether the continuous flow engine component can be repaired [0005 (An automated system has been developed for use in categorizing and evaluating damaged blades of a turbine or compressor, and generating blade repair instructions for repairing the damaged compressor or turbine blades.); 0006 (the invention is a method for evaluating a damaged blade in a compressor or turbine using
a computer system accessing a database of blade repair information…and generating a repair geometry for the blade based on the blade damage measurements and the selected blade damage geometry category.); 0007 (a blade repair geometry form displaying a repair geometry diagram and repair geometry dimensions generated by said computer system based on the blade damage
type and blade damage dimensions entered through said disposition form.); 0016 (The automated damaged blade repair system 50 assists a technician to determine whether a damage blade requires repair and whether the blade is repairable…generates a suggested repair geometry to guide the technician when machining the damaged blade.)] and/or an estimated number of subsequent repairs being possible before the continuous flow engine component is rendered irreparable [0027 (If the damaged portion of the blade exceeds the repairable limits, then the system 50 may advise the technician to extract the damaged blade from the compressor or turbine, and replace the blade or arrange for a customize repair of the blade)].
Claim 2: wherein a repair of the continuous flow engine component utilizes additive manufacturing [0026 (repairs that may be made by grinding the blade); 0027 (the system 50 may advise the technician to extract the damaged blade from the compressor or turbine, and replace the blade or arrange for a customize repair of the blade); 0028 (blend geometry); 0029 (shaped repairs); 0030 (radii dimensions)], or 3D printing.
Claim 3: further comprising: retrieving sensor data from a sensor database [0020 (The automated blade repair system 50 provides the technician with a tool to access database records regarding similar damage to blades as the technician is facing with the current damaged blade); 0027 (The system 50 determines if the damaged portion of the blade is within repairable limits, in step 68. The measurements of the damaged portions of the blade are compared to the repairable limits to determine if the blade may be repaired while in place on the compressor turbine.)],
wherein evaluating the damage of the continuous flow engine component is based on the inspection data [0021 (The form includes identifying database fields 82, which are linked to the corresponding databases 52, for entering information to identify the machine serial number, customer name, machine size and other identifying information useful in determining the blades that have been damaged.)], the component data [0018 (the database may include information regarding previously damaged blades including the location and damage geometry of the blade, the repair geometry made to the blade, and the impact on performance of the compressor or turbine due to the damaged blade and the repaired blade.)] and the sensor data [0025 (measurements)].
Claim 4: wherein evaluating the damage further comprises evaluating potential subtractive manufacturing methods in case a repair cannot be executed with additive manufacturing methods alone [0016 (The automated damaged blade repair system 50 assists a technician to determine whether a damage blade requires repair and whether the blade is repairable…generates a suggested repair geometry to guide the technician when machining the damaged blade.); 0026 (The database of 52 includes information regarding blades and the geometry limits on permissible repairs that may be made by grinding the blade.); 0028 (Assuming that the damage is repairable, the software determines an optimum repair or blend geometry by mapping an area of the blade beyond the damage region that is to be cut away blade or to be blended with the remaining portion of the blade.); 0030]
Claim 5: wherein the continuous flow engine component contains the unique identifier [0007; 0021].
Claim 6: utilizing a virtual model of the continuous flow engine component to simulate its behavior during a later usage to provide an evaluation of a damaged continuous flow engine component [0032 (The software system 50 may also sum the total amount of blades and blade area to be repaired or removed to provide an estimate of the impact on the performance of the gas turbine ( or compressor) with the repaired components, in step 74. The performance impact is predicted based on data regarding the performance effects that previous blade repairs have had on a compressor or turbine. The performance impact of blade repairs is stored in the database
and is available to the system 50)].
Claim 7: wherein evaluating the damage is executed at a location being remote from the inspection [0004 (A blade repair technician is usually experienced with blade repairs or may engage in extensive communication with an engineer familiar with the construction and
operation of the machine or machine part to be repaired.); 0027 (a customized repair of a blade may need to be performed by the blade manufacturer.); 0032 (Should the performance impact exceed a predetermined limit, the user is directed to contact engineering for review and approval.)].
Claim 8: wherein the inspection database [0021 (The form includes identifying database fields 82, which are linked to the corresponding databases 52, for entering information to identify the machine serial number, customer name, machine size and other identifying information useful in determining the blades that have been damaged.)] and the component database are different databases [0018 (the database may include information regarding previously damaged blades including the location and damage geometry of the blade, the repair geometry made to the blade, and the impact on performance of the compressor or turbine due to the damaged blade and the repaired blade.)].
Claim 9: wherein the component data contains at least one from the group consisting of a CAD model of the continuous flow engine component [0022-0025 (display exemplary damaged blade
diagrams that correspond to the actual blade that has been damaged.); 0031 (The repair geometry along with a repair illustration and instruction is created on screen and in a printable format. The
technician can then use the results as an engineering disposition and begin repairing the hardware.)], utilization data of the continuous flow engine component.
Claim 10: wherein the output contains an estimated number of subsequent repairs being possible before the continuous flow engine component is rendered irreparable [0032 (The software system 50 may also sum the total amount of blades and blade area to be repaired or removed to provide an estimate of the impact on the performance of the gas turbine (or compressor) with the repaired components)],
wherein the estimated number of subsequent repairs being possible before the continuous flow engine component is rendered irreparable is stored in a database along with the unique identifier [0007; 0021] of the continuous flow engine component [0032 (The performance impact is predicted based on data regarding the performance effects that previous blade repairs have had on a compressor or turbine. The performance impact of blade repairs is stored in the database and is available to the system 50. Should the performance impact exceed a predetermined limit, the user is directed to contact engineering for review and approval.)] and/or the estimated number of subsequent repairs being possible before the continuous flow engine component is rendered irreparable stored within or on the continuous flow engine component during a subsequent repair.
Claim 11: instructions stored thereon operable to cause a computing entity to execute a method according to claim 1 [0017].
Claim 12: A storage device comprising the computer program product of claim 11 stored thereon [0017].
Claim 13: An inspection device comprising: at least one processing unit [0017],
wherein the inspection device is adapted to scan the continuous flow engine component providing a damage and provide the inspection data to be utilized in a method according to claim 1 [0019],
wherein the inspection device is adapted to receive the output [0016],
wherein the inspection device is adapted to provide the output to an interface to be utilized by an operator [0020 (The automated blade repair system 50 provides the technician with a tool to access database records regarding similar damage to blades as the technician is facing with the current damaged blade. The system 50 also guides the technician through a process of analyzing the damaged blade.)].
Claim 14: wherein the inspection device is adapted to encrypt data transmitted from the inspection device (12) and decrypt data received from a network the inspection device (12) is connected to [0030 (the proposed repair includes instructions 102, such as the dimensions of the
repair, radii dimension of corners in the repair, and other information that may assist in grinding a repair to the blade. These instructions may be pulled from a database of repair instructions for the type of blade repair corresponding to the damaged blade. In addition, algorithms executed by the
system 50 may convert the measured dimensions of the damaged region of the blade into repair dimensions. The instructions and algorithms may be unique to each blade type and machine, and can be developed by the blade manufacturer.)]
Claim 15: an inspection device [0019 (A damaged blade is detected, step 54, usually by a technician inspecting the blades of a compressor or turbine. The inspection is performed while the compressor or turbine is at a standstill.)],
an inspection database [0021 (FIG. 3 is an exemplary damaged blade disposition electronic form 80 that prompts the technician to enter certain information regarding the damaged blade. The form includes identifying database fields 82, which are linked to the corresponding databases 52, for entering information to identify the machine serial number, customer name, machine size and other identifying information useful in determining the blades that have been damaged. In step 56, the information needed to identify the blade and its associated machine are is entered into the form via the database fields 82)],
at least one continuous flow engine component database [0018 (the database may include information regarding previously damaged blades including the location and damage geometry of the blade, the repair geometry made to the blade, and the impact on performance of the compressor or turbine due to the damaged blade and the repaired blade.)],
at least one processing unit [0017],
wherein the processing unit is adapted to execute the evaluation of a method according to claim 1 [0017],.
Claim 16: wherein the component database is a remote database [0027; 0032].
Prior Art
4. The following prior art, discovered in an updated search and herein made of record, is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, and consists of document A on the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
Document A defines a document of particular relevance, wherein the claimed invention cannot be considered novel or cannot be considered to involve an inventive step when the document is taken alone.
Prior Art of Record
5. The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure (see MPEP §2163.06). Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) of the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. [SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123].
In addition, disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they would fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art [See In re Snow, 471 F.2d 1400, 176 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1973) and In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966)]. Specifically, in considering the teachings of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw from the reference [See In re Freda, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968) and In re Shepard, 319 F.2d 194, 138 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1963)]. Likewise, it is proper to take into consideration not only the teachings of the prior art, but also the level of ordinary skill in the art [See In re Luck, 476 F.2d 650, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973)]. Specifically, those of ordinary skill in the art are presumed to have some knowledge of the art apart from what is expressly disclosed in the references [See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962)].
Response Guidelines
6.1 A shortened statutory period for response to this non-final action is set to expire 3 (three) months and 0 (zero) days from the date of this letter. Unless the applicant is notified in writing that a reply is required in less than six months (see the shortened response period previously noted), a maximum period of six months is allowed, if a petition for an extension of time and the fee set in § 1.17(a) are filed [see MPEP 710 and 35 U.S.C. 133]. Failure to respond within the required period for response will cause the application to become abandoned [see MPEP 710.02, 710.02(b)].
6.2 Any response to the Examiner in regard to this non-final action should be
directed to: Russell Frejd, telephone number (571) 272-3779, Monday-Friday from 0730 to
1600 ET. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful,
please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Nolan, who can be reached at
(571) 270-7016.
mailed to: Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
faxed to: (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.
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.
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to the Customer Service Window, Randolph Building, 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA, 22314.
/RUSSELL FREJD/
Primary Examiner AU 3661
Prosecution Insights