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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 5/8/26 has been entered. Claim 8 has been canceled. Claim 21 has been added. Claims 1, 4, 11, 16, and 19-20 have been amended. Claims 1-7, and 9-21 remain pending in the application.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 2/13/26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to claim 1, Applicant has argued Chiasson et al. (U.S. 2019/0301300) fails to disclose “an incipient instability condition as recited in independent claim 1” because “Chiasson detects post-failure events” and “[t]his detection is the opposite of detecting an ‘incipient’ condition” (see Remarks filed 5/8/26, Page 9). The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive because Chiasson compares amplitudes of vibrations to predetermined thresholds which include warning thresholds, danger thresholds, and panic thresholds (Para 45). These are escalating conditions and are evidence of detecting conditions which have not yet occurred because a comparison to a warning threshold can be affirmative while a comparison to a danger/panic threshold can be negative and this is a determination that a danger/panic condition is beginning but has not yet occurred but because a warning threshold has been triggered while a danger/panic condition has not yet been triggered. Therefore, Chiasson detects an incipient instability condition and Applicant’s argument regarding this limitation are not found persuasive.
With regards to claim 1, Applicant has argued Chiasson fails to disclose “a sensor array comprising blade pass sensors positioned to measure vibrations of two or more airfoils” (see Remarks filed 5/8/26, Page 9). The Examiner finds this argument persuasive, however, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made over Chiasson in view of Schwarz et al. (U.S. 2013/0111915) as detailed below.
With regards to claim 1, Applicant has argued Chiasson fails to disclose “that the engine controller ‘determine[s] frequencies and phases of the vibrations of each of the two or more airfoils” (see Remarks filed 5/8/26, Page 10). The Examiner finds this argument persuasive, however, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made over Chiasson in view of Kendig et al. (U.S. 4,955,269) as detailed below.
Regarding claim 20, Applicant has argued claim 20 is allowable for the same reasons as indicated above regarding claim 1 (see Remarks filed 5/28/26, Page 11). The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive for the same reasons as indicated above regarding claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3, Applicant has argued “claim 3 is independently patentable over Chiasson” because “Claim 3 includes detecting a damage condition based on ‘magnitudes and durations’ of the vibrations” and “Chiasson’s discloses using amplitude and phase, but phase is not duration” (see Remarks filed 5/28/26, Page 11). The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Here Applicant appears to argue that the limitation in question required detecting a damage condition based on each of magnitudes and durations, however that is not the case. The limitation in question requires detecting a damage condition based on a group consisting of magnitudes and durations and Chiasson discloses detecting a damage condition based on magnitudes (see Fig. 2 and Para 44). To overcome this rejection the Examiner suggests amending claim 3 to require detecting a damage condition --based on each of magnitudes and durations--.
Applicant has argued “claims 9 and 10 are independently patentable over Chiasson and Luongo” because claims 9 and 10 include “variable spacing between the sensors” and “Luongo teaches the opposite” (see Remarks filed 5/28/26, Page 12). The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive because Luongo teaches an array of sensors (S1-S12) with even spacing between each sensor (Col. 3, Lines 4-9). However, within this array of sensors there are necessarily non adjacent sensors that have variable spacing between them - for example the spacing between S1 and S3 is different than the spacing between S3 and S6. The Applicant argues that such an interpretation is not reasonable because “[a] person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that ‘variable spacing between the sensors’ means that the sensors are not uniformly distributed” (see Remarks filed 5/28/26, Page 12), however provides no evidence to support this assertion, and the instant specification does not appear to describe specifically how this limitation is to be interpreted. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the rejection. To overcome this rejection, the Examiner suggests amending the limitation in question to require --variable spacing between immediately adjacent sensors of the sensors--
With regards to claim 21, Applicant has argued Chiasson and the other cited documents fail to disclose that the engine controller “detect[s] a presence of a system mode based on a relationship between the phases of the vibrations of the two or more airfoils” (see Remarks filed 5/8/26, Page 12). The Examiner finds this argument persuasive, however, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made over Chiasson in view of Twerdochlib (U.S. 2009/0314092) as detailed below.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 5/8/26, with respect to claims 11-18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claims 11-18 has been withdrawn.
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 1-3 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiasson et al. (U.S. 2019/0301300) in view of Schwarz et al. (U.S. 2013/0111915) and Kendig et al. (U.S. 4,955,269).
Re claim 1
Chiasson discloses an engine system (110, gas turbine engine - Para 32 (turbofan per Para 44)), comprising:
a plurality of flow path airfoils (Para 44 - “…blades of the fan…”) of an engine assembly (Para 44 - “…blades of the fan…”);
a sensor array (Para 35 - “…a vibration signal, for example, from one or more sensors coupled to the engine…” (see also Para 36)) positioned to measure vibrations of two or more airfoils of the plurality of flow path airfoils (Paras 35 and 44 - “a vibration signal, for example, from one or more sensors coupled to the engine…primarily indicative of vibrations produced by the engine 110 …if the engine 110 in question is an engine which has a fan, such as a turbofan engine, the vibration amplitude and/or phase of vibration of the engine 110 can indicate that a “ fan - blade - off event ” has occurred, which is when one or more blades of the fan has detached itself from the fan …” (the described sensors positioned to measure “fan-blade-off event” which is a type of measuring of vibrations of the entire fan which includes vibrations of two or more airfoils per Para 44)); and
an engine controller (310, computing device - Para 51 (see Para 53)) communicatively coupled to the sensor array (see Fig. 2 at 202, Para 35, and Para 51), the engine controller (310) is configured to:
determine frequencies and phases of the vibrations of the two or more airfoils based on signals from the sensor array (See Fig. 2 at 210 and Paras 41-43 - “…a frequency of a peak of the filtered vibration signal…” and “a phase of vibration is determined by comparing the frequency of the peak of the filtered vibration signal…”);
detect an incipient instability condition based on the frequencies and the phases of the vibrations of the two or more airfoils (see Fig. 2 at 210-214, Paras 43-44 - “phase of vibration is determined by comparing the frequency of the peak of the filtered vibration signal with a separate signal, for example which indicates the position of a ‘missing tooth’ on a rotating component within the engine 110 …the vibration amplitude and/or phase of vibration of the engine 110 can indicate that maintenance is required . In another example, if the engine 110 in question is an engine which has a fan, such as a turbofan engine, the vibration amplitude and/or phase of vibration of the engine 110 can indicate that a ‘fan-blade-off event’ has occurred, which is when one or more blades of the fan has detached itself from the fan…”; and Para 45); and
output an instability alert signal in response to detecting the incipient instability condition (see Fig. 2 at 214 and Para 47).
Chiasson fails to disclose a sensor array comprising blade pass sensors.
Schwarz teaches an engine system (10, gas turbine engine - Para 34) comprising a sensor array (102, 104, sensor at the leading edge and at the trailing edges - Para 37) comprising blade pass sensors (see Fig. 2A and Para 37 - “…a sensor 102 at the leading edge and/or at the trailing edge 104 is mounted in a housing 103. Those sensors identify the time at which the leading edge and/or trailing edge of each fan blade 100 passes…”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the engine system of Chiasson after that of Schwarz, thereby including the blade pass sensors of Schwarz in the sensor array of Chiasson, for the advantage of being able to monitor time of arrival of leading and trailing edges of blades to identify flutter (Schwarz; Para 38).
Chiasson/Schwarz fails to disclose determining frequencies and phases of the vibrations of each of the two or more airfoils.
Kendig teaches an engine system (Col. 1, Lines 20-23 - “…jet engine turbine rotor blade…”) comprising an engine controller (Col. 1, Lines 14-43 - “…Using the deflection data provided by the sensors, stress information for all blades in each instrumented row can be determined on-line by using transfer functions to convert the deflection data to stress. These transfer functions can be determined using finite-element analysis and bench-testing of each row of blades before operational testing…” (function described necessarily requires a type of engine controller)) communicatively coupled to a sensor array (Col. 1, Lines 29-30 - “…Four sensors…”), the engine controller configured to determine frequencies and phases of vibrations of each of two or more airfoils (Col. 1, Lines 29-36).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the engine system of Chiasson/Schwarz after that of Kendig, thereby including a sensor array as taught by Kendig in the system of Chiasson and configuring the engine controller of Chiasson to determine frequencies and vibrations of each of the two or more air foils of Chiasson, all in the way taught by Kendig, for the advantage of being able to determine stress information for all blades in a row (Kendig; Col. 1, Lines 37-40).
Re claim 2:
Chiasson/Schwarz/Kendig teaches the engine system (Chiasson; 110) of claim 1 (as described above).
Chiasson further discloses wherein the engine controller (310) is further configured to modify an engine control parameter (see Fig. 2 at 214 - “Adjusting at least one operational parameter of the engine…”) in response to detecting the incipient instability condition (see Fig. 2 at 214 and Para 46).
Re claim 3:
Chiasson/Schwarz/Kendig teaches the engine system (Chiasson; 110) of claim 1 (as described above).
Chiasson further discloses wherein the engine controller (310) is further configured to:
detect a damage condition based on magnitudes and durations (Para 44 - “…amplitude and phase of vibration…”) of the vibrations measured by the sensor array (see Fig. 2 and Para 44 - “…’fan-blade-off event…” (determination is made based on magnitude which is part of the group of magnitude and duration, overcome by requiring each of magnitude and duration)); and
output a damage alert signal in response to detecting the damage condition (see Fig. 2 at 214 and Para 47).
Re claim 20:
Chiasson discloses a method (Figs. 1-4) for instability detection in an engine system (110, gas turbine engine - Para 32 (turbofan per Para 44)), comprising:
receiving, at an engine controller (310, computing device - Para 51 (see Para 53)), signals from a sensor array (Para 35 - “…a vibration signal, for example, from one or more sensors coupled to the engine…” (see also Para 36)) positioned to measure vibrations of two or more airfoils (Para 44 - “…blades of the fan…”) of an engine assembly (Para 44 - “…blades of the fan…”)(Paras 35 and 44 - “a vibration signal, for example, from one or more sensors coupled to the engine…primarily indicative of vibrations produced by the engine 110 …if the engine 110 in question is an engine which has a fan, such as a turbofan engine, the vibration amplitude and/or phase of vibration of the engine 110 can indicate that a “ fan - blade - off event ” has occurred, which is when one or more blades of the fan has detached itself from the fan …” (the described sensors positioned to measure “fan-blade-off event” which is a type of measuring of vibrations of the entire fan which includes vibrations of two or more airfoils per Para 44));
determining, by the engine controller (310), frequencies and phases of the vibrations of the two or more airfoils based on the signals from the sensor array (See Fig. 2 at 210 and Paras 41-43 - “…a frequency of a peak of the filtered vibration signal…” and “a phase of vibration is determined by comparing the frequency of the peak of the filtered vibration signal…”);
detecting, by the engine controller (310), an incipient instability condition based on the frequencies and the phases of the vibrations of the two or more airfoils (see Fig. 2 at 210-214, Paras 43-44 - “phase of vibration is determined by comparing the frequency of the peak of the filtered vibration signal with a separate signal, for example which indicates the position of a ‘missing tooth’ on a rotating component within the engine 110 …the vibration amplitude and/or phase of vibration of the engine 110 can indicate that maintenance is required . In another example, if the engine 110 in question is an engine which has a fan, such as a turbofan engine, the vibration amplitude and/or phase of vibration of the engine 110 can indicate that a ‘fan-blade-off event’ has occurred, which is when one or more blades of the fan has detached itself from the fan…”; and Para 45); and
outputting, from the engine controller (310), an instability alert signal in response to detecting the incipient instability condition (see Fig. 2 at 214 and Para 47).
Chiasson fails to disclose a sensor array comprising blade pass sensors.
Schwarz teaches an engine system (10, gas turbine engine - Para 34) comprising a sensor array (102, 104, sensor at the leading edge and at the trailing edges - Para 37) comprising blade pass sensors (see Fig. 2A and Para 37 - “…a sensor 102 at the leading edge and/or at the trailing edge 104 is mounted in a housing 103. Those sensors identify the time at which the leading edge and/or trailing edge of each fan blade 100 passes…”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the engine system of Chiasson after that of Schwarz, thereby including the blade pass sensors of Schwarz in the sensor array of Chiasson, for the advantage of being able to monitor time of arrival of leading and trailing edges of blades to identify flutter (Schwarz; Para 38).
Chiasson/Schwarz fails to disclose determining, by the engine controller, frequencies and phases of the vibrations of each of the two or more airfoils.
Kendig teaches an engine system (Col. 1, Lines 20-23 - “…jet engine turbine rotor blade…”) comprising an engine controller (Col. 1, Lines 14-43 - “…Using the deflection data provided by the sensors, stress information for all blades in each instrumented row can be determined on-line by using transfer functions to convert the deflection data to stress. These transfer functions can be determined using finite-element analysis and bench-testing of each row of blades before operational testing…” (function described necessarily requires a type of engine controller)) communicatively coupled to a sensor array (Col. 1, Lines 29-30 - “…Four sensors…”), the engine controller configured to determine frequencies and phases of vibrations of each of two or more airfoils (Col. 1, Lines 29-36).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the engine system of Chiasson/Schwarz after that of Kendig, thereby including a sensor array as taught by Kendig in the system of Chiasson and configuring the engine controller of Chiasson to determine frequencies and vibrations of each of the two or more air foils of Chiasson, all in the way taught by Kendig, for the advantage of being able to determine stress information for all blades in a row (Kendig; Col. 1, Lines 37-40).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiasson et al. (U.S. 2019/0301300), in view of Schwarz et al. (U.S. 2013/0111915) and Kendig et al. (U.S. 4,955,269), as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Seize (U.S. 2012/0226409).
Re claim 4:
Chiasson/Schwarz/Kendig teaches the engine system (Chiasson; 110) of claim 3 (as described above).
Chiasson fails to disclose wherein the engine controller is further configured to: record instances of damage conditions in a memory storage; determine an engine health status based on accumulated instances of the damage conditions; and output a maintenance alert signal based on the engine health status.
Seize teaches wherein an engine controller (Para 85 - “…processing unit 11 may be contained in the computer of the turbojet…”) is configured to: record instances of damage conditions in a memory storage (Paras 73-85 (see especially Paras 73 and 85)); determine an engine health status (D, damage - Para 91) based on accumulated instances of damage conditions (Paras 90-96); and output a maintenance alert signal based on the engine health status (Para 130).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the engine controller of Chiasson after that of Seize, thereby configuring the engine controller of Chiasson to record instances of damage conditions in a memory storage; determine an engine health status based on accumulated instances of damage conditions; and output a maintenance alert signal based on the engine health status, all as taught by Seize, for the advantage of being able to apply simplified maintenance methods (Seize; Para 120).
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiasson et al. (U.S. 2019/0301300), in view of Schwarz et al. (U.S. 2013/0111915) and Kendig et al. (U.S. 4,955,269), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Acton et al. (U.S. 4,967,550).
Re claim 5:
Chiasson/Schwarz/Kendig teaches the engine system (Chiasson; 110) of claim 1 (as described above).
Chiasson fails to disclose wherein the sensor array comprises a plurality of spaced apart strain gauge sensors.
Acton teaches wherein a sensor array (712, sensor array - Col. 31, Line 35) comprises a plurality of spaced apart strain gauge sensors (718, 720, 722, strain gauges - Col. 31, Lines 35-40).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the sensor array of Chiasson after that of Acton, thereby making the sensor array of Chiasson a plurality of spaced apart strain gauge sensors as taught by Acton, for the advantage of being able to measure unsteady blade movement (Acton; Col. 12, Lines 23-29) as well as being able to distinguish various vibrational modes (Acton; Col. 31, Lines33-39).
Re claim 7:
Chiasson/Schwarz/Kendig teaches the engine system (Chiasson; 110) of claim 1 (as described above).
Chiasson fails to disclose wherein the sensor array comprises at least one sensor mounted on a stationary airfoil, a rotating airfoil, a disc, a blisk fan blade, or a stationary part of the engine assembly.
Acton teaches wherein a sensor array (712, sensor array - Col. 31, Line 35) comprises at least one sensor (718, 720, 722, strain gauges - Col. 31, Lines 35-40) mounted on a stationary airfoil, a rotating airfoil (702, fan blades - Col. 31, Lines 35-37)(see Figs. 7A-7B), a disc, a blisk fan blade, or a stationary part of the engine assembly.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the sensor array of Chiasson after that of Acton, thereby making the sensor array of Chiasson comprise at least one sensor mounted on a a rotating airfoil as taught by Acton, for the advantage of being able to measure unsteady blade movement (Acton; Col. 12, Lines 23-29) as well as being able to distinguish various vibrational modes (Acton; Col. 31, Lines33-39).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiasson et al. (U.S. 2019/0301300), in view of Schwarz et al. (U.S. 2013/0111915) and Kendig et al. (U.S. 4,955,269), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Clement et al. (U.S. 5,511,426).
Re claim 6:
Chiasson/Schwarz/Kendig teaches the engine system (Chiasson; 110) of claim 1 (as described above).
Chiasson fails to disclose wherein the sensor array comprises light probes, capacitance probes, accelerometers, or dynamic kulite sensors.
Clement teaches wherein a sensor array (10, 20, 30, 40, measurement systems - Col. 5, Lines 44-49) comprises light probes (200, 300, 400, optical detectors - Col. 5, Lines 44-49), capacitance probes, accelerometers, or dynamic kulite sensors.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the sensor array of Chiasson after that of Clement, thereby making the sensor array comprise light probes in the way taught by Clement, for the advantage of being able to provide instantaneous determination, in real time, of all components of vibration (Clement; Col. 1, Lines 44-50).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiasson et al. (U.S. 2019/0301300), in view of Schwarz et al. (U.S. 2013/0111915) and Kendig et al. (U.S. 4,955,269), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Luongo (U.S. 4,573,358).
Re claim 9:
Chiasson/Schwarz/Kendig teaches the engine system (Chiasson; 110) of claim 1 (as described above).
Chiasson fails to disclose wherein the sensor array comprises sensors located radially outward of a center line of the engine assembly with variable spacing between the sensors.
Luongo teaches wherein a sensor array (S1-S12, 12 sensors - Col. 3, Lines 4-14) comprises sensors (S1-S12) located radially outward of a center line of an engine assembly (10, rotating shaft - Col. 2, Line 68; 12, disk member - Col. 2, Line 68 - Col. 3, Line 1; B1-B120, blades - Col. 2, Line 66) with variable spacing between the sensors (S1-S12)(see Fig. 1 and Col. 3, Lines 4-14 (spacing between adjacent sensors is described as being even thereby making the spacing between non adjacent sensors variable (e.g. spacing between S1 and S3 is different than spacing between S3 and S6))).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the sensor array of Chiasson after that of Luongo, thereby making the sensor array of Chiasson comprises sensors located radially outward of a center line of the engine assembly of Chiasson with variable spacing between the sensors in the way taught by Luongo, for the advantage of being able to determine blade tip vibration (Luongo; Col. 3, Line 23-32).
Re claim 10:
Chiasson/Schwarz/Kendig/Luongo teaches the engine system (Chiasson; 110) of claim 9 (as described above), wherein the sensor array (Luongo; S1-S12) comprises a first pair of sensors (Luongo; S1/S3) having a first spacing (Luongo; see Fig. 1 and Col. 3, Lines 4-14) and a second pair of sensors (Luongo; S4/S9) having a second spacing (Luongo; see Fig. 1 and Col. 3, Lines 4-14) greater than the first spacing (Luongo; see Fig. 1 and Col. 3, Lines 4-14 (adjacent sensors are evenly spaced thereby requiring spacing between sensors S4/S9 be greater than spacing between S1/S3)).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiasson et al. (U.S. 2019/0301300), in view of Schwarz et al. (U.S. 2013/0111915) and Kendig et al. (U.S. 4,955,269), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sakaguchi (U.S. 2016/0215764).
Re claim 19:
Chiasson/Schwarz/Kendig teaches the engine system (Chiasson; 110) of claim 1 (as described above).
Chiasson fails to disclose wherein the frequencies and phases of the vibrations are determined by a Fast Fourier transform (FFT) via a software module or a hardware field programable gate array (FPGA).
Sakaguchi teaches wherein frequencies and phases of vibrations are determined by a Fast Fourier transform (FFT) via a software module (80, condition monitoring apparatus - Para 80 (see Para 38 - “…Condition monitoring apparatus 80 executes condition monitoring processing for wind turbine 10 in accordance with a program or the like prepared in advance…”))(Paras 47 and 51) or a hardware field programable gate array (FPGA).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the determination of frequencies and phases of the vibrations of Chiasson after that of Sakaguchi, thereby making the frequencies and phases of the vibrations of Chiasson be determined by a Fast Fourier transform (FFT) via a software module in the way taught by Sakaguchi for the advantage of being able to perform condition monitoring in accordance with a program which is prepared in advance (Sakaguchi; Para 38).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiasson et al. (U.S. 2019/0301300), in view of Schwarz et al. (U.S. 2013/0111915) and Kendig et al. (U.S. 4,955,269), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Twerdochlib (U.S. 2009/0314092).
Re claim 21:
Chiasson/Schwarz/Kendig teaches the engine system (Chiasson; 110) of claim 1 (as described above).
Chiasson fails to disclose wherein the engine controller is further configured to detect a presence of a system mode based on a relationship between the phases of the vibrations of the two or more airfoils.
Twerdochlib teaches wherein an engine controller (19, dispersed array machine - Para 20 (see Fig. 1)) is configured to detect a presence of a system mode (Para 6 - “…identifying a fold down subharmonic for a blade vibration mode using the phase shift slope…”) based on a relationship between phases of vibrations of two or more airfoils (see Fig. 2 and Para 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the engine controller of Chiasson after that of Twerdochlib, thereby configuring the engine controller of Chiasson to detect a presence of a system mode in the way taught by Twerdochlic, for the advantage of being able to identify a fold down subharmonic for a blade vibration mode (Chiasson; Para 6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-18 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claims 11-18 would be allowed primarily because the prior art of record cannot anticipate Applicant’s claimed invention by a single reference nor render Applicant’s claimed invention obvious by the combination of more than one reference.
Additionally, the prior art of record does not teach where the engine controller is configured to: “detect a frequency lock in the vibrations of the two or more airfoils; and determine whether the vibrations are synchronous” as within the context of the claimed invention as disclosed and within the context of the other limitations present in claims 11-18.
Therefore, the prior art of record cannot anticipate Applicant’s claimed invention by a single reference nor render Applicant’s claimed invention obvious by one or more references.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 Loren C Edwards whose telephone number is (571)272-7133. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6AM-430PM.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/LOREN C EDWARDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746 5/22/26
Prosecution Insights