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.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because “accumulated instances of damage conditions” in lines 4-5 should be -- accumulated instances of the damage conditions--.
Claim 19 is objected to because “the frequencies and phases” in line 1 should be --the frequencies and the phases--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
Claims 1-3, 8, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chiasson et al. (U.S. 2019/0301300).
Re claim 1:
Chaisson discloses 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).
Re claim 2:
Chiasson discloses the engine system (110) of claim 1 (as described above), 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 discloses the engine system (110) of claim 1 (as described above), 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 8:
Chiasson discloses the engine system (110) of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the plurality of flow path airfoils (Para 44 - “…blades of the fan…”) comprises rotating or stationary airfoils of the engine assembly (Para 44 - “…blades of the fan…”)(blades of a fan are necessarily rotating airfoils of the fan assembly which is a type of engine assembly of turbofan engine referenced in Para 44).
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
output, 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).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiasson et al. (U.S. 2019/0301300), as applied to claim 3 above, in view of Seize (U.S. 2012/0226409).
Re claim 4:
Chiasson discloses the engine system (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 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), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Acton et al. (U.S. 4,967,550).
Re claim 5:
Chiasson discloses the engine system (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 discloses the engine system (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), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Clement et al. (U.S. 5,511,426).
Re claim 6:
Chiasson discloses the engine system (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), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Luongo (U.S. 4,573,358).
Re claim 9:
Chiasson discloses the engine system (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/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), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Sakaguchi (U.S. 2016/0215764).
Re claim 19:
Chiasson discloses the engine system (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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
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.
Conclusion
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 1/30/26