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 Amendment
The amendment submitted 06/24/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 10, 13-22, and 24-25 remain pending. Claims 4, 7-9, 11-12, and 23 have been cancelled. Claims 14-22 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/24/2025 have been fully considered and were found persuasive. However, the amendments to the claims have changed the scope of the claims necessitating new grounds of rejection. Please see new grounds of rejection below.
EXAMINER'S AMENDMENT
An examiner’s amendment to the record appears below. Should the changes and/or additions be unacceptable to applicant, an amendment may be filed as provided by 37 CFR 1.312. To ensure consideration of such an amendment, it MUST be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee.
Authorization for this examiner’s amendment was given in an interview with Brandi W. Sarfatis on 09/04/2025.
The application has been amended as follows:
Claim 13: (Cancelled)
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 10, and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7309186 to Oertley in view of US 1974074 to Larsen in further view of US 6842982 to Haga.
(a) Regarding claim 1:
(i) Oertley discloses a mechanical assembly (see title), comprising:
a parent part (boom 44) including a first lug (end portion 66 of boom 44, Figs 2-3);
a first bushing (106) configured to pass through the first lug (Fig 2),
the first bushing comprising a central portion (central portion of bore 116, Figs 2-3; alternatively central portion of bores 114, Figs 2-3) having a central inner diameter (diameter of bore 116, Figs 2-3; alternatively, diameters of bore 114, Figs 2-3) that is uniform along a length of the central portion (bore 116 having a uniform inner diameter; bores 114 having uniform inner diameters along lengths adjacent to pin surface, Figs 2-3), and
a first relief zone (at one end of the bushing, bore 112; Figs 2-3) at one end of the first bushing (Fig 2), the first relief zone having a second inner diameter (Figs 2-3), and
a second relief zone (at an opposite end of the bushing, bore 112; Figs 2-3) at an opposite end of the first bushing from the first relief zone (Fig 2), the second relief zone having a third inner diameter Figs 2-3),
wherein the second and third inner diameters are different from the central inner diameter (Figs 2-3);
a mating part having second and third lugs (portions 40/42, Figs 2-3) to straddle the parent part lug (Fig 2), and second and third bushings (first and second inserts 56/58 and collars 82/84, Figs 2-3) configured to pass through the second and third lugs (Fig 2) and directly contact interior surfaces of the second and third lugs (first and second inserts 56/58 form an interference press fit with inner bores 52 of first and second portions 40/42; Figs 2-3; Col 2 Lns 33-35);
a through-pin (pin 100) configured to pass through the first, second, and third bushings to connect the mating part to the parent part (Fig 2); and
wherein the first and second relief zones are configured to provide clearance for flexing of the through-pin during operation of the rotor assembly (Figs 2-3; also sleeve bearing 120 is larger in diameter than the pin creating a “loose fit” for deflection of the pin, Col 4 Lns 14-21);
wherein the central portion comprises at least half of a longitudinal cross-sectional area of the first bushing (Fig 2), and
wherein the first and second relief zones are disposed on opposite sides of the central portion (Fig 2) and have the second inner diameter and the third inner diameter, respectively (Figs 2-3).
(ii) Oertley does not disclose:
wherein the parent part comprises a rotor mount configured to mount a rotor blade to a rotor assembly for a rotorcraft; nor
wherein the mating part comprises a blade assembly;
wherein the second and third inner diameters smoothly taper outward from the central inner diameter such that the second and third inner diameters are increasingly larger than the central inner diameter.
(iii) Larsen is also in the field of pin jointed rotor assemblies (see title, pins 12/13, Figs 2-3) and teaches a mechanical assembly, comprising:
a parent part comprising a rotor mount (hub structure 10, Figs 2-3) configured to mount a rotor blade (11, Figs 2-3) to a rotor assembly for a rotorcraft (see title, Figs 2-3),
the parent part including a first lug (lugs 15; alternatively joint parts 14; Figs 2-3);
a mating part (joint parts 14; alternatively, root end of blade 11 receiving pin 12; Figs 2-3) having second and third lugs to straddle the first lug (Figs 2-3),
wherein the mating part comprises a blade assembly (blades 11, Figs 2-3); and
a through-pin configured to pass through the first, second, and third lugs to connect the mating part to the parent part (either of pins 12/13, Figs 2-3).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first, second, and third bushings as disclosed by Oertley to be used in the parent and mating parts as taught by Larsen for the purpose of mounting rotor blades that are permitted freedom of movement both within and well as transversely of their general path of rotative travel to compensate for variations in flight forces (Larsen: Col 2 Lns 69-73) while managing damage to the pin due to deflection into point contact with the surrounding structure without requiring the use of a longer length to diameter bearing assemblies and larger pin diameters (Oertley: Col 1 Lns 16-21).
(v) The Examiner notes that the limitation “to concentrate operational loads applied to the first bushing away from opposite ends of the first bushing and towards the central portion of the first bushing” is a functional limitation. As the relief zones of Oertley as modified by Larsen teach all structural limitations of the claim, the relief zones of Oertley as modified by Larsen are capable of performing the claimed function.
(vi) Haga is also in the field of bushings (see title) and teaches:
a first bushing (E, Fig 2) comprising a central portion (central portion of bushing E, Fig 2) having a central inner diameter (diameter of surface E2, Fig 2),
first and second relief zones (zones comprising surfaces E3 and E4, Fig 2) having second and third inner diameters, respectively (diameters of surfaces E3 and E4, Fig 2),
wherein the second and third inner diameters smoothly taper outward from the central inner diameter (Fig 2) such that the second and third inner diameters are increasingly larger than the central inner diameter (Fig 2).
(vii) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second and third inner diameters as disclosed by Oertley to taper outwardly as taught by Haga for the purpose of press fitting the bushing (see abstract; see also Oertley Col 4 Lns 32-33), making internal surfaces accurately coaxial and the external surface(s) accurately formed to the required diameter (see abstract), reducing wear between the internal surfaces and the pin thereby improving life of the mechanical assembly (Col 4 Lns 11-16), and improving the parallelism between the central axis of the bushing and the central axis of the pin thereby making tension forces acting on the lug more uniform and improving fatigue strength of the mechanical assembly (Col 4 Lns 25-30).
(b) Regarding claim 2:
(i) Oertley as modified by Larsen as further modified by Haga teaches the mechanical assembly of claim 1.
(ii) Oertley further teaches wherein the second inner diameter is greater than the central inner diameter (diameters of bores 110 and 112 both reasonably disclosed in Figs 2-3 as being greater than each of bores 114 and 116).
(c) Regarding claim 3:
(i) Oertley as modified by Larsen as further modified by Haga teaches the mechanical assembly of claim 1.
(ii) Oertley further teaches wherein the second inner diameter is less than the central inner diameter (diameter of bore 114 and inner diameter of sleeve bearing 120 both reasonably disclosed in Figs 2-3 as being less than at least one of bores 114 and 116).
(d) Regarding claim 5:
(i) Oertley as modified by Larsen as further modified by Haga teaches the mechanical assembly of claim 1.
(ii) Oertley further teaches wherein the second and third bushings have substantially uniform inner diameters (Figs 2-3).
(e) Regarding claim 6:
(i) Oertley as modified by Larsen as further modified by Haga teaches the mechanical assembly of claim 5.
(ii) Oertley further teaches wherein the substantially uniform inner diameters are substantially the central inner diameter (inner diameter of collars 82/84 reasonably disclosed in Figs 2-3 as being substantially the inner diameter of sleeve bearing 120 and/or diameter of bore 114).
(f) Regarding claim 10:
(i) Oertley as modified by Larsen as further modified by Haga teaches the mechanical assembly of claim 1.
(ii) Oertley further teaches wherein the central inner diameter tapers to the second inner diameter (bore 116 reasonably disclosed in Figs 2-3 as tapering to bore 114 and/or substantially inner diameter of sleeve bearing 120).
(g) Regarding claim 24:
(i) Oertley as modified by Larsen as further modified by Haga teaches the mechanical assembly of claim 1.
(ii) Oertley further teaches wherein the second and third inner diameters are equal to each other (reasonably disclosed in Figs 2-3).
(h) Regarding claim 25:
(i) Oertley as modified by Larsen as further modified by Haga teaches the mechanical assembly of claim 1.
(ii) Oertley does not explicitly disclose wherein the second and third inner diameters are different from one another.
(iii) Applicant has disclosed no criticality to having the second and third inner diameters being different and the bushing of the prior art would not perform differently having the claimed lengths being different.
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second and third inner diameters such that they were not equal as an obvious matter of design choice. Mere changes in size/proportion do not distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art, see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
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 Justin A Pruitt whose telephone number is (571)272-8383. The examiner can normally be reached T-F 8:30am - 6:30pm.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JUSTIN A PRUITT/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745