DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Restriction
Applicant’s election of Group I (Claims 1-13) in the reply filed on 03/19/26 with traverse is acknowledged.
Applicant’s representative asserts that Groups I (Claims 1-13) and III (Claims 18-20) are not mutually exclusive, as Claim 1 and Claim 18 shows difference of scopes but not of invention and therefor are not mutually exclusive.
However, as articulated in the Office Action of 01/28/26 although some limitations may be similar between the two inventions, the inventions as claimed do not fully encompass overlapping subject matter of each other. As articulated in the previous Office Action, the inventions as fully claimed are mutually exclusive, since the invention I can be used without “concave portion and convex portion”, of Invention III, and Invention III can be used without “damage portion of the leading edge” of Invention I. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Applicant’s representative asserts that the restriction between Group II (Claims 14-17) and Groups I (Claims 1-13) and III (Claims 18-20) is improper.
Applicant’s representative asserts that Groups I and II are not distinct from each other as the previous office action fails to identify which materially different process group II can be used.
However, as articulated in the previous office action the apparatus of Group II can be practiced by another materially different process that the one of Group I which does not have the steps of “removing material from a damaged portion of a leading edge of the hollow fan blade; and welding the damaged portion such that a temperature of the joint does not exceed a distortion temperature” present in the Method of Group I. For example, apparatus of Group II can be used in a process that instead of removing and replacing the damaged part, the damaged part is fill up with material or straighten the surface, or in which the welding is used for something else than repairing like attaching different parts of the blade.
Applicant’s representative asserts that Groups II and III are not distinct from each other as the previous office action fails to identify which materially different process group II can be used.
However, as articulated in the previous office action the apparatus of Group II can be practiced by another materially different process that the one of Group III which does not have “removing material from a damaged portion of the hollow fan blade; and welding the damaged portion such that a temperature of the joint does not exceed a distortion temperature” present in the Method of Group III. For example, apparatus of Group II can be used in a process that instead of removing and replacing the damaged part, the damaged part is fill up with material or straighten the surface, or in which the welding is used for something else than repairing like attaching different parts of the blade.
Finally, Applicant’s representative asserts that there is a no substantially burden for the examiner, as the three groups are all directed to the same core inventive concept and do not require different search burden for each group.
However, although the three groups have some similarity each Group requires different strategies such as different keywords, e.g. “leading edge” for Group I, “temperature of blade” , or “convex” for Group III, as well different classifications, e.g. F05D 2240/303 for Group I, for B23P 6/00 for Group II, or B23K 3/085 for group III.
Consequently, the requirement for election is maintained.
Claims 1-13 are examined
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “cooling system” in Claim 8, and “finishing process” in Claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The corresponding structure for the term “cooling system”, is interpreted as element 306, e.g. copper chill blocks and/or water-cooled blocks, see [0056], Fig. 6.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim objections
Claim 5 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 L. 2-3 “of spot welding and adhesive” should be – of a spot welding and an adhesive--;
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 10, 11, and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 3, 11, and 12 of copending Application No. 18/446923 in view of Fraser (US 4, 832, 252)
Claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 3, 11, and 12 of copending Application No. 18/446923 recites all of the limitations of the claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 10, 11, and 12 of the instant application except for the cutback portion being a damaged region of a leading edge.
However, Fraser teaches a method of repairing blade (see tittle), the blade including a first portion (upper portion of 10 in Fig. 7) and a second portion (lower portion of 10 in Fig. 7) secured together (Fig. 7), the method including: removing material (see Figs. 1-2) from a damaged portion (14; Fig. 1) of a leading edge (13; Fig. 1) of the hollow fan blade
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cutback portion of the copending Application No. 18/446923, to have the cutback portion being a damaged region of a leading edge. Such a modification would enable repair the leading edge of the blade which is the first part of the blade to hit an object.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 12: Claim 12 recites the limitation “finishing process” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. To further advance prosecution the Examiner interpret the limitation “finishing process” as any process performed after welding.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 1-4, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fraser (US 4,832,252), in view of Prentice (US 2016/0115820), and further in view of Jones (US 2004/0151585)
Regarding Claim 1: Fraser discloses a method of repairing blade (see tittle), the blade including a first portion (see annotated figure ‘252) and a second portion (see annotated figure ‘252) secured together (see annotated figure ‘252), the method including: removing material (see Figs. 1-2) from a damaged portion (14; Fig. 1) of a leading edge (13; Fig. 1) of the hollow fan blade; and welding the damaged portion (see abstract Figs. 7-8) such that a temperature of any heat stressed element (any element that can be subject to heat stress, see Col. 5 L. 59-68) in the blade does not exceed a distortion temperature (see Col. 5 L. 59-68).
Fraser is silent regarding the blade being a hollow fan blade, and the first portion and the second portion secured together via a joint and thus the heat stressed element being the joint.
However, Prentice teaches a hallow fan blade (24; Fig. 3) having a first portion (81; Fig. 3) and a second portion (82; Fig. 3) secured together via a joint (83; Fig. 3), and an interior cavity (see Fig. 3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the blade of Fraser, to have the blade being a hollow fan blade, and the first portion and the second portion secured together via a joint, as taught by Prentice and thus having the heat stressed element being the joint. Such a modification would enable to reduce weight of the blade, as recognized by Prentice (see [0003]).
Fraser in view of Prentice is silent regarding the interior cavity of the hollow fan blade being charged with a vacuum.
However, Jones teaches a fan hollow blade (26; Fig. 4) having an interior cavity (66; Fig. 3) of the hollow fan blade being charged with a vacuum ([0055]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the interior cavity of the blade of Fraser and Prentice, to have the hollow fan blade being charged with a vacuum, as taught by Jones. Such a modification would enable to further reduce weight of the blad
PNG
media_image1.png
386
816
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2: Fraser in view of Prentice and Jones teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Fraser further discloses arranging a thermocouple (50-56; Fig. 6) on at least one of the first portion and the second portion.
Regarding Claim 3: Fraser in view of Prentice and Jones teaches all the limitations of Claim 2, as stated above, and further teaches monitoring a temperature (see Col. 5 L. 59-68) of a portion (portion where 50-56; Fig. 6) of the hollow fan blade during the welding using the thermocouple (see Col. 5 L. 59-68).
Regarding Claim 4: Fraser in view of Prentice and Jones teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Fraser further discloses arranging a plurality of thermocouples (50-56; Fig. 6) on the first portion or the second portion (portion visible of 10 in Fig. 6), but does explicitly show the thermocouples being arranged on each of the first portion and the second portion, i.e. duplicated the thermocouples on the other side of the blade (portion opposite to the visible portion of 10; Fig. 6)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicated the thermocouples on the other side of the blade, and thus to have the thermocouples being arranged on each of the first portion and the second portion, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)).
(In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Regarding Claim 11: Fraser in view of Prentice and Jones teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Prentice further teaches wherein the interior cavity further includes a honeycomb structure ([0023]).
Regarding Claim 12: Fraser in view of Prentice and Jones teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Fraser further discloses applying a finishing process after the welding (Col. 6 L. 6-10).
Regarding Claim 13: Fraser in view of Prentice and Jones teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Prentice further teaches wherein the joint includes a braze joint (see [0005]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fraser (US 4,832,252) in view of Prentice (US 2016/0115820), and Jones (US 2004/0151585), and further in view of Buchal (US 2013/0312249)
Regarding Claim 5: Fraser in view of Prentice and Jones teaches all the limitations of Claim 4, as stated above, but is silent regarding comprising arranging each of the plurality of thermocouples using at least one item selected from the group consisting of spot welding and adhesive.
However, Buchal teaches attaching a sensor (22, 24; Fig. 1) to a blade (12; Fig. 1) using at least one item selected from the group consisting of spot welding and adhesive ( [0031]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified how the thermocouples of Fraser are attached, to have comprising arranging each of the plurality of thermocouples using at least one item selected from the group consisting of spot welding and adhesive, as taught by Buchal. Such a modification would enable to easily affixed the thermocouples to the blade.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fraser (US 4,832,252) in view of Prentice (US 2016/0115820), and Jones (US 2004/0151585), and further in view of Aleshin (US 6,326,585).
Regarding 6: Fraser in view of Prentice and Jones teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, but is silent regarding securing the hollow fan blade within a purge box prior to the welding.
However, Aleshin teaches a method of repairing (abstract) a blade (14; Fig. 1) comprising securing the blade (see Fig. 6 how the blade is secured) within a purge box (60; Fig. 5) prior to a welding (abstract).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fraser, to have securing the hollow fan blade within a purge box prior to the welding, as taught by Aleshin. Such a modification would enable to provide an inert gas atmosphere, as recognized by Aleshin (Col. 7 L. 25-30).
Claims 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fraser (US 4,832,252) in view of Prentice (US 2016/0115820), and Jones (US 2004/0151585), and further in view of Panero (US 2021/0023661).
Regarding Claim 7: Fraser in view of Prentice and Jones teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, but is silent regarding arranging a gas pad on at least one of the first portion and the second portion for dispersing an inert gas during the welding.
However, Panero teaches a method of repairing (Abstract) a blade (abstract) with welding (see Fig. 4) by arranging a gas pad (pad formed by 410; Fig. 4) on at least one of a first portion and a second portion (406, Fig. 4) for dispersing an inert gas (410; Fig. 4) during the welding (see Fig. 4).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the welding of Fraser, to have arranging a gas pad on at least one of the first portion and the second portion for dispersing an inert gas during the welding, as taught by Panero. Such a modification would enable to limit reaction with oxygen, as recognized by Panero (see [0026]).
Regarding Claim 10: Fraser in view of Prentice and Jones teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, but is silent regarding wherein the welding includes Tungsten Inert Gas (TIG) welding.
However, Panero teaches a method of repairing (Abstract) a blade (abstract) with welding (see Fig. 4) wherein the welding includes Tungsten Inert Gas (TIG) welding ([0018]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the welding of Fraser, to have the welding includes Tungsten Inert Gas (TIG) welding, as taught by Panero. Such a modification would enable to limit reaction with oxygen, as recognized by Panero (see [0026]).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fraser (US 4,832,252) in view of Prentice (US 2016/0115820), and Jones (US 2004/0151585), and further in view of Sato (US 2005/0173496).
Regarding Claim 8: Fraser in view of Prentice and Jones teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, but is silent regarding cooling the blade using a cooling system during the welding.
However, Sato teaches a method of repairing (see [00002]) a blade (1; Fig. 1) using a cooling system (51; Fig. 2) during the welding ([0011]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the welding of Fraser, to have cooling the blade using a cooling system during the welding, as taught by Sato. Such a modification would enable to solidified the weld beads, as recognized by Sato (see [0011]).
Regarding Claim 9: Fraser in view of Prentice, Jones, and Sato teaches all the limitations of Claim 8, and Sato further teaches wherein the cooling system includes at least one of a copper block and a water-cooled block (51, Fig. 2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see notice of references cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODOLPHE ANDRE CHABREYRIE whose telephone number is (571)272-3482. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-18:30.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached on (571) 270-5095. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RODOLPHE ANDRE CHABREYRIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761