DETAILED ACTION
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 16, 2025 have been fully considered.
The applicant reasserts the arguments of April 7, 2025 but applied to the amended claims of July 16, 2025. The applicant argues that Mohr is not analogous art as it is not in the same field of endeavor or reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor.
The claims of July 16, 2025 are directed to an aircraft rotor rather than to an elastomeric bearing as previously claimed. Therefore, in the context of the amended claims, the examiner finds that Mohr is not in the same field of endeavor.
The examiner finds that the amendments to the claims do not substantially change the examiner’s analysis with regards to if the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This analysis is repeated below.
The applicant in the remarks of April 7, 2025 finds the problem to be how to provide for limited rotation of a shaft extending through a housing and provide for precise preload of an elastomeric bearing therebetween. The applicant further argues Mohr is not pertinent to this problem as the bearing is not explicitly mentioned with regard to torsional, twisting, or rotational loads. The examiner disagrees with the applicant’s framing of the problem faced by the inventor. Foskey provides evidence that providing for limited rotation of a shaft extending through a housing is already known; the elastomeric shear bearing (270) achieves this. The problem that the inventor faces is how to adjust the preload on such a bearing. Mohr is found by the examiner to be reasonably pertinent to this problem as it teaches a configuration that adjusts the preload on an elastomeric bearing.
Based on the above, the examiner finds the Mohr to be analogous art. It is noted that only one of the two criteria for analogousness needs to be met for prior art to be found to be analogous, see MPEP 2141.01(a) I. Therefore, the combination of Foskey and Mohr is proper.
Any changes to the rejection are necessitated by amendment. The rejections are therefore final.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foskey et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20150239555) hereinafter Foskey in view of Mohr et al. (DE102019001198) hereinafter Mohr.
Regarding claim 1, Foskey discloses:
An aircraft rotor assembly {Figures 1 and 2; [0001], [0016], [0021]} comprising:
a rotor hub {Figure 2 (150)}
a rotor blade {Figure 2 (120)}
a shaft extending from the rotor {Figures 2 and 4, (264) extends from (262) which is attached to the hub of a rotor (150)};
a housing coupling the rotor blade to the shaft {Figures 2 and 4, housing (230) is for coupling the blade to the shaft via bolts; [0021];
a rigid ring coaxial with the shaft and having a wall {Figures 4 and 9, ring (275) is rigid, is coaxial with shaft (264), and has a wall; [0028]}
an elastomeric spindle bearing coaxial with the shaft and having a central aperture through which the shaft extends {Figure 4 spindle bearing (270) is coaxial with (264); (270) has a central aperture through which (264) extends and is elastomeric; [0022]/[0028]},
the spindle bearing extending between the wall and the shaft {Figure 4 and 9, (270) extends between (275) and shaft (264)};
wherein threaded fasteners couple the ring to the housing {Figure 9 (280) couple (275) to housing (230)}
the spindle bearing allowing for limited coaxial rotation of the housing and rotor blade together relative to the shaft about a pitch axis through shearing deformation of the spindle bearing {[0023]}.
Foskey does not disclose:
The wall having a tapered external surface that narrows toward the outboard direction,
the ring configured to be axially translated adjacent a tapered internal surface of an inboard portion of the housing that also narrows toward the outboard direction;
rotation of the fasteners in a selected direction cause axial translation of the ring in the outboard direction,
the engagement of the tapered surfaces causing the wall to move radially inward for creating a circumferential interference fit between the spindle bearing and the wall.
the threaded fasteners being axially oriented
Mohr is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of how to secure an elastomeric bearing to the housing and apply a preload to the bearing.
PNG
media_image1.png
763
559
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mohr teaches:
The wall having a tapered external surface that narrows toward the axial direction {Annotated Figure 1 (I) is a wall with a tapered external surface that narrows towards an end},
The interface component configured to be axially translated adjacent a tapered internal surface of an inboard portion of the housing that also narrows toward the axial direction {Annotated Figure 1, the interface component is axially translated adjacent (II) which is an internal surface of the housing (2) that tapers in the same manner as the wall of the interface component; the interface component has preload travel (A); [0038], [0042]};
rotation of the fasteners in a selected direction cause axial translation of the interface component in the axial direction {Figure 4a, the tightening of the fasteners which are accommodated in (24a/b) axial translate the interface component in the direction of the tapering; preload travel (A); [0042]},
the engagement of the tapered surfaces causing the wall to move radially inward for creating an interference fit between the bearing and the wall {Figure 4a, (8a/8b) are elastomeric bearings that will deform radially inward and as the fasteners that pass through (24a/b) are tightened, creating an interference fit; [0042]}
the threaded fasteners being axially oriented {Figure 4, the up/down direction in the figure may be considered the axial direction}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used axial oriented fasteners as taught by Mohr instead of the set screws a of Foskey and have the cylindrical ring / interface component of Foskey taper along the axial direction based on the teachings of Mohr. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to apply a preload to the bearing structure which can be used to adjust the rigidity of the bearing {Mohr [0045]/[0038]/[0042]}.
The combination of Foskey and Mohr would be done with the fasteners applied on the inboard side similar to how Figure 10 has fasteners applied to the inboard side of (230). The combination of Foskey and Mohr therefore teaches the axial direction of Mohr discussed above to be axially in the outboard direction with regard to the taper and axial translation.
Also, the combination of Foskey and Mohr would result in the interference fit being a circumferential interference fit as the ring of Foskey has the taper around the circumference based on the modifications from the teachings of Mohr.
Additionally, the combination of Foskey and Mohr would teach the threaded fasteners being axially oriented, as the fasteners would be along the same direction as the axis of the shaft of Foskey.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Foskey and Mohr further teaches:
wherein the ring and housing each comprise a flange {Mohr Figure 4a (6a/b) is a flange for the ring; the housing (2) has a flange which includes holes (24a/b)}; and
the fasteners couple the housing and ring using the flanges {Mohr [0038]/[0042]}.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Foskey and Mohr further teaches:
wherein axial translation of the ring in the outboard direction preloads the spindle bearing {Mohr Figure 4a (A) translation results in the preloading of spindle bearing (8a/b); [0042]}.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Foskey and Mohr further teaches:
wherein the spindle bearing is vulcanized to the shaft {Foskey Figure 4, (270) is vulcanized to the shaft (264); [0023]}.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Foskey and Mohr further teaches:
wherein the spindle bearing is vulcanized to the wall {Foskey Figure 9 (270) is vulcanized to wall (275); [0028]}.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Foskey and Mohr further teaches:
a centrifugal force bearing coupling the housing to the shaft {Foskey Figure 4 centrifugal force bearing (210) couples the housing (230) to the shaft (264); [0025]}.
Regarding claim 8, Foskey discloses:
An assembly for coupling a blade to an aircraft rotor {Figure 4, (270); [0001], [0016], [0021]}, the assembly comprising:
a rotor blade {Figure 2 (120)}
a shaft adapted to be coupled at an inboard portion to a hub of a rotor {Figures 2 and 4, (264) is coupled to an inboard portion (262) which is attached to the hub of a rotor (150)};
a centrifugal force bearing coupled to an outboard portion of the shaft {Foskey Figure 4 centrifugal force bearing (210) is coupled to an outboard portion of the shaft (264); [0025]}.
The remainder of the claim is identical to limitations discussed in the rejection of claim 1, for purposes of brevity and clarity this portion of the rejection is not repeated. Please see the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claims 9 and 11-13 are identical to claims 2 and 4-7 above. The rejections are therefore identical. For purposes of brevity and clarity these rejections are not repeated. Please see the rejection of claims 2 and 4-7 above.
Regarding claim 14, Foskey discloses:
A method of preloading a spindle bearing of an aircraft rotor {Figure 4, (270); [0001], [0016], [0021]}, the method comprising:
providing a rotor hub, a rotor blade, a shaft extending from the rotor hub {Figures 2 and 4, (150) and (120) are the rotor hub and rotor blade; (264) extends from (262) which is attached to the hub of a rotor (150)} and
a housing coupling the blade to the shaft {Figures 2 and 4, housing (230) is for coupling the blade to the shaft via bolts; [0021]};
providing a rigid ring coaxial with the shaft and having a wall {Figures 4 and 9, ring (275) is rigid, coaxial with shaft (264), and has a wall; [0028]}
providing a elastomeric spindle bearing coaxial with the shaft and having a central aperture through which the shaft extends {Figure 4 spindle bearing (270) is elastomeric and coaxial with (264), [0022]; (270) has a central aperture through which (264) extends; [0028]},
the spindle bearing extending between the wall and the shaft {Figure 4 and 9, (270) extends between (275) and shaft (264)};
threaded fasteners couple the ring to the housing {Figure 9 (280) couple (275) to housing (230)}
the spindle bearing allowing for limited coaxial rotation of the housing and blade together relative to the shaft about a pitch axis through shearing deformation of the spindle bearing {[0023]}.
Foskey does not disclose:
The wall having a tapered external surface that narrows toward the outboard direction,
the ring configured to be axially translated adjacent a tapered internal surface of an inboard portion of the housing that also narrows toward the outboard direction;
rotating in a selected direction threaded fasteners cause axial translation of the ring in the outboard direction,
the engagement of the tapered surfaces causing the wall to move radially inward for creating a circumferential interference fit between the spindle bearing and the wall.
Mohr is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of how to secure an elastomeric bearing to the housing and apply a preload to the bearing.
Mohr teaches:
The wall having a tapered external surface that narrows toward the axial direction {Annotated Figure 1 (I) is a wall with a tapered external surface that narrows towards an end},
the interface component configured to be axially translated adjacent a tapered internal surface of an inboard portion of the housing that also narrows toward the axial direction {Annotated Figure 1, the ring is axially translated adjacent (II) which is an internal surface of the housing (2) that tapers in the same manner as the wall of the ring; ring has preload travel (A); [0038], [0042]};
rotating in a selected direction threaded fasteners cause axial translation of the ring in the outboard direction {Figure 4a, the tightening of the fasteners which are accommodated in (24a/b) axial translate the ring in the direction of the tapering; preload travel (A); [0042]},
the engagement of the tapered surfaces causing the wall to move radially inward for creating an interference fit between the spindle bearing and the wall {Figure 4a, (8a/8b) are elastomeric bearings that will deform radially inward and as the fasteners that pass through (24a/b) are tightened, creating an interference fit; [0042]}
the threaded fasteners being axially oriented {Figure 4, the up/down direction in the figure may be considered the axial direction}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used axial oriented fasteners as taught by Mohr instead of the set screws a of Foskey and have the cylindrical ring / interface component of Foskey taper along the axial direction based on the teachings of Mohr. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to apply a preload to the bearing structure which can be used to adjust the rigidity of the bearing {Mohr [0045]/[0038]/[0042]}.
The combination of Foskey and Mohr would be done with the fasteners applied on the inboard side similar to how Figure 10 has fasteners applied to the inboard side of (230). The combination of Foskey and Mohr therefore teaches the axial direction of Mohr discussed above to be axially in the outboard direction with regard to the taper and axial translation.
Also, the combination of Foskey and Mohr would result in the interference fit being a circumferential interference fit as the ring of Foskey has the taper around the circumference based on the modifications from the teachings of Mohr.
Additionally, the combination of Foskey and Mohr would teach the threaded fasteners being axially oriented, as the fasteners would be along the same direction as the axis of the shaft of Foskey.
Claims 3, 9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foskey in view of Mohr as applied to claims 1, 8, and 14 above, and further in view of Noehren et al. (U.S Patent 4,244,677) hereinafter Noehren.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Foskey and Mohr teaches the spindle bearing assembly of claim 1, but silent regarding, “at least one shim located between the flanges for maintaining a selected distance between the flanges when the fasteners are tightened”.
Noehren pertains to rotorcraft bearing configurations. Noehren teaches:
at least one shim located between the flanges for maintaining a selected distance between the flanges when the fasteners are tightened {Figures 2/3, (65) is between flanges to maintain a distance between the flanges when fasteners (46)/(48) are tightened; Column 3 lines 23-26}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a shim between the flanges as taught by Noehren applied to the flanges of the combination of Foskey and Mohr. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as the shim can help maintain a distance between the flanges as fasteners are tightened to apply the desired load to the bearing {Noehren Column 3 lines 23-26; Mohr [0045]}.
Claims 10 is identical to claim 3 above. The rejections are therefore identical. For purposes of brevity and clarity these rejections are not repeated. Please see the rejection of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Foskey and Mohr teaches the spindle bearing assembly of claim 1, as well as:
in step (a), providing a flange on the housing {Mohr Figure 4a, the housing (2) has a flange which includes holes (24a/b)};
in step (b), providing a flange on the ring {Mohr Figure 4a (6a/b) is a flange for the ring};
in step (d), using flanges to couple the housing and ring {Mohr [0038]/[0042]}.
The combination of Foskey and Mohr is silent regarding, “providing at least one shim located between the flanges for maintaining a selected distance between the flanges when the fasteners are tightened”.
Noehren pertains to rotorcraft bearing configurations. Noehren teaches:
providing at least one shim located between the flanges for maintaining a selected distance between the flanges when the fasteners are tightened {Figures 2/3, (65) is between flanges to maintain a distance between the flanges when fasteners (46)/(48) are tightened; Column 3 lines 23-26}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a shim between the flanges as taught by Noehren applied to the flanges of the combination of Foskey and Mohr. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as the shim can help maintain a distance between the flanges as fasteners are tightened to apply the desired load to the bearing {Noehren Column 3 lines 23-26; Mohr [0045]}.
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 MICHAEL K. REITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1387. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 a.m. -5:30 p.m.
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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at 5712703508. 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.
/MICHAEL K. REITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3745