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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/25/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claims 1, 3-9 and 11 remain pending in the application. Claim 6 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7-9 and 11 under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over Horn in view of Zscherp have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. The Applicant argues “Horn’s crack-affecting device 28 does not connect blade root 24 to main rotor body 12”. The claim does not require that the connection connects the blade root to the body, but the blade is connected by the blade root via a connection. Horn clearly teaches that each of the blades 16 are connected to the body 12 by blade root 24 via the connection 28. The rejection is maintained.
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 of this title, 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, 3-5, 7-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horn et al. (US2019/0120061) in view of Zscherp (US2014/0301852).
Regarding claim 1, Horn teaches a turbomachine rotor (Fig. 1) comprising a body (12) extending around a central axis, the body having an outer surface (generally 28) from which a plurality of blades (16) extends radially relative to the central axis, each of said blades having a blade root 24) and a blade tip (generally 16), defining an inner radial end and an outer radial end of the blade relative to the central axis, said blades having the same blade height measured radially relative to the central axis (see Fig. 2), characterized in that each of the blades is connected to the body by its blade root via a connection (28) having a nonzero connection height (see Fig. 2), wherein the connection is disposed at an innermost radial end of each of the blades, wherein the body and the blades form a single-piece bladed disk (paragraph [0063]).
Horn fails to teach for the plurality of said blades, the connection height of two successive blades is different, wherein for each blade, the connection has a nonzero connection height comprised between 2% and 13% of the blade height.
In an analogous art, Zscherp teaches a bladed rotor. Zscherp teaches each of the blades is connected to the body by its blade root via a connection (generally 11) having a nonzero connection height, so that for the plurality of said blades, the connection height of two successive blades is different (Fig. 2 shows the differing connection heights from blade to blade) wherein for each blade, the connection has a nonzero connection height comprised between 2% and 13% of the blade height (see paragraph [0017]. Zscherp teaches the contour of the sidewall may deviate in the radial direction by 1-2.5% (2.5% representing an endpoint of the range and thus an immediately envisioned embodiment) of the blade height within a circumferential position of the second sidewall itself. Further we know that each sidewall deviates from the contour of each other by an exemplary 2.5%). Zscherp teaches this arrangement improves the efficiency of the blades (paragraph [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the turbomachine rotor of Horn and change it so that it has the connection height arrangement as taught by Zscherp, wherein for each blade, the connection has a nonzero connection height comprised between 2% and 13% of the blade height to improve the efficiency of the blades.
Regarding claim 3, Horn as modified teaches the difference between the connection heights of two successive blades is comprised between 1% and 5% of the blade height (see Zscherp paragraphs [0016-0017]).
Regarding claim 4, Horn as modified teaches the difference between the connection heights of two successive blades is comprised between 2% and 3% of the blade height (see Zscherp paragraphs [0016-0017]).
Regarding claim 5, Horn as modified teaches the evolution of the connection height of the blades to the body varies according to a sinusoidal profile (see Zscherp Fig. 2, where the curved profile of connection heights resembles a sin curve).
Regarding claim 7, Horn as modified teaches the body is an annular body having a central recess (not shown, but a central recess is inherent to fit a shaft).
Regarding claim 8, Horn as modified teaches for each blade, the connection between the body and the blade root is accomplished with a fillet (28a, 28b) having a circular portion cross-section.
Regarding claim 9, Horn as modified teaches for each blade, the connection between the body and the blade root is accomplished so as to have a variable radius of curvature (see paragraph [0065]).
Regarding claim 11, Horn as modified teaches a turbomachine (paragraph [0001]) comprising a turbomachine rotor according to claim 1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CAMERON A CORDAY whose telephone number is (571)272-0383. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 EST.
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 on (571) 270-3508. 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.
/CAMERON A CORDAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3745 /COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745