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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/5/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3-9 and 11 remain pending in the application. Claim 6 remains withdrawn.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, and are persuasive. The rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 1, line 10, a comma should be inserted after “wherein”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 3-4, 7-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bornhorn et al. (US2020/0408143).
Regarding claim 1, Bornhorn teaches a turbomachine rotor (Fig. 1) comprising a body (2) extending around a central axis, the body having an outer surface from which a plurality of blades (3) extends radially relative to the central axis, each of said blades having a blade root (generally 5) and a blade tip (generally 3), 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. 1), wherein the blade root is connected to the body via a connection (4) having a nonzero connection height (see Fig. 2), so that for the plurality of said blades, the connection height of two successive blades is different (see paragraphs [0044-0046]), wherein for each blade, the connection has a nonzero connection height comprised between 2% and 13% of the blade height (In paragraphs [0044-0046] Bornhorn teaches that a curvature radius, which is considered equivalent to the connection height, for a first blade set is between 2.5%-10% of the blade height. Bornhorn further teaches a second blade set where the radius is proportional to the first blade set by 130% to 400%, which is equivalent to 3%-40% of the blade height), 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.
Regarding claim 3, Bornhorn teaches the difference between the connection heights of two successive blades is comprised between 1% and 5% of the blade height (see paragraphs [0044-0046]).
Regarding claim 4, Bornhorn teaches the difference between the connection heights of two successive blades is comprised between 2% and 3% of the blade height see paragraphs [0044-0046]).
Regarding claim 7, Bornhorn teaches the body is an annular body having a central recess (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Bornhorn teaches for each blade, the connection between the body and the blade root is accomplished with a fillet (4) having a circular portion cross-section.
Regarding claim 9, Bornhorn 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 [0031]).
Regarding claim 11, Bornhorn teaches a turbomachine (paragraph [0001]) comprising a turbomachine rotor according to claim 1.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bornhorn in view of Zscherp (US2014/0301852).
Regarding claim 5, Bornhorn fails to explicitly teach the evolution of the connection height of the blades to the body varies according to a sinusoidal profile.
In an analogous art, Zscherp teaches a bladed rotor. Zscherp teaches a sinusoidal variation of connection heights (see Figs. 2-3). Zscherp teaches this arrangement “detunes” the rotor by avoiding radial projections within blade groups and between blade groups (see paragraphs [0033-0038]).
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 Bornhorn and change it so that the evolution of the connection height of the blades to the body varies according to a sinusoidal profile as taught by Zscherp to detune the rotor by avoiding radial projections within blade groups and between blade groups.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights