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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group S (claim 29) in the reply filed on 01/15/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “According to Chapter 5 of the International Phase of the PCT Applicant's Guide, 5.123, an international application which complies with the unity of invention requirements laid down in Rule 13 must be accepted by all the designated and elected Offices, since Article 27(1) does not allow any national law (as defined in Article 2(x)) to require compliance with requirements relating to the contents of the international application different from or additional to those provided for in the PCT.” This is not found persuasive because it states “an international application which complies with the unity of invention,” but the instant application does not comply with the unity of invention as laid out in the requirement for restriction mailed on 09/16/2025. Moreover, the statement erroneously alleges that the restriction is using “national law” but the restriction is based on the unity of invention. Applicant further argues that “In the aforementioned report the reference to Bauer et al. (WO 2012/110267) was considered and no lack of unity was cited.” The examiner respectfully notes that the examiner is not responsible for other office’s work and the accuracy of their work. Applicant further argues that “Bauer is silent with regard to any pitch angle variation at the level of serration features (tooth tip/trough), or any measurement or control of pitch angle at those locations.” The examiner notes that this is a misrepresentation of the restriction because the restriction does not mention that Bauer discloses the recited pitch angle variation at the level of serration features (tooth tip/trough), or any measurement or control of pitch angle at those locations. Moreover, the examiner notes that this is not a flaw in the restriction because Bauer does not need to discloses these in order for the restriction to be proper. Applicant has not provided any argument or reason as to why Bauer has to disclose pitch angle variation at the level of serration features (tooth tip/trough), or any measurement or control of pitch angle at those locations, for the restriction to be proper, nor is there any citation to any laws that the primary art (in this case Bauer) has to disclose all of the limitations, because then there would be no need for a teaching art such as Micheli. Applicant further argues that “Micheli does not disclose serrated edges, tooth tips, or tooth troughs.” The examiner again notes that this is also a misrepresentation of the restriction because the restriction does not mention that Micheli discloses any serrated edges, tooth tips, or tooth troughs. Applicant further argues that “nor does Micheli teach measuring or controlling pitch angle variation at those specific features.” The examiner respectfully disagrees because, as stated previously in the restriction, in the combination of Bauer and Micheli, at least some of said blades of the first series of blades and/or of the second series of blades each have, along the span of the blade or radially to the central longitudinal axis, a pitch angle variation that is less than 45° between: a first straight line connecting the leading edge and the trailing edge, at a first radius where one of said tooth tips is located, and a second straight line connecting the leading edge and the trailing edge, at a second radius where one of said tooth troughs is located, adjacent to said one of the tooth tips, by virtue of having a pitch angle variation that is less than 45° along the entire blade span. Applicant has ignored this part and there are no arguments directed to this portion. Applicant argues that “there is no suggestion or motivation in Micheli to apply its teachings to blades with serrated edges or to consider the micro-geometry of serrations.” The examiner respectfully disagrees because there is no need for any suggestion or motivation in Micheli that its teaching could be used for blades with serrated edges. In other words, there is no need for Micheli to list all the different types of blades or different features that could exist in a blade that their teaching could be applied to. Micheli’s teaching is about blades and Bauer has blades. Applicant has not provided any reason as to why the serrations of Bauer exclude it from using the teachings of Micheli. Applicant further argues that “both disclosures' technical contexts are different: Bauer is directed to propeller blades of a contra rotative open rotor (CROR) (see abstract) having serrations, while Micheli is directed to compressor blades (see abstract), not propeller blades of a CROR open rotor). This difference in technical context is significant: the aerodynamic and acoustic requirements for propeller blades with serrations (as in Bauer) are fundamentally different from those for smooth compressor blades (as in Micheli).” The examiner respectfully disagrees because both Bauer and Micheli are directed to blades and blades can be used in different machines. Applicant has not provided any reason as to why the teachings of Micheli cannot be used for blades of Bauer other than the conclusory statement that “the aerodynamic and acoustic requirements for propeller blades with serrations (as in Bauer) are fundamentally different from those for smooth compressor blades (as in Micheli).” The examiner disagrees that their differences are fundamental and notes that blades can be used in different functions. Note that in both Bauer and Micheli, the blades are used to move fluids, so whether they are in the environment of a compressor or a open rotor, they have the same function of moving air. Moreover, neither Bauer and Micheli have specifically mentioned that their blade is to be used only in a compressor or in an open rotor.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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 use the word “means,” and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “drive means” in claim 1.
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.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 29 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.
Claim 29 recites the limitation “the greatest deflection”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is also not clear what plane of reference is used for “deflection.” In other words, deflect from what plane of reference is meant by the claim.
Any and all claims rejected herein under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, if rejected with art below under sections 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103, are rejected as best understood.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer et al. (WO 2012/110267), referred to hereafter as Bauer in view of Micheli et al. (US 2011/0150660), referred to hereafter as Micheli.
With regard to claim 1:
Bauer discloses an aeronautical propulsion unit along which a gas flow can circulate from upstream to downstream, the propulsion unit having a central longitudinal axis, and comprising: a first series of blades, a second series of blades positioned downstream of the first series of blades (see 32 and 34), drive means (see engine in the title) for rotating the blades of at least one among the first series of blades and the second series of blades, about the central longitudinal axis (Fig. 1), a nacelle which has an aerodynamic external surface relative to which the first series of blades and the second series of blades project radially to the central longitudinal axis (Fig. 1), each blade of the first series of blades and second series of blades having: a free end opposite to a connection end forming a blade root close to the nacelle (22, Fig. 1), a pressure side face and a suction side face (Fig. 1), a chord line (Fig. 1), at a radius centered on the central longitudinal axis, a radius between the central longitudinal axis and a location, on the blade or a pitch arm of the blade, which is level with the external surface of the nacelle (Fig. 1), a radius between the central longitudinal axis and a location, on the free end of the blade, that is farthest from the central longitudinal axis, in a direction transverse to the central longitudinal axis (Fig. 1), and a span, defined, radially to the central longitudinal axis, between the free end and the connection end, in said transverse direction (Fig. 1), at least some of the blades of the first series of blades having variable pitch, such that each of them can pivot around a pitch arm to which said blade is fixed, about a pitch axis which passes through the blade, and/or at least some of the blades of the second series of blades having variable pitch, such that each of them can pivot around a pitch arm to which said blade is fixed, about a pitch axis which passes through the blade (Fig. 1, page 17, lines 6-16; page 19, lines 4-9), wherein in said propulsion unit: at least one of the blades of the first series of blades has a trailing edge having serrations, and/or at least one of the blades of the second series of blades has a leading edge having serrations (see serrations 66 in Fig. 1), said serrations having tooth tips and tooth troughs which successively alternate (Fig. 1).
Bauer is silent about the blades pitch angle variation, and hence it doesn’t disclose that at least some of said blades of the first series of blades and/or of the second series of blades each have, along the span of the blade or radially to the central longitudinal axis, a pitch angle variation that is less than 45° between: a first straight line connecting the leading edge and the trailing edge, at a first radius where one of said tooth tips is located, and a second straight line connecting the leading edge and the trailing edge, at a second radius where one of said tooth troughs is located, adjacent to said one of the tooth tips.
However, Micheli teaches a blade and further teaches that the blade has, along the span of the blade or radially to the central longitudinal axis, a pitch angle variation that is less than 45° between: a first straight line connecting the leading edge and the trailing edge, at a first radius at the blade root, and a second straight line connecting the leading edge and the trailing edge, at a second radius at the blade’s free end (see Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique, namely having a pitch angle variation of less than 45° along the entire blade span of the first and second blades of Bauer, to improve similar devices in the same way.
In the combination of Bauer and Micheli, at least some of said blades of the first series of blades and/or of the second series of blades each have, along the span of the blade or radially to the central longitudinal axis, a pitch angle variation that is less than 45° between: a first straight line connecting the leading edge and the trailing edge, at a first radius where one of said tooth tips is located, and a second straight line connecting the leading edge and the trailing edge, at a second radius where one of said tooth troughs is located, adjacent to said one of the tooth tips, by virtue of having a pitch angle variation that is less than 45° along the entire blade span.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 29 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with regard to claim 29, the prior art doesn’t disclose that at least one of the blades of one of the series of blades has the greatest deflection at a radial position located over a radial length of 0.4x(Re-Ri) from the free end, and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application, nor any motivation, to modify the prior arts for these deficiencies, because it would require improper hindsight reconstruction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to the attached form PTO-892 for pertinent prior art disclosing similar aeronautical propulsion units such as US 9249666.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BEHNOUSH HAGHIGHIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7558. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:00am-15:00pm.
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 D Heinle can be reached at (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.
/BEHNOUSH HAGHIGHIAN/
Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745