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, see pp. 8-10, filed 10/06/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 1-3 over Edwards have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-3 over Edwards have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 5-7, filed 10/06/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 3 over McCabe ‘548 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 3 over McCabe ‘548 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pp. 5-7 of the remarks the applicant argues that McCabe, with regards to claims 1-2, does not disclose that the elastic beads are retained by a locking tab formed in one of said upper airfoil shell and said lower airfoil shell and impinging on said elastic bead, stating that, “…McCabe’s (‘548) elastic bead is seated within McCabe’s (‘548) seam without any additional locking tab impinging on McCabe’s (‘548) bead…” [pp. 7 of the remarks] because McCabe retains the “…elastic bead positioned within a seam by relying upon only the integral nature of the bead material and the frictional confines of the seam itself, as in McCabe ('548)…” [pp. 8 of the remarks]. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in the Non-Final rejection dated 02/20/2025 the seam is interpreted as “the groove in which bead 48 sits” [see annotated Fig. in the Non-Final rejection dated 02/20/2025] in other words the negative space forming the groove. In the rejection below, the tab [see annotated Fig. below] is interpreted as the triangular structure impinging on the seam and preventing the seam from being outwardly removed from the groove by locking the bead against outward movement by structural confinement and not by friction alone.
PNG
media_image1.png
410
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
On pp. 11-12 the applicant argues that McCabe (‘592) does not disclose that the elastic bead is “..retained therein by a locking tab formed in said end portion and impinging on said elastic bead” [see claim 4 in the claim set dated 10/06/2025] because “…McCabe ('592) merely teaches folding the edge portion of McCabe's ('592) blade 24 to ‘pinch the seal member 22 between layers’ of its seam, and that there is no teaching or suggestion of forming an additional lacking[sp] tab, or detent, to thereby impinge on the seal element…” [pp. 11-12]. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s Fig. 2 (left) and Fig. 3 of McCabe (‘592) (right) are provided below with annotations to demonstrate that the “folded edge” of McCabe (‘592) and the tab required by the claim are the same. The examiner notes that although the detent differentiates the disclosed invention from McCabe (‘592) the detent is not claimed.
PNG
media_image2.png
359
428
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
285
406
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Since there is no differentiation between the claimed tab, interpreted in light of applicant’s Fig. 2, and the folded edge portion of McCabe (‘592) the folded edge portion [reference character 24c of McCabe ‘592] is fairly interpreted as the claimed tab. For these reasons the rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McCabe (US 3,204,548).
With respect to claim 1 McCabe discloses an airfoil blade assembly, comprising: an upper airfoil shell [reference character 46]; a lower airfoil shell [reference character 47]; a seam [see annotated Fig. below] formed in only one of said upper airfoil shell and said lower airfoil shell: an elastic bead [reference character 48] positioned within said lateral seam and retained therein by a locking tab formed in one of said upper airfoil shell and said lower airfoil shell and impinging on said elastic bead [see response to arguments above]; and wherein said elastic bead extends beyond a periphery of said lateral seam when said upper airfoil shell is fixed to said lower airfoil shell.
PNG
media_image4.png
411
795
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McCabe (US 3,204,548).
With respect to claim 2 McCabe discloses a first blade assembly and a second blade assembly arranged for selective movement relative to one another [see Figs. 3-5, each showing three blade assemblies labeled 26], said first blade assembly including a first upper airfoil shell [reference character 46] and a first lower airfoil shell [reference character 47], wherein only one of said first upper airfoil shell and said first lower airfoil shell defines a first lateral seam [see annotated Fig. above in connection with claim 1], and said second blade assembly including a second upper airfoil shell [also reference character 46] and a second lower airfoil shell [also reference character 47], wherein only one of said second upper airfoil shell and said second lower airfoil shell defines a second lateral seam [see annotated Fig. above in connection with claim 1]; a first elastic bead [reference character 48] captured within said first lateral seam and retained therein by a first locking tab [see response to arguments above] formed in said first lateral seam and impinging on said first elastic bead and a second elastic bead [also reference character 48] captured within said second lateral seam bead and a second elastic bead captured within said second lateral seam and retained therein by a second locking tab [see response to arguments above] formed in said second lateral seam and impinging on said second elastic bead, wherein said first elastic bead extends beyond a periphery of said first lateral seam and said second elastic bead extends beyond a periphery of said second lateral seam [see Figs. 3-5]; and wherein said one of said first elastic bead and said second elastic bead becomes trapped between a first planar face of one of said first upper airfoil shell and said first lower airfoil shell, and a second planar face of one of said second upper airfoil shell and said second lower airfoil shell, when said first blade assembly and said second blade assembly are moved to contact one another.
PNG
media_image5.png
418
711
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bacelaere (US 4,610,197) in view of McCabe (US 3,908,529).
With respect to claim 4 Bacelaere discloses an airfoil blade assembly, comprising: a first airfoil shell [reference character 14]; a second airfoil shell [reference character 12], wherein an end portion of said second airfoil shell is bent to capture therein a distal portion of said first airfoil shell [see Fig. 3].
Bacelaere does not disclose that said end portion being bent back towards said second airfoil shell and forming thereby a lateral seam; an elastic bead positioned within said lateral seam and retained therein by a locking tab formed in said end portion and impinging on said elastic bead; and wherein said elastic bead extends beyond a periphery of said lateral seam when said first airfoil shell is fixed to said second airfoil shell.
McCabe discloses a backdraft damper that includes a portion that is bent back away from the end portion of the damper [see annotated Fig. below] and bent back toward the end portion of the damper [see annotated Fig. below] forming a lateral seam [see annotated Fig. below], and elastic bead [reference character 22] positioned within the lateral seam and retained therein by a locking tab formed in said end portion and impinging on said elastic bead [see response to arguments above] where the elastic bead extends beyond a periphery of said lateral seam.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the blade assembly taught by Bacelaere by bending the end portion of the second airfoil shell back toward the second airfoil shell and position an elastic bead within the lateral seam, as taught by McCabe, in order to facilitate a seal between the damper vanes in the closed position.
PNG
media_image6.png
512
564
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is allowed.
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 VIVEK K SHIRSAT whose telephone number is (571)272-3722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:20AM.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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.
/VIVEK K SHIRSAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights