DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
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.
Internet/E-mail Communication
In order to permit communication regarding the instant application via email, Applicant is invited to file form PTO/SB/439 (Authorization for Internet Communications) or include the following statement in a filed document or remarks of a filed response (see MPEP 502.03 II):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
If such authorization is provided, please include an email address in the remarks of a filed response. The examiner’s e-mail address is CHRISTOPHER.LEGENDRE@USPTO.GOV.
Response to Declaration
Initially, it is noted that pages 2, 4, 6, and 8 are missing.
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 28 May 2025 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 9, 11, 12, and 14-16 based upon insufficient disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as set forth in the last Office action because the facts presented are not germane to the rejection at issue. The 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections at issue are made on the basis that the originally filed disclosure does not describe how the blade design and/or construction results in certain crack initiation and propagation properties. The declaration does not provide any facts rebutting this position (note: although item 13 describes properties of a blade that affect crack initiation and propagation, it is noted that the originally filed disclosure is silent as to such properties - see MPEP 716.09 stating “Affidavits or declarations presented to show that the disclosure of an application is sufficient to one skilled in the art are not acceptable to establish facts which the specification itself should recite”). The declaration addresses the rejections at issue by stating “The Office takes the position that the particular crack site and/or growth propagation is entirely unpredictable. I respectfully disagree with this position… To summarize, it is highly unlikely for a crack to start in a blade anywhere but at the leading edge” (items 8 and 12) - in response, it is respectfully noted that the Office does not dispute the likelihood of a crack initiation site to be located on the blade leading edge. However, this is not germane to the issue of written description support for how the particular claimed crack behavior is achieved in the instant invention.
To clarify, the Office’s position is that the unpredictability of a given trajectory, size, and speed of a foreign object leads to unpredictability in the radial location and force (in magnitude and direction) of its impact on the blade leading edge, thereby resulting in unpredictability of the radial location on the blade leading edge of the crack initiation site and, thus, the subsequent crack propagation path. This is deemed relevant by the Office since Applicant’s background disclosure indicates that a foreign object strike is the context in which crack initiation would occur in the instant invention - i.e., the instant invention concerns crack behavior in the context of crack initiation resulting from foreign object damage, not in the context of crack initiation resulting from fatigue cycle stress. As such, consideration of the relationship between foreign object strikes and crack initiation is necessary in contemplating the instant invention. The disclosure only states that a particular crack initiation site and growth path will occur in the inventive blade, but omits any description as to the design and/or construction of the blade that results in such behavior (i.e., the particular radial location of crack initiation being outside of a critical height 35 (see par. [0036]), the propagation of the crack across a predefined axial fracture crack length 30 (see par. [0036]), the horizontal growth of the crack in a first phase (see par. [0037]), the growth of the crack being parallel to the angle of attack of the platform in a second phase (see par. [0040], etc.).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed 28 May 2025 with respect to the claims have been fully considered. Any claim objections and/or 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections not repeated herein are considered to be overcome by the amendments.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant's remarks/arguments filed 28 May 2025 have been fully considered:
-“First, almost all cracks in blisks start in the blades because it is the blades that are in the gas flow path and subject to Foreign Object Damage (FOD), that is striking a foreign object. The rotor disk, not being in the gas flow path, is not likely to strike a foreign object. Further, in a substantial majority of cases, cracks in blades start at the leading edges of the blades” - in response, it is respectfully noted that the 112(a) rejections do not discount these aspects - rather, the 112(a) rejections rely on the unpredictability of the radial location and force (in magnitude and direction) of a foreign object strike on the blade leading edge, such unpredictability in the radial location and force necessarily resulting in an unpredictable crack initiation site and, thus, growth path (note: the particular crack growth path relies on the radial location of the crack initiation site on the leading edge) - stated another way, there is no explanation in the originally filed disclosure for how the functions “the rotor blades being subject to a crack growth… where a respective crack will spread…. as far as the predefined axial fracture crack length” (claim 9) and “upon the respective crack reaching the predefined axial fracture crack length, blade fracture rapidly occurs… prior to the respective crack propagating into the rotor disc” (claim 9) are achieved;
-“Moreover, because the rotational speed of the blades is very substantially faster than the speed of any foreign object entering the flow path, it is actually the blade that strikes the foreign object, rather than the foreign object striking the blade” - the Office respectfully notes that this is immaterial to the issues outlined in the stated 112 (a) rejections;
“Further, the crack growth is majority driven by radial forces (given by loading conditions) which results in a parallel growth to the horizontal platform (0°)” - the Office respectfully notes that: (1) this description is in contradiction with Applicant’s Figure 2 showing crack growth 8 as not parallel to the horizontal platform across at least a portion of the first section 29 and the entirety of the second section 33 (2) this description is in contradiction with Applicant’s par. [0037] stating “In a second phase, the crack deviates and grows substantially parallel to the angle of attack 31A to D (Fig. 2) of the platform 4”, and/or (3) this description is in contradiction with Applicant’s remarks filed 28 May 2025 stating “The second section of the claimed blade… forces any crack propagation radially outwardly” (emphasis added).
“In addition, blades are thicker at the root section and tend to get thinner as they extend radially outward. The thinner the blade section, the more likely there will be a crack initiation, and crack propagation” - the Office respectfully notes that the originally filed disclosure is silent as to any variations in thickness leading to the disclosed crack initiation site and/or growth path (note: the particular crack growth path relies on the radial location of the crack initiation site on the leading edge);
“The second section of the claimed blade provides for a thickening of the blade which discourages any crack propagation radially inwardly that could damage the rotor disk, but rather, forces any crack propagation radially outwardly” - the Office respectfully notes that the originally filed disclosure is silent as to any such thickening of the second section 33 and/or specifically how the crack propagation is caused to extend “radially outwardly”;
“While such calculation involves several variables, including variables of the materials, dimensions and loading of the object being studied, each of those variables will be readily available to the person of ordinary skill. With respect to the presently claimed rotor, this calculation will also depend on the radial height of a crack on the respective blade, as the calculation will provide different results at other radial heights” - the Office respectfully notes that the originally filed disclosure is silent as to any structural aspect that is considered to result in the claimed crack initiation site (i.e., the radial location on the blade leading edge) and subsequent growth path;
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9, 10th line from bottom, --the-- should be added before “one” (to imbue proper antecedent basis practice - see line 5).
In claim 9, 7th line from bottom, “root” should be changed to --radially inner portion-- (since the disclosure does not use the term “root”).
In claim 16, line 2, --respective-- should be added before “the rotor blade” (see claim 15).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 9, 11, 12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failing the written description requirement.
In claim 9, the limitation recited as “calculating an axial fracture crack length of a crack in one of the rotor blades…; a respective crack will spread from a leading edge of one of the rotor blades as far as a predefined axial fracture crack length” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that Applicant, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. According to MPEP 2163 (I)(A), issues of adequate written description may arise when an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. In the instant case, there is no disclosure of specific properties or aspects of “blade” that necessarily result in a specific site (i.e., the radial location on the leading edge) of crack initiation and/or path of crack propagation and/or a specific “predefined axial fracture crack length” (note: crack initiation and/or growth can occur at any radial location due to debris impact, for example, with forces varying in both magnitude and direction and, thus, the particular radial location of the crack site and/or growth propagation path is entirely unpredictable; there is not a single “axial fracture crack length” for a given blade). Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claims 11-12 and 14-16.
In claim 9, the limitation recited as “upon the respective crack reaching the predefined axial fracture crack length, blade fracture rapidly occurs where a radially outer portion of the one of the rotor blades completely separates from a root of the one of the rotor blades” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that Applicant, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. According to MPEP 2163 (I)(A), issues of adequate written description may arise when an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. In the instant case, there is no disclosure of specific properties or aspects of “blade” that necessarily result in: (1) the crack growth being confined to the “first section” (note: see the subsequent limitation “the first section extends… as far as the predefined axial fracture crack length”), (2) a change from crack growth to “rapid” fracture, (3) the “rapid” fracture being confined to the “second section” (note: see the subsequent limitation “the second section extends from the predefined axial fracture crack length”). Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claims 11, 12, and 14-16.
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.
Claims 9, 11, 12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 9, the term “rapidly” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite since it is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claims 11, 12, and 14-16.
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 extension fee 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 CHRISTOPHER RYAN LEGENDRE whose telephone is (571)270-3364 and email is christopher.legendre@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
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 Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at 571-272-8648. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER R LEGENDRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745