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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 13 November 2024 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the method provided by claim 29 cannot be used to make a different product from the product of claim 16 and that the groups do not provide a search burden. This is not found persuasive because while the applicant argues that the instant application provides easier construction, they do not describe that it is impossible to form the rotor with one of the different manufacturing methods described in the restriction requirement. One method being more beneficial does not mean that the product cannot be made by another materially different method. With regards to the search burden, examination requires employing different search strategies and search queries, and the examination burden is not limited exclusively to a prior art search but also includes the effort required to apply the art by making and discussing all appropriate grounds of rejection. Multiple inventions, such as those in the present application, require additional reference material and further discussion for each additional feature addressed. Concurrent examination of the multiple inventions claimed would thus involve a significant burden even if all searches were coextensive, which they are not. See MPEP 808.02. Further, the examination of a molding method would require a large number of additional classification areas to search as opposed to the product.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 29-31 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 13 November 2024.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 21 includes the limitations “wherein rotationally symmetrical the load bearing element” which should read “wherein the rotationally symmetrical load bearing element”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 22 includes the limitations “aerodynamical functional shape” which is described in the specification of the instant application as “An aerodynamical functional shape has to be understood as a shape with an aerodynamical function. In other words, the outer side of the load bearing element is constructed to provide reduced aerodynamical resistance and/or to provide a guiding functionality or even a covering functionality for the airflow through the rotor. Since the driving shaft of the engine in the duct is usually to be covered from the airflow the load bearing element can provide that covering functionality as a secondary functionality. For example, the outer surface of the load bearing element can provide a cone shape or a curved shape to reduce the air flow resistance and provide the mentioned guiding and/or covering functionality. The functionality can thereby be considered as a passive aerodynamical functionality. Of course, beside the discussed relatively easy aerodynamical functionalities also more complex guiding functionalities like the provision of additional rotor elements or guiding fins is generally possible to be implemented on the outer surface of the load bearing element” in paragraph 0018. As such, the “aerodynamical functional shape” is being interpreted broadly as a face that shapes or guides the flow of air through the engine.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 16-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bil (US 20070039310) in view of Kray (US 20200318486).
Regarding claim 16, Bil discloses A rotor for a ducted fan engine (Figure 1), the rotor comprising:
a plurality of rotor blades arranged circumferentially (Figure 1, item 15, described in paragraph 0033), each of the plurality rotor blades having (i) a blade body with a root section configured to be connected to a drive shaft to receive a primary driving load to provide a primary load path (Figure 1, item 64) and (ii) a tip section at an opposing end of the blade body (Figure 1, the opposing top end of item 15 adjacent the casing 11); and
a rotationally symmetrical load bearing element being in force transferring contact with the plurality of blade bodies (Figure 2, item 20 shows a load bearing element that is annular and circumferentially symmetrical on either side of the blade as shown in Figure 3. Paragraph 0045 describes that 20 is driven by the blades, meaning that force is transferred from the blade to the load bearing element) in a load bearing section located between the root section and the tip section (Figure 2 shows item 20 between the root and the tip and as described above, as the blade transfers force to rotate the load bearing element the portion then the portion of the blade driving the load bearing element is a load bearing section of the blade), to provide a secondary load path for at least a part of reaction loads of the blade bodies (As described above, the point of contact between the blade and the load bearing element creates a secondary load path),
wherein the blade body of each of the plurality of rotor blades is made of a composite material (Par. 0007), and
wherein the rotationally symmetrical load bearing element is made of a composite material (Par. 0040 describes that the load bearing element 20 is preferably made of a composite).
However, Bil does not explicitly teach the composite structure of the blades or load bearing element and does not disclose the blade composite comprising a polymeric matrix and continuous reinforcing fibres embedded in the polymeric matrix and the load bearing composite comprising the polymeric matrix and chopped reinforcing fibres embedded in the polymeric matrix.
Bil and Kray are analogous prior art because both show gas turbine blades made of composites with composite attachments. Kray teaches a blade made of a continuous fibers embedded in a polymeric matrix made of thermoplastic (Par. 0008) and the platform formed of chopped fibers in a polymeric matrix made of thermoplastic (Par. 0006) where the blade and platform can be coupled together to form a monolithic body (Par. 0006).
Kray describes that “a monolithic composite component, as described herein, may reduce the number of seals required within the engine, potentially increasing the efficiency of the gas turbine engine. Moreover, the platform(s) formed from chopped fibers may be more easily formed into complex shapes desired within the platform(s), while the continuous fibers of the blade may allow for greater strength to withstand the aerodynamic loads on the blade” (Par. 0027). This would provide beneficial strength between the load bearing element and the blade in that the force transmission would be more stable and no leakage into the cavity of the load bearing element would occur. Bil describes that the blade and the load bearing element are both desirably made of composites but does not describe the specific structure of the composites so one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose a suitable method of forming the composite and structure for the composite.
As described in Kray, the continuous fibers of the blade allows for better ability to withstand the aerodynamic loads and the chopped fibers for the platform allows for complex shapes, similar to the cavity shape provided in Bil. Further, using the same thermoplastic for both the blade and the load bearing element (Kray Par. 0039) allows for the blade and load bearing element to be made monolithic and provide the benefits described above. Ceramic matrix composites using fibers in a polymeric matrix are commonly used in gas turbine engine blades and components due to their ability to withstand heat and the stresses required by gas turbine blades and components. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the blade of Bil formed of continuous fibers in a thermoplastic matrix, the load bearing element of Bil formed of chopped fibers in the same thermoplastic matrix, and the two parts integrally formed together as described in Kray because “a monolithic composite component, as described herein, may reduce the number of seals required within the engine, potentially increasing the efficiency of the gas turbine engine. Moreover, the platform(s) formed from chopped fibers may be more easily formed into complex shapes desired within the platform(s), while the continuous fibers of the blade may allow for greater strength to withstand the aerodynamic loads on the blade” (Kray Paragraph 0027) and the use of the same thermoplastic allows for the blade and load bearing element to easily be made integral (Par. 0039).
Regarding claim 17, Bil in view of Kray teaches that the rotationally symmetrical load bearing element and the rotor blades are formed as monolithic construction. As described in the rejection of claim 16 above, the load bearing element and blade can be formed monolithically.
Regarding claim 18, Bil in view of Kray teaches that the polymeric matrix of the blade body and the polymeric matrix of the rotationally symmetrical load bearing element are selected from the same group of material. Kray Par. 0039 describes that the two composite elements can use the same thermoplastic as the matrix.
Regarding claim 19, Bil in view of Kray teaches that the group of material is thermoplastics. Kray Paragraph 0039 describes that the two components can both use thermoplastic polymers.
Regarding claim 20, Bil in view of Kray teaches that the load rotationally symmetrical bearing element includes a primary load bearing part in force transferring contact with the load bearing section of each of the blade bodies (Bil Figure 1, item 20) and a secondary load bearing part in force transferring connection with the root section of each of the blade bodies (The platform 64 in Bil is in load force transferring connection with the root section of the blade body at the base of the blade. The radially outward facing platform of item 64 of Bil in view of Kray would be capable of being made monolithically and of the same material described in the rejection of claim 16 for the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 16 above. As such, the radially facing platform 64 radially outward the root sections of 64 and 63 would meet the limitations required by claim 20 as the secondary load bearing part).
Regarding claim 21, Bil in view of Kray teaches that the rotationally symmetrical load bearing element at least partly extends in axial direction beyond the load bearing section of the blade bodies. Bil Figure 6 shows that the bearing element 20 extends axially past the blade on both sides and as such extends axially past the contact points and thereby past the load bearing sections of the blade bodies.
Regarding claim 22, Bil in view of Kray teaches that the outer surface of the rotationally symmetrical load bearing element comprises an aerodynamical functional shape. See the claim interpretation section above for a description of the requirements of “an aerodynamical functional shape”. Bil Paragraph 0033 describes that item 15 is a blade used in a gas turbine engine fan which necessitates an airfoil shape in order to be operational. Such an airfoil shape is an aerodynamical functional shape.
Regarding claim 23, Bil in view of Kray teaches that the rotationally symmetrical load bearing element extends axially beyond the blade bodies, following a rotationally symmetrically curved shape creating a pointed nose. Bil Figure 2 shows that the load bearing element 20 extends axially past the blade bodies and follows the contour through item 10 leading to a pointed nose of 10. Item 10 is attached to and rotates with item 20 and can be considered part of the load bearing element. Item 10 would be capable of being made of the same material described in the rejection of claim 16 for the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 16 above and thereby can be considered part of the load bearing element.
Regarding claim 24, Bil in view of Kray teaches that the rotationally symmetrical load bearing element provides a hollow cavity (Bil Figure 3 shows that the cells 20 are hollow).
Regarding claim 25, Bil in view of Kray teaches that each of the blade bodies extend between the root section and the load bearing section in a linear or substantially linear manner. The term “substantially” is a relative term meaning that the blade does not have to be perfectly linear between the root section and the load bearing section and can be curved. Bil Figure 2 shows the blade 15 between 64 and 22 being slightly curved but meeting the limitations of “substantially linear”. See MPEP 2173.05(b)(III)(D) where the term “substantially” is described as broad.
Regarding claim 26, Bil in view of Kray teaches that the load bearing section of each of the blade bodies has a contact surface extending at least partly along an axial direction of the rotor. Bil Figure 2 shows the blade bodies extending axially and having a contact portion with 21 and 22 along the entire axial extent, meaning the load bearing section extends axially.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bil (US 20070039310) in view of Kray (US 20200318486) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Sikorski (EP 0602631).
Regarding claim 27, Bil in view of Kray teaches the limitations of claim 16 as set forth in the above 103 rejection. However, Bil in view of Kray does not explicitly teach that the rotationally symmetrical load bearing element includes rounded edges at least at contact sections to each of the blade bodies.
Bil in view of Kray and Sikorski are analogous prior art because both describe composite structures bonded to each other. Sikorski teaches providing rounded beads at the interface between the two parts (Figure 1, item 9) because the rounded shape creates a larger seating and adhesion surface for bonding (Par. 0015). The increase of surface area would provide a larger bonding interface for monolithically forming the thermoplastics of Bil in view of Kray. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the rounded beads of Sikorski in the load bearing element and blade interface of Bil in view of Kray because it creates a larger adhesion interface and stronger bonding between the two structures.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bil (US 20070039310) in view of Kray (US 20200318486) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Wilkin (US 20180073518).
Regarding claim 28, Bil in view of Kray teaches the limitations of claim 16 as set forth in the above 103 rejection. However, Bil in view of Kray does not teach that the number of rotor blades between 3 and 35.
Bil in view of Kray and Wilkin are analogous prior art because both describe fan blades in gas turbine engines. Wilkin teaches providing a fan with 13-21 fan blades (Par. 0050). Bil in view of Kray does not choose or describe how many blades are to be used in the fan rotor so one of ordinary skill in the art would have to select an appropriate number of fan blades to use for the engine. Wilkin teaches that using a smaller amount of fan blades allows for improved aerodynamic efficiency in the gas turbine engine (Par. 0050). Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the number of blades in Bil in view of Kray be between 13 and 21 blades as taught in Wilkin. because using a smaller amount of fan blades allows for improved aerodynamic efficiency in the gas turbine engine (Par. 0050). Claim 28 only requires one of the optional limitations to be met because is claims that “the rotor comprises at least one of the following geometric dimensions”. As the range of blades of Bil in view of Kray and further in view of Wilkin lies entirely within the claimed range of 3 to 35 blades, Bil in view of Kray and further in view of Wilkin meets the limitations of claim 28. See MPEP 2131.03.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE C RIBADENEYRA whose telephone number is (469)295-9164. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00 (CT).
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, David Sosnowski can be reached on (571) 270-7944. 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.
/THEODORE C RIBADENEYRA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights