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 with respect to claim(s) 1-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed on 1/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Bouru's structure also affirmatively motivates away from (or at least fails to accommodate) the claimed pivot-rod-inserted axial retainer. In Bouru, the "guide pivot 8 ... is for pivoting inside a hollow bushing 18," and the bushing is mounted in a recess of an inner ring of the compressor” and that it leaves “no disclosure of an exposed pivot- rod end-at the end opposite the vane blade-configured to accept a fastener.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Not only there is no disclosure to affirmatively motivate away (which applicant has failed to cite within the Bouru), Bouru does not fail to accommodate a fastener. As it is clearly depicted in Fig. 1, element 8 extends to the end of element 18. Moreover, “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 9, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouru (US 2007/0059161) in view of Dube et al. (US 2013/0195651), referred to hereafter as Dube, and Foucher (US 2008/0206045), and Robertson, JR. et al. (US 2016/0341068), referred to hereafter as Robertson.
With regard to claim 1:
Bouru discloses an assembly of bearings and turbomachine variable pitch stator vane pivots (Fig. 1), each bearing being mounted in a respective bore (Fig. 1) passing through a casing (10, 22) of the turbomachine ([0024]) and including a respective bush (24, or 18. Also see the bushes around 6 in Fig. 1) solidly connected to said bore (note “anti-rotation” in [0044]-[0055] and see 26 and 28 in Fig. 1, and see 30 in Fig. 4, and 44, 46 in Fig. 7-8), each turbomachine variable pitch stator vane pivot comprising a lower pivot rod (8, [0025], [0028], Fig. 1) or an upper pivot rod (6), each lower or upper pivot rod rotating within the respective bore of the casing via the respective bearing ([0028], Fig. 1), wherein each bearing further includes a ring (see “additional bushing (not shown in the figures)” in [0030]) mounted around and solidly connected to the respective lower or upper pivot rod inside the respective bush (see “a ferrule can be mounted tightly around each guide pivot” in [0030]).
Bouru does not appear to explicitly disclose that said ring includes an external part comprising a rigid material and an internal part solidly connected to the external part and comprising a flexible material, wherein the internal part is thicker than the external part. Bouru also doesn’t appear to explicitly disclose a fastener is inserted into the respective lower or upper pivot rod at an end of the respective lower or upper pivot rod that is opposite a vane blade, said fastener being configured to retain the ring axially within the respective bush.
Regarding the ring including an external part having a rigid material and an internal part having a flexible material, Dube teaches a bearing for a turbomachine variable pitch stator vane pivot (Fig. 1, [0030]) including a ring (62) that has an external part (66) comprising a rigid material (by virtue of being metallic, see [0017] and claim 3) and an internal part (70) solidly connected to the external part (Fig. 3, [0039]) and comprising a flexible material ([0039]). Dube teaches that the ring (62) facilitates vibration absorption, which helps protect the variable vane assembly from damage during operation of the gas turbine engine ([0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the teachings of Dube and substitute the “additional bushing” of Bouru with the ring of Dube that includes an external part comprising a rigid material and an internal part solidly connected to the external part and comprising a flexible material, in order to facilitate vibration absorption, which helps protect the variable vane assembly from damage during operation of the gas turbine engine, as taught by Dube ([0037]).
Regarding the thickness of the internal and external parts, Dube is silent about their thicknesses, however, Foucher teaches a bushing (Fig. 2) having an external part (72) and an internal part (71, alone or in combination with 73) and further teaches that the internal part is thicker than the external part (Fig. 2). Foucher also teaches that the internal part comprises a flexible material ([0035]. Note that comprise, as used in the claim, is an open-ended phrase).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application, when looking for the thicknesses of the internal and external parts which Dube is silent about, to use a known technique, namely making the internal part to be thicker than the external part, to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding a fastener, Robertson teaches a bearing for a turbomachine variable vane pivot (Fig. 1-3) including a bushing (74, Fig. 3) with a fastener (77b) inserted into the respective lower or upper pivot rod (76) at an end of the respective lower or upper pivot rod that is opposite a vane blade (Fig. 3), said fastener being configured to retain the ring axially within the respective bush (Fig. 3, [0038]).
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 using a fastener inserted into the respective lower or upper pivot rod at an end of the respective lower or upper pivot rod that is opposite a vane blade, said fastener being configured to retain the ring axially within the respective bush, to improve similar devices in the same way.
Claim 1 recites “solidly connected” without providing any specific meaning or definition for this type of connection in the claim or specification. Therefore, “solidly connected” is interpreted in its Broadly Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) as a connection that is supported and secured. This interpretation complies with applicant’s own provided list of meanings for the original French word “solidaire” as “secured”, “fixed”, or “firm.” (see applicant’s remarks of 07/15/2024 under “Claim Interpretation” heading).
With regard to claim 2, the combination of Bouru and Dube and Foucher and Robertson further discloses that the external part of the ring includes a rigid shroud (Dube, by virtue of being metallic, see [0017] and claim 3), and the internal part includes a hollow cylindrical part (Dube, Fig. 3, 4) formed of a material which is flexible in relation to the material of the rigid shroud (Dube, [0039]).
With regard to claim 3, the combination of Bouru and Dube and Foucher and Robertson further discloses that the material of the hollow cylindrical part is a viscoelastic material ([0039]).
With regard to claim 6, the combination of Bouru and Dube and Foucher and Robertson further discloses that the external part and the internal part are secured by bonding or overmoulding (Dube, [0039]).
With regard to claim 9:
The combination of Bouru and Dube and Foucher and Robertson discloses that each turbomachine variable pitch stator (Bouru, [0024]), comprises a journal (Bouru, see the top of Fig. 1 where elements 12 and 14 are located) for fixing a rod (14) for controlling the setting of the vane (Bouru, [0026]-[0027]) and the lower or upper pivot rod (Bouru, 6) intended to be mounted inside the respective casing (10) of the turbomachine (Bouru, Fig. 1), and a bearing (see the two bearings of Bouru in Fig. 1 around pivot rod 6).
The combination of Bouru and Dube and Foucher and Robertson does not appear to explicitly disclose that the bearing is the assembly of claim 1. In other words, the bearing of claim 1 is used for pivot rod 8, not the pivot rod 6.
However, the combination of Bouru and Dube and Foucher and Robertson teaches a bearing for a pivot rod which is a one-piece bearing and moreover, facilitates vibration absorption, which help protect the variable vane assembly from damage during operation of the gas turbine engine, as taught by Dube (see the rejection of claim 1 and Dube, [0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to replace the two bearings around pivot rod 6 with a one-piece bearing of claim 1. This modification facilitates vibration absorption, which help protect the variable vane assembly from damage during operation of the gas turbine engine, as taught by Dube (see the rejection of claim 1 and Dube, [0037]). Moreover, this modification reduces the assembly time, by virtue of having to assemble only one bearing instead of two bearings.
With regard to claim 11, the combination of Bouru and Dube and Foucher and Robertson further discloses that the ring includes a height between approximately the height of the bush and the height of the variable pitch stator vane pivot (see Dube, Fig. 4, and Bouru, Fig. 1, and note that “approximately” is a broad term, subject to the interpretation of the reader).
With regard to claim 12, the combination of Bouru and Dube and Foucher and Robertson further discloses a turbomachine including stator vanes according to claim 1 (Bouru, [0024]).
With regard to claim 13, the combination of Bouru and Dube and Foucher and Robertson further discloses that the rigid shroud is made of sheet metal (Dube, see [0017] and claim 3. Also see Dube, Fig. 4, showing 66 as a rounded sheet metal).
With regard to claim 14:
the combination of Bouru and Dube and Foucher and Robertson discloses the assembly of claim 1, as set forth above.
the combination of Bouru and Dube and Foucher and Robertson does not appear to explicitly disclose that the fastener is a screw.
However, a careful examination of the specification reveals no criticality for the fastener being a screw, nor any reason as to why the assembly of applicant with the fastener being a screw would operate any different than the assembly of the combination of Bouru and Dube and Foucher and Robertson, and Applicant has not disclosed that the fastener being a screw provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. On the contrary, the specification discloses that the fastener being a screw is merely an example as it discloses that “to ensure that the damping ring 20 is held in place, and to avoid any risk of fall into the engine, said damping ring can be secured to the VSV vane, for example by means of a screw 18 inserted into the pivot rod 14, 17 at the end of said rod opposite to the blade 12” ([0028]). Hence the fastener being a screw is considered to be a design choice by the applicant. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the combination of Bouru and Dube and Foucher and Robertson, and Applicant’s invention, to perform equally well, because both would perform the same function of holding the bushing in place.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the fastener type being a screw as claimed with the assembly of the combination of Bouru and Dube and Foucher and Robertson in order to achieve a desired dimension or configuration, as they are a matter of design choice. Such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouru (US 2007/0059161) in view of Dube et al. (US 2013/0195651), referred to hereafter as Dube, and Foucher (US 2008/0206045), and Robertson, JR. et al. (US 2016/0341068), referred to hereafter as Robertson, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Otomo et al. (JP 2012-246785), referred to hereafter as Otomo.
With regard to claim 4:
The combination of Bouru and Dube and Foucher and Robertson discloses the bearing of claim 3, as set forth above.
The combination of Bouru and Dube and Foucher and Robertson does not appear to explicitly disclose that the viscoelastic material is CNT.
However, Otomo teaches that CNT viscoelastic material is a new material developed in recent years by the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, which is light and strong, and can be used in a wide temperature range from low to high temperatures, exhibits stable properties particularly in a wide temperature range, and can maintain a substantially constant softness and hardness that are comparable to silicon rubber ([0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, and make the viscoelastic material to be CNT to yield predictable result of damping vibration and realize the many benefits taught by Otomo.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouru (US 2007/0059161) in view of Dube et al. (US 2013/0195651), referred to hereafter as Dube, and Foucher (US 2008/0206045), and Robertson, JR. et al. (US 2016/0341068), referred to hereafter as Robertson, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Orkin (US 4,060,287).
With regard to claim 5:
The combination of Bouru and Dube and Foucher and Robertson discloses the bearing of claim 2, as set forth above.
The combination of Bouru and Dube and Foucher and Robertson discloses that the rigid shroud is metallic but is silent about the type of the metal and does not appear to explicitly disclose that the rigid shroud is made of titanium.
However, Orkin teaches a bearing having an internal part and an external part having a rigid shroud, and further teaches that the rigid shroud is made of titanium (Col. 3; line 66-Col. 4; line 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application, when looking for a metal for the metallic rigid shroud of the combination of Bouru and Dube and Foucher and Robertson, to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of making a metallic rigid shroud.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims 7, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouru (US 2007/0059161) in view of Dube et al. (US 2013/0195651), referred to hereafter as Dube, and Foucher (US 2008/0206045), and Robertson, JR. et al. (US 2016/0341068), referred to hereafter as Robertson, as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2019/0063459).
With regard to claims 7, 8, and 10:
The combination of Bouru and Dube and Foucher and Robertson discloses the bearing of claim 1, and the variable pitch stator vane of claim 9, as set forth above, and further discloses that the external part of the ring includes a rigid shroud (Dube, by virtue of being metallic, see [0017] and claim 3) and the internal part includes a hollow cylindrical part (Dube, Fig. 3, 4) formed of a material which is flexible in relation to the material of the rigid shroud (Dube, [0039]).
The combination of Bouru and Dube and Foucher and Robertson does not appear to explicitly disclose that the internal part includes at least one inner securing projection configured to engage radial notches of the pivot rod to secure the ring of each bearing respectively to the lower or upper pivot rod of each variable pitch stator vane pivot, wherein the at least one inner securing projection is formed of the material of the hollow cylindrical part and extending axially over at least part of the height of said hollow cylindrical part. The combination of Bouru and Dube and Foucher and Robertson does not appear to explicitly disclose that the pivot rod includes at least one radial notch adapted to receive the projecting element of the ring.
However, Kim teaches a bearing for a turbomachine variable pitch stator vane pivot rod including a ring having an external part (240) and a hollow cylindrical internal part (250) connected to the pivot rod (220), the internal part being a viscoelastic material ([0057]), and further teaches that the internal part includes at least one inner securing projection (252) configured to engage radial notches of the pivot rod (Fig. 4) to secure the ring to the pivot rod (220) of the variable pitch stator vane pivot (Fig. 4), the at least one inner securing projection is formed of the material of the hollow cylindrical part ([0057]) and extending axially over at least part of the height of said hollow cylindrical part (Fig. 4-5). Kim further teaches that the pivot rod includes at least one radial notch (221) adapted to receive the projecting element of the ring (Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine prior art elements according to known methods, and add at least one inner securing projection configured to secure the ring of each bearing respectively to the lower or upper pivot rod of each variable pitch stator vane pivot, the at least one inner securing projection is formed of the material of the hollow cylindrical part and extending axially over at least part of the height of said hollow cylindrical part, and the pivot rod including at least one radial notch adapted to receive the projecting element of the ring, to yield predictable results of damping the vibrations through a viscoelastic bearing.
***************************************************************************************************
Claims 1-3, 6, 9, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouru (US 2007/0059161) in view of Dube et al. (US 2013/0195651), referred to hereafter as Dube, and Clanahan (US 2021/0310367) and Robertson, JR. et al. (US 2016/0341068), referred to hereafter as Robertson.
With regard to claim 1:
Bouru discloses an assembly of bearings and turbomachine variable pitch stator vane pivots (Fig. 1), each bearing being mounted in a respective bore (Fig. 1) passing through a casing (10, 22) of the turbomachine ([0024]) and including a respective bush (24, or 18. Also see the bushes around 6 in Fig. 1) solidly connected to said bore (note “anti-rotation” in [0044]-[0055] and see 26 and 28 in Fig. 1, and see 30 in Fig. 4, and 44, 46 in Fig. 7-8), each turbomachine variable pitch stator vane pivot comprising a lower pivot rod (8, [0025], [0028], Fig. 1) or an upper pivot rod (6), each lower or upper pivot rod rotating within the respective bore of the casing via the respective bearing ([0028], Fig. 1), wherein each bearing further includes a ring (see “additional bushing (not shown in the figures)” in [0030]) mounted around and solidly connected to the respective lower or upper pivot rod inside the respective bush (see “a ferrule can be mounted tightly around each guide pivot” in [0030]).
Bouru does not appear to explicitly disclose that said ring includes an external part comprising a rigid material and an internal part solidly connected to the external part and comprising a flexible material, wherein the internal part is thicker than the external part. Bouru also doesn’t appear to explicitly disclose a fastener is inserted into the respective lower or upper pivot rod at an end of the respective lower or upper pivot rod that is opposite a vane blade, said fastener being configured to retain the ring axially within the respective bush.
Regarding the ring including an external part having a rigid material and an internal part having a flexible material, Dube teaches a bearing for a turbomachine variable pitch stator vane pivot (Fig. 1, [0030]) including a ring (62) that has an external part (66) comprising a rigid material (by virtue of being metallic, see [0017] and claim 3) and an internal part (70) solidly connected to the external part (Fig. 3, [0039]) and comprising a flexible material ([0039]). Dube teaches that the ring (62) facilitates vibration absorption, which helps protect the variable vane assembly from damage during operation of the gas turbine engine ([0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the teachings of Dube and substitute the “additional bushing” of Bouru with the ring of Dube that includes an external part comprising a rigid material and an internal part solidly connected to the external part and comprising a flexible material, in order to facilitate vibration absorption, which helps protect the variable vane assembly from damage during operation of the gas turbine engine, as taught by Dube ([0037]).
Regarding the thickness of the internal and external parts, Dube is silent about their thicknesses, however, Clanahan teaches a bushing (10, see Fig. 3A) having an external part (12) and an internal part (12) made from a material different than the external part (which comprises non-identical mechanical properties) and further teaches that the internal part is thicker than the external part (Fig. 3A). Clanahan also teaches an alternative solution regarding the relative thicknesses as shown in the embodiment of Fig. 1A, in which the external part is thicker than the internal part.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application, when looking for the thicknesses of the internal and external parts which Dube is silent about, to find it obvious to try the internal part being thicker than the external part (as shown in Fig. 3A), choosing it from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (as demonstrated by Clanahan), with a reasonable expectation of success (as demonstrated by Clanahan).
Regarding a fastener, Robertson teaches a bearing for a turbomachine variable vane pivot (Fig. 1-3) including a bushing (74, Fig. 3) with a fastener (77b) inserted into the respective lower or upper pivot rod (76) at an end of the respective lower or upper pivot rod that is opposite a vane blade (Fig. 3), said fastener being configured to retain the ring axially within the respective bush (Fig. 3, [0038]).
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 using a fastener inserted into the respective lower or upper pivot rod at an end of the respective lower or upper pivot rod that is opposite a vane blade, said fastener being configured to retain the ring axially within the respective bush, to improve similar devices in the same way.
Claim 1 recites “solidly connected” without providing any specific meaning or definition for this type of connection in the claim or specification. Therefore, “solidly connected” is interpreted in its Broadly Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) as a connection that is supported and secured. This interpretation complies with applicant’s own provided list of meanings for the original French word “solidaire” as “secured”, “fixed”, or “firm.” (see applicant’s remarks of 07/15/2024 under “Claim Interpretation” heading).
With regard to claim 2, the combination of Bouru and Dube and Clanahan and Robertson further discloses that the external part of the ring includes a rigid shroud (Dube, by virtue of being metallic, see [0017] and claim 3), and the internal part includes a hollow cylindrical part (Dube, Fig. 3, 4) formed of a material which is flexible in relation to the material of the rigid shroud (Dube, [0039]).
With regard to claim 3, the combination of Bouru and Dube and Clanahan and Robertson further discloses that the material of the hollow cylindrical part is a viscoelastic material ([0039]).
With regard to claim 6, the combination of Bouru and Dube and Clanahan and Robertson further discloses that the external part and the internal part are secured by bonding or overmoulding (Dube, [0039]).
With regard to claim 9:
The combination of Bouru and Dube and Clanahan and Robertson discloses that each turbomachine variable pitch stator (Bouru, [0024]), comprises a journal (Bouru, see the top of Fig. 1 where elements 12 and 14 are located) for fixing a rod (14) for controlling the setting of the vane (Bouru, [0026]-[0027]) and the lower or upper pivot rod pivot rod (Bouru, 6) intended to be mounted inside the respective casing (10) of the turbomachine (Bouru, Fig. 1), and a bearing (see the two bearings of Bouru in Fig. 1 around pivot rod 6).
The combination of Bouru and Dube and Clanahan and Robertson does not appear to explicitly disclose that the bearing is the assembly of claim 1. In other words, the bearing of claim 1 is used for pivot rod 8, not the pivot rod 6.
However, the combination of Bouru and Dube and Clanahan and Robertson teaches a bearing for a pivot rod which is a one-piece bearing and moreover, facilitates vibration absorption, which help protect the variable vane assembly from damage during operation of the gas turbine engine, as taught by Dube (see the rejection of claim 1 and Dube, [0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to replace the two bearings around pivot rod 6 with a one-piece bearing of claim 1. This modification facilitates vibration absorption, which help protect the variable vane assembly from damage during operation of the gas turbine engine, as taught by Dube (see the rejection of claim 1 and Dube, [0037]). Moreover, this modification reduces the assembly time, by virtue of having to assemble only one bearing instead of two bearings.
With regard to claim 11, the combination of Bouru and Dube and Clanahan and Robertson further discloses that the ring includes a height between approximately the height of the bush and the height of the variable pitch stator vane pivot (see Dube, Fig. 4, and Bouru, Fig. 1, and note that “approximately” is a broad term, subject to the interpretation of the reader).
With regard to claim 12, the combination of Bouru and Dube and Clanahan and Robertson further discloses a turbomachine including stator vanes according to claim 1 (Bouru, [0024]).
With regard to claim 13, the combination of Bouru and Dube and Clanahan and Robertson further discloses that the rigid shroud is made of sheet metal (Dube, see [0017] and claim 3. Also see Dube, Fig. 4, showing 66 as a rounded sheet metal).
With regard to claim 14:
the combination of Bouru and Dube and Clanahan and Robertson discloses the assembly of claim 1, as set forth above.
the combination of Bouru and Dube and Clanahan and Robertson does not appear to explicitly disclose that the fastener is a screw.
However, a careful examination of the specification reveals no criticality for the fastener being a screw, nor any reason as to why the assembly of applicant with the fastener being a screw would operate any different than the assembly of the combination of Bouru and Dube and Clanahan and Robertson, and Applicant has not disclosed that the fastener being a screw provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. On the contrary, the specification discloses that the fastener being a screw is merely an example as it discloses that “to ensure that the damping ring 20 is held in place, and to avoid any risk of fall into the engine, said damping ring can be secured to the VSV vane, for example by means of a screw 18 inserted into the pivot rod 14, 17 at the end of said rod opposite to the blade 12” ([0028]). Hence the fastener being a screw is considered to be a design choice by the applicant. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the combination of Bouru and Dube and Clanahan and Robertson, and Applicant’s invention, to perform equally well, because both would perform the same function of holding the bushing in place.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the fastener type being a screw as claimed with the assembly of the combination of Bouru and Dube and Clanahan and Robertson in order to achieve a desired dimension or configuration, as they are a matter of design choice. Such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouru (US 2007/0059161) in view of Dube et al. (US 2013/0195651), referred to hereafter as Dube, and Clanahan (US 2021/0310367), and Robertson, JR. et al. (US 2016/0341068), referred to hereafter as Robertson, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Otomo et al. (JP 2012-246785), referred to hereafter as Otomo.
With regard to claim 4:
The combination of Bouru and Dube and Clanahan and Robertson discloses the bearing of claim 3, as set forth above.
The combination of Bouru and Dube and Clanahan and Robertson does not appear to explicitly disclose that the viscoelastic material is CNT.
However, Otomo teaches that CNT viscoelastic material is a new material developed in recent years by the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, which is light and strong, and can be used in a wide temperature range from low to high temperatures, exhibits stable properties particularly in a wide temperature range, and can maintain a substantially constant softness and hardness that are comparable to silicon rubber ([0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, and make the viscoelastic material to be CNT to yield predictable result of damping vibration and realize the many benefits taught by Otomo.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouru (US 2007/0059161) in view of Dube et al. (US 2013/0195651), referred to hereafter as Dube, and Clanahan (US 2021/0310367), and Robertson, JR. et al. (US 2016/0341068), referred to hereafter as Robertson, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Orkin (US 4,060,287).
With regard to claim 5:
The combination of Bouru and Dube and Clanahan and Robertson discloses the bearing of claim 2, as set forth above.
The combination of Bouru and Dube and Clanahan and Robertson discloses that the rigid shroud is metallic but is silent about the type of the metal and does not appear to explicitly disclose that the rigid shroud is made of titanium.
However, Orkin teaches a bearing having an internal part and an external part having a rigid shroud, and further teaches that the rigid shroud is made of titanium (Col. 3; line 66-Col. 4; line 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application, when looking for a metal for the metallic rigid shroud of the combination of Bouru and Dube and Clanahan and Robertson, to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of making a metallic rigid shroud.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims 7, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouru (US 2007/0059161) in view of Dube et al. (US 2013/0195651), referred to hereafter as Dube, and Clanahan (US 2021/0310367), and Robertson, JR. et al. (US 2016/0341068), referred to hereafter as Robertson, as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2019/0063459).
With regard to claims 7, 8, and 10:
The combination of Bouru and Dube and Clanahan and Robertson discloses the bearing of claim 1, and the variable pitch stator vane of claim 9, as set forth above, and further discloses that the external part of the ring includes a rigid shroud (Dube, by virtue of being metallic, see [0017] and claim 3) and the internal part includes a hollow cylindrical part (Dube, Fig. 3, 4) formed of a material which is flexible in relation to the material of the rigid shroud (Dube, [0039]).
The combination of Bouru and Dube and Clanahan and Robertson does not appear to explicitly disclose that the internal part includes at least one inner securing projection configured to engage radial notches of the pivot rod to secure the ring of each bearing respectively to the lower or upper pivot rod of each variable pitch stator vane pivot, wherein the at least one inner securing projection is formed of the material of the hollow cylindrical part and extending axially over at least part of the height of said hollow cylindrical part. The combination of Bouru and Dube and Clanahan and Robertson does not appear to explicitly disclose that the pivot rod includes at least one radial notch adapted to receive the projecting element of the ring.
However, Kim teaches a bearing for a turbomachine variable pitch stator vane pivot rod including a ring having an external part (240) and a hollow cylindrical internal part (250) connected to the pivot rod (220), the internal part being a viscoelastic material ([0057]), and further teaches that the internal part includes at least one inner securing projection (252) configured to engage radial notches of the pivot rod (Fig. 4) to secure the ring to the pivot rod (220) of the variable pitch stator vane pivot (Fig. 4), the at least one inner securing projection is formed of the material of the hollow cylindrical part ([0057]) and extending axially over at least part of the height of said hollow cylindrical part (Fig. 4-5). Kim further teaches that the pivot rod includes at least one radial notch (221) adapted to receive the projecting element of the ring (Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine prior art elements according to known methods, and add at least one inner securing projection configured to secure the ring of each bearing respectively to the lower or upper pivot rod of each variable pitch stator vane pivot, the at least one inner securing projection is formed of the material of the hollow cylindrical part and extending axially over at least part of the height of said hollow cylindrical part, and the pivot rod including at least one radial notch adapted to receive the projecting element of the ring, to yield predictable results of damping the vibrations through a viscoelastic bearing.
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 bearings such as US 5622473, US 7094022, and US 8147187.
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 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 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