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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/13/2023 is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-8 , drawn to a method for manufacturing a fan disk of a turbine engine, without traverse in the reply filed on 05/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9, drawn to drawn to a product, a fan disk, is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Therefore, claims 1-8 are currently under examination on the merits.
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.
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.
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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kappmeyer Gregor, et.al. [DE102019118072A1] (machine translation, original provided in the IDS) (Gregor, hereafter).
Regarding claim 1, Gregor discloses a method for manufacturing a fan disk of a turbine engine (a method for manufacturing a blower disc for a turboshaft engine (see Gregor’s Figure 1), comprising:
forging step a first cylindrical shape of axis X (the forged part of the rotor 6B, comprising a cylindrical shape (item 15A), wherein a portion (10A) of the blades (10) facing the annulus (6D) are manufactured in one piece by forging, with the surface of the interfaces 13 are first created along a path (axis X), see Gregor’s Figure 9, claim 1, 13, paragraphs [0048]-[0052]),
machining the first cylindrical shape to obtain a second cylindrical shape (a pre-machining of a blade gap 16 shown in more detail by the dashed line to obtain element 18, the second cylindrical shape see Gregor’s Figure 9, paragraphs [0048]-[0052]),
PNG
media_image1.png
362
346
media_image1.png
Greyscale
adding by additive manufacturing at least one relief element (the parts 10B of the blades 10) on the second cylindrical shape (the element 18), (a portion (10B) of the blades (10), which is radially outer to the portions (10A) of the blades facing the annulus (6D), is produced by an additive manufacturing process, the parts 10B are produced by additively applying material either completely one after the other or in individual layers 17 arranged radially to the rotor disc 6C, see Gregor’s Figure 9, claim 1, 13, paragraphs [0048]-[0052]),
wherein the second cylindrical shape has an outer face and an inner face and the relief element is located on the inner face of the second cylindrical shape (as shown in the Fig. 9, relief element (10B) is located on the inner face of the second cylindrical shape (18), wherein a portion (10B) of the blades (10), which is radially outer to the portions (10A) of the blades facing the annulus (6D), and wherein a form of interface (13) between the forged portions (10A) of the blades (10) arranged radially to the rotor disc 6C, see Gregor’s Figure 9, claim 1, 13, paragraphs [0048]-[0052]).
Gregor’s method for manufacturing a rotor can be manufactured with minimal effort and providing a cost-effectively manufacturable rotor (see Gregor’s [0007]) of an aircraft engine, in a simple manner. The rotor disc forms an annulus on its radially outer area, which radially limits a flow channel of the aircraft engine on the inside. Furthermore, several rotor blades protrude from the annulus. Each of the blades, one part facing the rotor disk and the other facing the annulus, is manufactured in one piece with the rotor disk by forging. In addition, another part of the blades, which is radially attached to the outer parts of the blades facing the annulus, is produced using an additive manufacturing process. A form of interface between the forged parts of the blades and the additively manufactured parts of the blades is defined depending on the loads acting on the rotor during operation (see Gregor’s [0009]).
Gregor discloses the particulars of the present invention, as disclosed above, but does so through the collective teachings of the disclosure, rather than in one neatly packaged embodiment. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have Gregor’s teachings for utilizing for all that, it teaches and looking to various portions of the reference would have been obvious. As the MPEP § [2143. A ] notes that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is a matter of obviousness and in this case, Gregor’s method for manufacturing a rotor offers minimal effort and providing a cost-effectively manufacturable rotor of an aircraft engine as well as sufficient to bear loads acting on the rotor during operation.
Regarding claim 3, all the above discussions regarding claim 1 are applicable to claim 3, in addition, Gregor teaches the relief element is circular of axis X (as shown in the Fig. 9, the blades (10), which are radially outer located and arranged in circular along an interface path 13 (X) on the cylindrical body see Gregor’s Figure 9).
Claims 2 and 4-5, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kappmeyer Gregor, et.al. [DE102019118072A1] (machine translation, original provided in the IDS) (Gregor, hereafter) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Michael Delapierre, et.al. [US8573944B2] (Delapierre hereafter).
Regarding claim 2, all the above discussions regarding claim 1 are applicable to claim 2, but Gregor is silent about the second cylindrical shape has an outer face and an inner face and that the relief element is located on the outer face of the second cylindrical shape.
However, Delapierre discloses a fan disk of a turbine engine (a turbomachine rotor including a disk) with a rim (first cylindrical body) and axial recesses (relief element) machined on the rim for the individual housing of blades; and a ring (second cylindrical body) being fitted to one face of the rim, the ring being pierced with holes in the axial extension of the recesses (another relief element), at least one portion of said holes in the extension of the recesses being closed by a plug comprising a metal head forming a bearing surface for said blades (see Delapierre’s Abstract, Col. 2, line 1-8, claim 1).
Delapierre discloses the second cylindrical shape has an outer face and an inner face and that the relief element is located on the outer face of the second cylindrical shape (the ring being pierced with holes in an axial extension of the recesses, at least one of said holes in the axial extension of the recesses being closed by a plug comprising a metal head forming a bearing surface for said blades, wherein the plug comprises a stud extending from the metal head, an insert made of deformable material surrounding at least partly the stud, see Delapierre’s claim 1), as shown in FIG. 2-5, Delapierre’s studs 52 are located outer surface of the ring).
Delapierre’s plug comprises a stud in the extension of the metal head, an insert made of deformable material surrounding at least partly the stud and a clamping means, the insert made of deformable material being deformed by the clamping means so as to immobilize the plug in the hole, therefore, very simply solves this wear problem with a part which has a very low cost and which is easy to apply from one side of the rotor. It is possible to apply this device on both new turbomachines and those already in use (see Delapierre’s Abstract, Col. 2, line 11-19).
Delapierre is directed to fan of a turbine engine and thus, analogous to the claimed invention and Gregor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have Delapierre’s teaching of design of fan of a turbine engine to combine with Gregor’s processes of making of fan disc of a turbine engine to solve the wear problem with a part which has a very low cost and which is easy to apply from one side of the rotor.
Regarding claim 4, all the above discussions regarding claim 1 are applicable to claim 4, but Gregor is silent about the relief element is a stud.
Delapierre’s teaches wherein the relief element is a stud (the plug comprises a stud in the extension of the metal head, see Delapierre’s Abstract, Col. 2, line 11-19, claim 1, FIG. 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 5, all the above discussions regarding claim 1 and 4 are applicable to claim 5, but Gregor is silent about the stud is drilled along an axis X'.
However, Delapierre teaches the stud is drilled along an axis X' (an axis through the drilling has been shown in Delapierre’s FIG. 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 7, all the above discussions regarding claim 1 and 4 are applicable to claim 7, but Gregor is silent about the several studs are added to the outside of the second cylindrical shape.
However, Delapierre teaches several studs are added to the outside of the second cylindrical shape (several studs are radially added outside of the ring, as shown in Delapierre’s FIG. 2-3 and 4-5).
Regarding claim 8, all the above discussions regarding claim 1, 4 and 7 are applicable to claim 8, but Gregor is silent about the studs are arranged circularly on the second cylindrical shape.
However, Delapierre teaches the studs are arranged circularly on the second cylindrical shape (several studs are radially arranged circularly outside of the ring, as shown in Delapierre’s FIG. 2-3).
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kappmeyer Gregor, et.al. [DE102019118072A1] (machine translation, original provided in the IDS) (Gregor, hereafter) as applied to claim 1, in view of Michael Delapierre, et.al. [US8573944B2] (Delapierre hereafter), and further in view of Felix Carimali et.al. [US60329012A] (Carimali hereafter). Additionally an evidentiary reference of a Merriam-Webster online dictionary has been presented here.
Regarding claim 6, all the above discussions regarding claim 1 and 4-5 are applicable to claim 6, but Gregor is silent about the axis X' is parallel to the X axis.
Delapierre is also silent about the axis X' is parallel to the X axis.
However, Carimali discloses a linkage system for releasably latching a portion of an aircraft engine cowling to an engine casing, more particularly, such a linkage system for latching the portion of the aircraft engine cowling having a jet engine thrust reverser (see Carimali’s col. 1, line 5-9). Carimali then discloses a fan casing of a turbo-fan type jet engine, wherein inner casing 4 is connected by a plurality of arms 5 to the external casing 3, the casings 3 and 4 assuming a shape of a surface of revolution about the longitudinal axis 2. The jet engine 1 is attached by a set of link rods 6 to a support strut 10 attached to the aircraft (see Carimali’s col. 3, line 10-17, FIG.1).
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Carimali discloses the axis X' is parallel to the X axis (as shown in Carimali’s FIG 3, wherein a first cylindrical shape (element 3d, see Carimali’s FIG 3) of axis X (element 2, see Carimali’s FIG 3) attached to a second cylindrical shape 3 (element 3, see Carimali’s FIG 3) a relief element 39 (see Carimali’s FIG 3) has been drilled through an axis that is parallel to X, see Carimali’s FIG 3).
With respect to the word “stud”, according to the evidentiary reference of a Merriam-Webster online dictionary, “a stud is a boss, rivet, or nail with a large head used (as on a shield or belt) for ornament or any of various infixed pieces (such as a rod or pin) projecting from a machine and serving chiefly as a support or axis”, Carimali’s element 39 is a stud.
Carimali is directed to fan of a turbine engine and thus, analogous to the claimed invention and Gregor as well as Delapierre.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have Carimali’s teaching of stud design that is parallel to the part for linkage a prat of the fan of a turbine engine to combine with Gregor’s processes of making of fan disc of a turbine engine in view of Delapierre for having a linkage system for latching fan disc of a turbine engine to the aircraft engine to have thrust reverser.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAZMUN NAHAR SHAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-5421. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 AM - 7:00PM (EST).
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, Merkling Sally can be reached on (571)2726297. 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.
/NAZMUN NAHAR SHAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights