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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 16-24, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than judicial exception because of the following reasons.
The instant claims 16 and 23 are directed to an abstract idea using a mathematical concepts and mental processes. The limitations of determining an average length, finding a maximum and minimum length, and sizing the section that a ratio is less than or equal to 2 all amount to mathematical calculations, ratios and comparisons of measurements.
The instant claims 16 and 23 do not satisfy Step 2A, Prong Two. The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims do not recite any specific welding parameters, machine operations, control steps, or physical actions that apply the mathematical ratio in a technical manner. The sizing of the section is achieved only by applying the mathematical relationship and no steps to improve the welding process have been recited.
The instant claims 16 and 23 do not satisfy Step 2B because they do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 16 and 23 do not include an inventive concept that is sufficient enough to transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. The additional elements of the blade, stub and disk are conventional components of a turbomachine. The claims do not provide any unconventional use of the components. The claims also do not require any specific configuration beyond the abstract sizing process. Therefore, the claims only apply to an abstract idea of a mathematical ratio without significantly more (MPEP 2106).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16-24, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The current invention has no working examples, so it is unclear how the rays are calculated or determined. The current invention does not describe the method used in order to measure the rays. It appears by the limitations of the independent claims 16 and 23 that that the orbital welding is doing the measurement. If so, the process of using a welding apparatus for measuring is not described. If the welding tool is not performing the measuring, what process and/or apparatus are used? Are the rays measured by a tape measure, a laser, a ruler, or some other known tool? There is no guidance as to how the rays are measured. Furthermore, there is no guidance or explanation as to how the points along the periphery are determined. Do there have to be a certain number of points for the minimum and maximum to be accurately determined? This measurement process is not found in the current state of the art, and one skilled in the art would not know how to perform this process without further information and/or analysis. Due to the lack of understanding for how the rays are measured and how these points are determined, these claims are not enabled.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16-24, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 is indefinite because it is unclear how the minimum and maximum are measured/calculated. The claim states that the stub is sized according to a method for sizing a section of a junction to a method for sizing a section of a junction by orbital friction welding. Based on this limitation, it appears that the rays of the stub are measured by the orbital welder. If this is not correct, then what is used to measure the rays? Are they measured prior to welding with a measuring tool? It is unclear how the process is performed and there does not appear to be any guidance in the current specification on how the measure the rays. The Examiner requests that the Applicant please clarify how the rays are measured.
Claim 19 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “wherein the section of the stubs at the junction with the blades is sized by widening said section in relation to a final section after joining the blades and machining”. What is the final section? Is the final section different from said section? Is the final section considered the said section, but after the welding process? If not, where is the final section located? The Examiner does not understand this limitation and requests that the Applicant please clarify.
Claim 20 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “wherein the section of the stub at the junction with the blade is widened relative to the final section at at least one end of two ends of the section”. Where is the final section located? Is the final section at an end? Where is ‘the section’ relative to the final section? Is ‘the section’ considered at a location not at an end? It is unclear what is being claimed and where the sections and final sections are located. The Examiner requests that the Applicant please clarify.
Claim 23 is indefinite because it is unclear how the minimum and maximum are measured/calculated. The claim states that the stubs are sized according to a method for sizing a section of a junction to a method for sizing a section of a junction by orbital friction welding. Based on this limitation, it appears that the rays of the stub are measured by the orbital welder. If this is not correct, then what is used to measure the rays? Are they measured prior to welding with a measuring tool? It is unclear how the process is performed and there does not appear to be any guidance in the current specification on how the measure the rays. The Examiner requests that the Applicant please clarify how the rays are measured.
Claim 28 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “sizing the stub at by widening relative to the final section at at least one of the two ends of the section”. Where is the final section located? Is the final section at an end? Where is ‘the section’ relative to the final section? Is ‘the section’ considered at a location not at an end? It is unclear what is being claimed and where the sections and final sections are located. Since it is unclear where the final section is located, it is unclear where the machining is taking place and where the widening is located. The Examiner requests that the Applicant please clarify.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Denaux (2022/0235665A1).
Regarding claims 16, Denaux discloses a method for measuring a cross section of a turbine vane (paragraph 0055, figure 10). Since Denaux teaches measuring a cross section of a turbine vane the claim limitation is met. The claim only requires a measurement. An average can be just one measurement. A “section” can be any amount/length, and based on the claim language the ray only has to go into the section. The claim limitation is met with one measurement. There is no actual welding required for the claim.
Regarding claim 17, since an average length of rays just has to be one measurement of a (undefined) section, then the other point can be located at a distance from two ends of the (undefined) section. Since the section is not defined, the section can be any size or shape. The point can be placed anywhere and read on this limitation.
Regarding claim 18, since the section is not defined, it can be any shape or size or any location along the junction; therefore; there can be a point at the periphery of the section as claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denaux (2022/0235665A1) in view of Wlasowski (2012/0318774A1).
Regarding claim 23, Denaux discloses a method for measuring a cross section of a turbine disk (paragraph 0055, figure 10). Since Denaux teaches measuring a cross section of a turbine disk the claim limitation is met. The claim only requires a measurement as an average can be just one measurement. A “section” can be any amount/length, and based on the claim language the ray only has to go into the section. The claim limitation is met with one measurement. There is no actual welding required for the claim.
Denaux discloses that the vanes are on a disk (paragraph 0007), but does not disclose how the vane is joined; however; Wlasowski discloses that friction welding of vanes is well known in the art and that orbital welding vanes has advantages over linear friction welding. Wlasowski states that orbital welding a vane to a disk allows one to weld with a simplification of kinematics for the machine which results in lower equipment costs and reduced power consumption (paragraph 0026). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to use orbital welding as taught by Wlasowski in order to create a simplification of kinematics for the machine which results in lower equipment costs and reduced power consumption (paragraph 0026).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claimed method applies the ratio to size a physical junction section between a blade and a stub of a bladed disk for a turbo machine. The claimed ratio is not an end in itself. It is used to define the geometry of the junction section so as to improve the weld.
The Examiner disagrees. Although the claim recites orbital friction welding and a blade and a stub, these elements are merely the environment in which the mathematical concept is applied. The claim does not recite any additional elements that improve the functioning of the welding process. The claim applies the mathematical relationship to determine an appropriate size of a section. The claim amounts to no more than instructions to apply the mathematical concept in a known welding process.
The Applicant argues that the claimed method is a sizing method carried out before orbital friction welding, in order to determine the geometry of the physical junction. The Applicant argues that the specification explains how the claimed average is determined by sweeping the first section at points I of the periphery of said section. The specification then states that determining zmax and zmin requires determining the average length of zi for each point over the entire periphery, preferably by an automated computer algorithm. The specification states that the ray tracing procedure is performed by dividing the periphery into several points, preferably approximately 2,000 points to project rays from these points so as to sweep the entire section, to measure the average ray length for each point, and to determine zmax and zmin from the calculated averages. The Applicant argues that A and B are not undefined points belonging to different sections, but examples on the periphery of the same section, determined after sweeping the section with rays from all peripheral points.
The Examiner disagrees. As claim 16 is written, it appears that the orbital welding is performing the sizing. The claim states “a method for sizing a section of a junction BY orbital friction welding”. If this is not what is intended it needs to be amended. Furthermore, there are no working examples to show how this is performed. Are these (preferably 2,000) points random? Does there have to be a specific location for one point and then the other points are placed based on this one point? Depending on the location of the points, the number of points used, the measurement values will change. How does one ensure that the values are correct? The specification states that it is preferable that approximately 2,000 points are used, but what happens if you don’t use 2,000 points? Would the results be the same? Since there are no working examples, it is hard to determine how this process is achieved. The Applicant states that the average zmin and zmax may be determined by an algorithm, but does not state how the location of the points or number of points along the periphery are determined or measured. While points A and B may not be undefined points, it is unclear how these points were measured or determined. How many points were placed around the periphery? How many rays extended from these points? One skilled in the art would not know the required amount of points, the location of the points, the amount of rays, and the location of the rays based on the specification. These are all variables that would affect the results. The enablement rejection is maintained.
The Applicant argues that Denaux does not disclose a method for sizing a junction by orbital friction welding between a blade and a stub of a blade for turbine machine.
The Examiner disagrees. As stated in the 112 b rejection, it is not understood what is meant by “by orbital friction welding”. The claim does not actually require any oribital friction welding method or apparatus. As stated in the rejection of claim 16, an average can be just one measurement. A “section” can be any amount/length, and based on the claim language the ray only has to go into the section. The claim limitation is met with one measurement. There is no actual welding required for the claim.
The Applicant argues that Wlasowski may disclose orbital friction welding, the prior art fails to teach or suggest the sizing method as claimed. The Applicant argues that the specification explains why a simpl width criterion is not suitable for orbital welding. The Applicant argues that table 1 shows to show the zmax/zmin values to provide an OK weld condition.
The Examiner disagrees. Wlasowski was used as a secondary reference to show that it is known to orbital friction weld turbine blades together. Primary reference Denaux was used to show that it is known to measure a cross section of a turbine disk (paragraph 0055, figure 10). The arguments with respect to the specification are moot as they are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention.
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 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 ERIN B SAAD whose telephone number is (571)270-3634. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a-6p.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/ERIN B SAAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights