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 Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: there is no transitional phrase in the preamble of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: disc and disk are interchangeably used throughout the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “2” has been used to designate both disk and disc. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 recites the limitation "the stubs" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the blades" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 recites the limitation "the two ends of the section" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “wherein the section of the stubs at the junction with the blades is widened 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. The Examiner requests that the Applicant please clarify.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the stubs" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the blades" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 is indefinite because it is unclear if a calculation of the average length of rays for a series of points is distributed along the periphery are measurements of all stubs measured and added together or if this is for each individual stub. Claim 16 only refers to one stub, so it is unclear how the measurement of multiple stubs would be calculated as in claim 21. The Examiner requests that the Applicant please clarify this limitation.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the stubs" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the blades" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “wherein the sizing of the section of the stubs at the junction with the blades comprises a determination of the maximum average length of rays and the minimum average length of rays for different sections, iteratively”. Is one section considered one stub, and each different section is from each stub? Claim 16 only refers to one stub, so it is unclear how multiple stubs are measured and how the maximum and minimum are determined for different sections of more than one stub. The Examiner requests that the Applicant please clarify.
Claim 23 is indefinite because the claim uses “disk” and “disc”. The current specification also uses “disk” and “disc”. The figure part 2 is a “disk” and a “disc”. It appears that these two terms are used interchangeably. Is the “disk” and “disc” the same part in claim 23 or are they different parts. 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 recites the limitation "the two ends of the section" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “sizing the stubs 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 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.
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).
Conclusion
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