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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 27, 2026 have been fully considered.
The applicant has amended the drawings to include radial arrows. The examiner finds that the inclusion of arrows does show the claimed structure of claim 7 that has the capability of the shaft being radially adjustable. While the functionality may be depicted by the arrows, the claimed structure that is capable of such movement is not. Therefore, the drawing objection is maintained.
The claim objection of claim 2 is withdrawn based on the amendment.
The applicant argues with regard to the 35 U.S.C 112(a) rejections, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to make the radially adjustable shaft as claimed by a spring as an example. With regard to the written description rejection, the examiner still finds that the following portion of MPEP 2173.05(g) still applies:
“Unlimited functional claim limitations that extend to all means or methods of resolving a problem may not be adequately supported by the written description or may not be commensurate in scope with the enabling disclosure, both of which are required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714, 218 USPQ 195, 197 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1340, 94 USPQ2d at 1167. ”
While the applicant mentions a singular example of a spring, the specification has no discussion of a spring, and is by no means the only way of resolving the problem. The written description is found to be insufficient with the claimed scope.
With regard to the enablement rejection, the applicant’s example of a using a spring essentially argues that the level of ordinary skill in the art and quantity of experimentation needed to make the invention are such that it would be relatively easy for a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the invention because springs are off the shelf components and engineers understand how they work. The examiner finds this to be unpersuasive when viewed in the context of the entirety of the Wands factors and their corresponding analysis presented.
The examiner maintains both the written description and enablement rejections under 35 U.S.C 112(a).
The 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections of claims 1 and 5 are withdrawn based on the amendments.
The applicant argues with regard to the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection that claim 13 is definite as “master-master” is effectively a term of the art which means that each device is driven independently as opposed to a master-slave relationship. Paragraph [0038] of the instant application describes “a first activation device 15 and a second activation device 15 of a master-master adjustment system are schematically illustrated, the master-master adjustment system including two schematically illustrated actuators that are configured to adjust or set synchronization device 10.”
The examiner finds that the above paragraph and applicant’s definition is clear. Claim 13 however simply recites, “comprising an adjustment system, and the synchronization device being adjusted with the aid of the adjustment system, designed in a master-master configuration.” Without the context of a first actuation device and a second actuation device it is unclear if the adjustment system itself is in a master-master configuration or if the adjustment system and synchronization device are in a master-master configuration.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C 102 rejections, the applicant argues that Takaoka does not disclose bearings situated directly opposite each other on the synchronization device to radially support the synchronization device in a play-free manner. The examiner finds that a different mapping of the claims to the disclosure of Takaoka does disclose the claims. This is presented in the rejections below.
Any changes are necessitated by amendment, the rejections are therefore final.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the structure associated with the limitation of claim 7 “the shaft is radially adjustable with respect to the synchronization device or to a rotational axis of the turbomachine” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 § 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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 7 recites, “wherein the shaft is radially adjustable with respect to the synchronization device or to a rotational axis of the turbomachine”. There is no disclosure as to the structures of how this is achieved / implemented; the function is only stated in [0021] and [0040]. This is an unlimited functional limitation that extends to all device structures capable of performing the function, see MPEP 2173.05(g).
Claim 7 is 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.
Claim 7 recites, “wherein the shaft is radially adjustable with respect to the synchronization device or to a rotational axis of the turbomachine”. This is a functional limitation, see MPEP 2173.05(g). There is no disclosure as to the structures of how this is achieved / implemented; the function is only stated in [0021] and [0040].
With regard to the Wands factors the examiner finds:
(A) The breadth of the claims:
The breadth of the claim extends to any structure that would make the shaft radially adjustable, which is a wide variety of mechanical configurations.
(B) The nature of the invention:
The invention is a mechanical device.
(C) The state of the prior art:
The prior art has very limited examples of the shafts that support rollers being adjustable, therefore the claimed adjusting function is highly uncommon.
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill:
A person of ordinary skill has mechanical engineering knowledge,
(E) The level of predictability in the art:
The art has a reasonable degree of predictability, although high temperature environments and various critical situations (blade out, foreign object debris, surge) create a variety of loading conditions and less predictability.
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor:
The inventor provides no direction.
(G) The existence of working examples:
There are no disclosed working examples.
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure:
A person of ordinary skill in the art is left entirely to their own as the inventor provides no direction. The examiner therefore finds the entirety of the design to be upon a person of ordinary skill in the art (from initial sketches to prototypes, testing, etc).
The examiner finds that A, C, F, and G in particular weigh in favor of there being a lack of enablement. The other factors do not overcome the severity of the conditions of the factors listed directly above.
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.
Claim 13 is 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 13 recites, “the synchronization device being adjusted with the aid of the adjustment system, designed in a master-master configuration”. Paragraph [0038] of the instant application describes “a first activation device 15 and a second activation device 15 of a master-master adjustment system are schematically illustrated, the master-master adjustment system including two schematically illustrated actuators that are configured to adjust or set synchronization device 10.” Without the context of a first actuation device and a second actuation device it is unclear if the adjustment system itself is in a master-master configuration or if the adjustment system and synchronization device are in a master-master configuration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 8-9, 12, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takaoka et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20130216360) hereinafter Takaoka.
Regarding claim 1, Takaoka discloses:
A device for blade adjustment of a turbomachine {Figure 9 (30b) adjust the variable vanes; [0088]. Figure 9 is the third embodiment of the invention and is mapped to the claims. It is noted that description of this embodiment has been omitted based on [0087]. Therefore, references to the first and second embodiments will be used but are also applicable to the third embodiment of claim 9}, the device including:
a synchronization device for adjusting blades of the turbomachine {Figure 9 (31); [0054]/[0089]}; and
bearings situated directly opposite each other on the synchronization device to radially support the synchronization device in a play-free manner {Figure 9, (61b) and (51b) are considered oppositely situated as they are on left and right sides of the synchronization ring and support (31) in a play-free manner; [0074][0075]/[0096]},
so that the synchronization ring may thermally deform to assume an oval shape {Figure 9 (31) may thermally deform/expand to form an oval shape; [0074]/[0075]/[0096]. The claimed property/function is presumed inherent as the structure in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, see MPEP 2112.01}.
Regarding claim 2, Takaoka further discloses:
wherein the oval shape is symmetrical {Figure 9, the oval shape is symmetric about a up/down axis in Figure 9. The claimed property/function is presumed inherent as the structure in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, see MPEP 2112.01}.
Regarding claim 3, Takaoka further discloses:
wherein the bearings in each case include at least one roller configured to support the synchronization device {Figure 9, the (61b) and (51b) are rollers that support (31); [0074][0075]/[0096]}.
Regarding claim 8, Takaoka further discloses:
wherein the roller includes a receptacle configured to accommodate the synchronization device {Figure 7 (62) forms a receptacle in the roller (61) to accommodate (36); [0069]}.
Regarding claim 9, Takaoka further discloses:
wherein the receptacle is a groove {Figure 5 (62) forms a groove in the roller (61) to accommodate (36); [0069]}.
Regarding claim 12, Takaoka further discloses:
wherein the bearing devices number exactly two {Figure 9, (61b) and (51b). These two instances are considered the only bearing devices. It is noted that the transitional phrase comprising is open-ended, see MPEP 2111.03. Therefore, a device that has 4 bearing devices also comprises exactly 2}.
Regarding claim 14, Takaoka further discloses:
wherein the synchronization device is a synchronization ring {Figure 9 (31) is a synchronization ring; [0089]}.
Regarding claim 15, Takaoka further discloses:
A turbomachine comprising adjustable blades, and at least one device as recited in claim 1 for adjusting these blades {Figure 9 is part of a turbomachine for adjusting blades; [0087]-[0088], see also Figure 1}.
Regarding claim 16, Takaoka further discloses:
wherein the synchronization device is a synchronization ring with an outer circumferential surface {Figure 9 (31) is a synchronization ring with an outer circumferential surface on the outside of the ring} and
the two bearing devices always contact the outer circumferential surface at 180 degrees from each other {Figure 9 (61) and (51) are fixed and only have a spinning roller, therefore they are always 180 degrees apart. (61b) and (51b) may contact the outer circumferential surface as described in [0091]}.
Regarding claim 17, Takaoka further discloses:
wherein the bearing devices number exactly two {Figure 9, (61b) and (51b). These two instances are considered the only bearing devices. It is noted that the transitional phrase comprising is open-ended, see MPEP 2111.03. Therefore, a device that has 4 bearing devices also comprises exactly 2} and
no further bearing devices contact the synchronization device {Figure 9, (61b) and (51b). These two instances are considered the only bearing devices. It is noted that the transitional phrase comprising is open-ended, see MPEP 2111.03. Therefore, a device that has 4 bearing devices also comprises exactly 2. The remaining 2 bearings may be considered as not part of the device; therefore, no further bearing devices contact the synchronization device}.
Regarding claim 18, Takaoka further discloses:
wherein the blades are guide vanes {Figure 1 and 2, (16) are guide vanes; [0048]/[0052]}.
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.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takaoka et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20130216360) hereinafter Takaoka in view of Hashimoto et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20130108415) hereinafter Hashimoto.
Regarding claim 4, Takaoka discloses the device of claim 3, but is silent regarding the details of the roller / bearing. Takaoka is therefore silent regarding:
wherein the bearings each include at least one shaft with at least one roller bearing, the at least one roller situated on the roller bearing.
Hashimoto pertains to vane actuation. Hashimoto teaches:
wherein the bearings each include at least one shaft with at least one roller bearing, the at least one roller situated on the roller bearing {Figure 3 (45) is a shaft with roller bearing (42); roller (41o) is situated on the roller bearing (42); [0044]-[0045]}.
Since Takaoka is silent regarding details of the roller / bearing one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a roller / bearing structure as taught by Hashimoto for the roller and associated structure of Takaoka. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to be able to have the synchronizing ring rotate as desired {Hashimoto [0044]-[0045]}.
Regarding claim 5, Takaoka discloses the device of claim 1, but is silent regarding the details of the roller / bearing. Takaoka is therefore silent regarding:
wherein the at least one roller bearing includes in a radial direction of the shaft, a first bearing situated on the shaft, and in the radial direction a second bearing situated on the first bearing.
Hashimoto pertains to vane actuation. Hashimoto teaches:
wherein the at least one roller bearing includes in a radial direction of the shaft, a first bearing situated on the shaft, and in the radial direction a second bearing situated on the first bearing {See 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection and interpretation above. Figure 3 (42) is a first bearing and (41O) is a second bearing; [0044]-[0045]}.
Since Takaoka is silent regarding details of the roller / bearing one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a roller / bearing structure as taught by Hashimoto for the roller and associated structure of Takaoka. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to be able to have the synchronizing ring rotate as desired {Hashimoto [0044]-[0045]}.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Takaoka and Hashimoto further teaches:
wherein the shaft is fixedly connected to a housing of the bearing {Hashimoto Figure 3 (45) is fixedly connection to the inner housing of the bearing (42) that it contacts}.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Takaoka and Hashimoto further teaches:
wherein the shaft is radially adjustable with respect to the synchronization device or to a rotational axis of the turbomachine {Takaoka Figure 9, (51b) is one of the bearings. The shaft of (51) is radially adjustable with respect to the axis (Ar) based on (57); [0091]}.
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 MICHAEL K. REITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1387. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 a.m. -5:30 p.m.
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 Heinle can be reached at 5712703508. 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.
/MICHAEL K. REITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3745