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 .
Applicant’s Amendment dated July 24, 2025 has been carefully considered, but is non-persuasive. The Replacement Sheet of Drawings overcomes the drawing objection. The claims have been amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Correction of these matters is noted with appreciation.
Applicant has argued with regard to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Naudet et al. 4,730,983 that “Naudet does not relate to the issue of wear caused by the repeated movement of the toothing of a ring arm against the blade feet. Means 15 and 17 are locking and sealing means and not wear-resistant means. Furthermore, means 17 are arranged between the first locking and sealing ring member 15 and the blade foot, and not specifically arranged between a tooth of the rotor’s movable ring arm and the blade foot, as recited in independent claim 1. Thus, Naudet does not disclose or make obvious a movable ring assembly as in independent claim 1.”
Respectfully, these arguments are non-persuasive. As set forth later below, Naudet et al. discloses each and every claim limitation in claim 1 as set forth in detail below. The protective element 17 is a protective element because it protects any surface which it covers, including portions of the peripheral toothing 15 and portions of the groove 13, for example. Claim 1 contains no recitation of wear caused by the repeated movement of the toothing of a ring arm against the blade feet. These features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Similarly, claim 1 does not specifically recite that the protective element is arranged between a tooth of the rotor’s movable ring arm and the blade foot, although this is shown in figure 1 of Naudet et al., noting the blade foot 6 or blade root 7, where the protective element 17 is arranged between a tooth of the rotor’s movable ring arm 15 and the blade foot.
Applicant has argued with regard to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Prior Art Figure 1 in view of Biolsi et al. 2017/0306791 that “However, document Biolsi does not contemplate repeated stress of a ring arm in the groove of a vane foot hook and does not specifically describe or even contemplate a toothing of a ring arm of a rotor as in independent claim 1. Additionally, and contrary to the Office Action’s analysis with respect to the reference number 214, Biolsi's reference number 214 does not disclose or represent a toothing (e.g., a set of teeth, such as those of a movable ring) but the end of a vane foot 214, which is not toothing.
Additionally, Biolsi does not describe an outer face of a tooth of a movable ring positioned facing an axial retaining hook of a vane foot, but an end of a vane foot inside a groove of a case. Starting from the movable ring assembly of the prior art Figure 1 of the present application, the person skilled in the art would not have found any teaching for positioning a protective element specifically on the toothing's outer faces of a movable ring of the rotor in document Biolsi, which instead discloses a wear liner positioned on the end of the blade foot.
Upon reading the cited documents, the person skilled in the art would not have found it obvious to combine or modify the combination of cited references to arrive at the movable ring assembly as in independent claim 1. Thus, the combination of cited references does not disclose or make obvious each and every feature of independent claim 1.”
Respectfully, these arguments are non-persuasive. As set forth later below, the combination of Applicant’s Prior Art Figure 1 in view of Biolsi et al. teaches each and every claim limitation in claim 1 as set forth in detail below.
In response to applicant’s arguments against Bilosi et al. individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The base reference of Applicant’s Prior Art Figure 1 discloses a movable ring assembly 6 for a turbomachine (a low pressure turbine stage) rotor 1 substantially as claimed, the movable ring comprising outer peripheral toothing 7, each tooth of the outer peripheral toothing having a right hand inner face positionable facing a blade root 3 of the rotor and a left hand outer face opposite to the inner face and positionable facing an axial retaining hook 4 arranged on the blade root (claim 1). Bilosi et al is relied upon to teach a movable ring comprises at least one protective element arranged on the outer face of at least one tooth of outer peripheral toothing, as set forth in detail later below.
In Bilosi et al., the protective element 210 is a protective element because it protects any surface which it covers, including tooth 214. Note also paragraphs [0036] to [0039], for example. Claim 1 contains no recitation of repeated stress of a ring arm in the groove of a vane foot hook, as Applicant has argued. These features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Element 214 of Bilosi et al. is a tooth, as contains a portion which projects axially from the radially outer portion of the shroud which it forms on stator vanes 212, and forms a hook. As previously set forth, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the movable ring assembly of Applicant’s Prior Art Figure 1 such that the movable ring comprises at least one protective element arranged on the outer face of at least one tooth of the outer peripheral toothing, such that the protective element is a coating applied to the outer face of the teeth, such that the protective element is a protective part arranged on the movable ring, the protective part comprising a slot, such that the outer peripheral toothing is surmounted by the protective part, and wherein the protective part comprising comprises a first portion configured to cover the outer and inner faces of the teeth of the outer peripheral toothing, as taught by Biolsi et al., for the purpose of preventing wear between the hooks and the teeth caused by relative thermal growth during operation. Although Bilosi et al. is directed towards wear between the case and the teeth caused by relative thermal growth during operation, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the applicability of the teachings of Biolsi et al. to the movable ring assembly of Applicant’s Prior Art Figure 1, in light of the paragraph [0007] of Biolsi et al., and as the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way was held to be an obvious extension of the prior art teachings, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12 are objected to because of the following informalities: Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 1, lines 2 and 5, -- assembly -- should be inserted after “ring”.
In claim 5, line 2, -- assembly -- should be inserted after “ring”.
In claim 7, line 3, -- assembly -- should be inserted after “ring”.
In claim 9, lines 2 and 5, -- assembly -- should be inserted after “ring”.
In claim 10, line 4, -- assembly -- should be inserted after “ring”.
In claim 111, line 4, -- assembly -- should be inserted after “ring”.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 7, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Naudet et al. 4,730,983.
Disclosed is a movable ring assembly for a turbomachine rotor 1, the movable ring comprising outer peripheral toothing 15 (see figure 2), each tooth of the outer peripheral toothing having an inner face positionable facing a blade root 7 of the rotor and an outer face opposite to the inner face and positionable facing an axial retaining hook 12 arranged on the blade root, wherein the movable ring comprises at least one protective element 17 arranged on the outer face of at least one tooth of the outer peripheral toothing (claim 1).
The protective element is a protective part arranged on the movable ring (claim 5).
The protective part extends over an entire circumference of the outer peripheral toothing of the movable ring, and the protective part comprises a slot (column 4, lines 3-6 state that element 17 is a split ring, which inherently includes a slot between the opposed split ends) (claim 7).
Also disclosed is a turbomachine rotor 1 comprising a plurality of blades 5 each having a blade root 7 provided with an axial retaining hook 12, wherein the turbomachine rotor further comprises the movable ring assembly according to claim 1, the inner and outer faces of each tooth of the outer peripheral toothing of the movable ring being respectively positioned facing a blade root and facing an axial retaining hook (claim 11).
Also disclosed is a turbomachine (turbojet engine) comprising the turbomachine rotor according to claim 11 (claim 12).
Claims 1-2, 4-8, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Prior Art Figure 1 in view of Biolsi et al. 2017/0306791.
Applicant’s Prior Art Figure 1 discloses a movable ring assembly 6 for a turbomachine (a low pressure turbine stage) rotor 1 substantially as claimed, the movable ring comprising outer peripheral toothing 7, each tooth of the outer peripheral toothing having a right hand inner face positionable facing a blade root 3 of the rotor and a left hand outer face opposite to the inner face and positionable facing an axial retaining hook 4 arranged on the blade root (claim 1).
Applicant’s Prior Art Figure 1 also discloses a turbomachine rotor 1 comprising a plurality of blades 2 each having a blade root 3 provided with an axial retaining hook 4, wherein the turbomachine rotor further comprises the movable ring assembly 6 according to claim 1, the inner and outer faces of each tooth of the outer peripheral toothing of the movable ring being respectively positioned facing a blade root and facing an axial retaining hook (claim 11).
A turbomachine (a low pressure turbine stage) comprises the turbomachine rotor according to claim 11 (claim 12).
However, Applicant’s Prior Art Figure 1 does not disclose that the movable ring comprises at least one protective element arranged on the outer face of at least one tooth of the outer peripheral toothing (claim 1), does not disclose that the protective element is a coating applied to the outer faces of the teeth (claim 2), does not disclose that the outer face of the teeth comprises machined portions to which the coating is applied (claim 4), does not disclose that the protective element is a protective part arranged on the movable ring (claim 5), does not disclose that the movable ring assembly further comprises a plurality of protective parts, each protective part of the plurality of protective parts being positioned on a respective tooth of the teeth of the outer peripheral toothing (claim 6), does not disclose that the protective part extends over an entire circumference of the outer peripheral toothing of the movable ring, and the protective part comprises a slot (claim 7), and does not disclose that the outer peripheral toothing is surmounted by the protective part, and wherein the protective part comprising comprises a first portion configured to cover the outer and inner faces of the teeth of the outer peripheral toothing (claim 8).
Biolsi et al. shows a gas turbine engine having stator vanes 212, with a tooth 214, the tooth having an upper inner face and a lower outer face, located in a groove 206, and having at least one protective element 210 arranged on the outer face of the tooth, the protective element may be a coating applied to the outer face of the tooth (paragraph [0039]), the protective part comprising a slot between an upper portion of the protective part and lower portion of the protective part, the tooth being surmounted by the protective part, and the protective part comprising a first portion configured to cover the outer and inner faces of the teeth of the outer peripheral toothing, for the purpose of preventing wear between a case and the tooth caused by relative thermal growth during operation. Paragraph [0007] states that the protective part may be implemented in any application having a foot and hook configuration similar to the disclosure.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the movable ring assembly of Applicant’s Prior Art Figure 1 such that the movable ring comprises at least one protective element arranged on the outer face of at least one tooth of the outer peripheral toothing, such that the protective element is a coating applied to the outer faces of the teeth, such that the protective element is a protective part arranged on the movable ring, the protective part comprising a slot, such that the outer peripheral toothing is surmounted by the protective part, and wherein the protective part comprising comprises a first portion configured to cover the outer and inner faces of the teeth of the outer peripheral toothing, as taught by Biolsi et al., for the purpose of preventing wear between the hooks and the teeth caused by relative thermal growth during operation.
Although Biolsi et al. is directed towards wear between the case and the teeth caused by relative thermal growth during operation, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the applicability of the teachings of Biolsi et al. to the movable ring assembly of Applicant’s Prior Art Figure 1, in light of the paragraph [0007] of Biolsi et al., and as the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way was held to be an obvious extension of the prior art teachings, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Concerning claim 4, the recitation that the outer face of the teeth comprise machined portions to which the coating is applied, is a product-by-process limitation (the machined portion). Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product-by-process claim does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). portion).
Concerning claim 6, which recites that the movable ring assembly further comprises a plurality of protective parts, each protective part of the plurality of protective parts being positioned on a respective tooth of the teeth of the outer peripheral toothing, following the teachings of Biolsi et al., it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide each tooth of Applicant’s Prior Art Figure 1 with a protective part.
Concerning claim 7, which recites that the protective part extends over an entire circumference of the outer peripheral toothing of the movable ring, following the teachings of Biolsi et al., it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the protective part such that it extends over an entire circumference of the outer peripheral toothing of the movable ring.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Prior Art Figure 1 in view of Biolsi et al. 2017/0306791 as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art.
The modified movable ring assembly of Applicant’s Prior Art Figure 1 shows all of the claimed subject matter except for the material of the coating has nickel and chromium.
Biolsi et al. (paragraph [0039]) states that coatings typically used in the aerospace industry are known among those of ordinary skill in the art, and that coatings that might be well-suited for various applications may include thermal spray coatings, ceramic coatings, cermet coatings, abradable coatings, etc.
Official Notice Official Notice was taken in the first Office action that coatings used in the aerospace industry commonly include nickel and chromium, in order to provide acceptable mechanical and thermal properties. Applicant did not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice. Pursuant to MPEP 2144.03, the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice.
It would have been further obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the modified movable ring assembly of Applicant’s Prior Art Figure 1 such that the material of the coating has nickel and chromium, as taught by Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art, for the purpose providing acceptable mechanical and thermal properties of the coating.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter in claims 9-10:
The combination of Applicant’s Prior Art Figure 1 in view of Biolsi et al. 2017/0306791 is the closest prior art of record as recited in claim 8. With regard to claim 9, which depends on claim 8, the combination does not disclose or suggest that the movable ring comprises a hook arranged in the extension of the inner face of the teeth of the outer peripheral toothing and configured to receive a seal, and wherein a second portion of the protective part has comprises a hook configured to be integrated at least partly into the hook arranged on the movable ring. Claim 10 contains allowable subject matter by virtue of dependency on claim 9.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Christopher Verdier whose telephone number is (571)272-4824. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00-3:30.
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 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.
/Christopher Verdier/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745