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 on 11/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 103 rejections, applicant argues that the combinations don’t disclose or teach “a blade platform, wherein the first blade and the second blade are monolithically formed with the blade platform, wherein both the first blade and the second blade are coupled to the rotor disk body via the blade platform” and “wherein the first blade and the second blade each extend radially outward from the blade platform, and wherein both the first blade and the second blade are configured to be circumferentially coupled to the rotor disk body via complementary engagement features of the blade platform and of the rotor disk body. (emphasis added)” Applicant has not shown or provided any reason as to why the combinations don’t disclose these limitations or what is exactly missing. Hence, there are no arguments to respond to. The examiner respectfully disagrees with these allegations. For a disclosure of the limitations, refer to the rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 1, 4, 5, and 8 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 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. In this instance, the limitation “the first blade and the second blade are monolithically formed with the blade platform” of claim 1, and “the forward blade and the aft blade of each set of tandem blades are monolithically formed together with the blade platform” of claim 5 are newly presented, has not been previously disclosed in the specification, and does not find direct support in the originally filed disclosure, hence it is considered new matter. The specification and the original claims disclose that the blades are integral with the platform, not monolithic. Monolithic is not synonymous with integral because two elements can be made separately and then assembled together, in which case they become integral with each other, but they are not monolithic. Thus, the originally filed disclosure does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant was in possession of the invention as now presented/claimed at the time of the filing of the instant application.
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected due to their dependency from a previously rejected claim.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Matsuura (US 4,710,099).
With regard to claim 1, Matsuura discloses a tandem rotor disk apparatus comprising: a rotor disk body (1) that is concentric about an axis (inherent in a turbine); a first blade (10b) extending radially outward of the rotor disk body (Fig. 1, 2, 6-8); and a second blade (10a) extending radially outward of the rotor disk body (Fig. 1, 2, 6-8), wherein the first blade is offset from the second blade in a direction parallel to the axis (Fig. 1, 2, 6-8), a blade platform (see annotated Fig. 2 of Matsuura, or the upper portion of 11 in Fig. 1, 2, 6-8), wherein the first blade and the second blade are monolithically formed with the blade platform (Fig. 1, 2, 6-8, Col. 3; lines 35-36, Col. 5; lines 6-24), wherein both the first blade and the second blade are coupled to the rotor disk body via the blade platform (Fig. 1, 6); wherein the first blade and the second blade each extend radially outward from the blade platform (Fig. 1, 2, 6-8) and wherein both the first blade and the second blade are configured to be circumferentially coupled to the rotor disk body via complementary engagement features of the blade platform and of the rotor disk body (Fig. 1, 2, 6-8. Also see dovetail in Col. 3; lines 3-14, and claim 1. Note that the specification doesn’t expressly and explicitly define what a “complementary engagement feature” is, and a “complementary engagement feature” is a broad limitation).
PNG
media_image1.png
312
338
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Matsuura
With regard to claim 4, Matsuura further discloses that both the first/forward blade and the second/aft blade are configured to be coupled to the rotor disk body simultaneously and in a single action (Fig. 1, 2, 6-8. Also see the mention of “integral” in Col. 3; lines 35-36, Col. 5; lines 6-24).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuura (US 4,710,099) in view of Forcier et al. (US 2016/0108735), referred to hereafter as Forcier.
With regard to claim 5:
Matsuura discloses a gas turbine engine (see abstract, and Col. 1; lines 9-11, Fig. 1, 2, 6-8) comprising a blade stage (Fig. 1, 2, 6-8, Co. 2; line 67-Col. 3; line 2) comprising sets of tandem blades circumferentially distributed about an engine central longitudinal axis of the gas turbine engine (Fig. 1, 2, 6-8), wherein each set of tandem blades comprises: a forward blade (10b) and an aft blade (10a) that are axially adjacent to each other; a rotor disk body (1), and a blade platform (see annotated Fig. 2 of Matsuura, or the upper portion of 11 in Fig. 1, 2, 6-8), wherein: the sets of tandem blades extend radially outward from the rotor disk body (Fig. 1, 2, 6-8), the forward blade and the aft blade of each set of tandem blades are monolithically formed together with the blade platform and are jointly coupled to the rotor disk body via the blade platform (Fig. 1, 2, 6-8, Col. 3; lines 35-36, Col. 5; lines 6-24), the forward blade and the aft blade of each set of tandem blades each extend radially outward from the platform (, 2, 6-8), and both the forward blade and the aft blade are configured to be circumferentially coupled to the rotor disk body via complementary engagement features of the blade platform and of the rotor disk body (Fig. 1, 2, 6-8).
Matsuura does not appear to explicitly disclose that the forward blade and the aft blade are directly axially adjacent to each other without an intervening stator vane.
However, Forcier, which is in the same field of endeavor of gas turbine engines, teaches a tandem rotor disk apparatus comprising: a rotor disk body (50) that is concentric about an axis (axis A, see Fig. 1, 4); a forward blade (52) extending radially outward of the rotor disk body (Fig. 2); and an aft blade (54) extending radially outward of the rotor disk body (Fig. 2), both blades are coupled to the rotor disk body (Fig. 2, 3), and the forward blade and the aft blade are monolithically formed together and are jointly coupled to the rotor disk body ([0020], Fig. 2, 3), the forward blade and the aft blade that are directly axially adjacent to each other without an intervening stator vane (Fig. 2, 3), and a blade platform (48), wherein the blades each extend radially outward from the blade platform (Fig. 2, 3, [0020]), and wherein both blades are configured to be coupled to the rotor disk body via engagement features (see [0020] disclosing that each blade platform 48 is operatively connected to rotor disk 50, and every operatively connection feature is an engagement feature), and wherein a trailing edge of the forward blade axially overlaps a leading edge of the aft blade (Fig. 2, 3). Forcier further teaches that tandem blade stages provide many benefits because a tandem blade stage does more work than a traditional single blade stage, and reduces the need for a traditional stator vane stage ([0018]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, and duplicate the blade 10a of Matsuura as a tandem blade as taught and shown in Fig. 2 and 3 of Forcier, in which the forward blade and the aft blade are directly axially adjacent to each other without an intervening stator vane, to yield predictable results of doing more work than a traditional single blade stage, and reduce the need for a traditional stator vane stage. After the above combination, the forward and aft blades would be two 10a blades as tandem blades as shown in Fig. 2 and 3 of Forcier, and the forward blade and the aft blade would be directly axially adjacent to each other without an intervening stator vane.
With regard to claim 8, the combination of Matsuura and Forcier further discloses that both the first/forward blade and the second/aft blade are configured to be coupled to the rotor disk body simultaneously and in a single action (Matsuura, Fig. 1, 2, 6-8. Also see the mention of “integral” in Col. 3; lines 35-36, Col. 5; lines 6-24).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forcier et al. (US 2016/0108735), referred to hereafter as Forcier in view of Matsuura (US 4,710,099).
With regard to claim 1:
Forcier discloses a tandem rotor disk apparatus comprising: a rotor disk body (50) that is concentric about an axis (axis A, see Fig. 1, 4); a first blade (52) extending radially outward of the rotor disk body (Fig. 2); and a second blade (54) extending radially outward of the rotor disk body (Fig. 2), wherein the first blade is offset from the second blade in a direction parallel to the axis (Fig. 2, 3), a blade platform (48), wherein the first blade and the second blade are monolithically formed with the blade platform ([0020], Fig. 2, 3), wherein both the first blade and the second blade are coupled to the rotor disk body via the blade platform (Fig. 2, 3), wherein the first blade and the second blade each extend radially outward from the blade platform (Fig. 2, 3, [0020]), and wherein both the first blade and the second blade are configured to be coupled to the rotor disk body via engagement features (see [0020] disclosing that each blade platform 48 is operatively connected to rotor disk 50, and every operatively connection feature is an engagement feature).
Forcier is silent about the type of connection and does not appear to explicitly disclose that the coupling is circumferential and that the engagement feature is complementary engagement features (note that the specification doesn’t expressly and explicitly define what a “complementary engagement feature” is, and a “complementary engagement feature” is a broad limitation).
However, Matsuura, which is in the same field of endeavor of gas turbine engines, teaches a gas turbine engine comprising a blade stage comprising sets of tandem blades (10a, 10b) circumferentially distributed about an engine central longitudinal axis of the gas turbine engine, wherein each set of tandem blades comprises a forward blade (10b) and an aft blade (10a) that are axially adjacent to each other; and a rotor disk body (1), wherein: the sets of tandem blades extend radially outward from the rotor disk body, and the forward blade and the aft blade of each set of tandem blades are monolithically formed together and are jointly coupled to the rotor disk body (Fig. 1, 2, 6-8, Col. 3; lines 35-36, Col. 5; lines 6-24). Matsuura further teaches that both the forward blade and the aft blade are configured to be circumferentially coupled to the rotor disk body via complementary engagement features (11. See Fig. 1, 2, 6-8. Also see dovetail in Col. 3; lines 3-14, and claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique, namely using a circumferential coupling with a dovetail connection of a blade to a rotor disk body, to improve similar devices in the same way.
With regard to claim 5:
Forcier discloses a gas turbine engine (Fig. 1) comprising: a blade stage (Fig. 2) comprising sets of tandem blades (53) circumferentially distributed about an engine central longitudinal axis (axis A) of the gas turbine engine (Fig. 2), wherein each set of tandem blades comprises a forward blade (52) and an aft blade (54) that are directly axially adjacent to each other without an intervening stator vane (Fig. 2, 3, [0018], [0020]); and a rotor disk body (50), and a blade platform (48), wherein: the sets of tandem blades extend radially outward from the rotor disk body (Fig. 2), the forward blade and the aft blade of each set of tandem blades are monolithically formed together with the blade platform (Fig. 2, 3, [0020]) and are jointly coupled to the rotor disk body via the blade platform (Fig. 2, 3, [0020]), the forward blade and the aft blade of each set of tandem blades each extend radially outward from the platform (Fig. 2, 3, [0020]), and both the forward blade and the aft blade are configured to be coupled to the rotor disk body via an engagement features of the blade platform and of the rotor disk body (see [0020] disclosing that each blade platform 48 is operatively connected to rotor disk 50, and every operatively connection feature is an engagement feature).
Forcier is silent about the type of connection and does not appear to explicitly disclose that the coupling is circumferential and that the engagement feature is complementary engagement features (note that the specification doesn’t expressly and explicitly define what a “complementary engagement feature” is, and a “complementary engagement feature” is a broad limitation).
However, Matsuura, which is in the same field of endeavor of gas turbine engines, teaches a gas turbine engine comprising a blade stage comprising sets of tandem blades (10a, 10b) circumferentially distributed about an engine central longitudinal axis of the gas turbine engine, wherein each set of tandem blades comprises a forward blade (10b) and an aft blade (10a) that are axially adjacent to each other; and a rotor disk body (1), wherein: the sets of tandem blades extend radially outward from the rotor disk body, and the forward blade and the aft blade of each set of tandem blades are monolithically formed together and are jointly coupled to the rotor disk body (Fig. 1, 2, 6-8, Col. 3; lines 35-36, Col. 5; lines 6-24). Matsuura further teaches that both the forward blade and the aft blade are configured to be circumferentially coupled to the rotor disk body via complementary engagement features of the blade platform and of the rotor disk body (11. See Fig. 1, 2, 6-8. Also see dovetail in Col. 3; lines 3-14, and claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique, namely using a circumferential coupling with a dovetail connection of a blade to a rotor disk body, to improve similar devices in the same way.
With regard to claims 4 and 8, the combination of Forcier and Matsuura further discloses that both the forward blade and the aft blade are configured to be coupled to the rotor disk body simultaneously and in a single action (Forcier, see [0020] and Fig. 2, 3. Also see Matsuura, Fig. 1, 2, 6-8, and see the mention of “integral” in Col. 3; lines 35-36, Col. 5; lines 6-24).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to the attached form PTO-892 for pertinent prior art disclosing similar tandem rotor disk apparatus such as US 3597109.
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 BEHNOUSH HAGHIGHIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7558. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:00am-15:00pm.
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 D 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.
/BEHNOUSH HAGHIGHIAN/
Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745