DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 26 May 2026.
Claims 2-4 were previously canceled by the Applicant.
Claim 6 is canceled by the Applicant.
Claims 1, 5, and 7-13 are currently pending.
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 Remarks
The arguments in response to the claims rejection under 35 U.S.C § 112(a) and/or 112(b) have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are not found persuasive for the following reasons. The clarification of the function / role of the means for measuring, which comprises piezoelectric element(s) does not compensate for the fact that the specification lacks disclosure of a single embodiment of the structure that performs the function.
The arguments in response to the claims rejection under 35 U.S.C § 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are not found persuasive for the following reasons.
The Applicant’s argument pertaining to the FADEC is not found persuasive, since that alternative embodiment disclosed in [0050] was not used in the rejection of record.
The Applicant’s argument that Sellinger does not disclose the function of the storage system processor is not found persuasive, since paragraph [0039] explicitly discloses:
“An output voltage may be compared to a known value for typical or safe operation of the engine 10 and airfoil 100. The compared value can then be set to a limit within a performance and health monitoring analytics regime associated with the engine 10.”
One of ordinary skill in the art would immediately envisage that the processor of the storage device disclosed in [0049] is what carries out the comparison of the voltage and the analytics disclosed in paragraph [0039].
The arguments pertaining to “the addition of a data processing processor within the blade structure would run counter to the Sellinger disclosure is not found persuasive since the Sellinger reference explicitly discloses the communicator 116 includes a storage device having a processor and/or a recording medium in [0049] and FIG. 2 explicitly discloses the communicator 116 is within the blade.
The arguments pertaining to the dependent claims are not found persuasive for at least the same reasons mentioned above.
A new rejection is included in this Office Action, necessitated by amendment, commensurate with the original rejection of record.
The arguments in response to the claims rejection under 35 U.S.C § 103 have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are not found persuasive for the same reasons as mentioned above.
A new rejection is included in this Office Action, necessitated by amendment, commensurate with the original rejection of record.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Examiner note: the following 112(f) invocations have been identified by the Office.
A. “means for measuring”; first introduced in claim 1:
the means for measuring may comprise piezoelectric elements or an equivalent thereof. However the specification lacks any description of the structure of the “piezoelectric elements” or how the piezoelectric elements perform the measuring. While Page 5, lines 25-26 mention there are two piezoelectric elements arranged perpendicularly to one another, and Figures 2 and 4 show polygons which are meant to represent the piezoelectric elements, the piezoelectric elements are not described in such a way as to connote how the piezoelectric elements function and what structure(s) make up the piezoelectric elements. As is well known in the art (Official Notice) a piezoelectric sensor is made up of an energy harvesting material that produces a voltage when a force, pressure, or strain is applied and at least a sensor which converts the voltage output from the energy harvesting material into the measurement of pressure, acceleration, temperature, strain, or force. The Instant Application lacks any description of the piezoelectric elements such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how a voltage output from the piezoelectric effect is measured and/or converted to a measurement signal. Further, while Page 9, lines 0-10 disclose the piezoelectric elements generate a voltage that is supplied to the storage and transmission means, there is no disclosure of what structure(s) perform the function of producing a piezoelectric effect. (See 112a and 112b rejections below.)
B. "means for remotely storing and transmitting blade deformation measurement signals" first introduced in claim 1:
the means for remotely storing and transmitting blade deformation measurement signals may comprise an RFID transponder and memory, and a data processing circuit or an equivalent thereof (see Page 7, lines 0-5).
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 1 and 5-13 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.
Regarding Claim 1:
the specification fails to provide corresponding structure for an “piezoelectric element” which has been interpreted under 112(f) as performing the function of variably generating a voltage and a measurement signal. Thus, the “piezoelectric element” is not described in the Specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 5-13:
Claims 5-13 are rejected by virtue of dependence.
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 1 and 5-13 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.
Regarding Claim 1:
The claim limitation “piezoelectric element” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The Examiner note: while Page 9, lines 0-10 refer to the piezoelectric element, the features' structure is not described in such a way as to connote how the piezoelectric element functions to both output a voltage and a measurement signal such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what structure performs the function of converting the voltage to a measurement signal. Furthermore, the corresponding reference characters (10 and 11) in the drawings are depicted as a polygon similar to a rectangle, which does not connote any particular structure. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sellinger et al (US 20170373612), hereafter referred to as Sellinger.
Regarding Claim 1, Sellinger discloses the following:
A blade (99) for an aircraft turbomachine fan,
the blade (99) being made of a composite material (see [0046]), the blade (99) comprising:
means for measuring (105 or 106; see FIG. 2, 4B; [0041]) internal deformations (105 or 106; see FIG. 2, 4B; [0041]) of the blade (99); and
means for remotely storing and transmitting (116; see FIG. 2; [0041]) blade (99) deformation measurement signals connected to means for measuring (105 or 106; see FIG. 2, 4B; [0041]),
wherein the means for measuring (105 or 106; see FIG. 2, 4B; [0041]) and the means for remotely storing and transmitting (116; see FIG. 2; [0041]) are located in the composite material (see [0046]), and wherein the means for measuring (105 or 106; see FIG. 2, 4B; [0041]) is configured to supply (see for example [0049]) a voltage to the means for remotely storing and transmitting (116; see FIG. 2; [0041]),
wherein the means for measuring (105 or 106; see FIG. 2, 4B; [0041]) is designed to measure the deformations along predetermined measurement axes (axes of 105 and 106 see FIG. 4B; [0043]),
wherein the means for measuring (105 or 106; see FIG. 2, 4B; [0041]) comprises piezoelectric elements (105 and 106; FIG. 4B) extending in respective predetermined directions (see FIG. 4B; [0043]), wherein the piezoelectric elements (105 and 106; FIG. 4B) are configured to: generate the voltage (see for example [0039]), representing the measurement signals along the predetermined measuring axes (axes of 105 and 106 see FIG. 4B; [0043]); and
supply the voltage (see [0049]) to the means for remotely storing and transmitting (116; see FIG. 2; [0049]),
wherein the means for remotely storing and transmitting (116; see FIG. 2; [0041]) comprises means for processing (see [0049]) the signals received from the means for measuring (105 or 106; see FIG. 2, 4B; [0041]), and
wherein the means for processing (see [0049]) is configured to compare the maximum voltage values of the measurement signals with threshold values (see [0039]) and is configured to determine if the maximum voltage value of the measurement signals is within a range of predetermined voltage levels for a predefined period of time (see [0039, 52], all output voltages are compared, thus the maximum output voltages are compared as well).
Regarding Claim 7, Sellinger discloses the following:
The blade (99) according to Claim 1,
wherein the means for remotely storing and transmitting (116; see FIG. 2; [0041]) can be configured remotely so as to adjust the predetermined voltage levels (synonymous with setting the limit, see [0039]).
Regarding Claim 8, Sellinger discloses the following:
The blade (99) according to Claim 1,
wherein the composite material (see [0046]) comprises woven fibers embedded in a resin (see [0047]).
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 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sellinger et al (US 20170373612), hereafter referred to as Sellinger, in view of Non-Patent Literature Amsler (What is RFID and how does it work) March2021, hereafter referred to as Amsler.
Regarding Claim 5, Sellinger discloses the following:
The blade (99) according to Claim 1,
Sellinger does not teach the following:
wherein the wireless communicator includes a transmitter or a transceiver that operates on the electromagnetic spectrum to communicate with a data acquisition unit (see [0049]).
However Amsler teaches the following:
it is well known in the art to use RFID as a form of wireless communication (synonymous with, the means for remotely storing and transmitting) has an RFID transponder see first three paragraphs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the generic, "wireless communicator includes a transmitter or a transceiver that operates on the electromagnetic spectrum to communicate with a data acquisition unit," as disclosed by Sellinger, with the specific RFID wireless communicator, as taught by Amsler, with the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the blade with a known and specific form of wireless communication. The Examiner notes, the simple substitution of the generic wireless communicator of Sellinger with the specific RFID wireless communicator of Sellinger, yields the predictable result of providing wireless communication (i.e. substituting one known means to communicate wirelessly for another known means to communicate wirelessly). This rationale further supports a conclusion of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
Claims 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sellinger et al (US 20170373612), hereafter referred to as Sellinger, in view of Baldwin (US 20020117252).
Regarding Claim 9, Sellinger discloses the following:
A method for manufacturing a composite blade (99) for an aircraft turbomachine fan, the method comprising:
weaving a fiber preform (see [0046]);
injecting a resin into the preform (see [0047]);
curing the resin injected into the preform (Examiner note, CMC components made of fabric preforms injected with resin must be cured, lest they would not result in forming the solid substrate made of the CMC components, albeit Sellinger does not explicitly disclose such); and
inserting, into the composite material (see [0046]), means for measuring internal deformations (105 or 106; see FIG. 2, 4B; [0041]) of the blade (99) and means for remotely storing and transmitting (116; see FIG. 2; [0041]) blade (99) deformation measurement signals connected to the means for measuring (105 or 106; see FIG. 2, 4B; [0041]),
wherein the means for measuring (105 or 106; see FIG. 2, 4B; [0041]) comprises piezoelectric elements (105 and 106; FIG. 4B) extending in respective predetermined directions (see FIG. 4B; [0043]), wherein the piezoelectric elements (105 and 106; FIG. 4B) are configured to: generate the voltage (see for example [0039]), representing the measurement signals along the predetermined measuring axes (axes of 105 and 106 see FIG. 4B; [0043]); and
supply the voltage (see [0049]) to the means for remotely storing and transmitting (116; see FIG. 2; [0049]),
wherein the means for remotely storing and transmitting (116; see FIG. 2; [0041]) comprises means for processing (see [0049]) the signals received from the means for measuring (105 or 106; see FIG. 2, 4B; [0041]), and
wherein the means for processing (see [0049]) is configured to compare the maximum voltage values of the measurement signals with threshold values (see [0039]) and is configured to determine if the maximum voltage value of the measurement signals is within a range of predetermined voltage levels for a predefined period of time (see [0039, 52], all output voltages are compared, thus the maximum output voltages are compared as well).
Sellinger does not explicitly disclose the following:
curing the resin injected into the preform; and
However the Baldwin teaches the following:
it is well known in the art that fiber-reinforced composite structures are cured after the fibers are combined with the resin to provide a finished composite piece (see [0003]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fiber-reinforced composite structure combined with resin, as disclosed by Sellinger, wherein the fiber-reinforced composite structure is cured after the fibers are combined with the resin, as taught by Baldwin, with the reasonable expectation of successfully providing a finished composite piece (see Baldwin [0003]).
Regarding Claim 10, Sellinger as modified by Baldwin discloses the following:
The method according to Claim 9,
Sellinger continues to teach:
wherein the means for measuring (105 or 106; see FIG. 2, 4B; [0041]) and the means for remotely storing and transmitting (116; see FIG. 2; [0041]) are inserted on the outer surface of the preform (as seen in FIG. 4B, at least one layer of each 105 and 106 is on the outer surface of the preform 134) before the step of injecting the resin (see [0047]).
Regarding Claim 11, Sellinger as modified by Baldwin discloses the following:
The method according to Claim 9,
Sellinger continues to teach:
wherein the means for measuring (105 or 106; see FIG. 2, 4B; [0041]) and the means for remotely storing and transmitting (116; see FIG. 2; [0041]) are inserted during a lamination phase (it is noted, while the word "laminate" is not used, the layers of pre-preg and piezoelectric layers 105-106 are bound together with resin, and layers of composites bound together with resin meets the definition of a laminate).
Baldwin continues to teach:
it is well known in the art to cure fiber reinforced composites after a lamination phase (i.e. the lamination step is before the step of curing the resin; see [0039-41]).
Regarding Claim 12, Sellinger as modified by Baldwin discloses the following:
An aircraft turbomachine (FIG. 1, Sellinger) comprising a fan (see [0065], Sellinger) having at least one blade (99, Sellinger) according to Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 13, Sellinger as modified by Baldwin discloses the following:
An aircraft (see [0050, 64] , Sellinger) comprising an aircraft (see [0050, 64] , Sellinger) turbomachine according to Claim 12.
Conclusion
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 BRIAN C DELRUE whose telephone number is (313)446-6567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Eastern).
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, Nathaniel E. Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/BRIAN CHRISTOPHER DELRUE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights