DETAILED ACTION
Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Final Office Action is in Reply to the arguments/amendment (hereinafter “Response”) dated 10/21/2025. Claim(s) 1 and 4-9 are presently pending. Claim(s) 1 and 4-8 is/are amended. Claim(s) 2-3 is/have been cancelled. Claim(s) 9 is/are new.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claim(s) 2, 6, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is/are withdrawn in light of the submitted amendment to the claims.
The rejection of claims 1-5 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nguyen (U.S. Pat. No. 5,554,005) is withdrawn in light of the submitted amendments to the claims and in light of applicant(s) arguments. However, upon further search and consideration and as necessitated by applicant(s) amendments, which introduced newly claimed subject matter, claims 1 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mujezinovic (U.S. Pat. No. 8,038,404 B2) in view of Beckmann (EP3159483A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mujezinovic (U.S. Pat. No. 8,038,404 B2) in view of Beckmann (EP3159483A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mujezinovic discloses a rotor disk (44) comprising: a slot (46) for receiving a blade root (4) of a turbine blade (see Fig. 1-8 and Col. 2, ln 38-59), wherein the slot defines a longitudinal axis (dovetail centerline Y) that is parallel to a radial axis of the turbine blade (see Fig. 1-8), a length direction from a leading edge to a trailing edge of the slot (into and out of the page in Fig. 1-8), and a transverse direction that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis and to the length direction (see Fig. 1-8, wherein the longitudinal axis, length direction, and transverse direction may be defined in the same manner as applicant(s) invention, since the slot is formed in the same manner as applicant(s), both being axially-inserted slot, for example), wherein the slot has a plurality of indentations (top neck fillet 62 and middle neck fillet 66) disposed along its longitudinal axis, adapted for and complementary to protrusions of the blade root (see Fig. 2, 4, and 6-8, and Col. 3, ln 55-63), and wherein in a cross-sectional plane that is perpendicular to the length direction: the at least one indentation (indentations 62 and 66 on each side of the slot) comprises a concave truncated cone shape comprising an upper side bearing surface, a lower side surface, and a top surface therebetween (see Fig. 5 and Col. 3, ln 14-54, wherein the hook portions 8 and 12 of the blade root, and thus also corresponding fillets 62 and 66 of the slot, may be formed as truncated cones with an upper side bearing surface, a lower side surface, and a flat top surface therebetween, in the same manner as applicant(s) configuration). Mujezinovic fails to teach that a bulge is disposed within at least one indentation of the plurality of indentations, and the bulge runs from the upper side bearing surface and runs back to the top surface.
Beckmann exhibits a configuration for a slot (retaining groove 24) for receiving a blade root of a turbine blade within a rotor disk of the same type taught by Mujezinovic (see Fig. 3 and see [0013] and [0039], wherein the retaining groove 24 may extend in the axial direction for axially inserted blades, like that of Mujezinovic), wherein the slot defines a longitudinal axis that is parallel to a radial axis of the turbine blade (see Fig. 1-3), a length direction from a leading edge to a trailing edge of the slot (into and out of the page in Fig. 2-3), and a transverse direction that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis and to the length direction (left to right in Fig. 2-3), wherein the slot has a plurality of indentations (left/right portions of the expanded bottom portion of the slot, which receives the blade dovetail 36 therein) disposed along its longitudinal axis, adapted for and complementary to protrusions of the blade root (see Fig. 2 and [0026-0027]). Beckmann teaches that each indentation of such a slot may advantageously include a bulge (rounded portion 33) that is disposed within the indentation (see Fig. 2-3), the bulge running from an upper side bearing surface (30) and running back to a top surface (29) of the slot indentation (see Fig. 2-3 and [0028-0038]), in order to thereby reduce mechanical stress on the rotor disk caused by the centrifugal pressing of the rotor blade upon the slot walls at the indentations ([0006-0009], [0017], and [0022]).
Based on the teachings and example of Beckmann, 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 rotor disk of Mujezinovic such that a bulge is disposed within at least one indentation of the plurality of indentations, and such that the bulge runs from the upper side bearing surface and runs back to the top surface of the indentation of Mujezinovic, in order to thereby in order to thereby reduce mechanical stress on the rotor disk caused by the centrifugal pressing of the rotor blade upon the slot walls at the indentation(s), as described by Beckmann ([0006-0009], [0017], and [0022]).
Regarding claim 4, the configuration of Beckmann further exhibits that the bulge extends transversely with respect to the longitudinal axis and is of U-shaped configuration (see Fig. 2-3 and [0028-0038]), thus the proposed combination of Mujezinovic in view of Beckmann, in which the bulge configuration of Beckmann is incorporated into Mujezinovic, also exhibits the claimed structure.
Regarding claim 5, Mujezinovic teaches that the rotor disk as modified in re claim 1 (see in re claim 1) may be provided on a rotor of a steam turbine (Col. 1, ln 5-8).
Regarding claim 6, Beckmann teaches that the bulge may be machined out in the at least one indentation of a rotor disk (formed with a tool – see [0015] and [0030]), thus as part of the above described modification in re claim 1, Beckmann further teaches a method for forming a bulge in (i.e. servicing) the rotor disk of Mujezinovic (the rotor disk as claimed in claim 1) comprising machining out the bulge in the at least one indentation of Mujezinovic.
Regarding claim 7, Beckmann further teaches that each indentation of the plurality of indentations in Beckmann may comprise a respective bulge (see in re claim 1), and it is clear that the stress-reduction benefit provided by the bulges of Beckmann may be desirable for each indentation of a blade root slot such as that of Mujezinovic, wherein each indentation has a bearing/contact surface at which stresses caused by centrifugal forces which press the blade root against the indentation may be high (see Mujezinovic, Col. 1, ln 22-37). For these reasons, it would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotor disk of Mujezinovic such that each indentation of the plurality of indentations may comprise a respective bulge, as claimed.
Regarding claim 8, for the reasons and in the manner described above in re claim 7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotor disk of Mujezinovic such that each indentation of the plurality of indentations may comprise a respective bulge, as claimed (see in re claim 7).
Further, while Beckmann further teaches that the bulges may be machined out in the indentations of a rotor disk (see in re claim 6), in accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, the limitation “wherein the respective bulges are machined out” has not been given patentable weight. Please note that 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, i.e. the rotor disk with respective bulges provided within each indentation of the slot for receiving a blade root, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. machining. In re Thompson, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Regarding claim 9, Beckmann further teaches that, when viewed transversely with respect to the longitudinal axis, a shape of a portion of the bulge that runs from the upper side bearing surface is straighter than a remainder of the shape of the bulge (see Fig. 2-3 and [0028-0038]). Because the bulge configuration of Beckmann is incorporated into Mujezinovic in the above modification in re claim 1, it follows that Mujezinovic as modified by Beckmann also exhibits this claimed structure.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric A Lange whose telephone number is (571)272-9202. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-noon and 1pm-5:30pm.
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, Chelsea Stinson can be reached on (571) 270-1744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERIC A LANGE/Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/CHELSEA E STINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783