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 November 13th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner appreciates Applicant’s response, but respectfully disagrees that Petellaz fails to teach all the limitations of Claim 1.
Specifically, Applicant agues “the root pin 35 is not an element of the bottom wall”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the annotated figure on page 6 of Applicant’s remarks is inaccurate, as the element pointed to by Applicant is not what Examiner is considering the bottom wall. Rather, the bottom wall is considered to be the part of cover #29 that the root pin (protuberance) is resting on, as seen in Figs. 1 and 3 and annotated below. Examiner notes that “bottom” is a relative term and that the surface the root pin is resting on is also closing the lower bottom as claimed via its relationship with bushing #22, which is also interpreted as part of the cup as claimed. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
PNG
media_image1.png
430
815
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant further argues, “the root pin 35, which the Examiner construed as the claimed protuberance… does not extend along the pitch axis 23… the root pin extends along an axis 36 which is perpendicular to the pitch axis 23”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While, the root pin extends a greater length along axis 36, it also extends along pitch axis 23 as claimed. Any three dimensional object is considered to be extending along all three dimensions, which in this case includes the pitch axis. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive.
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 15 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 15 recites in part, “wherein the protuberance is monobloc with a base of the bottom wall”. Nowhere in the specification is a description of the protuberance being monobloc with a base of the bottom wall recited. The term “monobloc” is not used at all. One of ordinary skill would have to look to the figures to determine if the described subject matter is reasonably conveyed. One of ordinary skill may determine that the protuberance and a base of the bottom wall are made as one piece based on Figs. 5 and 6. However, Claim 16 recites in part, “wherein the protuberance is made in one piece with a base of the bottom wall”. The inclusion of both claims would lead one of ordinary skill to believe that “monobloc” and “one piece” are different limitations rather than duplicates. In this case, as the protuberance being monobloc with a base of the bottom wall is not described in the specification, Claim 15 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
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 1-10, 14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Petellaz et al., hereafter Petellaz (US 20150330233).
Regarding Claim 1, Petellaz discloses an assembly comprising a propeller vane (Fig. 1) and a system for angularly setting the pitch of the vane about an axis, called the pitch axis, for an aircraft turbomachine (paragraphs 0102,0143),
the vane having a root (Fig. 2 #37 – root loop as root) extending from an upper end connected to a blade of the vane to a free lower end (Fig. 2 #21 – aerodynamic portion as blade), the root having a bulb (Fig. 2 #31 – safety protuberance as bulb),
the system for angularly setting the pitch of the vane comprises a cup which is radially delimited by an annular wall extending around the pitch axis (Figs. 1,2 #22,29 – anchoring bushing and cover, respectively, form the cup together), the cup comprising a lower bottom closed by a bottom wall (Fig. 2 #29 – cover as lower bottom closed by bottom wall; see below) and an upper opening through which the bulb is intended to be inserted axially into the cup (Fig. 2 #27 – mounting opening as upper opening), the bottom wall being configured to cooperate in a form-fitting manner with the free end of the root in such a way that the cup is secured against rotation with the root about the pitch axis (paragraphs 0125,0127),
wherein the bottom wall comprises a protuberance which extends along the pitch axis (paragraph 0133; Figs. 1,2 #35 – root pin as protuberance; the root pin extends in its own radial direction along the pitch axis #23) and which is engaged in a recess of complementary shape to the free end of the root (Fig. 2 #34 – sleeve as recess).
PNG
media_image1.png
430
815
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Petellaz discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 above. Petellaz further discloses wherein the recess and the protuberance are centred on said pitch axis (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 4, Petellaz discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 above. Petellaz further discloses wherein the recess is formed in a metal material part of the root (paragraphs 0093,0096,0098 – recess is formed in insert #33, which can be a metallic material).
Regarding Claim 5, Petellaz discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 above. Petellaz further discloses wherein the recess is formed in a composite material part of the root (paragraphs 0093,0096,0098 – recess is formed in insert #33, which can be a composite material).
Regarding Claim 6, Petellaz discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 above. Petellaz further discloses wherein the recess and the protuberance have, in cross-section, a shape selected from an ellipse, a star, a cross and a polygon (Fig. 2 – recess and protuberance have a cross-section in the form of a circle, which is an ellipse.
Regarding Claim 7, Petellaz discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 above. Petellaz further discloses wherein the protuberance has a smaller cross-section than the bulb (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 8, Petellaz discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 above. Petellaz further discloses wherein the bulb is connected to the blade by a stilt of smaller cross-section than the bulb (Fig. 2 #33 – insert as stilt).
Regarding Claim 9, Petellaz discloses all the limitations of Claim 8 above. Petellaz further discloses wherein the protuberance has a smaller cross-section than the stilt (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 10, Petellaz discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 above. Petellaz further discloses wherein the bulb has a rounded convex cross-section all around the pitch axis (Figs. 1,2).
Regarding Claim 14, Petellaz discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 above. Petellaz further discloses an aircraft turbomachine, comprising an assembly according to claim 1 (paragraph 0002).
Regarding Claim 17, Petellaz discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 above. Petellaz further discloses wherein the protuberance extends along the pitch axis from a base of the bottom wall (Figs. 1,3 #35 – root pin as protuberance; the root pin extends in its own radial direction along the pitch axis #23 from base of bottom wall – see below).
PNG
media_image2.png
430
815
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 18, Petellaz discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 above. Petellaz further discloses wherein the protuberance extends along the pitch axis from an internal face of a base of the bottom wall (Figs. 1,3 #35 – root pin as protuberance; the root pin extends in its own radial direction along the pitch axis #23 from internal face of base of bottom wall – see above).
Regarding Claim 19, Petellaz discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 above. Petellaz further discloses wherein the protuberance protrudes along the pitch axis from a base of the bottom wall (Figs. 1,3 #35 – root pin as protuberance; the root pin protrudes in its own radial direction along the pitch axis #23 from base of bottom wall – see above).
Regarding Claim 20, Petellaz discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 above. Petellaz further discloses wherein the protuberance protrudes along the pitch axis from an internal face of a base of the bottom wall (Figs. 1,3 #35 – root pin as protuberance; the root pin protrudes in its own radial direction along the pitch axis #23 from internal face of base of bottom wall – see above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 16 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.
Claim 2 would be allowable for disclosing the assembly according to claim 1, wherein the recess and the protuberance are off-centre with respect to said pitch axis.
Petellaz clearly shows the recess and protuberance being centered with respect to the pitch axis. One of ordinary skill would not be motivated to move the recess and protuberance taught by Petellaz such that they were off-center without using Applicant’s disclosure as a road map, which would be impermissible hindsight. None of the other known prior art, alone or in moderation, cures this deficiency. Therefore, the combination of features would be considered allowable.
Claim 16 would be allowable for disclosing the assembly according to claim 1, wherein the protuberance is made in one piece with a base of the bottom wall.
Petellaz clearly shows the protuberance being a separate piece from the base of the bottom wall. One of ordinary skill would recognize that it would not be possible to integrate the protuberance and base disclosed by Petellaz without completely changing how the propeller vane and pitch system were assembled. One of ordinary skill would not be motivated to do so without using Applicant’s disclosure as a road map, which would be impermissible hindsight. None of the other known prior art, alone or in moderation, cures this deficiency. Therefore, the combination of features would be considered allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Violette (US 5102300), Mouton (US 10280941), and Husband (US 11073030) each teaches a vane and pitch system with a root attached to a cup by a protuberance.
Nguyen (US 6102664) teaches a vane root attached to a cup by a protuberance sticking out of the cup into a recess in the root.
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 JACKSON GILLENWATERS whose telephone number is (469)295-9151. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-6:00PM ET, M-F.
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 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.
/JACKSON N GILLENWATERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745