DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 (i.e., claims 1-11) 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“control unit controls” in claim 12
“control unit controls” in claim 13
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emilianowicz et al. US 6,449,952 (“Emilianowicz”) in view of Nakano JP 2002-205226 A (“Nakano”).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 12, Emilianowicz discloses:
1. An assembly method for fitting, to a first tubular body (e.g., Figs. 1,2 #24,26) that has a plurality of first through-holes (e.g., Figs. 1,2 #70) formed along a circumferential direction having a first axis as a central axis, a second tubular body (e.g., Figs. 1,2 #60,62) that has a plurality of second through-holes (e.g., Figs. 1,2 #64) formed along a circumferential direction having a second axis as a central axis at a predetermined position to assemble the first tubular body and the second tubular body (e.g., Figs. 1-4, col. 3 lines 24-34, col. 4 lines 14-33, col. 5 lines 17-38)
11. The assembly method according to claim 1,
wherein the first tubular body is an outer liner (Fig. 1: outside liner 34) of a combustor, and the second tubular body is a bulkhead (Fig. 1: dome 36) of the combustor, or
the first tubular body is the bulkhead (Fig. 2: dome 36) of the combustor, and the second tubular body is an inner liner (Fig. 2: inside liner 32) of the combustor.
12. An assembly device for fitting, to a first tubular body (e.g., Figs. 1,2 #24,26) that has a plurality of first through-holes (e.g., Figs. 1,2 #70) formed along a circumferential direction having a first axis as a central axis, a second tubular body (e.g., Figs. 1,2 #60,62) that has a plurality of second through-holes (e.g., Figs. 1,2 #64) formed along a circumferential direction having a second axis as a central axis at a predetermined position to assemble the first tubular body and the second tubular body (e.g., Figs. 1-4, col. 3 lines 24-34, col. 4 lines 14-33, col. 5 lines 17-38), the assembly device comprising:
a holding tool that holds a shaft member (e.g., col. 5 lines 29-30: “the head 76 of the bolt has a recess 84 therein for receiving a suitable tool (e.g., an Allen wrench)”)
Emilianowicz does not explicitly disclose causing a computer to execute: a size detection step of detecting a size of an overlapping region between each of the first through-holes and each of the second through-holes corresponding to each other in a state in which the second tubular body is fitted to the first tubular body; and an overlapping region specification step of specifying the overlapping region in which a positional relationship between the first through-hole and the second through-hole needs to be adjusted, on the basis of the sizes of all of the overlapping regions, as recited in claim 1;
and a control unit, wherein the control unit controls the holding tool such that the shaft member is inserted into an overlapping region between the first through-hole and the second through-hole, controls the holding tool such that the shaft member is moved in a direction orthogonal to an insertion direction, calculates an amount of backlash of the shaft member in the overlapping region on the basis of an amount of movement of the shaft member, and specifies the overlapping region in which a positional relationship between the first through-hole and the second through-hole needs to be adjusted on the basis of the calculated amounts of backlash in all of the overlapping regions, as recited in claim 12.
Emilianowicz also does not disclose the features of claims 2 and 4-8.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Nakano discloses adjusting the relative position of two juxtaposed elements (7,8) by determining the size of an overlapping region of holes located on each of the elements. More particularly, Nakano discloses an assembly method in which a second panel having a second through-hole (attachment hole) is overload on a first panel having a first through-hole (attachment hole), and assembly is performed such that the first through-hole and the second through-hole overlap, wherein in a state in which the second panel is overlaid on the first panel, the sizes of overlapping regions in which corresponding first through-holes and second through-holes overlap is detected, the overlapping region in which adjustment of the positional relationship between the first through-hole and the second through-hole is necessary is identified on the basis of the sizes of all of the overlapping regions, and after the positional relationship is adjusted, bolts are inserted into the overlapping regions in which corresponding first through-holes and second through-holes overlap (e.g., Figs. 1-7, [0018]-[0037]).
Further regarding claim 12, Nakano also discloses the end shaft member (1) is moved in a direction orthogonal to an insertion direction, such displacement being obtained by rotation of an eccentric part (e.g., [0019]). More particularly Nagano discloses inserting a shaft member (pin straight body parts 3, 13) into an overlapping region, sensing the amount of backlash of the shaft member in a direction orthogonal to the insertion direction, and detecting the size of the overlapping region (e.g., Figs. 1-7, [0018]-[0037]).
Emilianowicz and Nakano are analogous art since both pertain to an assembly method in which a second member having second through-holes is overlaid on a first member having first through-holes and bolts are inserted into overlapping regions in which corresponding fist through-holes and second through-holes overlap.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Emilianowicz with Nakano so that in a state in which the second cylindrical body is fitted into the first cylindrical body, the sizes of overlapping regions in which corresponding first through-holes and second through-holes overlap is detected, and the overlapping region in which adjustment of the positional relationship between the first through-hole and the second through-hole is necessary is identified on the basis of the sizes of all of the overlapping regions.
Further, it is common practice for a computer to execute a method, and a person skilled in the art could, as appropriate, have caused the method obtained by applying the invention described in Nakano to the invention described in Emilianowicz to be executed by a computer.
Nakano (in combination with Emilianowicz) further discloses:
2. The assembly method according to claim 1, wherein the size detection step is performed by inserting a shaft member into the overlapping region and detecting an amount of backlash of the shaft member in a direction orthogonal to an insertion direction (e.g., Figs. 1-7, [0019] of Nakano).
4. The assembly method according to claim 1, further comprising:
causing the computer to execute a positioning step of adjusting the positional relationship between the first through-hole and the second through-hole forming the overlapping region determined to need to be adjusted in the overlapping region specification step (Figs. 1-2 of Emilianowicz, It is common practice for a computer to execute a method, and a person skilled in the art could, as appropriate, have caused the positioning, in which the positional relationship between the first through-hole and the second through-hole is adjusted, to be executed by a computer).
5. The assembly method according to claim 1, further comprising:
causing the computer to execute, before the size detection step:
a contact step of bringing an outer peripheral surface of the second tubular body into contact with an inner peripheral surface of the first tubular body in a state in which the second axis is relatively inclined with respect to the first axis (e.g., [0019] of Nakano); and
a fitting step of fitting the second tubular body to the first tubular body such that the first axis and the second axis are matched with each other, using a contact point between the first tubular body and the second tubular body as a fulcrum (e.g., [0019] of Nakano).
6. The assembly method according to claim 5, further comprising:
causing the computer to execute an initial positioning step of adjusting the positional relationship between the first through-hole and the second through-hole forming the overlapping region after the fitting step and before the size detection step (e.g., [0019] of Nakano).
7. The assembly method according to claim 5, wherein an inner diameter of the first tubular body is smaller than an outer diameter of the second tubular body (e.g., Figs. 1-2 of Emilianowicz).
8. The assembly method according to claim 4, wherein the positioning step is performed by moving a shaft member inserted into the overlapping region in a direction orthogonal to an insertion direction (e.g., [0019] of Nakano).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emilianowicz as modified by Nakano as applied to claims 4 and 6 above, and further in view of Casavant et al. US 2014/0109594 (“Casavant”).
Emilianowicz as modified by Nakano does not explicitly disclose:
9. The assembly method according to claim 4, wherein the positioning step is performed by a deformable shaft member whose diameter is enlarged in a state in which the deformable shaft member is inserted into the overlapping region.
10. The assembly method according to claim 6, wherein the initial positioning step is performed by a deformable shaft member whose diameter is enlarged in a state in which the deformable shaft member is inserted into the overlapping region.
Casavant (in combination with Emilianowicz as modified by Nakano) disclose:
9. The assembly method according to claim 4, wherein the positioning step is performed by a deformable shaft member whose diameter is enlarged in a state in which the deformable shaft member is inserted into the overlapping region (e.g., Fig. 3, [0005]-[0007], [0018]).
10. The assembly method according to claim 6, wherein the initial positioning step is performed by a deformable shaft member whose diameter is enlarged in a state in which the deformable shaft member is inserted into the overlapping region (e.g., Fig. 3, [0005]-[0007], [0018]).
Casavant, Emilianowicz, and Nakano are analogous art since all pertain assembly methods for overlaying parts onto each other.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify further Emilianowicz and Nakano with Casavant since Casavant teaches that the use of deformable parts allows for transient differential growth of the finished assembly, since the overlaid parts often have a tendency to expand or contract upon heating or cooling (e.g., [0003]-[0004]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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:
The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest wherein the size detection step is performed by inserting a bolt into the overlapping region and detecting torque generated when the bolt is screwed to a nut portion provided on the second tubular body, as recited in claim 3, in combination with the remaining features and elements of the claimed invention.
Claim 13 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest wherein the control unit controls the holding tool such that the bolt is inserted into an overlapping region between the first through-hole and the second through-hole and the bolt is screwed to a nut portion provided on the second tubular body, and specifies the overlapping region in which a positional relationship between the first through-hole and the second through-hole needs to be adjusted on the basis of torque of the bolt when the bolt is screwed to the nut portion, as recited in claim 13, in combination with the remaining features and elements of the claimed invention.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hashimoto US 2017/0184031 discloses in a rotary machine, a method of assembling a rotary machine, and a method of performing maintenance of a rotary machine, a combustor casing as an outer casing configured from upper and lower casings forming a half split shape, an intermediate shaft cover as an inner casing configured from upper and lower casings forming a half split shape and supporting a combustor in the combustor casing, and a pressing support mechanism that presses and supports a portion to be fit of the combustor casing and a fitting portion of the intermediate shaft cover in an axial direction of a rotor are provided, and thus, detachment of the casing is made easy and maintainability of an inside thereof is improved in the method of performing maintenance of a rotary machine.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN A JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-3742. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at 571-272-9774. 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.
/RYAN A JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
08/19/26
Prosecution Insights