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 .
Applicant’s Amendment dated September 15, 2025 has been carefully considered, but is non-persuasive. Applicant’s argument that the reference signs “Z2” and “Zt” are shown in figures 9C and 8, respectively, is persuasive. The Replacement Sheets of Drawings overcome all of the drawing objections, but introduce a new objection as set forth in detail later below. The specification has been amended to remove the added new matter, and to correct the informalities therein. The claims have been amended to correct the informalities therein. The claims have been amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C 112(b) as set forth in the most recent prior Office Action, but contain indefinite claim language as set forth in detail later below. Correction of the matters is noted with appreciation.
Applicant’s arguments that the specification provides explicit, structural meanings so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what a through configuration and a non-through configuration, have been carefully considered, and are persuasive to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C 112(b) set forth in the most recent prior Office Action.
With regard to amended independent claim 5, Applicant has argued that “Spadacini does not disclose, teach or suggest “an assembly of a first and a second metal piece, the first and second metal pieces having a different massiveness, wherein the first metal piece is a centrifugal diffuser cover and the second metal piece is a centrifugal diffuser blade, the centrifugal diffuser blade being assembled with the centrifugal diffuser cover at least partially in a non-through configuration, wherein a top of the centrifugal diffuser blade is positioned against an internal face of the centrifugal diffuser cover, a surface of the centrifugal diffuser cover 11 comprising a slot passing right through said centrifugal diffuser cover in a thickness thereof, the centrifugal diffuser cover and the centrifugal diffuser blade being assembled by locally melting the metal of said centrifugal diffuser metal cover and blade, the slot providing guide for a welding beam,” as recited in amended claim 5.”
Applicant has further argued that “Spadacini discloses a bladed ring subassembly for a turbomachine in which blade 27 ends are joined to separate connecting rings 40, 41, and those connecting rings are then fixed to support rings 15, 22-there is no blade-to-cover joint. The reference repeatedly teaches inserting each blade end into a slot of a connecting ring and then fixing the blade to that connecting ring by mechanical locking elements and/or localized welds 55; the connecting rings 40, 41 are thereafter attached to support rings 15, 22. This architecture differs fundamentally from the claimed cover-blade assembly.”
Applicant has further argued that “Spadacini’s slots are expressly blade-receiving features formed in the connecting rings and shaped complementary to the blade ends; the blade ends are inserted into those ring slots and mechanically retained (e.g., by locking rings). Such slots are not in a diffuser cover, they do not lie opposite a blade top placed against an internal face of a cover, and they are occupied by the blade ends and thus do not “provide guide for a welding beam” used to join a blade to a cover. By contrast, in the present application the slot is in the cover, passes right through its thickness, and guides the EB/laser beam along the blade top to effect the joint between the cover and blade-precisely the "slot providing guide for a welding beam" now recited. Spadacini’s welds are likewise different in location and function. Spadacini welds the blade ends to the connecting rings (localized welds at terminal portions of the ring slots) and welds the connecting rings to the support rings. It nowhere teaches welding through a cover slot to locally melt and join a cover to a blade. In the present application, the welding beam passes through the cover slot and locally melts both the cover metal near the slot and the facing blade metal to create the joint-again, exactly as amended claim 5 requires. Spadacini also lacks the claimed non-through configuration at the joint. Spadacini repeatedly shows through-type insertion of blade ends into ring slots, with retention by locking rings; it does not disclose, teach or suggest a blade top positioned against an internal face of a cover and welded via a cover slot.
The present application, in contrast, expressly teaches non-through assembly (blade top against internal cover face) and shows that the cover slot guides the welding beam to enable this joint. Finally, the claimed article is different: amended claim 5 is directed to an assembly comprising a centrifugal diffuser cover and a centrifugal diffuser blade joined together by a beam guided by a through slot in the cover. Spadacini's disclosure is directed to a bladed ring formed from blades, connecting rings, and support rings, with joints positioned and performed accordingly; it does not disclose or suggest the claimed cover-blade assembly or the beam- guiding cover slot.”
Respectfully, these arguments are non-persuasive. As set forth in detail later below with regard to Spadacini et al., the term “non-through configuration” is interpreted as the blade portion 30 or 31 does not pass outside of the periphery of the first metal piece 40 or 41. As set forth in detail later below, Spadacini et al. discloses an assembly of a first metal piece 40 or 41 and a second metal piece 27, the first and second metal pieces having a different massiveness, wherein the first metal piece is a centrifugal diffuser cover and the second metal piece is a centrifugal diffuser blade, the centrifugal diffuser blade being assembled with the centrifugal diffuser cover at least partially in a non-through configuration, wherein a top of the centrifugal diffuser blade is positioned against an internal face of the centrifugal diffuser cover, a surface of the centrifugal diffuser cover comprising a slot 42 or 43 passing right through said centrifugal diffuser cover in a thickness thereof, the centrifugal diffuser cover and the centrifugal diffuser blade being assembled by locally melting the metal of said centrifugal diffuser metal cover and blade at 65 (paragraph [0150], for example), the slot providing guide for a welding beam. The term “non-through configuration” is interpreted as the blade portion 30 or 31 does not pass outside of the periphery of the first metal piece 40 or 41. Note that the recitation of “the slot providing guide for a welding beam” is a recitation of intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Here, the slot is capable of providing guide for a welding beam (claim 5).
Applicant’s argument that Park et al. 2021/0254482 does not disclose the centrifugal diffuser blade being assembled with the centrifugal diffuser cover at least partially in a non-through configuration, has been carefully considered, and is persuasive.
Drawings
The drawings filed on are September 15, 2025 objected to under 37 C.F.R. 1.84(h) because figures 9A, 9B, and 9C must not be connected by projection lines. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 5-15 are objected to because of the following informalities: Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 5, the last line, -- a -- should be inserted before “guide”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 6-10 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.
Claims 6-10 are replete with the term “metal cover” which is a double recitation of the previously recited centrifugal diffuser cover in claim 5, lines 3-4, causing ambiguity, which is a result of the change of dependency of claim 6 to now depend on claim 5, whereas prior claim 6 depended on claim 1. Note claim 6, lines 1-4; claim 7, lines 2-3 and 5; claim 8, lines 2-3; and claim 9, line 2, for example. Claims 6-10 should be carefully reviewed for additional instances of the term “metal cover”, and require extensive revisions.
In claim 6, line 2, “an assembly” is a double recitation of the previously recited assembly, causing ambiguity.
Claim 7, lines 1-5, which recite that “some of the plurality of metal blades are assembled with the metal cover in a through configuration wherein a top of the metal blade passes through the metal cover and others of the plurality of metal blades are assembled in a non-through configuration wherein the top of the metal blade is positioned against an internal face of the metal cover”, are inaccurate. Lines 1-5 should be amended to recite that -- some of the plurality of metal blades are assembled with the metal cover in a through configuration wherein tops of the metal blades pass through the metal cover and others of the plurality of metal blades are assembled in a non-through configuration wherein the tops of the metal blades are positioned against an internal face of the metal cover --.
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.
Claims 5-15 (as far as claims 6-10 are definite and understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Spadacini et al. 2019/0093481.
Disclosed is an assembly of a first metal piece 40 or 41 and a second metal piece 27, the first and second metal pieces having a different massiveness, wherein the first metal piece is a centrifugal diffuser cover and the second metal piece is a centrifugal diffuser blade, the centrifugal diffuser blade being assembled with the centrifugal diffuser cover at least partially in a non-through configuration, wherein a top of the centrifugal diffuser blade is positioned against an internal face of the centrifugal diffuser cover, a surface of the centrifugal diffuser cover comprising a slot 42 or 43 passing right through said centrifugal diffuser cover in a thickness thereof, the centrifugal diffuser cover and the centrifugal diffuser blade being assembled by locally melting the metal of said centrifugal diffuser metal cover and blade at 65 (paragraph [0150], for example), the slot providing guide for a welding beam. The term “non-through configuration” is interpreted as the blade portion 30 or 31 does not pass outside of the periphery of the first metal piece 40 or 41. Note that the recitation of “the slot providing guide for a welding beam” is a recitation of intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Here, the slot is capable of providing guide for a welding beam (claim 5).
Also disclosed is a centrifugal diffuser for a turbomachine including a metal cover 40 or 41 and a plurality of metal blades 27, each metal blade forming with the metal cover an assembly according to claim 5, the metal cover including a substantially planar surface, the metal blades extending substantially perpendicularly to the planar surface of the metal cover (claim 6).
Some of the plurality of metal blades are assembled with the metal cover in a through configuration wherein a top of the metal blade passes through the slot of the metal cover (at blade portion 30 or 31) and others of the plurality of metal blades are assembled in a non-through configuration wherein the top of the metal blade is positioned against an internal face of the metal cover (claim 7).
Each metal blade includes a blade portion 30 or 31 assembled with the metal cover in a through configuration (where a top of the metal blade passes through the slot of the metal cover at blade portion 30 or 31) and a blade portion 30 or 31 assembled with the metal cover in a non-through configuration (where the top of the metal blade is positioned against an internal face of the metal cover) (claim 8).
A blade portion 30 or 31 assembled with the metal cover in a non-through configuration (where the top of the metal blade is positioned against an internal face of the metal cover) is located at one end of the metal blade (claim 9).
A turbomachine for aircraft is also disclosed, including the centrifugal diffuser according to claim 6 mounted at an outlet of a compressor of said turbomachine (paragraph [0004] (claim 10).
The slot is rectilinear (claim 11).
The slot is vertically aligned with the centrifugal diffuser blade to guide the welding beam toward the top of the centrifugal diffuser blade (claim 12).
The centrifugal diffuser cover further comprises apertures (slots 42 or 43 that are additional to slots 42 or 43) sized to receive extended blade portions 30 or 31 assembled in a through configuration (where a top of the metal blade passes through the slot of the metal cover at blade portion 30 or 31), while a normal portion of the centrifugal diffuser blade is assembled in a non-through configuration (where the top of the metal blade is positioned against an internal face of the metal cover) by welding through the slot (claim 13).
A zone of non-through configuration is located at a tip of the centrifugal diffuser blade (claim 14).
The centrifugal diffuser cover and centrifugal diffuser blade are joined without adding a filler material (claim 15).
Note the annotated figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
1022
828
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 5-6, 11-12, and 14-15 (as far as claim 6 is definite and understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GB 1028452A.
Disclosed is an assembly of a first metal piece 16 and a second metal piece 15, the first and second metal pieces having a different massiveness, wherein the first metal piece is a centrifugal diffuser cover and the second metal piece is a centrifugal diffuser blade (note that the blades provide a widening area at the radial periphery and thus form part of a centrifugal diffuser), the centrifugal diffuser blade being assembled with the centrifugal diffuser cover at least partially in a non-through configuration, wherein a top of the centrifugal diffuser blade is positioned against an internal face of the centrifugal diffuser cover, a surface of the centrifugal diffuser cover comprising a slot 18 passing right through said centrifugal diffuser cover in a thickness thereof, the centrifugal diffuser cover and the centrifugal diffuser blade being assembled by locally melting the metal of said centrifugal diffuser metal cover and blade, the slot providing guide for a welding beam. Note that the recitation of “the centrifugal diffuser cover and the centrifugal diffuser blade being assembled by locally melting the metal of said centrifugal diffuser metal cover and blade” is a product-by-process limitation. 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-by-process claim does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Note that the recitation of “the slot providing guide for a welding beam” is a recitation of intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Here, the slot is capable of providing guide for a welding beam (claim 5).
Also disclosed is a centrifugal diffuser for a turbomachine including a metal cover 12 or 16 and a plurality of metal blades 15, each metal blade forming with the metal cover an assembly according to claim 5, the metal cover including a substantially planar surface, the metal blades extending substantially perpendicularly to the planar surface of the metal cover (claim 6).
The slot is rectilinear (claim 11).
The slot is vertically aligned with the centrifugal diffuser blade to guide the welding beam toward a top of the centrifugal diffuser blade (claim 12).
A zone of non-through configuration is located at a tip of the centrifugal diffuser blade (claim 14).
The centrifugal diffuser cover and centrifugal diffuser blade are joined without adding a filler material (claim 15).
Note the annotated figure below.
PNG
media_image2.png
442
668
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 Christopher Verdier whose telephone number is (571)272-4824. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00-3:30.
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, Courtney 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.
/Christopher Verdier/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745