DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 2-3, 13-14 and 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made in the reply filed on 17 November 2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the ring several grooves (claim 6), grooves lateral recess (claim 7) and spherical protrusion (claim 8) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” “The present disclosure relates,” etc.. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 16, 19 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 16 recites “Positioning”, “into thereto”, “Closing”, “Forcing” and “After”. The examiner recommends amending claim 16 to recite “positioning”, “closing”, “forcing” and “after”; furthermore, the examiner requests clarification with respect to the “into thereto” limitation. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting “into thereto” as reciting “into the”.
Claim 19 recites “before inserting the matrix material” and depends from claim 16 which recites “Forcing of liquefied matrix material”; the examiner recommends amending claim 19 to recite “before forcing the matrix material”.
Claim 23 recites “with thereto”. The examiner requests clarification with respect to the “with thereto” limitation. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting “with thereto” as reciting “with”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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: “a reinforcing element” in claims 10 and 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/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 it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 9 and 22 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “essentially parallel”. It is not clear what effect the limitation essentially has on parallel and/or how parallel is modified by essentially.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “the first mold”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Clarification and/or amendment is respectfully requested.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 9, 16, 18 and 22-23 (as far as the claim(s) are definite and understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Freitas et al – hereafter Freitas – (US 5,921,754 A).
Regarding claim 1, Freitas teaches a rotor fan (Fig.1/2/3) for an airborne vehicle (Note that if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction, see MPEP 2111.02 II) comprising
a. several rotor blades (12) arranged rotationally symmetric around a rotor axis (54), wherein each rotor blade comprises a blade body which is made of a composite material comprising reinforcing fibers (16/18/20/22) embedded in a matrix material (column 2 line 30-41) and extends
i. in a longitudinal direction between a bottom portion and a top portion (Fig.3), and
ii. in transverse direction between a leading edge and a trailing edge (Fig.3), and
b. a hub (made of 32/34/36/38) comprising a hub body (Fig.3) made at least partially of composite material comprising reinforcing fibers (32/34/36/38) embedded in a matrix material (column 3 line 1-3), wherein
c. the bottom portion of each rotor blade comprises a pedestal (Fig.2, 16/18/20) which is at least partially embedded in the composite material of the hub (Fig.2/3).
Regarding claim 4, Freitas further teaches the pedestals are interconnected to the hub body by a form fit (Fig.2).
Regarding claim 5, Freitas further teaches the hub body comprises at least one ring (Fig.2, 32/34/36/38) which is at least partially embedded in the composite material of the hub body and the pedestals are interconnected to the ring by a form fit (Fig.2).
Regarding claim 9, Freitas further teaches the blade body comprises continuous fibers being arranged essentially parallel with respect to the longitudinal direction of the blade body (Fig.8/9).
Regarding claim 16, Freitas further teaches a method for producing the rotor fan according to claim 1 (see above), comprising the following steps:
a. Positioning the pedestals of previously made rotor blades into thereto corresponding recesses adjacent to a cavity of a second mold arranged in an open position such that the rotor blades are arranged rotationally symmetric around a rotor axis of the rotor fan to be produced (Fig.15-17);
b. Closing of the second mold such that the pedestals of the rotor blades are encompassed in the cavity of the second mold (Fig.10/11/15-17);
c. Forcing of liquefied matrix material through an opening into the cavity of the second mold, thereby filling the empty space of the cavity and encompassing the pedestals of the rotor blades arranged in the cavity (Fig.19, 206);
d. After curing of the matrix material, opening of the second mold and removing the rotor fan (Fig.19, 208).
Regarding claim 18, Freitas further teaches the individual rotor blades are made in a first mold (Fig.12) by placing reinforcing fibers in a cavity of the first mold and injecting plasticized matrix material into the mold which encompasses the reinforcing fibers (Fig.19, 206).
Regarding claim 22, Freitas further teaches the blade body and the respective pedestal are made in an integral manner in a common molding process in the first mold (Fig.12; Fig.19, 206).
Regarding claim 23, Freitas further teaches the rotor fan comprises a ring (Fig.2, 32/34/36/38) with interconnected pedestals (Fig.2, 16/18/20), wherein the ring is placed into the second mold before the composite material of the hub is overmolded (Fig.17-19).
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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freitas in view of Dambrine et al – hereafter Dambrine – (US 20130259701 A1: also US 9,476,309 B2).
Regarding claim 10, Freitas teaches all the limitations of claim 1, see above, however, does not explicitly teach the leading edge of the blade body comprises a reinforcing element.
Dambrine teaches a rotor blade (Fig.1/5/6/7) including a leading edge (10) and a trailing edge (12). Dambrine further teaches the leading edge comprises a reinforcing element (this element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as an inlay, insert and/or bent sheet metal to accomplish the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Dambrine teaches a reinforcing element Fig.7, 20); this provides a reinforcing element that is more easily fabricated and lower cost than other known reinforcing elements (¶10).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the rotor fan of Freitas by having the leading edge of the blade body comprises a reinforcing element based on the teachings of Dambrine because this would provide a reinforcing element, which protects the leading edge of the blade, that is more easily fabricated and lower cost than other known reinforcing elements.
Claim(s) 11, 15 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freitas in view of Angus (US 4,826,645 A).
Regarding claim 11, Freitas teaches all the limitations of claim 1, see above, however, does not explicitly teach the composite material of the hub body comprises short fibers being mixed into the matrix material.
Angus teaches a method of manufacturing a bladed disc from a fiber reinforced composite material (abstract). Angus further teaches the method of manufacturing comprises injecting a mixture of short fibres and matrix material (column 1 line 42-50) thereby providing a material which has good strength characteristics for a bladed rotor (column 1 line 25-29).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the rotor fan of Freitas by having the composite material of the hub body comprises short fibers being mixed into the matrix material based on the teachings of Angus because this would require a simple substitution of one known element (matrix material of Freitas) for another (matrix material with short fibres of Angus) to obtain predictable results (providing a material which has good strength characteristics for a bladed rotor).
Regarding claim 15, Freitas teaches all the limitations of claim 1, see above, however, does not explicitly teach the hub comprises a bushing made out of one of the following materials or a combination thereof: titanium, aluminum, steel.
Angus teaches a method of manufacturing a bladed disc from a fiber reinforced composite material (abstract). Angus further teaches the bladed disc (Fig.2/6) comprises a hub (25) comprises a bushing (18) made out of one of the following materials or a combination thereof: titanium, aluminum, steel (column 3 line 29-40); said bushing carries the majority of the centrifugal loads imposed upon the blades during the rotation of the disc, thereby enhancing the structural integrity of the bladed disc (column 3 line 24-29).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the rotor fan of Freitas by having the hub comprises a bushing made out of one of the following materials or a combination thereof: titanium, aluminum, steel based on the teachings of Angus because this would enhance the structural integrity of the bladed disc of the rotor fan.
Regarding claim 19, Freitas teaches all the limitations of claim 16, see above, however, does not explicitly teach at least one additional part is placed in the cavity of the second mold before inserting the matrix material.
Angus teaches a method of manufacturing a bladed disc from a fiber reinforced composite material (abstract). Angus further teaches the bladed disc (Fig.2/6) comprises a hub (25) comprises at least one additional part (18) placed in a cavity of a mold before inserting a matrix material (Fig.2/3); said at least one additional part carries the majority of the centrifugal loads imposed upon the blades during the rotation of the disc, thereby enhancing the structural integrity of the bladed disc (column 3 line 24-29).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Freitas by having at least one additional part is placed in the cavity of the second mold before inserting the matrix material based on the teachings of Angus because this would enhance the structural integrity of the bladed disc of the rotor fan.
Regarding claim 20, Freitas and Angus further teach the at least one additional part forming part of the rotor fan is a bushing (Fig.2/16, 18) or a ring (Fig.2/16, 18) or a reinforcing element or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 21, Freitas teaches all the limitations of claim 16, see above, however, does not explicitly teach the liquefied matrix material of the hub comprises short reinforcing fibers, which after curing are arranged in a random manner in the hub body.
Angus teaches a method of manufacturing a bladed disc from a fiber reinforced composite material (abstract). Angus further teaches the method of manufacturing comprises injecting a mixture of short fibres and matrix material (column 1 line 42-50) thereby providing a material which has good strength characteristics for a bladed rotor (column 1 line 25-29).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Freitas by having the liquefied matrix material of the hub comprises short reinforcing fibers, which after curing are arranged in a random manner in the hub body based on the teachings of Angus because this would require a simple substitution of one known element (matrix material of Freitas) for another (matrix material with short fibres of Angus) to obtain predictable results (providing a material which has good strength characteristics for a bladed rotor).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freitas.
Regarding claim 12, Freitas teaches all the limitations of claim 1, see above, however, does not explicitly teach the hub body has a conically outer surface.
However, it is noted that applicant has not disclosed that having the hub body with a conically outer surface results in an unpredicted result not seen in the prior art. Accordingly, absent persuasive evidence that the hub body with a conically outer surface is functionally significant, the limitations above constitute a matter of choice of changes in shape and fail to patentably distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(b).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 are 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 following claim limitations were not found in the prior art.
the ring comprises several grooves facing away from the rotor axis each receiving a pedestal of one of the several rotor blades (claim 6).
Freitas discloses a ring in cooperation with rotor blade pedestals (Fig.2), however, does not disclose several grooves facing away from the rotor axis as claimed.
No other prior art reference was found that would anticipate or allow establishing a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the cited prior art above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN G FLORES whose telephone number is (571)272-3486. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:30pm Pacific Time.
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, Nathan 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.
/JUAN G FLORES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745