DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 15 January 2026.
Claims 1-10 are currently pending.
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 Remarks
The arguments in response to the claims rejection under 35 U.S.C § 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) have been fully considered and in light of the new rejection(s) below are found moot.
A new grounds for rejection is included in this Office Action.
The arguments in response to the claims rejection under 35 U.S.C § 103 have been fully considered and in light of the new rejection(s) below are found moot.
A new grounds for rejection is included in this Office Action.
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.
Examiner note: no 112(f) invocations have been identified by the Office.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wheeler et al (US 4995786), here after referred to as Wheeler.
Regarding Claim 1, Wheeler discloses the following:
A guide blade adjusting device for a turbomachine configured to twist multiple guide blades (24) grouped into a guide blade ring about axes (not labeled, FIG. 2) of rotation of the guide blades (24) of the guide blade ring extending in a radial direction, wherein each guide blade (24) comprises a front blade part (36) and a rear blade part (44) each of which can be twisted relative to one another (see Col. 3, lines 15-22), comprising:
a first drive hub (synonymous with means connected to the shaft like projection of each edge section for adjusting; see claim 1) coupled to a first drive motor (synonymous with control means connected to each adjusting means; see claim 1) and configured to be driven via the first drive motor (synonymous with control means connected to each adjusting means; see claim 1);
a first control ring (42), which transmits a twisting of the first drive hub (synonymous with means connected to the shaft like projection of each edge section for adjusting; see claim 1) for twisting the front blade parts (36) of the guide blades (24) of the guide blade ring to the front blade parts (36);
a second drive hub (synonymous with means connected to the shaft like projection of each edge section for adjusting; see claim 1) coupled to a second drive motor (synonymous with control means connected to each adjusting means; see claim 1) and configured to be driven via the second drive motor (synonymous with control means connected to each adjusting means; see claim 1); and
a second control ring (50), which transmits a twisting of the second drive hub (synonymous with means connected to the shaft like projection of each edge section for adjusting; see claim 1) for twisting the rear blade parts (44) independently of the twisting of the front blade parts (36) of the guide blades (24) of the guide blade ring to the rear blade parts (44).
Regarding Claim 2, Wheeler discloses the following:
The guide blade adjusting device according to Claim 1,
wherein the first drive hub (synonymous with means connected to the shaft like projection of each edge section for adjusting; see claim 1) is directly coupled to one of the front blade parts (36) of one of the guide blades (24) of the guide blade ring such that the front blade part (36) of this guide blade of the guide blade ring, emanating from the first drive hub (synonymous with means connected to the shaft like projection of each edge section for adjusting; see claim 1), can be directly twisted without interposition of the first control ring (42)(Col. 3, lines 0-22 disclose FIG. 3 shows the required vane drive arms extending to the synchronization rings from a single vane in order to control each vane row or stage.), and
wherein the first drive hub (synonymous with means connected to the shaft like projection of each edge section for adjusting; see claim 1) is indirectly coupled to the front blade parts (36) of other guide blades (24) of the guide blade ring such that the front blade parts (36) of the other guide blades (24) of the guide blade ring, emanating from the first drive hub (synonymous with means connected to the shaft like projection of each edge section for adjusting; see claim 1), are indirectly twistable subject to the interposition of the first control ring (42)(Col. 3, lines 0-22 disclose FIG. 3 shows the required vane drive arms extending to the synchronization rings from a single vane in order to control each vane row or stage.).
Regarding Claim 3, Wheeler discloses the following:
The guide blade adjusting device according to Claim 1,
wherein the second drive hub (synonymous with means connected to the shaft like projection of each edge section for adjusting; see claim 1) is directly coupled to one of the rear blade parts (44) of one of the guide blades (24) of the guide blade ring such that the rear blade part (44) of this guide blade of the guide blade ring, emanating from the second drive hub (synonymous with means connected to the shaft like projection of each edge section for adjusting; see claim 1) can be directly twisted without interposition of the second control ring (50)(Col. 3, lines 0-22 disclose FIG. 3 shows the required vane drive arms extending to the synchronization rings from a single vane in order to control each vane row or stage.), and
wherein the second drive hub (synonymous with means connected to the shaft like projection of each edge section for adjusting; see claim 1) is indirectly coupled to the rear blade parts (44) of other guide blades (24) of the guide blade ring such that the rear blade parts (44) of the other guide blades (24) of the guide blade ring, emanating from the second drive hub (synonymous with means connected to the shaft like projection of each edge section for adjusting; see claim 1), are indirectly twistable subject to the interposition of the second control ring (50)(Col. 3, lines 0-22 disclose FIG. 3 shows the required vane drive arms extending to the synchronization rings from a single vane in order to control each vane row or stage.).
Regarding Claim 4, Wheeler discloses the following:
The guide blade adjusting device according to Claim 1,
wherein the first control ring (42) is coupled via a first blade lever (40; FIG. 3) each to a bearing pin (38; FIG. 2) of the front blade part (36) of a respective other guide blade, and
wherein the second control ring (50) is coupled via a second blade lever (48) each to a bearing pin (46; FIG. 2) of the rear blade part (44) of a respective other guide blade.
Regarding Claim 5, Wheeler discloses the following:
The guide blade adjusting device according to Claim 4,
wherein in a region of each guide blade (24) one of the bearing pins of front and rear blade part (44) is formed as solid pin (46; FIG. 2; Col. 2, lines 50-65) and the other of the bearing pins of front and rear blade part (44) is formed as hollow pin (38; FIG. 2; Col. 2, lines 50-65), the axes (not labeled, FIG. 2) of rotation of which extend coaxially in the radial direction.
Regarding Claim 7, Wheeler discloses the following:
The guide blade adjusting device according to Claim 1
wherein the first drive hub (synonymous with means connected to the shaft like projection of each edge section for adjusting; see claim 1) is coupled to the first control ring (42) via a first drive lever (40), and
wherein the second drive hub (synonymous with means connected to the shaft like projection of each edge section for adjusting; see claim 1) is coupled to the second control ring (50) via a second drive lever (48).
Regarding Claim 9, Wheeler discloses the following:
The guide blade adjusting device according to Claims 1,
wherein the first control ring (42) is arranged on a first axial side of the guide blade ring, which faces the front blade parts (36) of the guide blades (24), and the second control ring (50) is arranged on a second axial side of the guide blade ring, which faces the rear blade parts (44) of the guide blades (24).
Regarding Claim 10, Wheeler discloses the following:
A turbomachine (FIG. 1), comprising:
a rotor (12) comprising moving blades (14, 16, 18);
a stator comprising guide blades (24), wherein the guide blades (24) form at least one guide blade ring (Col. 2, lines 35-45); and
a guide blade adjusting device configured to adjust at least the guide blades (24) of at least one guide blade ring, comprising:
a first drive hub (synonymous with means connected to the shaft like projection of each edge section for adjusting; see claim 1) coupled to a first drive motor (synonymous with control means connected to each adjusting means; see claim 1) and configured to be driven via the first drive motor (synonymous with control means connected to each adjusting means; see claim 1);
a first control ring (42), which transmits a twisting of the first drive hub (synonymous with means connected to the shaft like projection of each edge section for adjusting; see claim 1) for twisting front blade parts (36) of the guide blades (24) of the guide blade ring to the front blade parts (36);
a second drive hub (synonymous with means connected to the shaft like projection of each edge section for adjusting; see claim 1) coupled to a second drive motor (synonymous with control means connected to each adjusting means; see claim 1) and configured to be driven via the second drive motor (synonymous with control means connected to each adjusting means; see claim 1); and
a second control ring (50), which transmits a twisting of the second drive hub (synonymous with means connected to the shaft like projection of each edge section for adjusting; see claim 1) for twisting rear blade parts (44) independently of the twisting of the front blade parts (36) of the guide blades (24) of the guide blade ring to the rear blade parts (44).
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 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheeler et al (US 4995786), here after referred to as Wheeler, in view of Leopold (US 20180100407), hereafter referred to as Leopold.
Regarding Claim 6, Wheeler discloses the following:
The guide blade adjusting device according to Claim 4,
wherein the respective first blade lever (40; FIG. 3) and the respective second blade lever (48) comprise a single piece lever.
Wheeler does not disclose the following:
wherein the respective first blade lever and the respective second blade lever comprise two lever portions configured as a lever portion acting on the respective bearing pin of the respective blade part and a lever portion acting on the respective control ring, and
wherein the respective first blade lever and the respective second blade lever comprise two lever portions configured as a lever portion acting on the respective bearing pin of the respective blade part and a lever portion acting on the respective control ring, and
wherein the two lever portions of the respective blade lever are interconnected in an articulated manner.
However Leopold teaches the following:
it is well known in the art for a vane lever to comprise two lever portions (31, 32; see [0040]) configured as a lever portion acting on the respective bearing pin (26) of the respective blade part and a lever portion acting on the respective control ring (27), and
wherein the two lever portions of the respective blade lever are interconnected in an articulated manner (see [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the known one piece lever, as taught by Wheeler, with the known articulated lever, as also taught by Leopold, with the reasonable expectation of successfully providing a known lever to connect the bearing pin of a vane to a control ring. The Examiner notes, the simple substitution of the one piece lever of Wheeler with the articulated lever of Leopold yields the predictable result of providing a lever (i.e. substituting one known means to provide a lever for another known means to provide a lever). This rationale further supports a conclusion of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheeler et al (US 4995786), here after referred to as Wheeler.
Regarding Claim 8, Wheeler teaches the following:
The guide blade adjusting device according to Claim 7,
wherein the first drive lever (40) is arranged in a first circumferential position and the second drive lever (48) are arranged in a second other circumferential position of the guide blade ring (as seen in FIG. 3).
Wheeler does not teach the following:
wherein the first drive hub is arranged in a first circumferential position and the second drive hub together is arranged in a second other circumferential position of the guide blade ring.
However the Examiner notes the following:
It would have been obvious to try installing the second drive hub in a second other circumferential position, since there are only a finite number of predictable positions the second drive hub can be installed, either at the same or a different circumferential position as the first drive hub. This rationale supports a conclusion of obviousness because "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. And in this instance doing so leads to the anticipated success of installing a second drive, thus it is likely that product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense (See MPEP 2143, I. E.).
Wheeler as modified above teaches the following:
wherein the first drive hub (synonymous with means connected to the shaft like projection of each edge section for adjusting; see claim 1) together with the first drive lever (40), are arranged in a first circumferential position and the second drive hub (synonymous with means connected to the shaft like projection of each edge section for adjusting; see claim 1) together with the second drive lever (48) are arranged in a second other circumferential position of the guide blade ring (as seen in FIG. 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN C DELRUE whose telephone number is (313)446-6567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Eastern).
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 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.
/BRIAN CHRISTOPHER DELRUE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745