DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication(s) filed on 17 February 2026.
Claims 5, 7, and 10 are canceled by the Applicant.
Claims 1-4, 6 8-9, and 11-15 are pending.
Claims 1-4, 6 8-9, and 11-15 are being considered.
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 drawing objection(s) have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are found persuasive. The drawing objection(s) are withdrawn.
The arguments in response to the claims rejection under 35 U.S.C § 103 have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are not found persuasive for the following reasons. In light of the new rejection(s) below, the Applicant’s remarks are moot.
A new grounds for rejection is included in this Office Action, necessitated by amendment.
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: the following 112(f) invocations have been identified by the Office.
A. "load adjuster for adjusting…" first introduced in claim 6:
the load adjuster is responsible for adjusting a normal load at an interface between the damper engagement surface and the platform engagement surface and comprises a threaded fastener 196, or an equivalent thereof (see FIG. 5; [0083]).
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 1, 3, 6, 8, and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bryant (US 20160298460), hereafter referred to as Bryant; Klauke (US 20170211592), hereafter referred to as Klauke; Memmen (US 10731485) , hereafter referred to as Memmen; and Official Notice.
Regarding Claim 1, Bryant discloses the following:
A rotor stage (100) for a gas turbine engine (10) comprising:
a platform (120) having a first material composition, a plurality of blades (160) extending from the platform, and a damper element (200); wherein
the platform comprises a platform engagement surface (110);
the damper element comprises a body portion (body of 200) and an engagement portion (portion holding 210; see [0059]),
the engagement portion having a second material composition comprising a composite friction material (Bryant discloses the second material may be any material; for example [0044-45] disclose any suitable engagement pre-load may be used, dependent upon, inter alia, material and/or mechanical properties such as coefficient of friction, and the last sentence of [0059] discloses the damper element may be made of one, two, or more than two materials. By way of example only the engagement portion is disclosed as being metal, and the body portion is made of a composite, such as carbon fibre. It is noted, since the damper element may be made of one material, the entire damper element may be made of metal or a composite, as best understood from paragraph [0059].); and
the engagement portion (portion holding 210; see [0059]) comprises a damper engagement surface (210) that engages with the platform engagement surface (110).
a coefficient of a dynamic friction (the engagement surface slips with respect to the platform; see [0059]) between the platform engagement surface (110) and the damper engagement surface (210) at the interface therebetween is greater than a threshold (dry film lubricant is used to provide a consistent coefficient of friction at the engagement surface, see [0070]).
Bryant does not explicitly disclose the following:
the body portion having a third material composition comprising metal,
wherein the composite friction material, in use and at the interface between the platform engagement surface and the damper engagement surface, has a wear rate that is greater than a wear rate of the first material composition.
Regarding the body portion having a third material composition comprising metal, in light of MPEP 2131.02/ 2144.08 the Examiner notes Bryant discloses the following:
Bryant teaches the “genus” of a damper comprising a single material or two different materials, the disclosed materials comprising a metal and/or a composite. Considering the small size of the genus, namely only two possible species when selecting two different materials, and the Bryant reference discloses one of the possible species (e.g. purely by example only, the engagement portion is disclosed as being metal, and the body portion is made of a composite, see [0059]), but is silent as to the alternative, one skilled in the art would obviously or anticipatorily envisage Bryant discloses both possible species of the genus. Thus Bryant discloses the engagement portion being a composite and the body portion being made of metal. Since there is only one alternative “species” when two materials are selected (i.e. since the genus is so small), and in light of the totality of the teachings of Bryant (in particular the entire damper may be made of either metal or composite see [0059], and the damper may be made of any suitable material, see [0058]), MPEP section 2131.02 III supports the Bryant reference as being reasonably anticipatory and if not at lease obvious over MPEP section 2144.08 since the alternative species explained above can be at once envisaged. The explanation of the Bryant reference above, in light of the cited sections of the MPEP results in the limitation, “the body portion having a third material composition comprising metal.”
Klauke teaches the following:
it is well known in the art to make the engagement portion (303; FIG. 8; fiber-reinforced elastomer; see [0068]) having a second material composition comprising a composite friction material made of a fiber-reinforced elastomer (see [0068]).
However Memmen teaches the following:
it is well known in the art to manufacture blisks from nickel based superalloys (see for example see Col. 1, lines 48-52, Col. 2, lines 0-10).
And Official Notice teaches the following:
it is well known in the art that Inconel has a higher wear resistance than a fiber-reinforced elastomer (Official Notice).
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 metal or composite engagement portion damper material as disclosed by Bryant, with a damper made of a fiber-reinforced elastomer, as taught by Klauke, with the reasonable expectation of successfully providing a damper made of a known material. The Examiner notes, the simple substitution of the known damper material of Bryant with the known damper material of Klauke yields the predictable result of damping (i.e. substituting one known means to provide damping for another known means to provide damping). 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). It is further noted, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). In this instance Bryant discloses it is well known in the art to use metal and/or composites to form damper elements made of one or more than two materials, and Klauke discloses it is well known in the art to use fiber-reinforced elastomers to form damper element engagement surfaces (see MPEP 2144.07).
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 generically disclosed blisk of unknown material, as disclosed by Bryant, with a known blisk material such as Inconel, as taught by Memmen, with the reasonable expectation of successfully providing a blisk made of a known material. The Examiner notes, the simple substitution of the unknown blisk material of Bryant with the known blisk material of Memmen yields the predictable result of providing a blisk (i.e. substituting one unknown material to provide a blisk for another known material to provide a blisk). 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).
Bryant as modified by Klauke, Memmen, and Official Notice results in the following:
wherein the composite friction material (fiber-reinforced elastomer of Klauke) is selected such that, in use and at the interface between the platform engagement surface (made of for example Inconel, see Memmen, Col. 2, lines 0-10) and the damper engagement surface (fiber-reinforced elastomer of Klauke), a wear rate of the composite friction material (fiber-reinforced elastomer) is greater than (Official Notice) a wear rate of the first material composition (Inconel).
Regarding Claim 3, Bryant as modified by Klauke, Memmen, and Official Notice discloses the following:
The rotor stage (100) of Claim 1,
Klauke continues to teach the following:
wherein the composite friction material comprises glass fibres (see for example [0024] of Klauke).
Regarding Claim 6, Bryant as modified by Klauke, Memmen, and Official Notice discloses the following:
The rotor stage (100) of Claim 4,
comprising a load adjuster (196 in combination with 305; see FIG. 5; [0108]) for adjusting a normal load at an interface between the damper engagement surface and the platform engagement surface, and wherein each of the composite friction material and the normal load are selected such that, in use, vibration of the platform during rotation thereof results in a stick-slip phenomenon at the interface between the damper engagement surface and the platform engagement surface (see for example [0015, 18, 59, 93-94, 116]; Claim 15; It is noted, while the exact words "stick-slip" are not used, the cited paragraphs describe the "stick-slip phenomenon using different terms such as slip, radial movement, circumferential movement, and friction.).
Regarding Claim 8, Bryant as modified by Klauke, Memmen, and Official Notice discloses the following:
The rotor stage (100) of Claim 1,
wherein the body portion (body of 200) and the engagement portion (portion holding 210; see [0059]) are bonded together (see [0059]).
Regarding Claim 11, Bryant as modified by Klauke, Memmen, and Official Notice discloses the following:
The rotor stage (100) of Claim 1,
wherein the engagement portion (portion holding 210; see [0059]) is at least partially received within (since the portions are made of different materials and bonded, at least a portion of the engagement portion is received within the body portion; see [0059]) the body portion (body of 200).
Regarding Claim 12, Bryant as modified by Klauke, Memmen, and Official Notice discloses the following:
The rotor stage (100) of Claim 1,
wherein the damper element (200) comprises a plurality of engagement portions (portion holding 210; see [0059]), each engagement portion comprising a damper engagement surface (210) that engages with the platform engagement surface (110). (For example [0056] discloses the engagement portion may be segmented, thus to complete the damping of the entire blisk, a plurality of engagement portions would be provided to provide complete damping.)
Regarding Claim 13, Bryant as modified by Klauke, Memmen, and Official Notice discloses the following:
The rotor stage (100) of Claim 12,
wherein the platform (120) extends circumferentially about an axial direction (11), and
the plurality of engagement portions (portion holding 210; see [0059]) are angularly distributed about the axial direction (see for example FIG. 10).
Regarding Claim 14, Bryant as modified by Klauke, Memmen, and Official Notice discloses the following:
The rotor stage (100) of Claim 1, wherein
wherein the platform (120) extends circumferentially about an axial direction (11),
the platform engagement surface (110) extends in a plane that is substantially perpendicular to the axial direction, and
the damper engagement surface (210) extends in a plane that is parallel to the platform engagement surface (as seen in the Figures).
Regarding Claim 15, Bryant as modified by Klauke, Memmen, and Official Notice discloses the following:
A gas turbine engine (10) comprising the rotor stage (100) of Claim 1.
Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bryant as modified by Klauke, Memmen, and Official Notice, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Non-Patent Literature Duhovic et al, “Knitted fabric composites,” published in 2011, hereafter referred to as Duhovic.
Regarding Claim 2, Bryant as modified by Klauke, Memmen, and Official Notice discloses the following:
The rotor stage (100) of Claim 1,
Bryant as modified by Klauke, Memmen, and Official Notice does not explicitly disclose the following:
wherein the composite friction material comprises fibres or filaments which are randomly distributed and/or randomly orientated within a matrix.
However Duhovic teaches the following:
it is well known in the art for the composite friction material to comprise fibres or filaments which are randomly distributed (see section 8.1.2) and/or randomly orientated within a matrix (see section 8.2.1, 8.3.2, and 8.5).
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 generically disclosed fiber-reinforced elastomer, as disclosed by Bryant as modified by Klauke, Memmen, and Official Notice, with a known composite matrix composite comprising fibers that are randomly oriented within a matrix, as taught by Duhovic, with the reasonable expectation of successfully providing a damper made of a known material. The Examiner notes, the simple substitution of the known composite material of Bryant as modified by Klauke, Memmen, and Official Notice, with the known composite matrix composite material of Duhovic yields the predictable result of damping (i.e. substituting one known composite for another known composite). 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 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bryant as modified by Klauke, Memmen, and Official Notice, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Non-Patent Literature Duhovic et al, “Knitted fabric composites,” published in 2011, hereafter referred to as Duhovic.
Regarding Claim 4, Bryant as modified by Klauke, Memmen, and Official Notice discloses the following:
The rotor stage (100) of Claim 1,
Bryant as modified by Klauke, Memmen, and Official Notice does not explicitly disclose the following:
wherein the composite friction material comprises steel filaments.
However Duhovic teaches the following:
it is well known in the art to substitute glass fibers with steel fibers (see section 8.2.1; Table 8.1);
thus resulting in the limitation: wherein the composite friction material comprises steel filaments (synonymous with fibers).
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 glass fiber material as disclosed by Bryant as modified by Klauke, Memmen, and Official Notice, with steel fiber reinforced composite material, as taught by Duhovic, with the reasonable expectation of successfully providing a known fiber reinforced composite material. The Examiner notes, the simple substitution of the known fiber reinforced composite material of Longacre with the known fiber reinforced composite material of Duhovic yields the predictable result of providing a known fiber reinforced composite material (i.e. substituting one known means to provide a fiber reinforced composite material for another known means to provide a known fiber reinforced composite material). 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 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bryant as modified by Klauke, Memmen, and Official Notice, as applied to claims 8 and 1 (respectively) above, in further view of Ravey et al (US 20120321443), hereafter referred to as Ravey.
Regarding Claim 9, Bryant as modified by Klauke, Memmen, and Official Notice discloses the following:
The rotor stage (100) of Claim 8,
Bryant as modified by Klauke, Memmen, and Official Notice does not explicitly disclose the following:
wherein the body portion (201) and the engagement portion (205) are bonded together using an adhesive.
However Ravey teaches the following:
using an adhesive to bond two components in a gas turbine engine is well known in the art (see [0072]); thus resulting in the limitation: wherein the body portion (body of 200) and the engagement portion (portion holding 210; see [0059]) are bonded together using an adhesive.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bonding as disclosed by Bryant as modified by Klauke, Memmen, and Official Notice, wherein the bonding comprises an adhesive and/or an interference fit, as taught by Ravey, with the reasonable expectation of using a specific means to bond the damper element portions together (see Ravey [0072]).
Conclusion
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 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