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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 09/16/2025, with respect to objection of the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the drawings has been overcome.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Richards (US 20090004008), the Applicant’s position is that Richards discloses the first and second lateral surfaces are generally helically-shaped and the aforementioned surfaces do not extend, in a same direction as the pivot axis, parallel to each other (Page 9 of the Applicant’s Remarks filed on 09/16/2025). The Examiner has fully considered the Applicant’s position; however, respectfully disagrees. The first (surface 34 on hub 33, Fig. 4) and second lateral surfaces (surface 44 on shank 32) both parallel to each other and extend along the axial direction of the shank (pivot axis) even if the grooves (44) are disposed along a helical path. Therefore, Richards discloses the first and second lateral surfaces extend, in a same direction as the pivot axis, parallel to each other as claimed.
Regarding Seeley (US 4717312), the Applicant’s position is that Seely does not disclose the first lateral surface (16) is an internal surface of the hub. Instead, surface 16 of Seely is part of the device 14 (steel sleeve member). The Examiner has fully considered the Applicant’s position; however, respectfully disagrees. Seeley discloses is sleeve 14 is fixed to the hub; therefore, the sleeve is considered part of the hub assembly. In addition, the claim does not disclose that the hub is single piece formed without any other components. Therefore, the hub can be constructed of multiple elements to form a hub assembly. Thus, the surface 16 on sleeve 14 is considered an internal surface of the hub. Thus, Seeley discloses the first lateral surface (16) is an internal surface of the hub.
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.
Claim 16 is 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 16 recites the limitation "the second lateral surface" in Line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-2, 4-6 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Richards (US 20090004008).
In reference to Claim 1
Richards discloses:
A propeller comprising a hub (33), comprising at least one first lateral surface (surface 34 on hub 33, Fig. 4), which is an internal surface of the hub;
blades (31) that each comprise a shank (32), wherein the shank of each of the blades comprises at least one second lateral surface (surface 44 on shank 32), which has a circumference and is an outer surface of the shank; and
for each of the blades, a pivoting connection (56) having a pivot axis (“Y”) and at least one bearing (56), wherein the at least one bearing is interposed between the first lateral surface of the hub and the second lateral surface of the shank of one of the blades associated with the pivoting connection;
wherein the second lateral surface comprises, formed therein, at least one transverse groove (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Richards) that extends over at least a part of the circumference of the second lateral surface;
wherein the hub comprises, formed integral therewith, at least one main stop (37a,37b,37c, 37) that is at least partially housed in the at least one transverse groove;
wherein the at least one transverse groove and the at least one main stop define at least a portion of at least one holding system (30, 38, 48, 37);
wherein the at least one first lateral surface and the at least one second lateral surface extend, in a same direction as the pivot axis, parallel to each other; and
wherein the at least one transverse groove and the at least one main stop are spaced apart from the at least one bearing along the pivot axis. [0028-0062] (Fig. 1-4).
PNG
media_image1.png
761
721
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Annotated Figure 3 of Richards.
In reference to Claim 2
Richards discloses:
The propeller according to claim 1, wherein each of the at least one transverse groove (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Richards) extends over an entirety of the circumference of the second lateral surface (Fig. 3).
In reference to Claim 4
Richards discloses:
The propeller according to claim 1, wherein the main stop (37a, 37b, 37c) comprises at least one pin (pin of 37a,b,c; as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Richards), integral with the hub and oriented perpendicularly to the pivot axis, which extends between first and second ends (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Richards), the first end being housed in the transverse groove, and wherein the hub comprises, for each pin, an orifice (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Richards) configured to partially house the pin, the orifice having a cross section substantially equal to a cross section of the pin and being oriented perpendicular to the pivot axis. (Fig. 3).
In reference to Claim 5
Richards discloses:
The propeller according to claim 1, wherein each pin is configured to occupy a first state (see position of 37c in Fig. 8), in which the first end of the pin is housed in the transverse groove and a second state (as shown in Fig. 3) in which the second end of the pin is withdrawn from the blade and is no longer housed in the transverse groove.
In reference to Claim 6
Richards discloses:
The propeller according to claim 4, wherein the orifice (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Richards) is a through-hole, and the second end of the pin is positioned outside the hub (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Richards).
In reference to Claim 9
Richards discloses:
The propeller according to claim 6, wherein the holding system comprises a flexible link (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Richards) connecting the second end of the pin and the hub.
In reference to Claim 10
Richards discloses:
The propeller according to claim 4, wherein the pin (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Richards) and the transverse groove are positioned between the bearing (36) and a rotation axis of the hub. (Fig. 3, 8).
In reference to Claim 11
Richards discloses:
The propeller according to claim 1, wherein the holding system comprises at least one secondary stop (30) that comprises a nut integral with the hub (Fig. 3-4) [0029].
In reference to Claim 12
Richards discloses:
An aircraft propulsion assembly comprising at least one propeller according to claim 1 (“The present invention relates to blade mountings and more particularly blade mountings utilised in turboprop or propfan engines for aircraft propulsion,” [0001]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richards (US 20090004008) in view of Bibollet (US 4692097).
In reference to Claims 7-8
Richards discloses:
The propeller according to claim 6. Richards discloses at least one pin (pin of 37a,b,c; as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Richards).
Richards is silent on the pin comprises at least one threaded section configured to cooperate with a threaded section of the orifice.
Bibollet teaches a propeller (1) comprising a hub (2), blades each comprising a shank (7, 8) and, for each blade, a connection system (19, 16, 10) connecting the blade and the hub and comprising:
at least one first lateral surface (inner surface of hub) integral with the hub;
at least one second lateral surface (outer surface of root 7, 8), integral with the shank of the blade, having a circumference;
a pivoting connection (10) having a pivot axis (“A1”) and at least one bearing (10) interposed between the first and second lateral surfaces (“When not under such compression each set of balls acts like a rotary roller bearing to permit the respective blade to rotate in the respective socket,” Col. 2, 32-41);
at least one holding system (19, 14, 15, 10) for holding the blade connected to the hub; wherein the holding system comprises at least one transverse groove (grooves 9, on the outer surface of the shank 7, 8) in the second lateral surface, which extends over at least a part of the circumference of the second lateral surface, and at least one main stop (14, 15), integral with the hub, configured to be at least partially housed in the transverse groove. (Col. 3, ll. 55-68; Col. 4, ll. 1-68; Col. 5, ll. 1-15) (Fig. 1-5).
Bibollet teaches the orifice (11) is a through-hole, the second end of the pin (14) being positioned outside the hub. (Fig. 3).
Bibollet teaches the pin (14) comprises at least one threaded section configured to cooperate with a threaded section of the orifice (“Extending in one direction parallel to the hub axis 4 from the groove 6 to the face 12 is a large-diameter threaded passage 11. A smaller-diameter threaded passage 16 extends in the opposite direction from the groove 6 to the other face 17,” Col. 4, ll. 2-5; “A cap 15 can be threaded over the projecting threaded end of this screw 14 to engage the face 12 of the hub 2 and, like a locknut, prevent it from loosening,” Col. 4, ll. 49-52) (Fig. 3). (as claimed in Claim 7).
Bibollet teaches the holding system comprises a lock nut (15) configured for screwing onto the pin, so as to contact the hub.( “A cap 15 can be threaded over the projecting threaded end of this screw 14 to engage the face 12 of the hub 2 and, like a locknut, prevent it from loosening,” Col. 4, ll. 49-52) (Fig. 3). (as claimed in Claim 8).
Based on the teaching of Bibollet and Richards, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pin and the holding system of Richards by providing the pin with at least one threaded section configured to cooperate with a threaded section of the orifice; and including a lock nut configured for screwing onto the pin as taught by Bibollet for the purpose of providing well-known features of a shank holding system.
Claims 1, 3, 16, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seeley (US 4717312) in view of Richards (US 20090004008) in view of Bibollet (US 4692097).
In reference to Claims 1, 3, 16
Seeley discloses:
A propeller (2) comprising:
a hub (1, 14) comprising at least one first lateral surface (16), which is an internal surface of the hub;
blades (2) that each comprise a shank (8), wherein the shank of each of the blades has a circumference (“The root end 8 in this material is of outwardly flared form for retention between sleeve member 7 and a further steel sleeve member 9 suitably correspondingly flared at 10 on its inner surface towards its radially-inner end,” Col. 2, ll. 48-52);
for each of the blades, a sleeve (9) comprising an outer surface (surface 12 of sleeve 9), in which at least one transverse groove (34) is formed; and
for each of the blades, a pivoting connection (17) having a pivot axis (3) and at least one bearing (17), wherein the at least one bearing is interposed between the first lateral surface (16) of the hub and the second lateral surface (surface 12 of sleeve 9) of the shank of one of the blades associated with the pivoting connection;
wherein, for each of the blades, the sleeve (9) is interposed between the shank of a corresponding one of the blades and the at least one bearing; the sleeve having an outer surface, in which at least one transverse groove (34) is provided,
wherein the second lateral surface comprises, formed therein, at least one transverse groove that extends over an entirety of the circumference of the second lateral surface;
wherein the hub comprises, formed integral therewith, at least one main stop (33).
Seeley is silent on the at least one main stop being at least one pin.
Richards teaches a propeller comprising a hub (33), comprising at least one first lateral surface (surface 34 on hub 33, Fig. 4), which is an internal surface of the hub;
blades (31) that each comprise a shank (32), wherein the shank of each of the blades comprises at least one second lateral surface (surface 44 on shank 32), which has a circumference and is an outer surface of the shank,
wherein the second lateral surface comprises, formed therein, at least one transverse groove (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Richards) that extends over at least a part of the circumference of the second lateral surface;
wherein the hub comprises, formed integral therewith, at least one main stop (37a,37b,37c, 37) that is at least partially housed in the at least one transverse groove;
wherein the at least one transverse groove and the at least one main stop define at least a portion of at least one holding system (30, 38, 48, 37);
wherein the main stop (37a, 37b, 37c) comprises at least one pin (pin of 37a,b,c; as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Richards), integral with the hub and oriented perpendicularly to the pivot axis, which extends between first and second ends (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Richards), the first end being housed in the transverse groove, and wherein the hub comprises, for each pin, an orifice (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Richards) configured to partially house the pin, the orifice having a cross section substantially equal to a cross section of the pin and being oriented perpendicular to the pivot axis. (Fig. 3).
wherein each pin is configured to occupy a first state (see position of 37c in Fig. 8), in which the first end of the pin is housed in the transverse groove and a second state (as shown in Fig. 3) in which the second end of the pin is withdrawn from the blade and is no longer housed in the transverse groove.
Based on the teaching of Seeley and Richards, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the propeller shank assembly of Seeley by providing the pin as part of the main stop as taught by Richards for the purpose of providing well-known stop system of a shank holding system.
In reference to Claim 17
Seeley as modified by Richards discloses:
The propeller according to claim 16. Richards teaches the orifice (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Richards) is a through-hole, and the second end of the pin is positioned outside the hub (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Richards).
In reference to Claim 20
Seeley as modified by Richards discloses:
The propeller according to claim 6. Richards teaches the holding system comprises a flexible link (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Richards) connecting the second end of the pin and the hub.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seeley (US 4717312) in view of Richards (US 20090004008) in view of Bibollet (US 4692097) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Bibollet (US 4692097).
In reference to Claims 18-19
Seeley as modified by Richards discloses:
The propeller according to claim 6. Richards teaches at least one pin (pin of 37a,b,c; as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Richards).
Seeley as modified by Richards is silent on the pin comprises at least one threaded section configured to cooperate with a threaded section of the orifice (as claimed in Claim 18) and a lock nut configured for screwing onto the pin, so as to contact the hub (as claimed in Claim 19).
Bibollet teaches the pin having at least one threaded section and a lock nut (as discussed in the Rejection of Claims 7-8 above; see rejection of Claims 7-8 for further details of Bibollet).
Based on the teaching of Bibollet and Seeley in view of Richards, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pin and the holding system of Seeley as modified by Richards by providing the pin with at least one threaded section configured to cooperate with a threaded section of the orifice; and including a lock nut configured for screwing onto the pin as taught by Bibollet for the purpose of providing well-known features of a shank holding system.
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 AYE SU MON HTAY whose telephone number is (571)270-5958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-3:00pm PST.
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 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.
/AYE S HTAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights