DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in response to the above application filed on 01/23/2025 which is a 371 of PCT/FR2023/050835 filed on 06/09/2023 which claims foreign priority to FRANCE application 2207665 filed on 07/26/2022. Claims 1 – 11 are examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 – 6 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, l. 7 “integral with the lever” is believed to be in error for --integral with the control lever-- to maintain consistency within the claim.
Claim 2, l. 2 “wherein the conductive strips” is believed to be in error for --wherein the pair of conductive strips-- to maintain consistency among the claims.
Claim 3, l. 2 “wherein each conductor track” is believed to be in error for --wherein each circular conductor track-- to maintain consistency among the claims.
Claim 4, l. 2 “wherein the two conductor tracks are respectively” is believed to be in error for --wherein the circular conductor track comprises two conductor tracks that are respectively-- to maintain consistency among the claims.
Claim 5, l. 2 “wherein the two conductor tracks are disposed” is believed to be in error for --wherein the circular conductor track comprises two conductor tracks that are disposed-- to maintain consistency among the claims.
Claim 6, l. 2 “wherein the two conductor tracks are disposed” is believed to be in error for --wherein the circular conductor track comprises two conductor tracks that are disposed-- to maintain consistency among the claims.
Claim 11, l. 2 “wherein the conductor tracks” is believed to be in error for --wherein each one of the circular conductor tracks-- to maintain consistency among the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1 – 11 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 1, ll. 5 - 8 recites “wherein the control lever is associated with a pair of conductive strips rotatably integral with the lever and located on the side opposite to the control ring relative to the radial axis X” which is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention because it is unclear which element is the object of “…located on the side opposite to the control ring relative to the radial axis X”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of Claim 1, ll. 5 - 8 can be interpreted two ways: #1 - the control lever is located on the side opposite to the control ring relative to the radial axis X or #2 – the pair of conductive strips rotatably integral with the lever are located on the side opposite to the control ring relative to the radial axis X. In the interest of compact prosecution, Claim 1, ll. 5 - 8 is interpreted as interpretation #2 – “the pair of conductive strips rotatably integral with the lever are located on the side opposite to the control ring relative to the radial axis X”. Claims 2 – 11 depend from Claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 7, l. 2 recites the limitation "the printed circuit". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7, l. 2 recites the limitation "the distribution ring". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1 – 3 and 9 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (8,061,975) in view of Thebert (4,373,859).
Regarding Claim 1, Davis teaches, in Figs. 1 - 8, the invention as claimed, including a device for de-icing (Col. 1, ll. 25 - 30) a vane (34) of a turbomachine (10 – Fig. 1) of axis Y (longitudinal rotational axis of turbomachine shown in Fig. 1), comprising a vane (34) rotatably movable about a pivot (Col. 3, ll. 1 - 5) of radial axis X (56) and comprising an electrical resistor (72 - Col. 3, ll. 25 - 30), an electric power supply connected to the electrical resistor (Col. 3, ll. 45 - 50), a pair of conductive strips (66 – best seen in Figs. 5 and 6) wherein each conductive strip of the pair of conductive strips (66) comprises a first end in contact (Col. 3, ll. 35 - 40) with a circular conductor track (86 – best seen in Fig. 5) connected to the electric power supply and comprises a second end (end of 66 connected to 70 – best seen in Figs. 5 and 6) connected to the electrical resistor (72 via 70).
Davis is silent on a control lever for controlling the vane connected to a control ring.
Thebert teaches, in Figs. 1 – 6, a similar turbomachine (10 – Col. 2, ll. 25 - 30) having an axis Y (12 – Col. 2, ll. 25 – 30, longitudinal rotational axis shown in Fig. 3), said turbomachine comprising a vane (18) rotatably movable about a pivot (Col. 2, ll. 30 - 40) of radial axis X (axis perpendicular to 12) by a control lever (26) for controlling the vane (18 – Col. 3, ll. 1 - 10) connected to a control ring (38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Davis, with the control lever for controlling the vane connected to a control ring, taught by Thebert, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the turbomachine comprising a vane rotatably movable about a radial pivot axis, said vane comprising an electrical resistor, an electric power supply connected to the electrical resistor, a pair of conductive strips, wherein each conductive strip of the pair of conductive strips comprises a first end in contact with a circular conductor track connected to the electric power supply and comprises a second end connected to the electrical resistor, and the control lever for controlling the vane connected to a control ring, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., integrating the control ring and one control level connecting one vane to said control ring would have facilitated rotatably moving said one vane about a radial pivot axis when said control ring was moved circumferentially about the turbomachine’s longitudinal rotational axis, Y-axis. Furthermore, as shown in Fig. 1 of Thebert, the control ring (38 - known in the art as a “unison ring”) was connected to a plurality of control lever (26 – five shown in Fig. 1) where each control level was mechanically connected to an associated vane (18 - shown in Fig. 1) so that when said control ring was moved circumferentially about the turbomachine’s longitudinal rotational axis all of the connected control levers and vanes would have been rotated about their respective X-axis by the same amount. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Davis, i.v., Thebert, is silent on wherein said control lever is associated with said pair of conductive strips rotatably integral with the lever.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that in the combination of Davis, i.v., Thebert, said control lever would have been associated with said pair of conductive strips rotatably integral with said control lever because said control lever would have been mechanically fastened to the vane (as shown in Thebert – Fig. 2) and said pair of conductive strips were mechanically fastened to the vane (as shown in Davis – Figs. 5 and 6). Therefore, when assembled, i.e., vane, pair of conductive strips, and control lever mechanically fastened together, rotating said control lever around the radial axis X would have simultaneously rotated said vane and said pair of conductive strips around the radial axis X because said vane, said pair of conductive strips, and said control lever would have been rotatably integral with each other when assembled together.
Davis, i.v., Thebert, is silent on said pair of conductive strips located on the side opposite to the control ring relative to the radial axis X.
MPEP2144.04(VI)(C) cites “In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Davis, i.v., Thebert, to locate said pair of conductive strips on the side opposite to the control ring relative to the radial axis X because the particular placement of said pair of conductive strips in a device for de-icing a vane was an obvious matter of design choice that would not have modified the operation of the device.
Re Claim 2, Davis, i.v., Thebert, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Davis further teaches, in Fig. 7 and Col. 3, l. 55 to Col. 4, l. 5, wherein the conductive strips (110) are flexible and bear, by a spring action, on each circular conductor track (86).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Davis, i.v., Thebert, to have said pair of conductive strips be flexible and bear, by a spring action, on each circular conductor track because Davis teaches that the spring loaded pair of conductive strips provided an adjustment mechanism that ensures proper electrical contact between said pair of conductive strips and said corresponding circular conductor track.
Re Claim 3, Davis, i.v., Thebert, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Davis further teaches, in Figs. 4 and 5, wherein each conductor track (86) is covered with a protective cover (62, 76).
Re Claim 9, Davis, i.v., Thebert, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including a turbomachine (10 – Fig. 1) comprising a device for de-icing each vane (34) according to Claim 1.
Re Claim 10, Davis, i.v., Thebert, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Davis further teaches, in Col. 2, ll. 35 - 60, wherein the electric power supply is common to at least two vanes. Davis further teaches, in Col. 2, ll. 35 - 60, a plurality of circumferentially-spaced inlet guide vane assemblies (26) where each inlet guide vane assembly (26) included vane (34) with an electrical resistor (72).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that in the combination of Davis, i.v., Thebert, the power supply would have been common to at least two vanes because Davis teaches a plurality of vanes with each vane having an electrical resistor that required electrical power from the power supply to perform their designed and intended function of converting electricity into heat to de-ice each vane of the plurality of circumferentially-spaced inlet guide vane assemblies.
Re Claim 11, Davis, i.v., Thebert, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Davis further teaches, in Figs. 3 - 5, wherein the conductor tracks (86 – best seen in Fig. 4) are placed in parallel.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 - 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORNE E MEADE whose telephone number is (571)270-7570. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 EST.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. 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.
/LORNE E MEADE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights