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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed 02 July 2026 with respect to the claims have been fully considered. Any claim objections and/or 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections not repeated herein are considered to be overcome by the amendments.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant's remarks/arguments filed 02 July 2026 stating “Mikhailovich relies upon the principle of operation of the working blade 1 including a flat tail blade with no retaining feature on the flat tail… The hollow gasket 4 of Mikhailovich is formed under the principle of contacting the flat tail with a flat surface” have been fully considered. The Office respectfully notes that a design feature is not necessarily a “principle of operation” (note: any obviousness modification of a prior art apparatus necessarily results in a change to its design) - as indicated in the oil seal example given in MPEP 2143.01 VI, a “principle of operation” pertains to a specific design feature that is demonstrated as necessary to its operation. In this instance, there is no indication that the “flat tail blade with no retaining feature on the flat tail” is necessary to the operation of the Mikhailovich assembly. Furthermore, there is a reasonable expectation of success for the proposed combination since the inclusion of a “retaining feature” does not necessarily destroy any functions of the Mikhailovich assembly.
Applicant's remarks/arguments filed 02 July 2026 stating “The Office Action suggests that the Mikhailovich reference flat tail be re-designed with a recess similar to the shape as taught in the Binder reference in order to avoid substantial re-design. However, Mikhailovich has not recognized any problem with the flat tail design” have been fully considered. The Office respectfully notes that recognition of a problem/issue with a particular design is not necessary to justify an obviousness combination.
Applicant's remarks/arguments filed 02 July 2026 stating “The hollow gasket 4 is also flat and does not have a contoured shape. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not attempt to modify the flat tail 2 surface abutting the flat hollow gasket 4 to somehow have a retention feature as claimed” have been fully considered. The Office is respectfully notes that Mikhailovich gasket 4 does has a contoured shape since it is a three-dimensional object having an apparent/defined length (axial dimension), width (circumferential dimension), and height (radial dimension) - accordingly, Mikhailovich gasket 4 has sufficient contour/shape around which a “retention feature” can be formed.
Applicant's remarks/arguments filed 02 July 2026 stating “The hollow gasket 4 is shown seated within the chamber 5 formed in the disk 3. There is already a chamber 5 that can retain the hollow disk 3 formed in the Mikhailovich reference” (note: “hollow disk 3” is considered to mean --hollow gasket 4--) have been fully considered. The Office respectfully notes that this argument does not address the corresponding motivation(s) to combine.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, “exert” (line 2) should be changed to --exerts-- and “press” (line 3) should be changed back to --presses-- (for grammatical purposes).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-11, 14-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikhailovich et al. (RU 185519 U1 – hereafter referred to as Mikhailovich; previously cited) in view of Binder et al. (FR 3085714 A1 - hereafter referred to as Binder; previously cited).
In reference to claim 1
Mikhailovich discloses:
An under-root fan blade spacer system comprising:
a fan hub (3) including a fan hub receiver (see Figures 1 and 2), the fan hub receiver having a hub receiver floor (see Figures 1 and 2), the fan hub receiver having an opening (i.e., the opening occupied by root 2) configured to receive a fan blade root (2), the fan blade root includes a base end (see Figures 1 and 2);
a gap (see Figures 1 and 2) formed between the base end of the fan blade root and the hub receiver floor; and
a spacer (4) disposable within the gap, the spacer comprising a shape memory alloy material (see par. [0008] of translation).
Mikhailovich does not disclose:
a retaining feature formed in the root base end having a silhouette with a shape of the spacer.
Binder discloses:
a fan blade spacer system comprising a spacer (36), wherein the spacer is received in a recess (~40 - see Figure 3) formed in the root base end of the blade, the recess having a similar silhouette (see Figures 1 and 2) to a shape of the spacer.
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 system of Mikhailovich to include a retaining feature (i.e., a recess) in the root base end having a similar silhouette to a shape of the spacer, as disclosed by Binder, for the purpose of further preventing/inhibiting at least circumferential/lateral movement of the root base end and/or for the purpose of achieving a desired radial extent of the blade (e.g., accommodating the spacer into a pre-existing rotor such that the radial extent of the blade is unchanged, in order to avoid substantial re-design).
Mikhailovich in view of Binder therefore addresses:
a retaining feature (Binder) formed in the root base end having a silhouette with a shape of the spacer (note: the phrase having a silhouette with a shape of the spacer is broad/non-specific; since the proposed combination results in retaining feature mating/engaging with spacer, then at least part of retaining feature and spacer have the same and/or a common shape in some sense).
In reference to claim 2
Mikhailovich in view of Binder addresses:
The under-root fan blade spacer system according to claim 1, wherein the spacer shape memory alloy material (Mikhailovich - 4) comprises properties with the capacity to deform under mechanical forces from an original shape (note: any material/structure is capable of achieving deform under mechanical forces from an original shape; the recitation deform under mechanical forces from an original shape is broad/non-specific) and hold a deformed shape (note: the recitation hold a deformed shape is broad/non-specific); and
a capacity to regain the original shape upon being heated (see Mikhailovich par. [0008] of translation).
In reference to claim 4
Mikhailovich in view of Binder addresses:
The under-root fan blade spacer system according to claim 1, wherein the spacer (Mikhailovich - 4) is configured to exerts a force (see Mikhailovich par. [0013]) against the root base end and presses the fan blade root against the fan hub receiver.
In reference to claim 5
Mikhailovich in view of Binder addresses:
The under-root fan blade spacer system according to claim 1, wherein the spacer (Mikhailovich - 4) is configured to obtain a deformed shape responsive to being compressed (note: any material/structure is capable of achieving obtain a deformed shape responsive to being compressed), the spacer configured to at least one of insert into (see Mikhailovich Figures 1 and 2) or extract from the gap between the fan blade root and the fan hub receiver.
In reference to claim 6
Mikhailovich in view of Binder addresses:
The under-root fan blade spacer system according to claim 1, further comprising:
another retaining feature (i.e., a groove – see Mikhailovich Figure 2 showing spacer 4 as received in a groove formed in the disk 3) formed in at least one of the root base end and the hub receiver floor, wherein the another retaining feature is configured as a space to nest the spacer (note: the proposed combination results in a space to nest the spacer; Binder further discloses a recess in the rotor disk that receives the spacer - accordingly, Binder provides a basis for preserving the groove of Mikhailovich in the proposed combination) and prevent the spacer from relocating within the gap.
In reference to claim 7
Mikhailovich in view of Binder addresses:
The under-root fan blade spacer system according to claim 1, wherein the spacer is located in a predetermined location by use of the retaining feature (i.e., the recess of Binder resulting from the proposed modification and/or the groove of Mikhailovich - see Mikhailovich Figure 2 showing spacer 4 as received in a groove formed in the disk 3).
In reference to claim 8
Mikhailovich in view of Binder, as combined in the rejection of claim 1, addresses:
A gas turbine engine under-root fan blade spacer system comprising:
a fan hub (Mikhailovich - 3) including a fan hub receiver (see Mikhailovich Figures 1 and 2), the fan hub receiver having a hub receiver floor (see Mikhailovich Figures 1 and 2), the fan hub receiver having a dovetail shaped opening (i.e., the opening occupied by root 2, which can be mushroom-shaped – see Mikhailovich par. [0014] of translation) configured to receive a fan blade root (2), the fan blade root includes a base end (see Mikhailovich Figures 1 and 2);
a gap (see Mikhailovich Figures 1 and 2) formed between the base end of the fan blade root and a hub receiver floor; and
at least one spacer (Mikhailovich - 4) disposable within the gap, the at least one spacer comprising a shape memory alloy material (see Mikhailovich par. [0008] of translation);
a retaining feature (Binder) formed in the root base end having a silhouette with a shape of the at least one spacer (note: the phrase having a silhouette with a shape of the at least one spacer is broad/non-specific; since the proposed combination results in retaining feature mating/engaging with spacer, then at least part of retaining feature and spacer have the same and/or a common shape in some sense).
In reference to claim 9
Mikhailovich in view of Binder addresses:
The gas turbine engine under-root fan blade spacer according to claim 8, wherein the at least one spacer shape memory alloy material (Mikhailovich - 4) comprises properties with a capacity to deform under mechanical forces from an original shape (note: any material/structure is capable of achieving deform under mechanical forces from an original shape; the recitation deform under mechanical forces from an original shape is broad/non-specific) and hold a deformed shape (note: the recitation hold a deformed shape is broad/non-specific) and a capacity to regain the original shape upon being heated (see Mikhailovich par. [0008] of translation).
In reference to claim 10
Mikhailovich in view of Binder addresses:
The gas turbine engine under-root fan blade spacer according to claim 8, wherein the at least one spacer (Mikhailovich - 4) is configured to obtain a deformed shape responsive to being compressed (note: any material/structure is capable of achieving obtain a deformed shape responsive to being compressed), the at least one spacer configured to at least one of insert into (see Mikhailovich Figures 1 and 2) or extract from the gap between the fan blade root and the fan hub receiver.
In reference to claim 11
Mikhailovich in view of Binder addresses:
The gas turbine engine under-root fan blade spacer according to claim 8, further comprising: another retaining feature (i.e., a groove – see Mikhailovich Figure 2 showing spacer 4 as received in a groove formed in the disk 3) formed in at least one of the root base end and the hub receiver floor, wherein the another retaining feature and the retaining feature is configured as a space to nest the spacer (note: the proposed combination results in a space to nest the spacer; Binder further discloses a recess in the rotor disk that receives the spacer - accordingly, Binder provides a basis for preserving the groove of Mikhailovich in the proposed combination) and prevent the spacer from relocating within the gap.
In reference to claim 14
Mikhailovich in view of Binder, as combined in the rejection of claim 1, addresses:
A process of forming an under-root fan blade spacer system comprising:
forming a fan hub (Mikhailovich - 3) including a fan hub receiver (see Mikhailovich Figures 1 and 2), the fan hub receiver having a hub receiver floor (see Mikhailovich Figures 1 and 2), the fan hub receiver having an opening (i.e., the opening occupied by root 2 - Mikhailovich) configured to receive a fan blade root, the fan blade root includes a base end (see Mikhailovich Figures 1 and 2);
forming a gap (see Mikhailovich Figures 1 and 2) between the base end of the fan blade root and a hub receiver floor; and
disposing at least one spacer (Mikhailovich - 4) within the gap, the at least one spacer comprising a shape memory alloy material (see Mikhailovich par. [0008] of translation); and
forming a retaining feature (Binder) in the root base end having a silhouette with a shape of the at least one spacer (note: the phrase having a silhouette with a shape of the at least one spacer is broad/non-specific; since the proposed combination results in retaining feature mating/engaging with spacer, then at least part of retaining feature and spacer have the same and/or a common shape in some sense).
In reference to claim 15
Mikhailovich in view of Binder addresses:
The process of claim 14, further comprising: configuring the at least one spacer shape memory alloy material (Mikhailovich - 4) comprising properties with the capacity to deform under mechanical forces from an original shape (note: any material/structure is capable of achieving deform under mechanical forces from an original shape; the recitation deform under mechanical forces from an original shape is broad/non-specific) and hold a deformed shape (note: the recitation hold a deformed shape is broad/non-specific); and
a capacity to regain the original shape upon being heated (see Mikhailovich par. [0008] of translation).
In reference to claim 16
Mikhailovich in view of Binder addresses:
The process of claim 14, further comprising: configuring the at least one spacer (Mikhailovich - 4) to obtain a deformed shape responsive to being compressed (note: any material/structure is capable of achieving obtain a deformed shape responsive to being compressed); and configuring the at least one spacer to at least one of insert into (see Mikhailovich Figures 1 and 2) or extract from the gap between the fan blade root and the fan hub receiver.
In reference to claim 17
Mikhailovich in view of Binder addresses:
The process of claim 14, further comprising: forming a retaining feature (i.e., a groove – see Mikhailovich Figure 2 showing spacer 4 as received in a groove formed in the disk 3) in at least one of the root base end and the hub receiver floor; and
configuring the another retaining feature as a space to nest the at least one spacer (note: the proposed combination results in a space to nest the at least one spacer; Binder further discloses a recess in the rotor disk that receives the spacer - accordingly, Binder provides a basis for preserving the groove of Mikhailovich in the proposed combination) and prevent the at least one spacer from relocating within the gap.
In reference to claim 20
Mikhailovich in view of Binder addresses:
The process of claim 14, further comprising: locating the at least one spacer (Mikhailovich - 4) in a predetermined location by use of the retaining feature (i.e., a groove – see Mikhailovich Figure 2 showing spacer 4 as received in a groove formed in the disk 3).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikhailovich in view of Binder and a design choice.
In reference to claim 3
Mikhailovich in view of Binder addresses:
The under-root fan blade spacer system according to claim 2, wherein the spacer (4) is configured as the original shape responsive to exposure to mechanical forces (note: any material/structure is responsive to exposure to mechanical forces; the recitation response to exposure to mechanical forces is broad/non-specific), the original shape being configured to change shape into the deformed shape (note: any material/structure is deformable into any shape) comprising an ellipse shaped tube (see Figure 4)(note: an ellipse shape is capable of being achieved by the proposed combination resulting from the below proposed modification), and responsive to being heated, the spacer includes structural material properties configured to return to the original shape (see Mikhailovich stating “During the operation of a heat turbine due to heating of the elements of the flowing part, the material of the damping device is made martensitically, made in the form of a hollow strip 4 having a shape memory effect, as a result of which a pre-programmed expansion in the transverse direction appears, which ensures reliable radial blocking of the working blade 1 by the contact surfaces of the tail joint along their entire length (along the axis of the unit)”)(note: any steps and/or ordering of steps required by change shape into the deformed shape and to return to the original shape is considered as product-by-process limitations that do not structurally limit the claimed invention).
Mikhailovich in view of Binder does not address:
the original shape comprising a circular shaped tube.
As discussed in MPEP 2144.04, various common practices, one being the act of altering shape, which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients, if the Applicant has not demonstrated criticality of the specific limitation, are discussed in MPEP 2144.04.
Furthermore, Applicant has not demonstrated any criticality to the circular shape.
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 spacer system of Mikhailovich in view of Binder to make the spacer as a circular shape in its original form for the purpose of achieving a desired distance of upward movement and, thus, force resulting from thermally-induced deformation (see Mikhailovich par. [0013]).
Claims 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikhailovich in view of Binder and Karapurath et al. (US 2023/0203956 – hereafter referred to as Karapurath; previously cited).
In reference to claims 12 and 18
Mikhailovich in view of Binder addresses:
The gas turbine engine under-root fan blade spacer according to claim 8. (claim 12)
The process of claim 14. (claim 18)
Mikhailovich in view of Binder does not address:
further comprising: a coating disposed over an outside diameter of the at least one spacer. (claim 12)
further comprising: disposing a coating over an outside diameter of the at least one spacer. (claim 18)
Karapurath discloses:
a gas turbine engine under-root fan blade spacer (i.e., a shim – see Figures 5B, 6B, 8A, and 8B, and par. [0007]) comprising a coating (see par. [0008]).
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 spacer system of Mikhailovich in view of Binder to include a coating on the at least one spacer, as disclosed by Karapurath, for the purpose of preventing wear of the at least one spacer and/or the fan blade root.
Claims 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikhailovich in view of Binder and Przytulski et al. (US 5,123,813 – hereafter referred to as Przytulski; previously cited).
In reference to claims 13 and 19
Mikhailovich in view of Binder addresses:
The gas turbine engine under-root fan blade spacer according to claim 8. (claim 13)
The process of claim 14. (claim 19)
Mikhailovich in view of Binder does not address:
further comprising: an encapsulation envelope configured to contain the at least one spacer. (claim 13)
further comprising: forming an encapsulation envelope to contain the at least one spacer. (claim 19)
Przytulski discloses:
a gas turbine engine under-root fan blade spacer comprising an encapsulation envelope (i.e., flexible sack 78), which is formed of a material having a low coefficient of friction in order to promote easy insertion of the spacer (see col.4:ll.37-43).
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 spacer system of Mikhailovich in view of Binder to include an encapsulation envelope, as disclosed by Przytulski, for the purpose of promoting easy insertion of the at least one spacer into the fan hub.
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 extension fee 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 CHRISTOPHER RYAN LEGENDRE whose telephone is (571)270-3364 and email is christopher.legendre@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
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 Eugene Kim can be reached at 571-272-4463. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER R LEGENDRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights