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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 4/29/26 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4, and 9 have been amended. Claims 1-12 remain pending in the application.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 1/30/26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/29/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishigure et al. (U.S. 2013/0287562) in view of De Spiegeleer (U.S. 2019/0368376), Applicant has argued Ishigure fails to disclose wherein “the respective root is retained on the respective base along the radial direction and the circumferential direction” as recited in claim 1 because in Ishigure, “the projection 41 can slide against the walls of the groove 59 as shown in figure 3 of Ishigure and then escape therefrom” and because “fixations 57, 51, and 55 of figure 3 of Ishigure are there to ensure axial and radial retention in the groove 59” (see Remarks Filed 4/29/26, Pages 6-7). The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive because bolts 55 and nuts 57 of Ishigure join elements 39 and 43 per the views of Figs. 1-4 and per the description of Para 44 - “…support joint surface 53 of each Support member 43 is joined to the corresponding Vane joint surface 39 of the guide vane 31 by fastening force between bolts 55 and nuts 57…” and this joining would retain the roots of Ishigure (Modified Fig. 1 below - D) in all directions including the radial direction (RD) and the circumferential direction (SD) as is clearly shown in Figs. 1-4.
With regards to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishigure et al. (U.S. 2013/0287562) in view of De Spiegeleer (U.S. 2019/0368376), Applicant has argued Ishigure fails to disclose “the upstream part and the downstream part are arranged on opposite ends of each of the respective grooves along the axial direction” because in Ishigure there “are four element 57 as shown in figure 2 for the blade root” and “according to the present application, there are two total parts (upstream part and downstream part)” (see Remarks filed 4/29/26, Page 8). The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive because, as currently written, there is no limitation requiring only two total parts. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “there are two total parts (upstream part and downstream part)”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With regards to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishigure et al. (U.S. 2013/0287562) in view of De Spiegeleer (U.S. 2019/0368376), Applicant has argued Ishigure fails to disclose “the upstream part and the downstream part are arranged on opposite ends of each of the respective grooves along the axial direction” because “the claimed upstream part and the downstream part perform the function of radial and axial retention of the root inside the groove of the base, and are respectively arranged at the two opposite ends of the groove in the axial direction” (see Remarks filed 4/29/26, Page 8). The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Ishigure discloses each of the respective bases (43) cooperating with an upstream part (Modified Fig. 2 below - D) and a downstream part (Modified Fig. 2 below - E), the upstream and downstream parts (Modified Fig. 2 below - D, E) performing the function of radial and axial retention of the root inside the groove of the base (see Figs. 1-4, Paras 36-38, and Paras 44-46 (see especially Para 44 - “…support joint surface 53 of each Support member 43 is joined to the corresponding Vane joint surface 39 of the guide vane 31 by fastening force between bolts 55 and nuts 57…”)). Finally, elements D and E of Modified Fig. 2 below are shown on opposite ends of element 59 through the views of Figs. 2 and 3 as each element 43 is shown/described with a corresponding element 59, and element D is shown at a upstream end of an individual element 43 and element E is shown at a downstream end of that individual element 43.
Applicant has argued claims 2-12 are allowable for the same reasons as indicated above regarding claim 1. The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive for the same reasons as indicated above regarding claim 1.
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.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishigure et al. (U.S. 2013/0287562) in view of De Spiegeleer (U.S. 2019/0368376).
PNG
media_image1.png
577
793
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
758
472
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re claim 1:
Ishigure discloses a turbojet engine fan module wheel (Modified Fig. 1 above - A (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element A as a type of turbojet engine fan module wheel (see Para 35))), having an axial direction (FF, forward direction - Para 30; FR, rearward direction - Para 30 (see Fig. 1 and Para 30 (elements FF and FR are collectively shown/described as a type of axial direction))), a radial direction (RD, radial direction - Para 37) and a circumferential direction (SD, orthogonal direction - Para 45 (SD corresponds to the “…circumferential direction…” referenced in Para 35 as shown in Fig. 1)), an upstream face (Modified Fig. 1 above - B (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element B as a type of upstream face)) and a downstream face (Modified Fig. 1 above - C (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element C as a type of downstream face)), the wheel comprising a plurality of blades (31, multiple guide vanes - Para 35) made of fiber-reinforced support member - Para 37 (see Figs. 2-3 and Para 44)) distinct from the bases (43) of other blades of the plurality of blades (31)(see Figs. 1-4, Paras 36-38, and Paras 44-46), each of the respective bases (43) having a groove (59, support recess portion - Para 37) extending axially (see Figs.3-4 and Para 45) and opening out on a side of the upstream face (Modified Fig. 2 above - A (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element A as a type of a side of element B identified in Modified Fig. 1 above)) and/or on a side of the downstream face (Modified Fig. 2 above - B (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element B as a type of a side of element C identified in Modified Fig. 1 above))(see Modified Figs. 1-2 above and Fig. 3 (Fig. 3 is a cross-sectional view taken along III-III line of Fig. 2 per Para 23)), each of the respective roots (Modified Fig. 1 above - D) cooperating by axial interlocking in a form-fitting manner, optionally in a shape of a dovetail, with the respective grooves (59) of the respective bases (43)(see Figs. 2-4 and Paras 36-38, and Paras 44-46), whereby the respective root (Modified Fig. 1 above - D) is retained on the respective base (43) along the radial direction (RD) and the circumferential direction (SD)(see Figs. 1-4 and Para 44 - “…support joint surface 53 of each Support member 43 is joined to the corresponding Vane joint surface 39 of the guide vane 31 by fastening force between bolts 55 and nuts 57…”), and each of the respective bases (43) cooperates with at least one part (Modified Fig. 2 above - C (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element C as a type of at least one part; element C corresponds to an element 55)) configured to axially block the respective root (Modified Fig. 1 above - D) within the respective groove (59) of the respective base (43), whereby each of the respective roots (Modified Fig. 1 above - D) is retained along the axial direction (FF, FR)(see Figs. 1-4 and Paras 36-38, and Paras 44-46 (see especially Para 44 - “…support joint surface 53 of each Support member 43 is joined to the corresponding Vane joint surface 39 of the guide vane 31 by fastening force between bolts 55 and nuts 57…”)), wherein the blades (31) are fixed pitch blades (see Figs. 1-3 (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element 31 as a type of fixed pitch blade)), each of the respective bases (43) cooperating with an upstream part (Modified Fig. 2 above - D (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element D as a type of upstream part; element D corresponds to an element 57)) configured to axially block each of the respective roots (Modified Fig. 1 above - D) within each respective grooves (59) of each of the respective bases (43) towards the side of the upstream face (Modified Fig. 2 above -A)(see Figs. 1-4 and Paras 36-38, and Paras 44-46 (see especially Para 44 - “…support joint surface 53 of each Support member 43 is joined to the corresponding Vane joint surface 39 of the guide vane 31 by fastening force between bolts 55 and nuts 57…”)) and a downstream part (Modified Fig. 2 above - E (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element E as a type of downstream part; element E corresponds to an element 57)) configured to axially block each of the respective roots (Modified Fig. 1 above - D) within each of the respective grooves (59) of each of the respective bases (43) towards the side of the downstream face (Modified Fig. 2 above - B)(see Figs. 1-4 and Paras 36-38, and Paras 44-46 (see especially Para 44 - “…support joint surface 53 of each Support member 43 is joined to the corresponding Vane joint surface 39 of the guide vane 31 by fastening force between bolts 55 and nuts 57…”)), the upstream part (Modified Fig. 2 above - D) and the downstream part (Modified Fig. 2 above - E) are arranged on opposite ends of each of the respective grooves (59) along the axial direction (FF)(see Modified Fig. 2 above, and Figs. 2-3 (element D is shown at a type of upstream end of element 59 between the two views, element E is shown at a type of downstream end of element 59 between the two views, and element D is shown at an opposite end of 59 to that of element E between the two views)).
Ishigure fails to disclose blades made of fiber-reinforced organic-matrix composite material.
De Spiegeleer teaches blades (21, blades - Para 56) made of fiber-reinforced organic-matrix composite material (Para 56).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the blades of Ishigure after those of De Spiegeleer (thereby using the material of the blade of De Spiegeleer as the material of the blade of Ishigure) for the advantage of good mechanical strength (De Spiegeleer; Para 12 (see also Para 11 and Para 56))
Re claim 2:
Ishigure in view of De Spiegeleer teaches the turbojet engine fan module wheel (Modified Fig. 1 above - A) according to claim 1 (as described above).
Ishigure further discloses wherein each blade (31) of the plurality of blades (31) comprises a single base (43) of the bases (43)(see Figs. 2-3).
Re claim 3:
Ishigure in view of De Spiegeleer teaches the turbojet engine fan module wheel (Modified Fig. 1 above - A) according to claim 1 (as described above).
Ishigure further discloses wherein the upstream part (Modified Fig. 2 above - D) and the downstream part (Modified Fig. 2 above - E) are common between at least two blades (31)(see Figs. 2-3 and Para 44 - “…support joint surface 53 of each support member 43 is joined to the corresponding vane joint surface 39 of the guide vane 31 by fastening force between bolts 55 and nuts 57 (description that each element 43 is joined with an element 57 thereby making element 57 common to each)).
Re claim 4:
Ishigure in view of De Spiegeleer teaches the turbojet engine fan module wheel (Modified Fig. 1 above - A) according to claim 1 (as described above).
Ishigure further discloses the turbojet engine fan module wheel (Modified Fig. 1 above - A) comprising a shim (36, pad layer - Para 40 (see Fig. 5 and Para 40)) between a bottom (59a, surface - Para 38) of the groove (59) and a tip (Modified Fig. 1 above - E (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element E as a type of tip of an individual element 31; element E corresponds to the “outer end portion (a tip portion) of each guide vane 31” referenced in Para 35)) of each of the blades (31)(see Modified Fig. 1 above and Figs. 2-5), wherein the shim (36) has a curved shape (see Fig. 5), or a shape curved like a tile along a transverse direction of the groove, or a rectilinear L shape, or a combination of shapes, wherein the shim (36) is interposed between the respective root (Modified Fig. 1 above - D) of each of the blades (31) and the respective groove (59) of each of the blades (31) without modifying a structure of each of the blades (31)(see Modified Fig. 1 above and Figs. 2-5).
Re claim 5:
Ishigure in view of De Spiegeleer teaches the turbojet engine fan module wheel (Modified Fig. 1 above - A) according to claim 1 (as described above).
Ishigure further discloses wherein each of the respective bases (43) comprises a flange (51, joint block - Para 44 (see Fig. 2 and Para 44)) extending along the axial direction (FF, FR) and the circumferential direction (SD)(see Figs. 2-3), the respective base (43) being fixed to the respective at least one part (Modified Fig. 2 above - C) via the respective flange (51)(See Modified Fig. 2 above and Fig. 3).
Re claim 6:
Ishigure in view of De Spiegeleer teaches the turbojet engine fan module wheel (Modified Fig. 1 above - A) according to claim 1 (as described above).
Ishigure further discloses wherein the root (Modified Fig. 1 above - D) of each of the respective blades (31) and the groove (59) of each of the respective bases (43) have a same axial length (see Modified Fig. 1 above and Figs. 2-3 (element D and 59 are both shown with axial length and there must be a portion of each of these lengths that is the same (examiner suggests amending this limitation to --a same total axial length-- to overcome this rejection))).
Re claim 7:
Ishigure in view of De Spiegeleer teaches the turbojet engine fan module wheel (Modified Fig. 1 above - A) according to claim 1 (as described above).
Ishigure further discloses wherein the wheel (Modified Fig. 1 above - A) is a turbojet engine (see Fig. 1 and Para 32 - “…fan disk 11 is coaxially integrally connected to a multi-stage low-pressure turbine…”) fan module outlet rectifier wheel (Para 35 - “…multiple guide vanes 31 are those which straighten the flow of the air taken into the bypass passage 9 (in other words, the air whirled by the multiple fan rotor blades 17)….”).
Re claim 8:
Ishigure in view of De Spiegeleer teaches the turbojet engine fan module wheel (Modified Fig. 1 above - A) according to claim 1 (as described above).
Ishigure further discloses wherein each blade (31) of the plurality of blades (31) has a tip (Modified Fig. 1 above - E (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element E as a type of tip of an individual element 31; element E corresponds to the “outer end portion (a tip portion) of each guide vane 31” referenced in Para 35)) assembled with a second base (73, support member - Para 50) distinct from the second bases (73) of the other blades of the plurality of blades (31)(see Figs. 1-4, Paras 36-38, and Paras 49-54), each of the respective second bases (73) having a second groove (89, support recess portion - Para 38) extending axially (see Figs. 3-4 and Para 53) and opening out on the side of the upstream face (Modified Fig. 2 above - A) and/or on the side of the downstream face (Modified Fig. 2 above - B)(see Modified Figs. 1-2 above and Fig. 3 (Fig. 3 is a cross-sectional view taken along III-III line of Fig. 2 per Para 23)), each of the respective tips (Modified Fig. 1 above - E) cooperating by axial interlocking in a second form-fitting manner, optionally in the shape of the dovetail, with the second groove (89) of the respective second bases (73)(see Figs. 2-4, Paras 36-38, and Paras 49-54), whereby the respective tips (Modified Fig. 1 above - E) is retained on the respective second base (73) along the radial direction (RD) and the circumferential direction (SD)(see Figs. 1-4 and Para 52), and each of the respective second bases (73) cooperates with at least one second part (Modified Fig. 2 above - F (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element F as a type of at least one second part; element F corresponds to an element 85)) configured to axially block the respective tip (Modified Fig. 1 above - E) within the respective groove (89) of the respective second base (73), whereby the respective tip (Modified Fig. 1 above - E) is retained along the axial direction (FF, FR)(see Figs. 1-4 and Paras 36-38, and Paras 49-54).
Re claim 9:
Ishigure in view of De Spiegeleer teaches the turbojet engine fan module wheel (Modified Fig. 1 above - A) according to claim 8 (as described above).
Ishigure further discloses wherein each of the respective second bases (73) cooperates with a second upstream part (Modified Fig. 2 above - G (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element G as a type of second upstream part; element G corresponds to an element 87)) configured to axially block the respective tip (Modified Fig. 1 above - E) within the respective groove (89) of the respective second base (73) towards the side of the upstream face (Modified Fig. 2 above - A) and a second downstream part (Modified Fig. 2 above - H (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element H as a type of second downstream part; element H corresponds to an element 87)) configured to axially block the tip (Modified Fig. 1 above - E) within the groove (89) of the second base (73) towards the side of the downstream face (Modified Fig. 2 above - A)(see Figs. 1-4, Paras 36-38, and Paras 49-54).
Re claim 10:
Ishigure in view of De Spiegeleer teaches the turbojet engine fan module wheel (Modified Fig. 1 above - A) according to claim 8 (as described above).
Ishigure further discloses wherein the tip (Modified Fig. 1 above - E) of each of the respective blades (31) and the groove (89) of each of the respective second bases (73) have a same axial length (see Modified Fig. 1 above and Figs. 2-3 (element E and 89 are both shown with axial length and there must be a portion of each of these lengths that is the same (examiner suggests amending this limitation to --a same total axial length-- to overcome this rejection))).
Re claim 11:
Ishigure in view of De Spiegeleer teaches the turbojet engine fan module wheel (Modified Fig. 1 above - A) according to claim 1 (as described above).
Ishigure further discloses wherein the wheel (Modified Fig. 1 above - A) is a turbojet engine (see Fig. 1 and Para 32 - “…fan disk 11 is coaxially integrally connected to a multi-stage low-pressure turbine…”) fan (1, fan - Para 31) wheel (see Fig. 1 and Para 35).
Re claim 12:
Ishigure in view of De Spiegeleer teaches the turbojet engine fan module wheel (Modified Fig. 1 above - A) according to claim 1 (as described above).
Ishigure further discloses a turbojet engine (see Fig. 1 and Para 32 - “…fan disk 11 is coaxially integrally connected to a multi-stage low-pressure turbine…”) comprising the turbojet engine fan module wheel (Modified Fig. 1 above - A) according to claim 1 (as described above).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Loren C Edwards whose telephone number is (571)272-7133. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6AM-430PM.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/LOREN C EDWARDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746 5/22/26
Prosecution Insights