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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because “whereby each respective root is retained along the axial direction, wherein the blades are fixed pitch blades, each of the respective bases cooperating with an upstream part configured to axially block each respective root within each respective groove of each respective base towards the side of the upstream face and a downstream part configured to axially block each respective root within each respective groove of each respective base towards the side of the downstream face” in lines 12-18 should be --whereby each of the respective roots is retained along the axial direction, wherein the blades are fixed pitch blades, each of the respective bases cooperating with an upstream part configured to axially block each of the respective roots within each of the respective grooves of each of the respective bases towards the side of the upstream face and a downstream part configured to axially block each of the respective roots within each of the respective grooves of each of the respective bases towards the side of the downstream face--.
Claim 2 is objected to because “each blade comprises a single base” in lines 1-2 should be --each blade of the plurality of blades comprises a single base of the bases--.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“a tip of each blade” in line 2 should be --a tip of each of the blades--;
“the groove or a rectilinear L shape” in line 4 should be --the groove, or a rectilinear L shape-- (comma added after groove);
“the root of each blade and the groove” should be --the respective root of each of the blades and the respective groove of each of the blades--.
Claim 9 is objected to because “each respective second bases” in lines 1-2 should be --each of the respective second bases--.
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, 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 respective root (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 respective root (Modified Fig. 1 above - D) within each respective groove (59) of each respective base (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 respective root (Modified Fig. 1 above - D) within each respective groove (59) of each respective base (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…”)).
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) comprises a single base (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 blade (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 root (Modified Fig. 1 above - D) of each blade (31) and the groove (59) 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 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
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 1/16/26