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 with respect to claims 1-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 16 be found allowable, claim 17 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
The Examiner also notes that the preamble of claim 16 recites, “The arrangement” and would most appropriately be directed to claim 15 as the preamble of claim 15 recites, “a counter-weight arrangement”
The Examiner further notes that the preamble of claim 17 recites, “The assembly” and would most appropriately be directed to claim 1 as the preamble of claim 1 recites, “a variable pitch aircraft propeller assembly.”
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 13 recites, “when the the at” and should read “when the at”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1:
Claim 1 now recites, “wherein the counter-weights are arranged only on every other propeller blade.”
The immediate specification indicates, “The propeller assembly 52 comprises a hub 13, and six propeller blades 1 which extend from the hub 13. The propeller assembly 52 varies from the propeller assembly 11 shown in Figure 3 in that only every- other propeller blade has a counter-weight arrangement 30 mounted thereon. [0075]” and “It is visible from Figure 11 that on a propeller assembly with a small number of blades (e.g. three or possibly four) it may be possible to have a double counter-weight arrangement 30 on each blade 1, but on a propeller assembly with a larger number of blades (e.g. six, eight, etc) it is not possible to have a double counter- weight arrangement 30 on each blade 1 without adjacent counter-weight arrangements interfering with one another. [0077]”
It is clear from the immediate specification that there is clear differentiation between a propeller less than 5 blades that it may be possible to have a double counter-weight arrangement on each blade, but that with a large number of blades (six or more) that it contemplated by the text of the immediate specification for “only every other propeller blade” (emphasis added) to have said counter-weight arrangement.
The Examiner respectfully notes that “only every other propeller blade” is being interpreted as a negative limitation (See MPEP 2173.05(i)) and while the claim language is clearly understood to a person of ordinary skill in the art, the Examiner respectfully asserts that there is not an exclusionary proviso in the text of the immediate specification to support a counter-weight on every other blade for propellers with a small number of blades “three or possibly four” and only exists for what the Applicant considers to be a large number of blades (which appears to be six or more).
Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed had possession of the claimed subject matter.
Claims 2-14 are rejected based on their dependencies.
Regarding claim 15:
Claim 15 now recites, “wherein the counter-weights are arranged only on every other propeller blade.”
The immediate specification indicates, “The propeller assembly 52 comprises a hub 13, and six propeller blades 1 which extend from the hub 13. The propeller assembly 52 varies from the propeller assembly 11 shown in Figure 3 in that only every- other propeller blade has a counter-weight arrangement 30 mounted thereon. [0075]” and “It is visible from Figure 11 that on a propeller assembly with a small number of blades (e.g. three or possibly four) it may be possible to have a double counter-weight arrangement 30 on each blade 1, but on a propeller assembly with a larger number of blades (e.g. six, eight, etc) it is not possible to have a double counter- weight arrangement 30 on each blade 1 without adjacent counter-weight arrangements interfering with one another. [0077]”
It is clear from the immediate specification that there is clear differentiation between a propeller less than 5 blades that it may be possible to have a double counter-weight arrangement on each blade, but that with a large number of blades (six or more) that it contemplated by the text of the immediate specification for “only every other propeller blade” (emphasis added) to have said counter-weight arrangement.
The Examiner respectfully notes that “only every other propeller blade” is being interpreted as a negative limitation (See MPEP 2173.05(i)) and while the claim language is clearly understood to a person of ordinary skill in the art, the Examiner respectfully asserts that there is not an exclusionary proviso in the text of the immediate specification to support a counter-weight on every other blade for propellers with a small number of blades “three or possibly four” and only exists for what the Applicant considers to be a large number of blades (which appears to be six or more).
Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed had possession of the claimed subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 16, the inclusion of “wherein the propeller assembly includes at least six propeller blades” into the claim brings the claim back into compliance in regards to 35 U.S.C. §112(a) as there is written support for the embodiment of a propeller with at least six propellers blades and wherein the counter-weights are arranged only on every other propeller blade.
Tajan et al. discloses a variable pitch aircraft propeller assembly (Fig. 1) comprising:
a plurality of propeller blades (26) each configured to rotate (Z) in a plane of rotation (12) so as to generate a thrust (L) in a direction perpendicular to the plane of rotation (Fig. 2), wherein each propeller blade of the plurality of propeller blades is configured to be linked to an actuator (Description 13, "This pivoting is obtained by conventional actuator devices of hydraulic or electrical type") which controls the pitch of each propeller blade of the plurality of propeller blades (Description ¶13); and at least one counter-weight arrangement (30, Fig. 2) mounted on at least one propeller blade of the plurality of propeller blades(26), the at least on counter-weight arrangement comprising:
a first counter-weight (32 by 34a); and
a second counter-weight (32 by 34b);
wherein the first and second counter-weights are arranged such that when the at least one propeller blade is in a fine pitch, the counter-weights are in a first position with respect to the plane of rotation of the at least one propeller blade (the Examiner respectfully notes that the clause after "when the propeller blade is in a fine pitch" is conditional and not strictly required to meet the limitation of the claim; Description 14 "In the event of an engine failure, it is advantageous for each fan blade 26 to be capable of being feathered automatically, i.e. so as to have an angle of attack relative to the relative wind V.sub.R that is substantially zero." which indicates that there is a non-failure state where the blade is "not feathered"), and when the the at least one propeller blade is substantially feathered, the at least one counter-weights are in a second position with respect to the plane of rotation of said propeller blade (Description ¶14);
wherein the counter-weights are aligned such that a line (Y) drawn between the center of mass of the first counter-weight and the center of mass of the second counter-weight is perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the propeller blade (Z).
However, Tajan et al. nor any of the prior art of record teach or suggest, “wherein the counter-weights are arranged only on every other blade” and “wherein the propeller assembly includes at least six propeller blade”
Regarding claim 17, the inclusion of “wherein the propeller assembly includes at least six propeller blades” into the claim brings the claim back into compliance in regards to 35 U.S.C. §112(a) as there is written support for the embodiment of a propeller with at least six propellers blades and wherein the counter-weights are arranged only on every other propeller blade.
Further, Tajan et al. (US Patent 9,938,000 B2) discloses a counter-weight arrangement (30, Fig. 2) configured for use in a variable pitch propeller assembly (Fig. 1), comprising a plurality of blades (24a, 24b, 26) configured to rotate in a common plane of rotation (12) so as to generate thrust (L) in a direction perpendicular to the plane of rotation, the counter-weight arrangement comprising:
a first counter-weight (32 by 34a); and
a second counter-weight (32 by 34b);
wherein the counter-weights are arranged such that when the counter-weight arrangement is installed on a propeller blade, and the propeller blade in fine pitch, the counter-weights are in a first position with respect to the common plane of rotation of said propeller blade (the Examiner respectfully notes that the clause after "when the propeller blade is in a fine pitch" is conditional and not strictly required to meet the limitation of the claim; Description ¶14 "In the event of an engine failure, it is advantageous for each fan blade 26 to be capable of being feathered automatically, i.e. so as to have an angle of attack relative to the relative wind V.sub.R that is substantially zero." which indicates that there is a non-failure state where the blade is "not feathered"), and when the propeller blade is substantially feathered, the counter-weights are in a second position with respect to the plane of rotation (Description ¶14);
wherein the counter-weights are aligned such that a line (Y) drawn between the center of mass
of the first counter-weight and the center of mass of the second counter-weight is perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the propeller blade (Z).
However, Tajan et al. nor any of the prior art of record teach or suggest, “wherein the counter-weights are arranged only on every other blade” and “wherein the propeller assembly includes at least six propeller blade”
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 RYAN C CLARK whose telephone number is (571)272-2871. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0730-1730, Alternate Fridays 0730-1630.
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, Courtney D Heinle can be reached at (571)-270-3508. 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.
/R.C.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights