Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (ABAB pattern) and Species III (FIG. 5A-B) in the reply filed on 19 November 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 5-8, 10, and 15-19 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group and Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08 December 2025.
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication(s) filed on 08 December 2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 5-8, 10, and 15-19 are withdrawn by the Applicant.
Claims 1-4, 9, 11-14, and 20 are being considered.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted was/were considered by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Examiner note: no 112(f) invocations have been identified by the Office.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims (specifically claims 1 and 11). Therefore, the reduced chord length from a trailing edge in a tip region of the one or more intentionally mistuned blades relative to a chord length of the one or more baseline blades; must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) 1 and 11. The Examiner notes, while the verbiage in the Specification (see [0071], last sentence) supports the Species III reducing the chord of the blade at either the leading or trailing edges, only a reduced chord length at the leading edge is depicted in the Figures. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9, 11-13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Schoenenborn (US 9835166), hereafter referred to as Schoenenborn.
Regarding Claim 1, Schoenenborn discloses the following:
A rotor (for example see Col. 4, lines 60-65) blade system comprising:
a rotor (for example see Col. 4, lines 60-65); and
a plurality of blades (10, 20) coupled to the rotor (for example see Col. 4, lines 60-65), the plurality of blades (10, 20) arranged in an airfoil distribution pattern,
the airfoil distribution pattern comprising one or more baseline blades (20) and one or more intentionally mistuned blades (10; see Col. 5, lines 4-26),
the one or more intentionally mistuned blades (10; see Col. 5, lines 4-26) including an intentional mistuning feature (cutback of trailing edge 12, see dashed line FIG. 1; Col. 5, lines 4-26) that includes a reduced chord length from a trailing edge in a tip region of the one or more intentionally mistuned blades (10; see Col. 5, lines 4-26) relative to a chord length of the one or more baseline blades (20).
Regarding Claim 2, Schoenenborn discloses the following:
The rotor (for example see Col. 4, lines 60-65) blade system of claim 1,
wherein the one or more baseline blades (20) include at least one of a baseline shape, a baseline size, or baseline features, and the intentional mistuning feature (cutback of trailing edge 12, see dashed line FIG. 1; Col. 5, lines 4-26) is different than the at least one of the baseline shape, the baseline size, or the baseline features of the one or more baseline blades (20).
Regarding Claim 3, Schoenenborn discloses the following:
The rotor (for example see Col. 4, lines 60-65) blade system of claim 1,
wherein the airfoil distribution pattern is AB, wherein A is a baseline blade and B is a first intentionally mistuned blade with a first intentionally mistuning feature (Col. 1, lines 15-20 discloses EP 1211382, which teaches an AB distribution pattern, for example see FIG. 5 and Col. 1, lines 50-55 disclose an array of alternating first and second rotor blades). (Examiner note, EP 1211382 has been cited by Schoenenborn as prior art. A statement by an applicant in the specification or made during prosecution identifying the work of another as “prior art” is an admission which can be relied upon for both anticipation and obviousness determinations, regardless of whether the admitted prior art would otherwise qualify as prior art under the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 102. See MPEP 2129. EP 1211382 has been cited by Schoenenborn as prior art.)
Regarding Claim 9, Schoenenborn discloses the following:
The rotor (for example see Col. 4, lines 60-65) blade system of claim 1,
wherein a span of the one or more intentionally mistuned blades (10; see Col. 5, lines 4-26) is substantially equal to a span of the one or more baseline blades (20)(as can be seen in FIG. 1).
Regarding Claim 11, Schoenenborn discloses the following:
A turbine engine comprising:
a fan section;
a compressor section; and
a turbine section, wherein at least one of the fan section, the compressor section, and the turbine section includes a rotor (for example see Col. 4, lines 60-65) blade system comprising:
a rotor (for example see Col. 4, lines 60-65); and
a plurality of blades (10, 20) coupled to the rotor (for example see Col. 4, lines 60-65), the plurality of blades (10, 20) arranged in an airfoil distribution pattern, the airfoil distribution pattern comprising one or more baseline blades (20) and one or more intentionally mistuned blades (10; see Col. 5, lines 4-26), the one or more intentionally mistuned blades (10; see Col. 5, lines 4-26) including an intentional mistuning feature (cutback of trailing edge 12, see dashed line FIG. 1; Col. 5, lines 4-26) that includes a reduced chord length from a trailing edge in a tip region of the one or more intentionally mistuned blades (10; see Col. 5, lines 4-26) relative to a chord length of the one or more baseline blades (20).
Regarding Claim 12, Schoenenborn discloses the following:
The turbine engine of claim 11,
wherein the one or more baseline blades (20) include at least one of a baseline shape, a baseline size, or baseline features, and the intentional mistuning feature is different than the at least one of the baseline shape, the baseline size, or the baseline features of the one or more baseline blades (20).
Regarding Claim 13, Schoenenborn discloses the following:
The turbine engine of claim 11,
wherein the airfoil distribution pattern is AB, wherein A is a baseline blade and B is a first intentionally mistuned blade with a first intentionally mistuning feature (Col. 1, lines 15-20 discloses EP 1211382, which teaches an AB distribution pattern, for example see FIG. 5 and Col. 1, lines 50-55 disclose an array of alternating first and second rotor blades). (Examiner note, EP 1211382 has been cited by Schoenenborn as prior art. A statement by an applicant in the specification or made during prosecution identifying the work of another as “prior art” is an admission which can be relied upon for both anticipation and obviousness determinations, regardless of whether the admitted prior art would otherwise qualify as prior art under the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 102. See MPEP 2129. EP 1211382 has been cited by Schoenenborn as prior art.)
Regarding Claim 20, Schoenenborn discloses the following:
The turbine engine of claim 11,
wherein a chord of the one or more intentionally mistuned blades (10; see Col. 5, lines 4-26) is substantially equal to a chord of the one or more baseline blades (20)(as can be seen in FIG. 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.
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoenenborn (US 9835166), hereafter referred to as Schoenenborn as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Li (US 20160290137).
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, Schoenenborn discloses the following:
The rotor (for example see Col. 4, lines 60-65) blade system of claim 1, and
the turbine engine of claim 11, (respectively)
it is well known to use variations in the chord to modify the vibrational frequency of a mistuned blade adjacent to a standard blade to reduce blade flutter (see for example Col. 1, lines 15-20 cited reference EP 1211382, FIG. 5, [0011]).
Schoenenborn does not teach the following:
wherein the intentional mistuning feature is a first intentional mistuning feature and the one or more intentionally mistuned blades include a second intentional mistuning feature.
However Li teaches the following:
it is well known to modify the chord of a blade at the tip of the blade by providing a cutback in either the leading edge, the trailing edge, or both the leading and trailing edge (FIG. 2, [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cutback in the tip of the blade, as disclosed by Schoenenborn, by adding a cutback to the leading edge of the blade, as taught by Li, with the reasonable expectation of successfully reducing the mode shape of a targeted frequency, and thereby reducing the noise generated by the blade during engine operation (see for example Li, [0033-35]). The Examiner further notes, since Schoenenborn cited reference EP 1211382 teaches it is well known to vary the chord of a blade to modify the vibrational frequency of a mistuned blade adjacent to a standard blade, it would have been further obvious to try adding a cutback to the leading edge of the blade disclosed by Schoenenborn, because there are only three possible means for varying the chord of the blade at the tip (i.e. providing a cutback on the leading edge, trailing edge, or both). This rationale supports a conclusion of obviousness since there are only a finite number of predictable locations the cutback can be provided at the tip, because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, and in this instance doing so leads to the anticipated success of frequency mistuning, thus it is likely that product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense (See MPEP 2143, I. E.).
Prior Art
See form No. 892 for other references pertinent to the application that may not have been cited within the Office Action.
For references which show similar blade mistuning arrangements see Pages 1-2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN C DELRUE whose telephone number is (313)446-6567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Eastern).
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, Nathaniel E. Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/BRIAN CHRISTOPHER DELRUE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745