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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 17-20 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Inventions I (original claim 1) and II/III (new claims 17-20) are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed have a materially different design as claimed (as evident from various materially different non-overlapping aspects of the respective limitations of claim 1 vs. claims 17 or 20). Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 17-20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Uhlmann et al. (WO2018046182, cited in IDS, with reference to translation).
Claim 1: Uhlmann discloses an apparatus for a turbine engine (intended use, see below), comprising: a monolithic body (paragraphs 13, 57-58) including a shaft (4), a bladed rotor (having blades 7) and a support structure (e.g. wall 5 and ribs 8, see especially rib embodiment of Fig. 3); the shaft projecting axially along an axis out from the bladed rotor (generally the longitudinal direction of the shaft 4); the bladed rotor configured as a radial flow rotor (paragraph 63); and the support structure projecting radially out from the shaft and axially to the bladed rotor (Fig. 3), the support structure including plurality of channels (spaces defined between the ribs) and an annular structure base (wall 5, as shown in the full views of the impeller), the plurality of channels arranged circumferentially about the axis in an array (Fig. 3), the annular structure base (5) disposed between the plurality of channels and the bladed rotor (evident in e.g. Fig. 1), each of the plurality of channels projecting radially into the support structure towards the axis and to a respective channel side, and each of the plurality of channels projecting axially into the support structure towards the bladed rotor and to a respective channel end (Fig. 3); wherein the shaft axially extends farther from the bladed rotor than the support structure (evident in Figs. 1 and 3).
A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, the intent to use the claimed apparatus “for a turbine engine” does not necessarily limit its structure.
In the event that the embodiment of Fig. 3 is determined to insufficiently disclose the annular structure base (e.g. 5 as shown in Fig. 1) as submitted above, the examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included such a base in the embodiment of Fig. 3 since Fig. 3 depicts only the internal rib structure (e.g. paragraphs 48-49), and the wall 5 provides structure to which the blades 7 are attached and closes the cavity of the impeller (paragraphs 59-60).
Claim 2: The channel end of each of the plurality (e.g. any two as noted above) of channels is aligned with a reference plane which is angularly offset from the axis by an acute angle (noting that the claimed “reference plane” is an arbitrary and hypothetical reference plane, and the term “aligned” is also broad, the respective ends of the channels essentially end at a similar axial location about the circumference, the ends of which could be said to “align” with, in some manner such as intersect with, be spaced apart from by a certain amount, etc., an arbitrary reference plane acute to the axis).
Claim 3: At least eighty percent of a span line of the channel end of each of the plurality of channels lays along the reference plane (following from the above, and further noting that “span line” is broad and not particularly defined, then some arbitrary “span line” of the channel ends could be defined such as 80% of it lays along the aforementioned reference plane).
Claim 4: A common point along a span line of the channel end of each of the plurality of channels is disposed in the reference plane (again, noting that “span line” is broad and not particularly defined, then some “span line” of each channel end could be defined such that a common point there along would be disposed in the reference plane, i.e. the arbitrary “span line” intersects with the reference plane).
Claim 5: The acute angle is equal to or greater than eighty-five degrees (being a hypothetical reference plane as discussed above, the reference plane could be arbitrarily defined at an acute angle equal to or greater than eighty-five degrees in addition to the above).
Claim 6: The plurality of channels are a plurality of first channels (any of the channels defined between the portions 8 could be designated as “first”, such as every-other one in sequence about the circumference), and the support structure further includes a plurality of second channels arranged circumferentially about the axis and interposed with the plurality of first channels (such as the remaining channels between the aforementioned every-other channel); each of the plurality of second channels projects axially into the support structure towards the bladed rotor and to a respective channel end, and the channel end of each of the plurality of first channels and the channel end of each of the plurality of second channels is aligned with a reference plane (similarly as discussed above for previous claims with respect to the channels in general); and an axial span of each of the plurality of first channels is different than an axial span of each of the plurality of second channels (since “axial span” is not particularly defined, what is considered “an axial span” of the first channels could be different from that of the second channels. For example, the axial span of the first and second channels might be defined at different radial distances, resulting in different lengths from one end as evident from Fig. 3).
Claim 7: The plurality of channels are a plurality of first channels (any of the channels defined between the portions 8 could be designated as “first”, such as every-other one in sequence about the circumference), and the support structure further includes a plurality of second channels (e.g. perforations 82) arranged circumferentially about the axis and interposed with the plurality of first channels (perforations 82 are located between the gaps defined between ribs 8); the channel end of each of the plurality of first channels is aligned with a reference plane (the first channels generally end at a common axial distance along the axis); and each of the plurality of second channels (82) projects axially into the support structure towards the bladed rotor and to a respective channel end (the perforations 82 generally have an axial extent in Fig. 3, a channel end being the right end thereof for example), and the channel end of each of the plurality of second channels is axially offset from the reference plane (the rightmost ends of 82 are axially offset from the rightmost ends of the intermediate spaces between ribs 8, for example).
Claim 8: The plurality of channels are a plurality of first channels (any of the channels defined between the portions 8 could be designated as “first”, such as every-other one in sequence about the circumference), and the support structure further includes a plurality of second channels arranged circumferentially about the axis and interposed with the plurality of first channels (such as the remaining channels between the aforementioned every-other channel); and an axial span of each of the plurality of first channels is different than an axial span of each of the plurality of second channels (since “axial span” is not particularly defined, what is considered “an axial span” of the first channels could be different from that of the second channels. For example, the axial span of the first and second channels might be defined at different radial distances, resulting in different lengths from an end as evident from Fig. 3), and a radial span of each of the plurality of first channels is equal to a radial span of each of the plurality of second channels (if the “radial span” is defined the same for each channel, then they are the same).
Claim 9: Uhlmann further discloses that the plurality of channels comprise a first channel (any of the channels defined between the portion 8 could be designated as “first”, such as every-other one in sequence about the circumference), but not necessarily that the first channel has a radial span and a uniform lateral width as the first channel extends radially into the support structure along at least ninety percent of the radial span. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have shaped the channels this way since it has been held that the configuration of a claimed feature is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 48, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation. Additionally or alternately, Uhlmann discloses that the ribbing 8 of the impeller 1 according to the invention can be designed with any geometries, provided that a one-piece base body 2 is formed, since the 3D printing process also allows any geometries, and that advantageously, combinations of radial ribs 80a, longitudinal ribs 80b and circumferential ribs 80c are used to optimize the stiffness for the ribbing, and that the specific designs of the ribbing 8 depend on both the stress on the impeller 1 and the external geometry, i.e. front wall 5, rear wall 6 and blades 7 (paragraph 75). Because the channel geometry depends from the baffle (8) geometry, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have designed the baffle/channel geometry according to stiffness and stress characteristics of the impeller.
Claim 10: The plurality of channels comprise a first channel (any of the channels between ribs 8); and the first channel has an axial span (e.g. left-right extent in Fig. 3) and a uniform lateral width as the first channel extends axially into the support structure along at least ninety percent of the axial span (e.g. the channels implicitly maintain a consistent cross sectional circumferential width along the axial direction as shown in Figs. 2-3).
Claim 11: The plurality of channels comprise a first channel (any of the channels between ribs 8); and the first channel has a triangular sectional geometry or a trapezoidal sectional geometry when viewed in a second reference plane parallel with the axis (substantially triangular or wedge-shaped, albeit with a curved side, as viewed in Figs. 2-3).
Alternatively, the first channel does not have a strictly triangular sectional geometry or a trapezoidal sectional geometry with straight sides, for example, when viewed in a second reference plane parallel with the axis. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have shaped the channels this way since it has been held that the configuration of a claimed feature is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Please note that in the instant application, paragraphs 17 and 49, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation. Additionally or alternately, Uhlmann discloses that the ribbing 8 of the impeller 1 according to the invention can be designed with any geometries, provided that a one-piece base body 2 is formed, since the 3D printing process also allows any geometries, and that advantageously, combinations of radial ribs 80a, longitudinal ribs 80b and circumferential ribs 80c are used to optimize the stiffness for the ribbing, and that the specific designs of the ribbing 8 depend on both the stress on the impeller 1 and the external geometry, i.e. front wall 5, rear wall 6 and blades 7 (paragraph 75). Because the channel geometry depends from the baffle (8) geometry, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have designed the baffle/channel geometry according to stiffness and stress characteristics of the impeller.
Claim 12: The support structure further includes a plurality of baffles (8, 81, 82 - e.g. Fig. 3) arranged circumferentially about the axis and interposed with the plurality of channels (Fig. 2); and each of the plurality of baffles projects radially out from the shaft and axially towards the bladed rotor (Fig. 3).
Claim 13: The plurality of baffles comprise a first baffle (any baffle 8) which laterally tapers as the first baffle extends radially towards the shaft (the baffles 8 taper smaller toward the shaft - Fig. 3).
Claim 14: The plurality of channels are a plurality of first channels (any of the channels between ribs 8); the plurality of baffles comprise a first baffle (8); and a second channel (82) projects radially into the first baffle towards the axis and axially into the first baffle towards the bladed rotor (perforation 82 extends both radially and axially within the baffle 8 in Fig. 3).
Claim 15: It is noted that the limitation “wherein a final support structure is formed by removing plurality of channels” is a product-by-process limitation, and "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113. In this case, the formation of a final support structure by removing plurality of channels does not necessarily influence the structure of the product as it results in the same product.
Claim 16: It is noted that the limitation “wherein the shaft is an engine shaft for the gas turbine engine” is an extension of the intended use of the turbine discussed for claim 1 above, noting that defining it as an “engine shaft” for the non-positively recited turbine engine does not necessarily limit its structure.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garman et al. (U.S. Patent 7,281,901, cited in IDS) in view of Uhlmann et al.
Claim 1: Garman discloses an apparatus (28, especially embodiment of Fig. 4) for a turbine engine (intended use, see below) comprising: a monolithic body (implied in column 3, lines 25-34) including a shaft (46), a bladed rotor (having blades 40) and a support structure (52, 54); the shaft projecting axially along an axis (48) out from the bladed rotor; the bladed rotor configured as a radial flow rotor (column 4, lines 7-12); and the support structure projecting radially out from the shaft and axially to the bladed rotor (Fig. 4), the support structure including a plurality of channels (voids 50 defined between ribs 54) and an annular structure base (52), the plurality of channels arranged circumferentially about the axis in an array (Fig. 4), the annular structure base (52) disposed between the plurality of channels and the bladed rotor (Fig. 4); each of the plurality of channels projecting radially into the support structure towards the axis and to a respective channel side, and each of the plurality of channels projecting axially into the support structure towards the bladed rotor and to a respective channel end (Fig. 4).
A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, the intent to use the claimed apparatus “for a turbine engine” does not necessarily limit its structure.
The shaft does not necessarily axially extend farther from the bladed rotor than the support structure. However, Uhlmann teaches a similar impeller wherein the shaft (4) axially extends farther from the bladed rotor than the support structure (8 - see Fig. 1 and paragraph 62). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have extended the shaft of Garman farther from the bladed rotor than the support structure depending on what it is intended to be attached to.
Claim 2: The channel end of each of the plurality (e.g. any two as noted above) of channels is aligned with a reference plane which is angularly offset from the axis by an acute angle (noting that the claimed “reference plane” is an arbitrary and hypothetical reference plane, and the term “aligned” is also broad, the respective ends of the channels essentially end at a similar axial location about the circumference, the ends of which could be said to “align” with, in some manner such as intersect with, be spaced apart from by a certain amount, etc., an arbitrary reference plane acute to the axis).
Claim 3: At least eighty percent of a span line of the channel end of each of the plurality of channels lays along the reference plane (following from the above, and further noting that “span line” is broad and not particularly defined, then some arbitrary “span line” of the channel ends could be defined such as 80% of it lays along the aforementioned reference plane).
Claim 4: A common point along a span line of the channel end of each of the plurality of channels is disposed in the reference plane (again, noting that “span line” is broad and not particularly defined, then some “span line” of each channel end could be defined such that a common point there along would be disposed in the reference plane, i.e. the arbitrary “span line” intersects with the reference plane).
Claim 5: The acute angle is equal to or greater than eighty-five degrees (being a hypothetical reference plane as discussed above, the reference plane could be arbitrarily defined at an acute angle equal to or greater than eighty-five degrees in addition to the above).
Claim 6: The plurality of channels are a plurality of first channels (any of the channels 50 could be designated as “first”, such as every-other one in sequence about the circumference), and the support structure further includes a plurality of second channels arranged circumferentially about the axis and interposed with the plurality of first channels (such as the remaining channels between the aforementioned every-other channel); each of the plurality of second channels projects axially into the support structure towards the bladed rotor and to a respective channel end, and the channel end of each of the plurality of first channels and the channel end of each of the plurality of second channels is aligned with a reference plane (similarly as discussed above for previous claims with respect to the channels in general); and an axial span of each of the plurality of first channels is different than an axial span of each of the plurality of second channels (since “axial span” is not particularly defined, what is considered “an axial span” of the first channels could be different from that of the second channels. For example, the axial span of the first and second channels might be defined at different radial distances, or from different concentric ribs 56, resulting in different lengths from one end as evident from Fig. 4).
Claim 7: Garman does not necessarily disclose the claimed channel structure. However, Uhlmann teaches an impeller structure wherein a plurality of channels are a plurality of first channels (any of the channels defined between the portions 8 could be designated as “first”, such as every-other one in sequence about the circumference), and the support structure further includes a plurality of second channels (e.g. 82) arranged circumferentially about the axis and interposed with the plurality of first channels (perforations 82 are located between the gaps defined between ribs 8); the channel end of each of the plurality of first channels is aligned with a reference plane (the first channels generally end at a common axial distance along the axis); and each of the plurality of second channels (82) projects axially into the support structure towards the bladed rotor and to a respective channel end (the perforations 82 generally have an axial extent in Fig. 3, a channel end being the right end thereof for example), and the channel end of each of the plurality of second channels is axially offset from the reference plane (the rightmost ends of 82 are axially offset from the rightmost ends of the intermediate spaces between ribs 8, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided second channels (e.g. perforations such as 82) interposed with the plurality of first channels of Garman, for example in order to have reduced the amount of material or mass required to form the temporary support structures.
Claim 8: The plurality of channels are a plurality of first channels (any of the channels 50 could be designated as “first”, such as every-other one in sequence about the circumference), and the support structure further includes a plurality of second channels arranged circumferentially about the axis and interposed with the plurality of first channels (such as the remaining channels between the aforementioned every-other channel); and an axial span of each of the plurality of first channels is different than an axial span of each of the plurality of second channels (since “axial span” is not particularly defined, what is considered “an axial span” of the first channels could be different from that of the second channels. For example, the axial span of the first and second channels might be defined at different radial distances, resulting in different lengths from an end as evident from Fig. 4), and a radial span of each of the plurality of first channels is equal to a radial span of each of the plurality of second channels (if the “radial span” is defined the same for each channel, then they are the same).
Claim 9: Garman further discloses that the plurality of channels comprise a first channel (any of the channels 50 could be designated as “first”, such as every-other one in sequence about the circumference), but not necessarily that the first channel has a radial span and a uniform lateral width as the first channel extends radially into the support structure along at least ninety percent of the radial span. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have shaped the channels this way since it has been held that the configuration of a claimed feature is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 48, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation. Additionally or alternately, Uhlmann teaches that the ribbing 8 of the impeller 1 according to the invention can be designed with any geometries, and that advantageously, combinations of radial ribs 80a, longitudinal ribs 80b and circumferential ribs 80c are used to optimize the stiffness for the ribbing, and that the specific designs of the ribbing 8 depend on both the stress on the impeller 1 and the external geometry, i.e. front wall 5, rear wall 6 and blades 7 (paragraph 75). Because the channel geometry depends from the baffle geometry, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have designed the baffle/channel geometry according to stiffness and stress characteristics of the impeller.
Claim 10: The plurality of channels (50) comprise a first channel (any of the channels); and the first channel has an axial span along shaft 46) and a uniform lateral width as the first channel extends axially into the support structure along at least ninety percent of the axial span (e.g. the channels appear to maintain a consistent cross sectional circumferential width along the axial direction as shown in Fig. 4).
Claim 11: The plurality of channels comprise a first channel (any of the channels 50); and the first channel has a triangular sectional geometry or a trapezoidal sectional geometry when viewed in a second reference plane parallel with the axis (substantially triangular or wedge-shaped, albeit with a curved side, as viewed in Fig. 4).
Alternatively, the first channel does not have a strictly triangular sectional geometry or a trapezoidal sectional geometry with straight sides, for example, when viewed in a second reference plane parallel with the axis. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have shaped the channels this way since it has been held that the configuration of a claimed feature is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Please note that in the instant application, paragraphs 17 and 49, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Additionally or alternately, Uhlmann teaches that the ribbing 8 of the impeller 1 according to the invention can be designed with any geometries, and that advantageously, combinations of radial ribs 80a, longitudinal ribs 80b and circumferential ribs 80c are used to optimize the stiffness for the ribbing, and that the specific designs of the ribbing 8 depend on both the stress on the impeller 1 and the external geometry, i.e. front wall 5, rear wall 6 and blades 7 (paragraph 75). Because the channel geometry depends from the baffle geometry, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have designed the baffle/channel geometry according to stiffness and stress characteristics of the impeller.
Claim 12: The support structure further includes a plurality of baffles (54) arranged circumferentially about the axis and interposed with the plurality of channels (Fig. 4); and each of the plurality of baffles projects radially out from the shaft and axially towards the bladed rotor (Id.).
Claim 13: The baffles do not necessarily have a first baffle which laterally tapers as the first baffle extends radially towards the shaft. However, Uhlmann teaches a plurality of baffles comprise a first baffle (any baffle 8) which laterally tapers as the first baffle extends radially towards the shaft (the baffles 8 taper smaller toward the shaft - Fig. 3). Uhlmann further teaches that the ribbing 8 of the impeller 1 according to the invention can be designed with any geometries, and that advantageously, combinations of radial ribs 80a, longitudinal ribs 80b and circumferential ribs 80c are used to optimize the stiffness for the ribbing, and that the specific designs of the ribbing 8 depend on both the stress on the impeller 1 and the external geometry, i.e. front wall 5, rear wall 6 and blades 7 (paragraph 75). It thus would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have designed the baffle geometry as claimed according to stiffness and stress characteristics of the impeller.
Claim 14: Garman does not necessarily disclose the claimed channel and baffle structure. However, Uhlmann teaches that the plurality of channels are a plurality of first channels (any of the channels between ribs 8); the plurality of baffles comprise a first baffle (8); and a second channel (82) projects radially into the first baffle towards the axis and axially into the first baffle towards the bladed rotor (perforation 82 extends both radially and axially within the baffle 8 in Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided second channels (e.g. perforations such as 82) interposed with the plurality of first channels of Garman, for example in order to have reduced the amount of material or mass required to form the temporary support structures.
Claim 15: It is noted that the limitation “wherein a final support structure is formed by removing plurality of channels” is a product-by-process limitation, and "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113. In this case, the formation of a final support structure by removing plurality of channels does not necessarily influence the structure of the product as it results in the same product.
Claim 16: It is noted that the limitation “wherein the shaft is an engine shaft for the gas turbine engine” is an extension of the intended use of the turbine discussed for claim 1 above, noting that defining it as an “engine shaft” for the non-positively recited turbine engine does not necessarily limit its structure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant essentially relies on amendments to the claims to overcome the prior art of record. The deficiencies of Garman, namely the length of the shaft, has been addressed in the new grounds of rejection above.
Applicant argues the following with respect to Uhlmann:
Applicants respectfully submit that Uhlmann fails to disclose "the annular structure base disposed between the plurality of channels and the bladed rotor" as recited in claim 1. FIG. 3 of Uhlmann illustrates ribbing 8 extending directly into and forming the blades 7. Therefore, Uhlmann fails to disclose an annular base between the ribbing 8 and the blades 7.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s interpretation of Fig. 3 of Uhlmann. It appears that Fig. 3 is only depicting the internal ribbing, where it is implied that the remainder of the impeller 1 (e.g. wall 5, blades 7) would be included as with the other embodiments. Note that Fig. 3 is described as a “half-model of another embodiment of a ribbing” (emphasis added), as opposed to another embodiment of an impeller (e.g. paragraphs 46-52). For example, an impeller having the design shown strictly in Fig. 3 would be completely ineffective as an impeller, and so it is implicitly an incomplete depiction which would require wall 5 and blades 7, which are not explicitly shown. The claims have thus been addressed in view of Uhlmann with this in mind.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW P TRAVERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3218. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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, Sunil K. Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/Matthew P Travers/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726