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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “in the vicinity” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “in the vicinity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the orifices" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “an axis of revolution” when claim 1 already recites “an axis of revolution”. Additionally, because claim 1 recites multiple axes of revolution, it’s not clear which axis of revolution is being referenced.
Claim 6 recites “a plurality of variable pitch vanes” and “a cylindrical stud” and “a support sleeve”. While it’s understood that in claim 1 the above limitations are recited as being configured to act with other structure and aren’t affirmatively claimed, there is cause for confusion with the differentiation between “a” and “the”, and if these are different. Additionally, the stud is now recited as a “cylindrical stud” which is distinct from the broader stud of claim 1. Claims 7-8 are rejected by virtue of their dependence.
Claim 9 recites that “the ring is in the first position”. However, claim 2 does not state that “the ring” is what is positioned at first/second positions, it is the support sleeve that moves from positions one and two.
Claims 10-11 recite multiple “axes of revolution” and are dependent upon claim 1. Because claim 1 recites multiple axes of revolution, it’s not clear which axis of revolution is being referenced. In some instances it’s understood which one because of the utilization of “ring” or “support sleeve”, but this is not consistent throughout the claim causing confusion.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “of a stud” in line 3. However, like with claim 6 above, while it’s understood the studs are affirmatively claimed in claim 1, the claim nonetheless is not clear if this is the same stud(s), or not. Notice how this is differentiated with claim 12 which states “the stud”. There is different recitations of these limitations throughout the claims and they need to be consistent.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the attachment means" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-9, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belmonte (US 10730608) in view of Reissner (US 2275053).
Regarding claim 1;
Belmonte discloses an assembly for a turbine engine, the assembly comprising a ring (18) with an axis of revolution, a plurality of support sleeves (30) each having an axis of revolution (pitch axis) and each configured to receive a stud (22) of a variable pitch vane (implicit), each support sleeve comprising a bore (Figures 2-3) passing through both sides of the support sleeve along the axis of revolution.
Belmonte fails to teach each support sleeve being mounted so as to pivot on the ring about a pivot axis transverse to the radial axis and to the axis of revolution.
Reissner is directed to an assembly for an aircraft with a rotating blade (100) that includes a pitch axis with a support sleeve (51 and bearing 5) which defines a bearing arrangement analogous to Belmonte, and “a pivot bearing cooperating with said thrust bearing and permitting movements of the blade without change of pitch about only one transverse axis extending at substantially right angles to the centroid line of the blade and at substantially right angles to said radial axis and being spaced a predetermined distance from the axis of the hub, said pivot bearing being freely turnable with respect to the hub about said radial axis”. Thus, Reissner teaches that the blade support element (bearing element) can tilt about the transverse axis independently of the pitch rotation about the radial axis.
Both Belmonte and Reissner are directed to variable pitch blade mounting systems for rotating machinery (such as a turbomachine), and Reissner provides the transverse pivot axis that permits tilting movement independent of pitch rotation, allowing for an additional degree of freedom for the blade support to self-align under operational loads, accommodating distortions and misalignment without transmitting those forces through the pitch mechanism. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Belmonte such that each support sleeve being mounted so as to pivot on the ring about a pivot axis transverse to the radial axis and to the axis of revolution as taught by Reissner for the purposes of accommodating aerodynamic loads and distortions during operations, allowing the sleeve to self-align while retaining pitch-rotation support function.
Regarding claim 2, Belmonte in view of Reissner teaches the assembly according to claim 1 above. Belmonte as modified by Reissner further teaches each support sleeve pivots between a first position wherein the axis of revolution of the support sleeve is parallel to the radial axis and perpendicular to the axis of revolution (axis Z-Z), and a second position wherein the axis of revolution of the support sleeve is transverse to the radial axis (Belmonte as modified by Reissner teaches the support sleeve tilting about the transverse pivot axis).
Regarding claims 6-8, Belmonte in view of Reissner teaches the assembly according to claim 1 above. Belmonte further discloses a plurality of variable pitch vanes each equipped with a cylindrical stud (22) being mounted so as to pivot in the bore of a support sleeve (30) about a pitch axis (Z-Z), each variable pitch vane comprises a blade which extends from the stud, the stud and blade being formed in one part (“It should be observed that the fan blade might be integral with the stud”), and each stud comprises an attachment (24) at a radially outer end (Figures 2-3), the attachment being configured to receive a vane root and comprising a groove which extends along an axis perpendicular to the axis of the stud (“tooth is to receive a root of the fan blade (not shown in the figures)”; conventional in art that the tooth forms the groove which receives an axially slidable fan blade root).
Regarding claim 9, Belmonte in view of Reissner teaches the assembly according to claim 2 above. Belmonte further discloses attachment means so as to retain the support sleeve on the ring when the ring is in the first position (clamping nut 56 is considered an equivalent thereof to the claimed means because it accomplishes the same function).
Regarding claims 12-13, Belmonte in view of Reissner teaches the assembly according to claim 1 above. Belmonte further discloses at least two rolling bearings (38, 40) each comprising an inner ring mounted on an outer wall of the stud and an outer ring configured to bear against a cylindrical inner wall of the bore of the support sleeve (see Figure 2 which shows the roller bearings with their respective rings mounted in the respective spots), the inner and outer rings defining raceways for rolling members (46, 50), and a pitch change system (52) connected to a radially inner end of the stud of each variable pitch vane and a rotor shaft (not shown, but implicitly connected as the variable pitch vanes rotate around the main axis) connected to the ring.
Claims 3-4 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belmonte (US 10730608) in view of Reissner (US 2275053), and further in view of Plickys (US 10077103).
Regarding claims 3-4;
Belmonte in view of Reissner teaches the assembly according to claim 1 above. Belmonte further discloses the ring is equipped with a plurality of orifices passing through an annular wall of the ring along the radial axis (orifice 20 of the ring 18 passes through the annular wall of the ring), and further discloses the ring extends between an upstream end and a downstream end along the axis of revolution of the ring (Figure 2).
Belmonte as modified by Reissner fails to teach two ears which project on either side of each orifice, each support sleeve being installed between the two ears and pivoting on the ears along the pivot axis, and the two ears projecting in the vicinity of the upstream end.
Plickys teaches a variable vane arrangement for a turbine engine with a yoke plate ears (310, 311), the first ear (31) extends from aft yoke plate (132) in a radial direction or an outboard direction, a forward yoke plate (134) may comprise a yoke plate ear (311), and with a trunnion (118) located between the forward and aft yoke plate ears, the trunnion may travel in an arc-like motion about the axis of rotation (120).
The combination of Belmonte and Riessner establishes that the support sleeve can pivot about a transverse axis. Plickys then teaches two projecting ears that flank the trunnion on either side and is directed to a propeller with pitch actuation systems, thereby the same field of endeavor as Belmonte and Riessner, and adding ears serve as bearing supports for a pivot axis already motivated by Reissner; a person having ordinary skill in the art would position the ears on either side of the orifice because that is where the support sleeve is located where the pivot axis is defined. Such projecting ears are conventional mechanical technique. Thus, 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 assembly of Belmonte as modified by Reissner such that projecting ears are provided on either side of the orifice as taught by Plickys for the purposes of providing the mechanical support for the pivot axis, thereby trapping the sleeve between the ears and allowing a pivot in the manner as taught by Reissner. As a result of the combination, the ears are positioned in the vicinity of the upstream end.
Regarding claims 10-11, Belmonte in view of Reissner and Plickys teaches the assembly according to claim 3 above. Belmonte as modified by Reissner further teaches each support sleeve pivots between a first position wherein the axis of revolution of the support sleeve is parallel to the radial axis and perpendicular to the axis of revolution (axis Z-Z), and a second position wherein the axis of revolution of the support sleeve is transverse to the radial axis (Belmonte as modified by Reissner teaches the support sleeve tilting about the transverse pivot axis). In the first position, the support sleeve of Belmonte is seated within the orifice, facing the orifice along the radial axis; when tilted to the second position about the transverse pivot axis (as taught by Reissner), the sleeve axis becomes transverse to the radial axis; with the pivot axis defined by the ears (as taught by Plickys), the tilted sleeve angles through the orifice – a cylindrical component tilting about the axis that passes through a hole will, at moderate tilt angles, still at least partially pass through the hole (claim 10). In an alternative geometric positioning, the pivot axis defined by ears (as taught by Plickys) is located at one axial edge of the orifice (such as near the upstream end), tilting the sleeve causes its body to swing entirely out of and away from the orifice; in this configuration, the support sleeve is “outside and spaced from” the orifice in the second position.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belmonte (US 10730608) in view of Reissner (US 2275053), and further in view of Boston (US 9255583).
Belmonte in view of Reissner teaches the assembly according to claim 1 above.
Belmonte fails to teach mechanical reinforcement means, the mechanical reinforcement means comprising ribs which extend, on the one hand, between an upstream end and a downstream end of the ring along an axis of revolution and, on the other hand, along the radial axis, the ribs being disposed on either side of the orifices around the axis of revolution.
Boston teaches an annular ring (17) for a variable pitch assembly for a turbomachine with a plurality of orifices (24) arranged around its circumference. The ring further includes a mechanical reinforcement means comprising ribs (26, 30), whereby the ribs extend from the upstream to downstream end (30) along the axis of revolution (A-A), and along the radial axis (see Figure 3, the ribs extend in the Z direction), and the ribs being disposed on either side of the orifices around the axis of revolution (26).
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 ring of Belmonte such that mechanical reinforcement means, the mechanical reinforcement means comprising ribs which extend, on the one hand, between an upstream end and a downstream end of the ring along an axis of revolution and, on the other hand, along the radial axis, the ribs being disposed on either side of the orifices around the axis of revolution as taught by Boston for the purposes of reinforcing the ring structure with increased mechanical strength while reducing overall weight.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belmonte (US 10730608) in view of Reissner (US 2275053), and further in view of Goransson (US 4022543).
Regarding claim 14:
Belmonte in view of Reissner teaches the assembly according to claim 1 above. Belmonte further discloses removing attachment means for attaching the support sleeve to the ring (initially unscrewing the clamping nut 56 then removing the ring 52 and the stud 22; Col. 5, Lines 60-62).
Belmonte in view of Reissner teaches the ability of the structure for tilting of the support sleeve, but fails to teach the step of pivoting the support sleeve along the pivot axis and upstream along the axis of revolution and extracting the stud from the support sleeve, and prior to the step of extracting the stud, a step of disengaging the support sleeve relative to the ring at the level of the pivot axis.
Goransson teaches a methodology for removing and extracting a rotor blade from a rotor through the utilization of a tilting mechanism. Goransson teaches “the blades may be pivoted out of the nozzle in an arc defining a plane substantially including the axis of rotation of the propeller hub” (Col. 2, Lines 52-55) and “The propeller blade 1 is thereafter pivoted about the pivot pin 31 to a generally horizontal position and, after the pivot pin 31 has been removed, moved out of the nozzle 11 in a horizontal direction” (Col. 4, Lines 8-12).
Goransson teaches a method of extracting a variable pitch propeller blade whereby the blade and blade mounting is pivoted about a transverse pivot axis to avoid obstructions during the extraction process. With the combined structure of Belmonte and Reissner, the support sleeve is positioned within the hub orifice and surrounded by the ring. 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 method of Belmonte as modified by Reissner such that pivoting the support sleeve along the pivot axis and upstream along the axis of revolution and extracting the stud from the support sleeve as taught by Goransson for the purposes of providing angular clearance for stud extraction from within the constraining ring structure.
Regarding claim 15, Belmonte in view of Reissner and Goransson teaches the method according to claim 14 above. Additionally, Goransson teaches after pivoting the blade to the extraction position, the pivot pin (31) is removed before the blade is moved out of the rotor area, which corresponds to disengaging the support sleeve relative to the ring prior to extracting the stud, and the combination with Reissner teaches the pivot bearing arrangement allowing the cylindrical structure to pivot relative to the ring. The combined structure of Belmonte and Reissner and Goransson then teaches that the holding structure for the blade (support sleeve) is disengaged prior to the step of extracting the stud.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fischer (DE 102007028142) teaches the variable-pitch propeller (2) has one or multiple propeller blades (6) mounted at a propeller hub (4) around a radial displacement axis in an adjustable manner. The propeller blades are connected with the propeller hub by a drill guide, traction force carrying connecting element (8). A lagging of the propeller blade is provided between propeller blade and propeller hub in a circular direction or in thrust direction permitting joint arrangement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN D SEABE whose telephone number is (571)272-4961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00-5:30.
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 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.
/JUSTIN D SEABE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745