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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/13/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
This application does not contain an abstract of the disclosure as required by 37 CFR 1.72(b). An abstract on a separate sheet is required.
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. Therefore, the
“a second reinforcing fiber layer” of claim 4,
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 Objections
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 11-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the interior” in line 4. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “an interior” since it is the first recitation of the limitation.
Claim 1 recites “the reinforcing fibers” in line 7. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “the plurality of reinforcing fibers” since it is already recited as such in the first recitation of the limitation.
Claim 1 recites “the axial direction” in line 7. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “an axial direction” since it is the first recitation of the limitation.
Claim 1 recites “the reinforcing fibers” in line 9. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “the plurality of reinforcing fibers” since it is already recited as such in the first recitation of the limitation.
Claim 1 recites “the inside” in line 10. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “an inside” since it is the first recitation of the limitation.
Claim 3 recites “the same axial position” in line 2. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “an same axial position” since it is the first recitation of the limitation.
Claim 4 recites “a first reinforcing fiber layer” in line 1. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “the first reinforcing fiber layer” since it is already recited as such in the first recitation of the limitation.
Claim 6 recites “the blade root” in line 3. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “a blade root” since it is the first recitation of the limitation.
Claim 6 recites “the axis” in line 4. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “an axis” since it is the first recitation of the limitation.
Claim 7 recites “the lateral surface” in line 3. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “a lateral surface” since it is the first recitation of the limitation.
Claim 7 recites “the region” in line 3. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “a region” since it is the first recitation of the limitation.
Claim 7 recites “the blade root” in line 4. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “a blade root” since it is the first recitation of the limitation.
Claim 11 recites “a rotor” in line 1. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “the rotor” since it is already recited as such in the first recitation of the limitation.
Claim 12 recites “the shape” in line 4. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “a shape” since it is the first recitation of the limitation.
Claim 12 recites “the axial direction” in line 6. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “an axial direction” since it is the first recitation of the limitation.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "in particular" in line 1renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 2-11 depend off of an indefinite claim, therefore rendering these claims indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Price US 4098559.
Regarding claim 1, Price discloses: A rotor (Fig 1), in particular for a turbomachine, comprising
a rotor hub (38) and
a plurality of rotor blades (10) attached to the rotor hub (10 attached to 28),
with a plurality of reinforcing fibers (18),
wherein each reinforcing fiber extends from a first rotor blade through the interior of the rotor hub to a second rotor blade (18 extends between two blades though 30 and 26 of 38),
wherein a first filler body (30 and 26) is arranged inside the rotor hub (30 and 26 are inside 38),
wherein the first filler body has a guide surface with which a guide for the reinforcing fibers acting in the axial direction of the rotor is provided (30 has a surface where 16 is guided to the next blade),
wherein the first filler body has a guide structure (26 that rises up and is opposite of the surface of 30) that rises up opposite the guide surface, and
wherein the reinforcing fibers are guided past the guide structure through the inside of the rotor hub (16 is guided past 26 through 38).
Regarding claim 2, Price discloses:
wherein a first reinforcing fiber layer is formed by a plurality of reinforcing fibers (Fig 1: plurality of fibers 16), which is arranged in a radial plane of the rotor hub.
Regarding claim 3, Price discloses:
wherein the guide structure of the first filler body is arranged in the same axial portion of the rotor hub as the first reinforcing fiber layer (Fig 1: 26 is arranged in the same axial portion as 16).
Regarding claim 4, Price discloses:
with a first reinforcing fiber layer (Fig 1: Left 16) and a second reinforcing fiber layer (Right 16), wherein the guide surface of the first filler body is arranged between the first reinforcing fiber layer and the second reinforcing fiber layer (surface of 30 is arranged partially between the left and right 16).
Regarding claim 5, Price discloses:
wherein the guide structure comprises a first structural component (Fig 1: Top of the first 26) arranged adjacent to a lateral surface (Fig 4: Top of the first 26 is arranged adjacent to the lateral surface touching 42) of the rotor hub and between two adjacent rotor blades (Top of the first 26 is between two adjacent blades).
Regarding claim 6, Price discloses:
wherein the guide structure comprises a second structural component blocking a rectilinear path between the blade root of a rotor blade and the axis of the rotor (Fig 4: Inner portion of 26/126 blocks the path of the root in the direction of the axis of the rotor).
Regarding claim 7, Price discloses:
wherein the guide structure comprises a third structural component which projects beyond the lateral surface of the rotor hub and extends into the region of the blade root of a rotor blade (Fig 4: Inner portion of 26/126 projects from the top lateral surface through the region of the root of the blade).
Regarding claim 8, Price discloses:
wherein the first filler body has a cavity (Fig 4: Open cavity) arranged between the guide surface (guide surface as seen in the clip below) and a rear side of the first filler body spaced apart from the guide surface in the axial direction (rear side as seen in the clip below).
PNG
media_image1.png
231
261
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Price discloses:
with a first filler body (Fig 1: 30/26) and a second filler body (42),
wherein the guide structure of the first filler body is covered by the second filler body (42 covers 30/26).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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 9 and 11- 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price US 4098559 in view of Kray et al. US 20130156594.
Regarding claim 9, Price discloses all of the limitations. However, Price is silent as to:
wherein the first filler body has an all-round sealed surface.
From the same field of endeavor, Kray teaches:
wherein the first filler body has an all-round sealed surface (Fig 4: 76 is surrounded by 110 and 72).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Price to have the top layer of the blade covered to form a all-round sealed surface as taught by Kray to adjoin the pair of blade sections to allow for the blades to be stitched together and manufactured through mould and CMC methods to manufacture them with less labor intensive, time-consuming, and expensive methods (Par 6).
Regarding claim 11, Price discloses all of the limitations. However, Price is silent as to:
wherein the rotor is connected to a shaft driven by the motor.
From the same field of endeavor, Kray teaches:
wherein the rotor is connected to a shaft driven by the motor (Fig 1: Par 32: Blades are connected to a shaft and driven).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have the blades of Prince to be on a shaft in a turbine as a matter of common knowledge and well known in the art (MPEP2144.03).
Regarding claim 12, Price discloses:
a rotor (Fig 1) with a rotor hub (38) and a plurality of rotor blades (10) attached to the rotor hub (10 attached to 28), in which a first filler body (30 and 26)
wherein the first filler body has a guide surface with which a guide acting in the axial direction of the rotor is provided (30 has a surface where 16 is guided to the next blade), and
wherein the first filler body has a guide structure which rises opposite the guide surface (26 that rises up and is opposite of the surface of 30), and
in which a plurality of reinforcing fibers (18) are inserted into the guide structure of the first filler body (16 is guided past 26 through 38) so that each reinforcing fiber extends from a first rotor blade through the guide structure to a second rotor blade (18 extends between two blades though 30 and 26 of 38).
However, Price is silent as to:
a first filler body is introduced into a mold component, wherein the mold component defines a mold cavity corresponding to the shape of the rotor.
From the same field of endeavor, Kray teaches:
(Fig 3; Par 44-45: 8 is made in various mold parts and section and RTM methods are used to clamp and press the pieces together).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Price to have the blade formed through the RTM molds and sections as taught by Kray to allow for less material cost and shorter cycle times (Par 44-45).
The combination would result in: a first filler body is introduced into a mold component, wherein the mold component defines a mold cavity corresponding to the shape of the rotor.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Richl US 20160108746, Matheny et al. US 5735673 and Drane US 20140271207 teaches a similar blade connection as to applicants. Powell et al. US 20090068015 teaches a similar core to applicants rotor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew J Marien whose telephone number is (469)295-9159. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am- 6:00 pm CST, Monday through Friday.
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 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.
/Andrew J Marien/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights