DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 6 of the response, filed 04/06/2026, with respect to the objections to the drawings and the claims, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The informalities have been removed from the drawings and the claims; therefore, the objections to the drawings and the claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 04/06/2026, regarding the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) in view of Duong, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Duong fails to disclose the claimed locking means comprising two locking walls of the radially outer platform configured to each receive a circumferential end of a locking plate as claimed. The applicant argues that, instead, Duong discloses a groove in which a damper is housed, rather than walls in contact with a circumferential end of a locking plate. The applicant also argues that Duong fails to disclose the claimed feature of Claim 4 of the radially outer platform having a width in the circumferential direction, said locking walls extending from a median portion of the width of said radially outer platform but rather discloses the locking walls being formed at outer portions of the platform width. Therefore, the applicant argues that the rejections should be withdrawn. The Office respectfully disagrees. First, regarding Duong not disclosing walls that are in contact with a circumferential end of a locking plate, the claimed invention never requires that the locking walls come into contact with a circumferential end of a locking plate. Claim 1 simply discloses locking means comprising two locking walls of the radially outer platform configured to each receive a circumferential end of a locking plate, and Duong discloses said locking means. Duong discloses a locking means comprising two locking walls (471a, 472b) of the radially outer platform (465a), the locking walls configured to each receive a circumferential end of a locking plate (495) (Figure 6 – left and right ends of plate 495 are the circumferential ends of the locking plate). Claim 1 does not require that the walls come into contact with the circumferential ends, just that the walls are configured to receive a circumferential end, and Duong discloses this feature. Second, Duong does disclose the feature of Claim 4 of the radially outer platform having a width in the circumferential direction, said locking walls extending from a median portion of the width of said radially outer platform. Claim 4 does not disclose how large the median portion of the width of said radially outer platform is, just that said radially outer platform has a median portion of the width and that said locking walls extend from said median portion, and Duong discloses a median portion as claimed, since Duong discloses a middle (“median”) portion between two outer portions (see below).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Outside Portions)][AltContent: textbox (Median Portion)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
222
354
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Duong discloses the median portion limitation of Claim 4 and the locking means of Claim 1. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) are maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Duong (US Patent No: 11,174,739).
Regarding Claim 1: Duong discloses a turbomachine rotor with an axis comprising two blades (Figures 2 & 4, No. 440a-b), each blade comprising a root (451) configured to be mounted in a groove (432) that opens to the outer periphery of a disk (430) of the turbomachine rotor; an airfoil (441) extending said root, in a radial direction with respect to the axis, and having an aerodynamic profile (Figures 2 & 4); a radially inner platform (443) separating said airfoil from said root (Figure 2); a heel which extends as a continuation of said airfoil at a free radial end of said blade, at the end of the airfoil radially opposite the root, said heel comprising a radially outer platform (465a), each heel comprising means for locking the radially outer platform with respect to another circumferentially adjacent radially outer platform, the locking means comprising two locking walls (Figure 3, No. 471a & 472b) for locking the radially outer platform, each locking wall configured to receive a circumferential end of a locking plate (Figure 6, No. 495), said at least two blades being circumferentially adjacent (Figure 4), and the locking plate (495), one of said two locking walls of the first of said at least two blades and one of said two locking walls of the second of said at least two blades each receiving a circumferential end of the locking plate (Figure 6), the locking walls of each radially outer platform of said two blades extending obliquely while being inclined and opposite with respect to the radial direction (Figure 6).
Regarding Claim 2: Duong discloses the rotor according to Claim 1, wherein each of the locking walls is inclined obliquely with respect to said radial axis at an angle between 0-60° (Figure 6 - sides of locking walls 471a & 472b are angled to vertical radial axis at an angle less than 60°).
Regarding Claim 3: Duong discloses the rotor according to Claim 1, wherein the locking walls are symmetrical with respect to said radial axis (Figures 3-4 & 6).
Regarding Claim 4: Duong discloses the rotor according to Claim 1, wherein said radially outer platform has a width in the circumferential direction (Figures 3-4), said locking walls extending from a median portion of the width of said radially outer platform (Figures 3-4, see above).
Regarding Claim 5: Duong discloses the rotor according to Claim 1, wherein said heel carried an upstream tab (Figure 3, left rail) and a downstream tab (Figure 3, right rail) which extend radially outward from the radially outer platform (Figures 2-4), the locking means being arranged axially between the upstream and downstream tabs (Figures 3-4).
Regarding Claim 7: Duong discloses the rotor according to Claim 1. The limitation of said beveled circumferential ends being connected by a flat portion is a conditional limitation, since Claim 1 does not require that the locking plate require beveled circumferential ends (Claim 1 simply requires either the locking walls extend obliquely while being inclined and opposite with request to the radial direction or the locking plate comprise beveled circumferential ends), and since Duong does not disclose the locking plate comprising beveled circumferential ends, the limitation of the beveled circumferential ends being connected by a flat portion in Claim 7 is not required.
Regarding Claim 8: Duong discloses a turbomachine turbine (Figure 1, No. 400) comprising at least one rotor according to Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9: Duong discloses a turbomachine (100) for an aircraft comprising the turbomachine turbine (400) according to Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 10: Duong discloses the rotor according to Claim 4, wherein the two locking walls extend outward from the median portion of the width of said radially outer platform, and a radially outer end of each of the two locking walls is a free end (Figure 3, see above).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duong in view
of Morrison (US Patent No: 7,824,152).
Regarding Claim 6: Duong discloses the rotor according to Claim 1; however, Duong fails to disclose the rotor is at least partially composed of a ceramic matrix composite material.
Morrison teaches a rotor comprising at least two airfoils (Figures 1-2, No. 18) with inner and outer platforms (Figure 1), wherein the rotor is at least partially composed of a ceramic matrix composite material (Column 1, Lines 58-59).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the rotor of Duong at least partially composed of a ceramic matrix composite material, as taught by Morrison, for the purpose of providing the rotor with high temperature strength with improved fracture toughness, damage tolerance and thermal shock resistance (Column 1, Lines 61-63).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL L SEHN whose telephone number is (571)270-3564. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM-6 PM, every other Friday off.
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.
/MICHAEL L SEHN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights