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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 1 recites, “A vaned impeller for aircraft turbomachine” and should read, “A vaned impeller for an aircraft turbomachine”
Line 10 recites, “between adjacent first vane and second vane of the impeller” and should read, “between an adjacent first vane and second vane of the impeller”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 1 recites, “A vaned impeller for aircraft turbomachine” and should read, “A vaned impeller for an aircraft turbomachine”
Line 10 recites, “between adjacent first vane and second vane of the impeller” and should read, “between an adjacent first vane and second vane of the impeller”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“the path reconstituting member comprises means for radially retaining the plate in the first and second recesses” in claim 1, which is being interpreted as “a rail-shaped radial retention element 60 that circumferentially extends along the entire length of the plate” as in Pg. 12 of the Immediate Specification, or equivalents thereof. (emphasis added)
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 1-9 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the blade tip" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-5, and 8-9 are rejected based on their dependencies.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the radially inner surface of the reconstituting member" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation, “the radial retention element being a tab or a rail”, and the claim also recites “in the case of the tab, the latter preferably has a circumferential length greater than or equal to the cumulative circumferential length of the two attachment notches of the pair of attachment notches concerned” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 4 is rejected based on its dependency.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the two axially opposite ends of the plate" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the blade tip" in lines 4 and 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the path reconstituting member integrating hooks" in line 26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the opposite axial edges of the plate" in lines 26-27. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, Claim 6 recites the broad recitation “the path reconstitution member comprises, at its two opposing circumferential ends, hollow radial retention means respectively penetrated by the first and second radial retention tabs”, and the claim also recites “preferably, the path reconstituting member integrating hooks at the opposite axial edges of the plate to form said radial retention means, or the plate corresponds to a part of a flattened tube, another part of which forms said radial retention means by radially outwardly covering the first and second radial retention tabs” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
PNG
media_image1.png
758
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Fachat et al. (US PGPUB 2013/0052032 A1) discloses a vaned impeller (14, [0002]) for aircraft turbomachine ([0001]), the impeller comprising several vanes (16, Fig. 4) succeeding each other along a circumferential direction (Fig. 1 shows the wheel 10 which creates the circumferential direction) of the impeller so as to form an annular row of vanes ([0032], each of the vanes comprising a blade (16) as well as a heel (24) integral with the blade tip (Fig. 1) and radially outwardly arranged as a protrusion (Fig. 4 shows the heel or outer platform as integral and radially outward of the blade) from the same, the heel comprising a base (30) as well as at least one sealing member (32, Fig. 1) radially outwardly protruding from the base (30), the heel circumferentially extending on either side of the blade tip (Fig. 1) respectively into a first heel portion (24a), and a second heel portion (24b), each of the first and second heel portions having a radially inner surface (Fig. 1, Fig. 4)) partially delimiting a gas circulation path (f), characterized in that wherein between adjacent first vane and second vane of the impeller, the latter also comprises a member (102, 104) for reconstituting the gas circulation path (Fig. 4).
However; neither Fachat et al. nor any of the prior art of record disclose, teach, or suggest;
“the reconstituting member being arranged in a first recess provided on the radially inner surface of the first heel portion of the first vane, and in a second recess provided on the radially inner surface of the second heel portion of the second vane, the first and second recesses circumferentially opening toward each other, and each having a radially inner bottom surface for cooperating by friction with a radially outer friction surface of the reconstituting member, a radially inner surface of which partially delimits the path in that the path reconstituting member forms a plate, and in that the path reconstituting member comprises means for radially retaining the plate in the first and second recesses, the radial retention means cooperating with attachment notches made in the first heel portion of the first vane and in the second heel portion of the second vane, each attachment notch circumferentially extending and passing through its associated heel portion by circumferentially opening toward another attachment notch, in order to form one or more pairs of attachment notches circumferentially aligned two by two.”
Claims 2-5 and 8-9 would be allowable based on their dependencies.
Regarding claim 6, Fachat et al. discloses a vaned impeller (14, [0002]) for aircraft turbomachine ([0001]), the impeller comprising several vanes (16, Fig. 4) succeeding each other along a circumferential direction (Fig. 1 shows the wheel 10 which creates the circumferential direction) of the impeller so as to form an annular row of vanes ([0032], each of the vanes comprising a blade (16) as well as a heel (24) integral with the blade tip (Fig. 1) and radially outwardly arranged as a protrusion (Fig. 4 shows the heel or outer platform as integral and radially outward of the blade) from the same, the heel comprising a base (30) as well as at least one sealing member (32, Fig. 1) radially outwardly protruding from the base (30), the heel circumferentially extending on either side of the blade tip (Fig. 1) respectively into a first heel portion (24a), and a second heel portion (24b), each of the first and second heel portions having a radially inner surface (Fig. 1, Fig. 4)) partially delimiting a gas circulation path (f), characterized in that wherein between adjacent first vane and second vane of the impeller, the latter also comprises a member (102, 104) for reconstituting the gas circulation path (Fig. 4).
However; neither Fachat et al. nor any of the prior art of record disclose, teach, or suggest;
“the reconstituting member being arranged in a first recess provided on the radially inner surface of the first heel portion of the first vane, and in a second recess provided on the radially inner surface of the second heel portion of the second vane, the first and second recesses circumferentially opening toward each other, and each having a radially inner bottom surface for cooperating by friction with a radially outer friction surface of the reconstituting member, a radially inner surface of which partially delimits the path in that the path reconstituting member forms a plate, and in that the first heel portion of the first vane comprises a first radial retention tab circumferentially extending toward the second vane, the second heel portion of the second vane comprising a second radial retention tab circumferentially extending toward the first radial retention tab, and in that the path reconstitution member comprises, at its two opposing circumferential ends, hollow radial retention means respectively penetrated by the first and second radial retention tabs, and, preferably, the path reconstituting member integrating hooks at the opposite axial edges of the plate to form said radial retention means, or the plate corresponds to a part of a flattened tube, another part of which forms said radial retention means by radially outwardly covering the first and second radial retention tabs.”
Claim 7 would be allowable based on its dependency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PNG
media_image2.png
182
512
media_image2.png
Greyscale
US Patent 8,105,039 B1 discloses an airfoil tip shroud damper.
PNG
media_image3.png
124
180
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
316
170
media_image4.png
Greyscale
CH 418360 A discloses a turbomachine with tip shroud dampers.
PNG
media_image5.png
242
476
media_image5.png
Greyscale
FR 3079263 A1 discloses a fitting device for dawn heel (e.g., an outer vane shroud).
PNG
media_image6.png
230
464
media_image6.png
Greyscale
FR 2956152 A1 discloses a vibration damping device between adjacent blade heads in composite material of a mobile turbomachine wheel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN C CLARK whose telephone number is (571)272-2871. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0730-1730, Alternate Fridays 0730-1630.
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 D 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.
/RYAN C CLARK/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights