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 filed January 29, 2026 have been fully considered.
The applicant argues the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection of claim 1. The applicant argues that the routine optimization rationale presented by the examiner is not proper as the claimed variable of a ratio of the second wall thickness to the first wall thickness is not explicitly disclosed by Hall as a result-effective variable. Hall rather discloses first wall thickness and second wall thickness as separate result-effective variables. The examiner finds that the claimed ratio of the second wall thickness to the first wall thickness is a variable that is determined by the values of the first wall thickness and second wall thickness. Since Hall teaches that the first wall thickness and second wall thickness are both result-effective variables that may be routinely optimized, the ratio between these values is also routinely optimized even if it is done so indirectly when optimized the wall thicknesses individually. The examiner finds the simple mathematical ratio between the two values of wall thicknesses is simply a different manner of expressing details of these two values. Optimizing this ratio does not lead to different values (claimed range) or results than if a person of ordinary skill in the art optimized the wall thickness values individually.
The applicant further argues with regard to claim 1 that Hall does not disclose that one of the sidewalls has a greater thickness than the other because the drawings are not necessarily to scale. The examiner disagrees as the examiner finds that Hall’s disclosure with regard to unequal thicknesses is not limited to drawings. For example, see [0037] of Hall where it is stated that some regions may remain relatively thicker. Additional discussion of these concepts is presented in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the rejection of October 29, 2025.
Additionally, the examiner points the general broadness of the claim as described in paragraph 17 of the rejection of October 29, 2025 as weighing against nonobviousness.
The applicant argues similar rationales as the rejection of claim 1 for the rejection of claim 5 which recites that the first and second wall thicknesses are averages. The examiner finds the response to these arguments with regard to claim 5 is substantially identical to the arguments of claim 1 except for the additional consideration of the broadness of the claim as described in paragraph 17 of the rejection of October 29, 2025 as weighing against nonobviousness is not applicable.
The applicant argues for claim 9 that Hall does not disclose that the strategic weakening is in the plane of the internal passage or that the weakening occurs at a side surface of the sidewall. The examiner disagrees as [0037] of Hall specifically recites, “110 may need to be modified along the exterior surface 120 of the sidewalls 118 in alignment with the internal passage way 112” and “specific areas may need to be strategically weakened, such as … in alignment with the internal passage way 112”. The applicant additionally argues that Hall doesn’t disclose that the strategic weaking doesn’t occur on the thinner of the two sidewalls and at a location of the second sidewall thickness being 0.4 to 0.9 times the first wall thickness. The examiner agrees that Hall does not explicitly disclose these aspects which why a finding of obviousness was made in paragraph 34 of the non-final rejection of October 29, 2025. The examiner finds that based on the disclosure of Hall that strategic weakening can clearly be applied to either side of the blade (thinner or thicker) even though it does not explicitly say a particular side. The examiner also finds the strategic weakening of Hall is not limited to a particular chord-wise location. The examiner notes that claimed range of the ratio of thicknesses is quite broad and may be easily satisfied for a large portion of the chordwise length blade. The examiner therefore finds the obviousness finding for the strategic weakening to be at the defined location of the thickness satisfying the claimed ratio to be proper. Additionally, although not currently rejected in the following manner, the examiner notes that the thicknesses as defined in claim 5 that are average thicknesses would apply across the entire chordwise length making this argument irrelevant to such a rejection if made.
The rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims are therefore maintained. The rejection of claim 11 and its dependent claims is updated to address the amended claims. The rejections are therefore final and any changes are necessitated by amendment.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 5, and 9-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,270,310. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the previously issued patent U.S Patent 12,270,310 anticipate the claims of the instant application as they include all the limitations of the instant application and additional limitations. Claims 1-2 and 5-7 of the patent correspond to claims 1-2, 5, and 9-10 of the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 12 requires that the first wall thickness is greater than the second wall thickness. Due to the ratio claimed in claim 11 upon which claim 12 depends, and both thicknesses always being positive numbers, this is mathematically always true. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 5, 9, 11-12, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 20180016934) hereinafter Hall.
PNG
media_image1.png
641
754
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
422
903
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Hall discloses:
A test rotor blade for an aircraft engine bladed rotor {Figure 9 (110) is for an aircraft engine blade rotor as shown in Figure 1 (30); [0005]},
the test rotor blade comprising {Figure 9 (110)}:
a blade body {Figure 9 (110), the blade body does not include the platform (46)},
the blade body extends between and to a base end and a tip end {Figure 9, the base end of the blade body is at the interface with the platform (46); the tip end may be seen in Figure 6 at the radially outer extent of (110)/(120)},
the blade body extends between and to a leading edge and a trailing edge {Figure 9, the blade body extends between (122) and (124)},
the blade body forms a first side surface and a second side surface {Figure 8, the blade body has a first side which may be either the pressure side which is the lower instance of (120) in the figure or it may be the suction side which is the upper instance of (120) in the figure. The second side will be the other side not interpreted as the first side}
each of the first side surface and the second side surface extend from the leading edge to the trailing edge {Figures 8 and 9, both the pressure side and suction side which are labeled as upper and lower instances of (120) in Figure 8 extend between (122) and (124). Figure 7 is perspective view that also shows the pressure side and suction side as instances of (120) that extend between (122) and (124)},
the blade body forms:
a leading-edge pocket at the leading edge {Annotated Figure 1 (I), [0038]};
a trailing-edge pocket at the trailing edge {Annotated Figure 1 (II), [0038]}; and
a hole extending through the blade body from the leading-edge pocket to the trailing edge pocket {Annotated Figure 1 / Figures 7-9, (112) extends through the blade body from (I) to (II)},
the hole includes:
a first end {Annotated Figure 2 (III)},
a second end {Annotated Figure 2 (IV)}, and
a hole length from the first end to the second end {Annotated Figure 2, there is a length that (112) has between (III) and (IV)},
the first end is disposed at the leading-edge pocket, and the second end is disposed at the trailing-edge pocket {Annotated Figure 2 (III) is disposed at the leading-edge pocket (I) shown in Annotated Figure 1. Annotated Figure 2 (IV) is disposed at the trailing-edge pocket (II) shown in Annotated Figure 1.};
the blade body includes a first side wall and a second side wall {Figure 8 the blade body has a first side which may be either side wall towards the pressure side which is the lower instance of (118) in the figure or it may be the side wall towards the suction side which is the upper instance of (118) in the figure. The second side wall will be the other side wall not interpreted as the first side wall},
the first side wall has a first wall thickness extending between and to the first side surface and the hole {Figure 8 both instances of (118) has a distribution along the chord of wall thicknesses measured between the corresponding surface and the hole. Examples of thicknesses for the pressure side wall are shown in Annotated Figure 2 by (Va), (Vb) and examples of thicknesses for the suction side wall are shown in Annotated Figure 2 (VIa), (VIb). As mentioned above both possible interpretations of which side surface and side wall (i.e. pressure or suction) corresponds to the “first” and “second” instances are encompassed by this rejection},
the second side wall has a second wall thickness extending between and to the second side surface and the hole {Figure 8 both instances of (118) has a distribution along the chord of wall thicknesses measured between the corresponding surface and the hole. Examples of thicknesses for the pressure side wall are shown in Annotated Figure 2 by (Va), (Vb) and examples of thicknesses for the suction side wall are shown in Annotated Figure 2 (VIa), (VIb). As mentioned above both possible interpretations of which side surface and side wall (i.e. pressure or suction) corresponds to the “first” and “second” instances are encompassed by this rejection}.
Hall does not explicitly disclose relative values of the wall thicknesses and therefore does not explicitly disclose the second wall thickness is 0.4 to 0.9 times the first wall thickness.
Hall discloses a depiction of first and second wall thicknesses in Figure 8 with examples of these thicknesses illustrated in Annotated Figure 2 (Va), (Vb), (VIa), and (VIb). Hall discloses that the internal passageway may be formed along a constant arc path {[0035] and Figure 8 (112)}. One of ordinary skill in the art understands airfoil shapes are not as simplistic as being along a constant arc path due to extensive optimization of the airfoil shape to result in optimal aerodynamic performance. The following results in first and second wall thicknesses that are not constant in comparison which each other even at the same location along the camber axis. Some regions may remain relatively thicker as described in [0037]. This can be easily seen in such an example portion by comparing (Va) with (VIa) in Annotated Figure 2. Due to the curves involved there are also portions where thicknesses get close to equal as shown in (Vb) and (VIb).
Hall further discloses that the passageway is precisely aligned so that neither sidewall becomes so thin that the airfoil becomes detached before reaching the desired fan speed or explosive release of the test; the passageway is also precisely aligned so that the airfoil does not sever in a very uneven way {[0036]}. It also disclosed that the design of the internal passageway (and potential other weaking of the sidewalls) may vary based on the actual fan blade design {[0037]}.
Based on the constant arc description of the passageway which results in unequal side wall thicknesses and the fact that the passageway is aligned so that neither sidewall gets too thin as described above, Hall discloses that the relative thicknesses of the side walls are in a range similar in effect to the claimed range.
The discussion above also results in a finding that the thicknesses and the relative thicknesses of the side walls are therefore result effective variables as discussed in MPEP 2144.05 II B. The claimed variables and their relationship are known to be critical in performing the desired fan blade off engine testing for the fan blade to release as desired for the testing as discussed above. Precise values of thicknesses / relative thicknesses are routine optimization for one of ordinary skill in the art as these result effective variables are known to be optimized in different ways for different blades {[0037]}. Fan blade off testing is well known as described in paragraph [0009].
It also noted that the instant application specification acknowledges that the first and second wall thicknesses are distributions, but does not given additional description on how to perform the comparison of distributions. The claim limitation is therefore interpreted under a broadest reasonable interpretation that only a single value of the second wall thickness is 0.4 to 0.9 times as thick as a single value of the first wall thickness. This interpretation gives further room for the routine optimization rationale above to render the claim obvious.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second side wall thickness be 0.4 to 0.9 times as thick as the first side wall thickness. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as the side wall thicknesses and their relative thicknesses are result effective variables that are routinely optimized for the fan blade off test to perform as desired {Hall [0037]-[0038] and [0009]}.
It is further noted that as described earlier in the rejection of the claim that the pressure side surface of Hall can be interpreted as the “first side surface” or “second side surface” with the suction side surface being the other. The same is true for the corresponding first / second side walls. The routine optimization of the thicknesses / relative thicknesses of the side walls is found to be proper for both interpretations. For clarity, claim 1 is found to be obvious if either interpretation is proper. It is acknowledged by the examiner that the depiction in Figure 8 of Hall appears to in general have a greater thickness for the suction side wall in comparison to the pressure side wall. The disclosure of Hall and its teachings are found not to be limited by this depiction and the discussion above is just as applicable to a finding of obviousness where the suction side wall has a lesser thickness than the pressure side wall.
Regarding claim 2, Hall teaches wherein the first side surface is a pressure side surface of the blade body and the second side surface is a suction side surface of the blade body
{Figure 8 the lower instance of (120) is the first side surface and the upper instance of (120) is the second side surface. The first side wall is the lower instance of (118) and the upper instance of (118) is (118) is the second side wall. This claim limitation removes the two possible interpretations of Hall described in paragraphs 14, 18-20, and 28 and results in the interpretation described directly above in addressing of this claim. As discussed in paragraph 28, the above interpretation of the first and second side wall and its implications on the obviousness of the limitation of claim 1, “the second wall thickness is 0.4 to 0.9 times the first wall thickness” is still addressed by the discussion in claim 1}.
Regarding claim 5, Hall teaches the test rotor blade of claim 1.
The obviousness finding in claim 1 does not specifically address the limitation:
therein the first wall thickness is a first average wall thickness extending between and to the first side surface and the hole along the hole length and the second wall thickness is a second average wall thickness extending between and to the second side surface and the hole along the hole length.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first side wall thickness and second side wall thickness to be an average as claimed. This specific measurement of thickness therefore affects the obviousness analysis in claim 1. The examiner finds for the previous statement to be true it must also be true 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 average second side wall thickness be 0.4 to 0.9 times as thick as the average first wall thickness for all the length of the whole. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as the side wall thicknesses and their relative thicknesses are result effective variables that are routinely optimized for the fan blade off test to perform as desired {Hall [0037]-[0038] and [0009]}.
Hall does not explicitly disclose relative values of the wall thicknesses and therefore does not explicitly disclose the second average wall thickness is 0.4 to 0.9 times the first average wall thickness.
Hall discloses a depiction of first and second wall thicknesses in Figure 8 with examples of these thicknesses illustrated in Annotated Figure 2 (Va), (Vb), (VIa), and (VIb). Hall discloses that the internal passageway may be formed along a constant arc path {[0035] and Figure 8 (112)}. One of ordinary skill in the art understands airfoil shapes are not as simplistic as being along a constant arc path due to extensive optimization of the airfoil shape to result in optimal aerodynamic performance. The following results in first and second wall thicknesses that are not constant in comparison which each other even at the same location along the camber axis and also results in average thicknesses along the hole length that are different. Some regions may remain relatively thicker as described in [0037]. It can be seen visually in Annotated Figure 2 that the average wall thickness on the suction side is greater than on the pressure side.
Hall further discloses that the passageway is precisely aligned so that neither sidewall becomes so thin that the airfoil becomes detached before reaching the desired fan speed or explosive release of the test; the passageway is also precisely aligned so that the airfoil does not sever in a very uneven way {[0036]}. It also disclosed that the design of the internal passageway (and potential other weaking of the sidewalls) may vary based on the actual fan blade design {[0037]}.
Based on the constant arc description of the passageway which results in unequal side wall thicknesses and the fact that the passageway is aligned so that neither sidewall gets too thin as described above, Hall discloses that the relative thicknesses of the side walls are in a range similar in effect to the claimed range.
The discussion above also results in a finding that the thicknesses and the relative thicknesses of the side walls which determine the average wall thicknesses are therefore result effective variables as discussed in MPEP 2144.05 II B. The claimed variables and their relationship are known to be critical in performing the desired fan blade off engine testing for the fan blade to release as desired for the testing as discussed above. Precise values of average thicknesses / relative average thicknesses are routine optimization for one of ordinary skill in the art as these result effective variables are known to be optimized in different ways for different blades {[0037]}. Fan blade off testing is well known as described in paragraph [0009].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second average side wall thickness be 0.4 to 0.9 times as thick as the first average side wall thickness. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as the average side wall thicknesses and their relative values are result effective variables that are routinely optimized for the fan blade off test to perform as desired {Hall [0037]-[0038] and [0009]}.
It is further noted that as described earlier in the rejection of the claim that the pressure side surface of Hall can be interpreted as the “first side surface” or “second side surface” with the suction side surface being the other. The same is true for the corresponding first / second side walls. The routine optimization of the thicknesses / relative thicknesses of the side walls is found to be proper for both interpretations. For clarity, claim 1 is found to be obvious if either interpretation is proper. It is acknowledged by the examiner that the depiction in Figure 8 of Hall appears to in general have a greater thickness for the suction side wall in comparison to the pressure side wall. The disclosure of Hall and its teachings are found not to be limited by this depiction and the discussion above is just as applicable to a finding of obviousness where the suction side wall has a lesser thickness than the pressure side wall.
Regarding claim 9, Hall teach the test blade of claim 1. Hall does not explicitly disclose wherein the blade body forms a groove on the second side surface at a location of the second wall thickness.
Hall teaches that strategic weaking may be performed in specific areas that remain relatively thick including in the plane of the internal passage (112) {[0037]}.
It is noted the second side surface and second wall thickness can be interpreted in two different ways as discussed in paragraphs 19-20 of claim 1. Therefore, a groove on either the pressure side wall or suction side wall of Hall in the plane of the internal passage would be at a location of second wall thickness as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have strategic weakening by use of a groove on the second side surface at a location of the second wall thickness. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as strategic weakening can be used for the blade to release in the desired manner at the desired time in the test {Hall [0036]}.
Regarding claim 11, Hall discloses:
A gas turbine engine for an aircraft propulsion system {Figure 1 (30) is a gas turbine engine for an aircraft and applies to the embodiments of the invention, [0030]},
the gas turbine engine comprising:
a compressor including a bladed compressor rotor {Figure 1 compressor stages unlabeled},
the bladed compressor rotor includes a plurality of rotor blades {Figure 5/6 (100) is a fan that has a plurality of blades and is considered a compressor under the broadest reasonable interpretation; fans are low pressure compressors},
the plurality of rotor blades includes a test rotor blade {Figure 9 (110) is used in testing, [0036]},
the test rotor blade includes:
a blade body {Figure 9 (110)},
the blade body extends between and to a base end and a tip end {Figure 9, the base end of the blade body is at the interface with the platform (46); the tip end may be seen in Figure 6 at the radially outer extent of (110)/(120)},
the blade body extends between and to a leading edge and a trailing edge {Figure 9, the blade body extends between (122) and (124)},
the blade body forms a pressure side surface and a suction side surface {Figure 8, the blade body has a pressure side which is the lower instance of (120) in the figure and a suction side surface which is the upper instance of (120) in the figure.}
each of the pressure side surface and the suction side surface extends from the leading edge to the trailing edge {Figures 8 and 9, both the pressure side and suction side which are labeled as upper and lower instances of (120) in Figure 8 extend between (122) and (124). Figure 7 is perspective view that also shows the pressure side and suction side as instances of (120) that extend between (122) and (124)},
the blade body forms a hole extending through the blade body between the leading edge and the trailing edge {Figures 7-9, (112) is a hole that extends through the blade body between (122) and (124),
the blade body includes a pressure side wall and a suction side wall {Figure 8 the lower instance of (118) is the pressure side wall; the upper instance of (118) is the suction side wall},
the pressure side wall forms a portion of the pressure side surface and the hole {Figure 8 the lower instance of (118) forms the lower boundary of the hole (112) as well as forming the lower instance of (120)},
the pressure side wall has a first wall thickness extending between and to the pressure side surface and the hole {Annotated Figure 2 (Va) and (Vb) are examples of first wall thicknesses between the pressure side surface and the hole},
the suction side wall forms a portion of the suction side surface and the hole {Figure 8 the upper instance of (118) forms the upper boundary of the hole (112) as well as forming the upper instance of (120)},
the suction side wall has a second wall thickness extending between and to the suction side surface and the hole {Annotated Figure 2 (VIa) and (VIb) are examples of second wall thicknesses between the suction side surface and the hole}
Hall does not explicitly disclose relative values of the wall thicknesses and therefore does not explicitly disclose:
the second wall thickness is 0.4 to 0.9 times the first wall thickness
the first wall thickness is a first average wall thickness along a hole length of the hole
the second wall thickness is a second average wall thickness along a hole length of the hole
Hall discloses that the internal passageway may be formed along a constant arc path {[0035] and Figure 8 (112)}. One of ordinary skill in the art understands airfoil shapes are not as simplistic as being along a constant arc path due to extensive optimization of the airfoil shape to result in optimal aerodynamic performance. The following results in first and second wall thicknesses that are not constant in comparison which each other even at the same location along the camber axis. Some regions may remain relatively thicker as described in [0037].
Hall further discloses that the passageway is precisely aligned so that neither sidewall becomes so thin that the airfoil becomes detached before reaching the desired fan speed or explosive release of the test; the passageway is also precisely aligned so that the airfoil does not sever in a very uneven way {[0036]}. It also disclosed that the design of the internal passageway (and potential other weaking of the sidewalls) may vary based on the actual fan blade design {[0037]}.
Based on the constant arc description of the passageway which results in unequal side wall thicknesses and the fact that the passageway is aligned so that neither sidewall gets too thin as described above, Hall discloses that the relative thicknesses of the side walls are in a range similar in effect to the claimed range.
The discussion above also results in a finding that the thicknesses and the relative thicknesses of the side walls are therefore result effective variables as discussed in MPEP 2144.05 II B. The examiner finds that these thicknesses determine the average wall thicknesses are therefore result effective variables as discussed in MPEP 2144.05 II B. The claimed variables and their relationship are known to be critical in performing the desired fan blade off engine testing for the fan blade to release as desired for the testing as discussed above. Precise values of thicknesses / relative thicknesses are routine optimization for one of ordinary skill in the art as these result effective variables are known to be optimized in different ways for different blades {[0037]}. Fan blade off testing is well known as described in paragraph [0009].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second average wall thickness be 0.4 to 0.9 times as thick as the first average wall thickness. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as the side wall thicknesses and their relative thicknesses are result effective variables that are routinely optimized for the fan blade off test to perform as desired {Hall [0037]-[0038] and [0009]}. It is noted that the teachings of Hall and rationales described may be used to find that wall thicknesses associated with the pressure side are larger than the suction side or vice versa.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation wherein the first wall thickness is greater than the second wall thickness does not further define the claim as discussed in the 35 U.S.C 112(d) rejection above. Therefore, the findings of obviousness as applied to claim 11 also result in this limitation being obvious.
Regarding claim 14, Hall further discloses wherein the first wall thickness and the second wall thickness are disposed at a target fracture plane for the test rotor blade {Figure 8 depicts the target fracture plane which shows first and second walls thicknesses on either side of the hole respectively as described in [0034] and [0036]-[0037]}.
Regarding claim 15, Hall further discloses:
wherein the blade body further forms a leading- edge pocket at the leading edge and a trailing-edge pocket at the trailing edge {Annotated Figure 1 (I) is at the leading edge and (II) is at the trailing edge}, and
the hole extends through the blade body from the leading-edge pocket to the trailing edge pocket {Figure 8 (112) extends from (I) to (II) as shown in Annotated Figure 1}.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20180016934) hereinafter Hall in view of Phelps et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20210156317) hereinafter Phelps.
Regarding claim 6, Hall discloses the test blade of claim 1, but does not disclose:
wherein the hole extends linearly from the first end to the second end.
Phelps pertains to gas turbine blades which is in the field of endeavor of the claimed invention and reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of forming a test blade (which is modeling a normal blade used in an operating gas turbine engine).
Phelps teaches:
A fan blade may have a small amount of camber at the root {Figure 5A (23a) and (23b) have a small camber value making both almost symmetrical airfoils; [0006]/[0030]/[0091]}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a test fan blade of Hall be configured for a fan blade that is decambered as taught by Phelps. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as the teachings of Hall including the illustrated embodiments such as the airfoil geometry in Figure 8 are exemplary only and are not limiting to other airfoil geometries where blade testing may be used {Hall [0047]}. Additionally, decambered blades may be used to reduce susceptibility to flutter {Phelps [0030]}.
The combination of Hall and Phelps therefore teaches wherein the hole extends substantially linearly from the first end to the second end {Hall teaches the hole (112) aligns with the general contour of the airfoil. The airfoil based on the teachings of Phelps has minimal camber and is therefore substantially straight}.
The combination of Hall and Phelps does not teach wherein the hole extends linearly from the first end to the second end.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the hole of the combination of Hall and Phelps extend linearly. the combination of Hall and Phelps teaches the hole extends very close to linearly from the first end to the second end, but still may have some curvature due to the camber of the blade and the hole following the general contour. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to have the hole extend linearly as this configuration approaches the configuration taught by Hall and Phelps such that there is no qualitative difference, see MPEP 2144.05 I. Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art understands a straight hole is easier to manufacture than a curved hole.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20180016934) hereinafter Hall in view of Han et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20110146519) hereinafter Hall.
Regarding claim 10, Hall teaches the test rotor blade of claim 1 as well as the use of a charge disposed in the hole {[0032]/[0036], charge 114/116 is loaded into 112}.
Hall discloses the charge may detonate or deflagrate {[0010]}. Hall also discloses some possible explosives used for the charge {[0033]}. Hall is silent regarding specifically using thermite for the charge.
Han is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of choosing an explosive charge suitable for a given purpose. Han teaches thermite is a suitable material for charges that exhibits deflagration rather than an explosion {[0004] and [0033]}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used thermite for the charge of Hall as described by the teachings of Han. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as Hall recognizes that the charge may deflagrate rather than explode {Hall [0010]}. The charges listed in [0033] of Hall explode. Thermite is a well-known class of material that deflagrates rather than explodes {Han [0033]}. Thermite is also recognized as being energy rich while relatively stable and the energy can be released at high rates {Han [0033]}; these properties would be beneficial for the charge described in Hall.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL K. REITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1387. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 a.m. -5:30 p.m.
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 5712703508. 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 K. REITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3745