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 July 17, 2026 have been fully considered.
The 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections are withdrawn based on the amendments. New 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections are presented below.
The applicant argues that Hartmann does not disclose that the hook only has one arm. The transitional phrase of the claim is “comprising”, which is inclusive / open-ended. See MPEP 2111.03 I. A device that has 2 arms comprises “only one arm” based the meaning of “comprises” being inclusive / open-ended.
The changes to the rejections are necessitated by amendment and are therefore final.
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 1-7 and 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, “wherein the root groove is configured to receive a blade root of the rotor blade inserted into the root groove in a direction from the first end surface toward the second end surface”. This is a functional limitation that describes the root groove. The disk which comprises the root groove is not positively recited. It is unclear how functional limitation of the root groove relates back to the structural requirements of the detachment device and therefore the limitation fails "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and is therefore indefinite, see MPEP 2173.05.
Claim 1 recites, “the hook has a contact portion that is contactable with the rotor blade in the first axial direction in a position in which the contact portion is spaced apart from the rotor blade in the second axial direction”. This is a functional limitation that describes how the hook is able to contact the rotor blade following the steps of being in a position where the contact portion is spaced apart and then subsequently contacts the rotor blade. The claim is directed to just the rotor blade detachment device and not the rotor blade itself. The functionality of the detachment device is in reference to the rotor blade which is not a positively recited element of the claim, see MPEP 2173.05(b). The limitation also has an aspect of being a product-by-process limitation as it refers to the capability of performing a certain series of steps in a particular manner, see MPEP 2113. The combination of these aspects results in the limitation failing "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and is therefore indefinite, see MPEP 2173.05.
Claims dependent from claim 1 are also rejected.
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 1-3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hartmann et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20060039790) hereinafter Hartmann.
PNG
media_image1.png
722
637
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Hartmann discloses:
A rotor blade detachment device that detaches a rotor blade from a disk {Figure 2 (10) is for detaching rotor blade (12) from disk (16); [0008]},
wherein the disk has an outer peripheral surface that extends in a circumferential direction about an axis line {Figure 1 (16) has a radially outer surface that extends in a circumferential direction about an axis (not shown)},
a first end surface that faces a first axial direction in which the axis line extends {Figure 1, the first end surface faces toward the right; the first end surface is the surface that coincides with the right end of the blade when it is installed},
a second end surface that faces a second axial direction in which the axis line extends, the first and second axial direction being opposite directions {Figure 1, the second end surface faces toward the left; the second end surface is the surface that coincides with the left end of the blade when it is installed}, and
a root groove {Figure 1 (22)},
the root groove is recessed from the outer peripheral surface toward a radial inner side in a radial direction of the axis line {Figure 1 (22) is recessed from the outer peripheral surface of (16) toward a radially inner side relative to the axis line}, and
penetrates from the second end surface to the first end surface {Figure 1 (22) extends from the second end surface to the first end surface},
wherein the root groove is configured to receive a blade root of the rotor blade inserted into the root groove in a direction from the first end surface toward the second end surface {Figure 1, the root groove receives the blade root as it is inserted into the root groove in a direction from the right side to the left side, see Figure 1 offset of the blade; [0022]. It is further noted that the claim is directed toward the rotor attachment device and not the rotor. Additionally, see MPEP 2113 I as this is a product-by-process limitation},
the rotor blade has a blade body that extends in the radial direction and has a cross-section in a blade shape perpendicular to the radial direction {Figure 1 (12) is a rotor blade that has an airfoil shape in a radial cross-section and extends radially outward from (20)}, and
a blade root that is provided on a radial inner side of the blade body, and is fitted into the root groove {Figure 1 (20) is a blade root that fits into the groove (22)}
the rotor blade detachment device {Figure 1 (10)} comprises:
a hook that is contactable with the rotor blade {Annotated Figure 1 (I) contacts the rotor blade as it is part of the tensioning device (32); [0024]}; and
a drawing portion that is connected to the hook, and is configured to move the hook in a drawing direction from the second end surface toward the first end surface {Figure 1 (28)/(30)},
the hook has a contact portion that is contactable with the rotor blade in the first axial direction from a position in which the contact portion is spaced apart from the rotor blade in the second axial direction {Annotated Figure 1 (I) contacts the rotor blade in the first axial direction which is towards the right side of the figure. The actuator (28) allows the spacing between the left and right ends of (32) to changed such that the contact portion may be spaced apart from the rotor blade in the second axial direction towards the left side of the figure}, and
the contact portion extending in the circumferential direction from a first end to a second end {Annotated Figure 1 (I) extends in the circumferential direction from a first end closer to viewer and second end further from viewer of the figure}
only one arm, the arm extending from one of the first and second ends of the contact portion in the drawing direction {Annotated Figure 1 the closer instance of (34) extends from the first end of the contact portion (I) in the drawing direction which is to the right. The transitional phrase of the claim is “comprising”, which is inclusive / open-ended. See MPEP 2111.03 I. A device that has 2 arms comprises “only one arm” based the meaning of “comprises” being inclusive / open-ended}, and
the drawing portion is connected to the arm at a position opposite to the contact portion in the drawing direction, and is configured to apply a load to the hook in the drawing direction {Annotated Figure 1, (28) is connected to the arm (34) at a position opposite of contact portion (I) as it is on the right side rather than the left side; (34) also applies the load from actuator (30) to the hook (I) in the drawing direction which is to the right; [0024-[0026]}.
Regarding claim 2, Hartmann further discloses:
wherein the hook further includes a support portion that is contactable with the rotor blade from the second axial direction {Annotated Figure 1 (II) is a support portion that contacts the rotor from with the portion of the hook facing the left which is the second axial direction; it is also a part of the tensioning assembly (32)}, and
is configured to support the rotor blade in a state in which the rotor blade is not movable in the drawing direction, together with the contact portion {Annotated Figure 1 (II) supports the rotor blade in a state when the rotor blade is not movable in the drawing direction with contact portion (I) as they are both part of the tensioning assembly}.
Regarding claim 3, Hartmann further discloses:
wherein the hook has a base that is connected to the arm at the position opposite to the contact portion in the drawing direction, and extends in a direction perpendicular to the drawing direction {Annotated Figure 1 (III) is a base that is connected to arm (34) at a position on the right which is opposite of the contact portion (I) on the left; the base (III) extends in the circumferential direction which is perpendicular to the axial drawing direction, and
the support portion is configured to move at the base to approach the hook, and to support the rotor blade by pressing the rotor blade against the contact portion and sandwiching the rotor blade with the contact portion {Annotated Figure 1 (II) is moved at the base (III) to approach (I) as part of the tensioning of (32) and sandwiches the rotor blade (12) with the contact portion; [0024]-[0026]}.
Regarding claim 9, Hartmann further discloses:
wherein a width of the drawing portion, which is orthogonal to the drawing direction, is more than a width of the contact portion, which is orthogonal to the drawing direction {Annotated Figure 1, the contact portion (I) does not have any limitations that require it to be the full width across of the blade, a small portion may be interpreted as “the contact portion”. This would therefore satisfy the relative width limitation}.
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 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartmann et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20060039790) hereinafter Hartmann.
Regarding claim 4, Hartmann further discloses:
wherein the base is formed with a screw hole {Annotated Figure 1 base (III) implicitly has a screw hole to work with the tensioning device (32) which to accommodate (34)},
Hartmann does not disclose:
the support portion has a screw shaft that is movable at the base in a state of being inserted into the screw hole, and
the screw shaft is contactable with the rotor blade from the second axial direction by being moved at the base to approach the contact portion.
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 screw shaft which moves relative to a base to contact the blade rather than a base which moves relative to a screw shaft to contact a blade as taught by Hartmann. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as this is as reversal of parts that is merely a reversal of relative movement has been held to be an obvious modification {see MPEP 2144.04 VI A}.
Regarding claim 5, Hartmann discloses the rotor blade attachment device of claim 1, but does not disclose:
wherein the drawing portion is attachable to and detachable from the hook.
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 drawing portion attachable to and detachable from the hook. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as the tensioning device is capable of loosening and tightening. Detaching is a form of fully loosening and allows for blades to be easily surrounded as desired {Figure 1 (32); [0024]}. Making a part separable when it would be considered desirable for any reason would be obvious for that purpose {see MPEP 2144.04 V C}
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartmann et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20060039790) hereinafter Hartmann in view of Holmes et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20150328728) hereinafter Holmes.
Regarding claim 6, Hartmann discloses the rotor blade attachment device of claim 1, but does not disclose:
wherein the drawing portion has a first frame that extends in the drawing direction to extend the arm of the hook, and
a second frame that is connected to the first frame at a position opposite to the hook in the drawing direction, and extends in a direction perpendicular to the drawing direction with respect to the first frame, and
the load is applied to the second frame.
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 second frame connected to the first frame at a position opposite to the hook where force is applied to the second frame. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as this as a reversal of parts that is merely a reversal of relative movement has been held to be an obvious modification and also may be considered a simple rearrangement of parts where the operation of the device is not modified {see MPEP 2144.04 VI A and C}. Additionally, double and single acting actuators are known where directionality of the force can be achieved in both directions {Holmes [0020]}. It is noted any 3D object extends in a direction perpendicular to the drawing direction with respect to the first frame.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartmann et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20060039790) hereinafter Hartmann in view of Pilichowska et al. (U.S Patent 11,732,613) hereinafter Pilichowska.
Regarding claim 7, Hartmann teaches a cylinder/piston arrangement applies load to the drawing portion {Figure 1 (28)/(30) applied load to (32); [0024]}.
Hartmann does not teach:
wherein a chipping hammer applies the load to the drawing portion.
Pilichowska pertains to gas turbine engine blade removal. Pilichowsha teaches:
wherein a chipping hammer applies the load to the drawing portion {A “vibrating hammer” is considered a chipping hammer and is how load is applied to the drawing portion; {Column 7 lines 61 – Column 8 line 34}.
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 a chipping hammer for the device to apply load to the drawing portion for the configuration of Hartmann as taught by Pilichowska. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as chipping hammers and cylinders to apply force are known alternative / substitutes {Pilichowska Column 7 lines 61 – Column 8 line 34}.
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
Prosecution Insights