DETAILED ACTION
Preliminary Amendment
Preliminary Amendment of 3 October 2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 1 recites “at least one hub socket” and also recites “the hub socket”; for claim terminology consistency purposes, the examiner recommends reciting “the at least one hub socket” throughout the claim after the limitation introduction.
Claim 1 further recites “this opening”; the examiner respectfully recommends reciting “the opening” to avoid potential claim issues.
Claim 1 further recites “an inner element” and also recites “the inner stop element”; for claim terminology consistency purposes, the examiner recommends reciting “the inner element” throughout the claim after the limitation introduction.
Claim 9 recites “the socket radial axis A”; the examiner respectfully recommends reciting “the socket radial axis”.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a device for clamp-locking the blade support or the blade root” in claim 1, “a system for retaining in position” in claim 7, “a clamping element” in claim 8, and “an eccentric system for controlling the pivoting” in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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 “which is positioned around this latter”; it is not clear to which element the “this latter” limitation refers to. The examiner respectfully recommends explicitly reciting what element is referred to by the “this latter” limitation.
Claim 1 further recites “and to retain it”; it is not clear to which element the “it” limitation refers to. The examiner respectfully recommends explicitly reciting what element is referred to by the “it” limitation.
Claim 1 further recites the limitations “the first bearing … the second bearing”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claims 2-11 depend from and/or include all the limitations of claim 1 and fail to remedy its deficiencies.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a longitudinal axis … a plurality of hub sockets … an opening … a blade force take-up device … a radial axis” and depends from claim 1 which recites “a longitudinal axis … at least one hub socket … an opening … a fan blade force take-up device … a radial axis”. It is not clear if the elements above as recited in claim 2 refer to the respective elements above as recited in claim 1 or to different and additional elements.
Claim 2 further recites “through the opening of this latter”; it is not clear to which element the “this latter” limitation refers to. The examiner respectfully recommends explicitly reciting what element is referred to by the “this latter” limitation.
Claim 4 recites “the inner bush” and depends from claim 1 which recites “the first bearing including an inner bush … the second bearing including an inner bush”; it is not clear to which inner bush the recitation in claim 4 refers to.
Claim 5 depends from claim 4 and fails to remedy its deficiencies.
Claim 6 recites the limitations “the clamping nut … the outer thread”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the rolling bearing assembly”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the outer bush”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites “wherein it includes”; it is not clear to which element the “it” limitation refers to. The examiner respectfully recommends explicitly reciting what element is referred to by the “it” limitation.
Clarification and/or amendment is respectfully requested.
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) 1-2 and 7 (as far as the claim(s) are definite and understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Godwin (US 5,415,527 A).
Regarding claim 1, Godwin teaches a variable-setting assembly (Fig.1-7) for a turbomachine fan (note that if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction, see MPEP 2111.02 II), comprising:
- a hub (2) extending circumferentially around a longitudinal axis (Fig.7, unlabeled axis) of rotation of the hub and which comprises at least one hub socket (1) internally delimiting an opening oriented radially in relation to the longitudinal axis (Fig.1/7),
- a fan blade force take-up device (Fig.1) which is attached in said at least one hub socket and intended to take up the forces of a fan blade mounted in said at least one hub socket,
-a fan blade support or a fan blade root (part of 9 within 1/10) which is able to pivot on command about a radial axis (Fig.1, unlabeled axis) passing through the radial opening of the hub socket and configured to be engaged through this opening (Fig.1), inside the blade force take-up device, and to then abut along the radial axis against an inner element (portion of 10 extending downwards from approximately where numeral 12 is located in Fig.1) of the blade force take-up device,
- a device for clamp-locking the blade support or the blade root (this element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a clamping nut to accomplish the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Godwin teaches 22) which is positioned around this latter, at a radially outward position with respect to a radially inward position, nearer to the longitudinal axis, of the inner stop element (Fig.1), and which is attached to the blade force take-up device in such a way as to clamp around the blade support or the blade root and to retain it abutting along the radial axis against the inner stop element (Fig.1),
the blade force take-up device comprising an intermediate interface part (portion of 10 from approximately the position where numeral 10 points to and upwards in Fig.1) which extends along the radial axis between a radially outward position and a radially inward position and which includes, at its radially outward position, the inner stop element (Fig.1), the blade support or the blade root including, on the one hand, an elongated part which extends along the radial axis (A) and which is disposed against at least one radial axis extension part of an inner surface of the intermediate interface part (Fig.1) and, on the other hand, a part (portion of 9 in direct contact with 10 which extends to the right in Fig.1) which extends transversely in relation to the radial axis and which is engaged against the inner stop element (Fig.1), the blade force take-up device comprising an assembly formed of at least one rolling bearing (19) in a radially outward position and a second rolling bearing (14) in a radially inward position, the first bearing including an inner bush (17) which extends along the radial axis and the second bearing including an inner bush (12) which extends along the radial axis, the intermediate interface part being clamped between the inner bushes of the two bearings (note portion of 10 between 12 and 17 in Fig.1).
Regarding claim 2, Godwin further teaches the hub extends circumferentially around a longitudinal axis of rotation of the hub and comprises a plurality of hub sockets (Fig.7) circumferentially distributed over an outer periphery of the hub, each hub socket internally delimiting an opening (Fig.1, see claim 1 above for more details) oriented radially in relation to the longitudinal axis and which is able to put a peripheral area radially outward of the hub socket (Fig.7), located away from the longitudinal axis, in communication with a peripheral area radially inward of the hub socket, which is nearer to the longitudinal axis, a blade force take-up device (Fig.1, see claim 1 above for more details) being configured to be put in place in each hub socket through the opening of this latter (Fig.1, see claim 1 above for more details), and clamped against an inner surface of the hub socket disposed substantially parallel to a radial axis passing through the radial opening of the hub socket (Fig.1, see claim 1 above for more details).
Regarding claim 7, Godwin further teaches the blade force take-up device comprises a system for retaining in position (this element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a key and circlip to accomplish the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Godwin teaches 42), and clamping by wedge effect, the rolling bearing assembly that is positioned level with the socket opening (Fig.1), in a radial position further from the longitudinal axis than the first rolling bearing (Fig.1).
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.
Claim(s) 9 (as far as the claim(s) are definite and understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Godwin in view of Orbon et al – hereafter Orbon – (US 20240351678 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Godwin teaches all the limitations of claim 1, see above, however, does not explicitly teach an eccentric system for controlling the pivoting of the blade support or of the blade root which is configured to control the pivoting of the blade support or of the blade root about the socket radial axis, the system including an engagement part configured to be engaged in an engagement position with a lower part of the blade support or of the blade root which is opposite an upper part of the blade support disposed in a radially outward position in relation to the radially inward position of the lower part. Note that Godwin discloses the variable-setting assembly allows to vary the pitch of the blades (column 1 line 14-15).
Orbon teaches a blade retention system for a variable pitch aircraft (abstract). Orbon further teaches an eccentric system for controlling the pivoting of a blade support or of a blade root (Fig.3-4) which is configured to control the pivoting of the blade support or of the blade root about a socket radial axis (Fig.4, ¶42/59/60), the system including an engagement part configured to be engaged in an engagement position with a lower part of the blade support or of the blade root which is opposite an upper part of the blade support disposed in a radially outward position in relation to the radially inward position of the lower part (Fig.4, ¶42/59/60).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the variable-setting assembly of Godwin by having an eccentric system for controlling the pivoting of the blade support or of the blade root which is configured to control the pivoting of the blade support or of the blade root about the socket radial axis, the system including an engagement part configured to be engaged in an engagement position with a lower part of the blade support or of the blade root which is opposite an upper part of the blade support disposed in a radially outward position in relation to the radially inward position of the lower part based on the teachings of Orbon because this would require a simple substitution of one known element (unspecified system for controlling of Godwin) for another (eccentric system for controlling of Orbon) to obtain predictable results (controlling/varying pitch of blades).
Claim(s) 10-11 (as far as the claim(s) are definite and understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kray et al – hereafter Kray – (US 20220372884 A1) in view of Godwin.
Regarding claim 10, Kray teaches a turbomachine fan (Fig.1A/1B), characterized in that it comprises a variable-setting assembly for a turbomachine fan (Fig.1A/1B; ¶53), however, does not explicitly teach the variable-setting assembly as claimed in claim 1.
Godwin teaches a variable-setting assembly as claimed in claim 1 (see above).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the turbomachine fan of Kray by having a variable-setting assembly as claimed in claim 1 based on the teachings of Godwin because this would require a simple substitution of one known element (variable-setting assembly of Kray) for another (variable-setting assembly of Godwin) to obtain predictable results (providing an assembly that would allow pitch control/variation while securely fastening the blades to a rotating machine hub).
Regarding claim 11, Kray and Godwin further teach a turbomachine (Kray Fig.1A/1B) comprising a fan as claimed in claim 10 (see claim 10 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 and 8 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The following claim limitations were not found in the prior art.
the inner bush of the first bearing comprises a part extending in a radially outward position and onto which the clamp-locking device is clamp-locked, the part of the inner bush having an inner thread on an inner surface oriented facing the blade support or the blade root, the clamp-locking device comprising a clamping nut in two parts disposed between the part of the inner bush and the blade support or the blade root, which is provided with an outer thread and is screwed onto the inner surface of the part of the inner bush by way of the two threads (as in the context of claim 3).
Godwin discloses a threaded connection of an outer bush with the clamp-locking device (Fig.1, 18/22), however, the claimed configuration recites the inner bush being threadedly connected to the clamp-locking device, and said clamp-locking device comprising a clamping nut in two parts which is different from Godwin’s configuration.
No other prior art reference was found that would anticipate or allow establishing a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the cited prior art above.
the clamping nut in two parts includes elements configured to ensure the alignment in the radial position of the two parts of the nut, one with respect to the other in order to ensure the alignment of the portions of the outer thread provided on the two parts of the nut (as in the context of claim 6).
Godwin discloses a clamp-locking device (Fig.1, 22), however, the claimed configuration recites a clamping nut in two parts with elements ensuring alignment of the two parts which is different from Godwin’s configuration.
No other prior art reference was found that would anticipate or allow establishing a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the cited prior art above.
a clamping element of the second rolling bearing is disposed in an outward transverse position in relation to this second bearing and the outer bush of the first rolling bearing bears on this clamping element (as in the context of claim 8).
None of Godwin, Orbon or Kray disclose the claimed clamping element of the second rolling bearing.
No other prior art reference was found that would anticipate or allow establishing a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the cited prior art above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN G FLORES whose telephone number is (571)272-3486. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:30pm Pacific Time.
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, Nathan E Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JUAN G FLORES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights