DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in response to the claims filed 10/20/2025.
Claims 1-10 are presented for examination. Preliminary amendment is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/20/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Congratel et al. in US Patent Application Publication 2016/0129497 (hereinafter “Congratel”).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Congratel discloses (paragraphs [0003]-[0006]; paragraph [0009]; paragraphs [0028]-[0039]; figures 1-8) discloses a turbomachine blade blank obtained by metal casting, having a first direction along which an airfoil, a platform 16 and a root 14 are successively formed, the platform extending in a second direction substantially perpendicular to the first direction (axially and circumferentially), the airfoil having a pressure side and a suction side connected to one another by a trailing edge and a leading edge, the root having retaining surfaces in the first direction of the blade in rotation that are intended to cooperate with corresponding surfaces of a turbomachine disc to radially hold the root during rotation (figures 1-8; the blade root retains the blade in a disk), characterized in that the blade blank comprises at least one shroud 26 (or 28) extending in a third direction substantially perpendicular to the first and second directions, this shroud connecting a retaining surface to the platform in the first direction (paragraphs [0003]-[0006]; paragraph [0009] and paragraphs [0028]-[0039]; figures 1-8, shroud 26 and 28). Speaking to claim 8, the process pouring liquid metal of Congratel meets the method steps of claim 8 at least because Congratel discloses forming a shell mold, orienting the shell mold, and pouring liquid metal into the mold, and the terms “low” and “high” used in the claim may be broadly interpreted as simple relative positions.
Regarding claim 2, Congratel discloses shroud 26 is formed at an upstream end of the root (abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Congratel discloses shroud 26 is formed on the same side as the suction side face or the pressure side face of the blade (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Congratel discloses the blade blank according to claim 1, wherein the root comprises, on the same side as the suction-side face or the pressure-side face of the blade, in the first direction, a first retaining surface 40 and a second retaining surface 44, the first retaining surface 40 being positioned along the first direction between the platform 16 and the second retaining surface 44, the shroud 26 connecting the first retaining surface 40 to the platform 16 (note that “retaining surface” is reasonably interpreted as any part of the blade root as all of the blade root “retains” the blade).
Regarding claim 5, Congratel discloses the blade blank according to claim 1, wherein the shroud 26 has a concave first curved face facing upstream in the second direction (axially; see Fig. 3; surface 26 has a concave transition down to portion 44 that may be mapped to the claimed concave first curved face facing upstream).
Regarding claim 6, Congratel discloses the blade blank according to claim 5, wherein the shroud has a convex second curved face facing downstream in the second direction (the opposite axial side of the blade root as applied against claim 5 may be mapped against claim 6; see Fig. 3; element 28 is downstream and part of the shroud).
Regarding claim 10, Congratel discloses removing the shroud from the blank in order to obtain the blade (the blade structure must necessarily be removed from the blank in order to obtain the final product and put it to use in an engine).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Congratel alone.
Regarding claim 9, Congratel does not explicitly disclose a plurality of shell molds are distributed circumferentially around an axis parallel to the first direction for the blade blank of each of the molds. However, the Court has held that mere duplication of parts has no patentably significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04. Here, a claim to molding multiple blades with molds like that of Congratel fails to patentably distinguish over Congratel alone. This is particularly true in light of the fact that molding multiple parts at one time, instead of one by one, is common industry practice. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed multiple molds like that of Congratel at the same time in order to mold multiple blades simultaneously and produce more blades in less than molding each blade one after the other in the same mold.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art of record, either alone or in combination, is silent to the blade blank according to claim 1, wherein the platform comprises a reinforcing portion for the connection to the shroud, said reinforcing portion extending in the third direction and having a longitudinal face, a thickness of the shroud being between 0.2 and 0.8 times a thickness of the longitudinal face of the upstream reinforcing portion. Congratel, applied above and considered the closest art of record, is silent any equivalent specific shroud and reinforcing portion longitudinal face thickness ratios.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Relevant Prior Art:
US2013/0101429 disclose a molded gas turbine engine blade having a root with similar structure to that instantly claimed.
US2010/0111700 discloses a turbine blade with a root having multiple fir tree engagement surfaces and webbing between the blade root and blade platform.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELDON T BROCKMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3263. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm EST.
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, Court 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.
/ELDON T BROCKMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights