DETAILED ACTION
Status
Claims 12-13 and 16-23 are pending. Claim 12 is amended. Claims 14-15 are cancelled. Claim 23 is new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-7, filed 5/27/26, with respect to the combination of references used under 35 U.S.C. §103 in view of amended claim 12 with respect to the added limitation requiring “the indentation having a depth comprised between 0.1 and 0.5 mm” have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Applicant argues “With the definition of the depth indentation and the manner in which the anti-wear material extends (according to amended independent claim 12), the anti-wear material deposited in the indentation has a greater thickness than that of the anti-wear material of known devices. This guarantees a better anti-wear material strength and durability. See originally filed specification of application, at least page 2, lines 27-29, page 3, lines 1-8, and page 8, lines 14-29.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e.,”greater thickness that that of the anti-wear material of known devices”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, the claim nor the specification disclose any information regarding the depth or thickness of the anti-wear material of a “known device”. Additionally, while the instant specification equates the “depth” claimed with a “thickness” of the anti-wear material, the claim also requires “the anti-wear material extending beyond the azimuthal contact surface”. The “depth” claimed is defined as the depth of the indentation made in the azimuthal contact surface. Therein it is unclear if the argued “thickness” includes this extra amount of anti-wear material extending beyond the azimuthal contact surface or not. In any case, the argument is not persuasive. Additionally, while Applicant’s citations in the specification mention the depth and provide support for the range of depth claimed of 0.1 to 0.5 mm. The cited portions do not provide sufficient criticality to the range, or provide evidence of any unexpected result within the range. The specification is silent regarding any specific improvements, benefits, or unexpected results within the range. As such, the rationale used in the rejection of original claim 15 is maintained and applied to amended claim 1 below. A similar rationale is applied to new claim 23.
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 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.
Claim(s) 12-13, 16, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duffen et al. (US 2019/0063232) in view of Frischbier (WO 2014/023425) and in further view of Mohr et al. (US 7771171), hereinafter: “Duffen”, “Frischbier”, and “Mohr”, respectively.
In Reference to Claim 12
Duffen teaches:
A moving blade(46) of a nickel-based or cobalt-based alloy(P[0026]), for a turbojet turbine(10; P[0018]), comprising an airfoil(46; P[0022]) and at least one bead(72) at a distal end(tip 70) of the airfoil(P[0023]), the bead having at least one azimuthal contact surface(78) with another directly adjacent blade(P[0023]), a hard abrasion-resistant material(90, 92; P[0025]), called an anti-wear material(90, 92; P[0024], P[0025]), being deposited on at least one azimuthal contact surface(Fig 3-5; P[0024], P[0029]), the blade being characterized in that an indentation(82) is made in said at least one azimuthal contact surface(Fig 5; P[0024]), said indentation having a substantially flat bottom wall(Fig 5), the indentation having a depth(as clearly shown in Fig 5, the indentation has a depth), the anti-wear material being deposited in the indentation in a liquid, solid or pasty state and formed in-situ(Fig 5; P[0024], P[0025], P[0029] - a liquid state (flame spraying process), solid state (preformed puck), or pasty state (building up layers of weld material); each of these deposition methods are “in-situ” processes as the anti-wear material is deposited in the indentation on the azimuthal contact surface of the blade), and the at least one azimuthal contact surface has a plurality of successive facets defining a chevron-shaped profile(clearly shown in Fig 3-6)
Furthermore, the limitation “being deposited in the indentation in a liquid, solid, or pasty state and formed in-situ” is a product-by-process limitation. Regarding the limitation " being deposited in the indentation in a liquid, solid, or pasty state and formed in-situ” above, in accordance with MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product (in this case the anti-wear material), does not depend on its method of production (i.e. in-situ formation in a liquid, solid or pasty state), In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985). Further, where a product by process claim is rejected over a prior art product that appears to be identical, although produced by a different process, the burden is upon the applicants to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the two. See In re Maoris, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983) Additionally, it has been held in re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972). “[I]t is the patentability of the product claimed (in this case the anti-wear material) and not of the recited process steps (in this case in-situ formation in a liquid, solid or pasty state) which must be established. We are therefore of the opinion that when the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith.” (see MPEP 2113).
Duffen fails to explicitly teach:
The blade being made of a titanium and aluminum alloy, said indentation having filets or chamfers connecting the bottom wall to the azimuthal contact surface, the depth between 0.1 and 0.5 mm, and wherein each azimuthal contact surface comprising one anti-wear material per facet and the anti-wear material extending beyond the azimuthal contact surface.
However, Duffen further teaches the anti-wear material may be positioned at multiple discrete locations in the azimuthal contact surface and can be distributed across the azimuthal contact surface(P[0025]). Duffen further teaches it is preferable that all contact occurs at the fretting surfaces 92 and does not occur in other regions of the azimuthal contact surface(P[0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Duffen to position the anti-wear material in each facet of the azimuthal contact surface to prevent fretting wear across the entire azimuthal contact surface where contact may occur.
Duffen as modified above still fails to teach:
the blade being made of a titanium and aluminum alloy, said indentation having filets or chamfers connecting the bottom wall to the azimuthal contact surface, and the anti-wear material extending beyond the azimuthal contact surface
Frischbier teaches:
An analogous turbine blade being made of a titanium and aluminum alloy(P[0020], P[0033).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Duffen to incorporate the teachings of Frischbier to construct the turbine blades from a titanium-aluminum alloy because it is merely the selection of an art known material suitable for the construction of a turbine blade for turbojet engines.
In further support of this position, the selection of a known material to make an
abradable layer gas turbine casing liner prior to the invention was held to be
obvious see In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Duffen in view of Frischbier fails to teach:
said indentation having filets or chamfers connecting the bottom wall to the azimuthal contact surface and the anti-wear material extending beyond the azimuthal contact surface, the depth comprised between 0.1 and 0.5 mm.
Mohr teaches:
An analogous turbine blade(102) having anti-wear material(211) inserted into a pocket(212) of an azimuthal contact surface(200, 206) wherein the anti-wear material extends beyond the azimuthal contact surface(Col 5, ln. 1-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Duffen in view of Frischbier and Cai to incorporate the teachings of Mohr to dimension the anti-wear material to extend beyond the azimuthal contact surface to allow for a greater percentage of physical contact to be absorbed, leading to better protection of the areas of the azimuthal contact surface without anti-wear material(Col 5, ln. 1-9).
Duffen in view of Frischbier and Mohr fails to teach:
said indentation having filets or chamfers connecting the bottom wall to the azimuthal contact surface and the depth comprised between 0.1 and 0.5 mm.
However, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the indentation of Duffen in view of Frischbier and Mohr to have having filets or chamfers connecting the bottom wall to the azimuthal contact surface in an attempt to smooth the transition between the bottom wall and azimuthal contact surface to eliminate the sharp corner, which reduces stress concentrations and facilitates assembly with the anti-wear material.
Furthermore, Examiner notes that while Applicant’s specification mentions filets or chamfers connecting bottom wall to the azimuthal contact surface (Page 5), the specification fails to give any criticality to the filet or chamfer configuration, or provide evidence of any unexpected result or benefit with the claimed configuration. Since the applicant has not disclosed that having an indentation having filets or chamfers connecting bottom wall to the azimuthal contact surface solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and it appears that the indentation of Duffen in view of Frischbier and Mohr would perform equally well, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to further modify the indentation of Duffen in view of Frischbier and Mohr by reshaping the intersection of the bottom wall and the azimuthal contact surface to produce filets or chamfers as claimed which would yield predictable results. In this case, the predictable result would be an indentation having filets or chamfers connecting bottom wall to the azimuthal contact surface assembly it is being used thereby providing a receiving surface the anti-wear material.
Additionally, Examiner notes that while Applicant’s specification mentions a preference of a depth range between 0.1 and 0.5 mm on pages 3 and 5, the specification fails to give criticality to the range, or provide evidence of any unexpected result within the range. The specification is silent regarding any specific improvements, benefits, or unexpected results within the range.
The Court has held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP §2144.05 II A for further clarification). In In re Aller, a claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be obvious over a prior art process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.
Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Duffen in view of Frischbier and Mohr to use a depth between 0.1 and 0.5 mm because such a modification would have been considered a mere design optimization which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
In Reference to Claim 13
Duffen in view of Frischbier and Mohr teaches:
The blade according to claim 12(see rejection of claim 12 above), characterized in that the anti-wear material is flush with the indentation(Fig 5 of Duffen, the anti-wear material is flush with the walls of the recess/indentation; P[0029]).
In Reference to Claim 16
Duffen in view of Frischbier and Mohr teaches:
A moving wheel(38) for a turbojet turbine(10; P[0018] of Duffen) comprising a plurality of blades according to claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above), positioned circumferentially(array of turbine blades are positioned circumferentially adjacent one another; P[0022] of Duffen), wherein an anti-wear material(90,92) of least one azimuthal contact surface(78) of each blade is in contact with an anti-wear material(90,92) of at least one azimuthal contact surface(78) of an adjacent blade(each blade has an azimuthal contact surface in contact with an azimuthal contact surface of an adjacent blade, wherein all contact between adjacent blades occurs at the fretting surface 92; P[0022]-P[0024], P[0031] of Duffen).
In Reference to Claim 23
Duffen in view of Frischbier and Mohr teaches:
The blade according to claim 12(see rejection of claim 12 above), wherein each indentation has a depth(as clearly shown in Fig 5, the indentation has a depth)
Duffen in view of Frischbier and Mohr fails to teach:
the depth substantially equal to 0.25 mm.
However, Examiner notes that while Applicant’s specification mentions a preference of a depth substantially equal to 0.25 mm on page 5, the specification fails to give criticality to the range, or provide evidence of any unexpected result within the range. The specification is silent regarding any specific improvements, benefits, or unexpected results within the range.
The Court has held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP §2144.05 II A for further clarification). In In re Aller, a claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be obvious over a prior art process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.
Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Duffen in view of Frischbier and Mohr to use a depth substantially equal to 0.25 mm because such a modification would have been considered a mere design optimization which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Further, The Court has held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), see MPEP §2144.04 IV A for further clarification).
In Gardner v TEC Syst., Inc., Gardner received a patent for an apparatus used to
dry ink applied to high-gloss papers by supporting the paper with wet ink over a field of
static air. The applied prior art taught the claimed apparatus except for dimensional
limitations. The trial Court held the opinion that the dimensional limitations had no
impact on the function of the apparatus and no evidence was shown that departing from
the claimed dimensions would cause the apparatus to fail.
In the instant case, Duffen in view of Frischbier and Mohr teaches an indentation having a an inherent depth defined by a length from a first end to the opposite second end.
The examiner notes that while Applicant’s specification mentions a preference of a depth substantially equal to 0.25 mm on page 5, the specification fails to give criticality to the dimension, or provide evidence of any unexpected result. The specification is silent regarding any specific improvements, benefits, or unexpected results and there is not an explanation of criticality for any particular depth or an explanation for the size and
scale of the turbine engine, the moving blade or the azimuthal contact surface.
It would have been it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Duffen in view of Frischbier and Mohr to use a depth substantially equal to 0.25 mm for the purpose of being provide a sufficient amount of anti-wear material depending on the expected amount of wear and the size and scale of the turbine engine and its components.
Claim(s) 17 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duffen in view of Frischbier in view of Mohr and in further view of in view of Cai et al. (CN 108453332 A), hereinafter: “Cai” and Twomey et al. (US 20170144270), hereinafter: “Twomey”. The provided English translation of Cai to be referenced hereinafter.
In Reference to Claims 17 and 20
Duffen in view of Frischbier and Mohr teaches:
A method of manufacturing a blade according claim 12(see rejection of claim 12 above), the method being characterized in that it comprises the steps of:
(a) manufacturing the blade comprising the bead(Fig 3-5; P[0026]),
(b) creating the indentation in the at least one azimuthal contact surface of the bead(P[0027),
(c) in-situ forming of the anti-wear material by deposition of the anti-wear material in a liquid, solid or pasty state in the indentation(P[0029] - a liquid state (flame spraying process), solid state (preformed puck), or pasty state (building up layers of weld material); each of these deposition methods are “in-situ” processes as the anti-wear material is deposited in the indentation on the azimuthal contact surface of the blade).
Duffen in view of Frischbier, and Mohr fails to teach:
obtaining a roughness of the indentation of 2-4 μm and sandblasting the indentation to achieve the desired roughness
Cai teaches:
An analogous surface preparation method for titanium alloy based turbine blades(P[0002], P[0008]) that comprises a phase of effecting the surface of the substrate so that it has a roughness comprised between 2 and 4 μm(roughness of 3.2 μm; P[0047]) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Duffen in view of Frischbier and Mohr to prepare the surface of the indentation to a roughness between 2 and 4 μm to properly increase the titanium alloy substrate surface roughness, which helps improve wettability, increases contact area, increases capillary action of molten solder and ultimately improves the performance of the brazed joint(P[0047]).
Duffen in view of Frischbier, Mohr and Cai fail to teach:
sandblasting the indentation to achieve the desired roughness
Twomey teaches:
A method of preparing a titanium substrate(P[0050]) by sandblasting(P[0002], P[0003], P[0018], P[0047]) to receive a corrosion-inhibiting material via brazing(P[0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Duffen, Frischbier, Mohr and Cai to incorporate the teachings of Twomey to utilize the known technique of sandblasting to achieve a desired surface roughness within the indentations to enhance mechanical bonding between the substrate indentations and the anti-wear material(P[0032]).
In Reference to Claim 21
Duffen in view of Frischbier, Mohr, Cai and Twomey teaches:
The method according to claim 17(see rejection of claim 17 above), wherein step (c) comprises a phase of plasma spraying of the anti-wear material into the indentation(P[0029] of Duffen).
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duffen in view of Frischbier, Mohr, Cai, Twomey and Official Notice (now applicant admitted prior art – see previous office action mailed 4/7/2025).
In Reference to Claims 18 and 19
Duffen in view of Frischbier, Mohr, Cai, and Twomey teaches:
The method according to claim 17(see rejection of claim 17 above), wherein step (b) comprises a phase of machining the indentation by electrical discharge or milling the indentation(P[0027]; conventional machining).
Official Notice is taken that using electrical discharge machining and milling are examples of conventional machining and old and well established in the business of turbomachines and is asserted to be a well-known expedient or common knowledge by those of skill in compressor art for their use in manufacturing turbine blades. Further, use of which is capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known so as to defy dispute as demonstrated by the art of record. MPEP 2144.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a phase of machining the indentation by electrical discharge or milling the indentation for the purposes of making the indentation.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duffen in view of Frischbier in view of Mohr and in further view of in view of Cai.
In Reference to Claim 22
Duffen in view of Frischbier and Mohr teaches:
The blade according claim 12(see rejection of claim 12 above),
Duffen in view of Frischbier and Mohr fail to teach:
wherein the indentation has a roughness comprised between 2 and 4 μm
Cai teaches:
An analogous surface preparation method for titanium alloy based turbine blades(P[0002], P[0008]) that comprises a phase of effecting the surface of the substrate so that it has a roughness comprised between 2 and 4 μm(roughness of 3.2 μm; P[0047]) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Duffen in view of Frischbier and Mohr to prepare the surface of the indentation to a roughness between 2 and 4 μm to properly increase the titanium alloy substrate surface roughness, which helps improve wettability, increases contact area, increases capillary action of molten solder and ultimately improves the performance of the brazed joint(P[0047]).
Regarding the limitation “achieved by sandblasting”, this is a product-by-process limitation. In accordance with MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product (in this case the indentation roughness), does not depend on its method of production (i.e., sand blasting), In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985). Further, where a product by process claim is rejected over a prior art product that appears to be identical, although produced by a different process, the burden is upon the applicants to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the two. See In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
Additionally, it has been held in re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972). “[I]t is the patentability of the product claimed (in this case the indentation roughness) and not of the recited process steps (in this case achieved by sand blasting) which must be established. We are therefore of the opinion that when the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith.” (see MPEP 2113).
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 BRIAN P WOLCOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-9837. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at 571-270-1775. 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.
/BRIAN P WOLCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights