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 .
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.
Claim 8 is 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 8 recites “the radially outer portion has a yield strength of about 150 ksi at 1,000 degrees F” while claim 1 requires “the radially outer portion has a yield strength of about 135 ksi at 1,000 degrees F”. This brings a contradiction that makes the scope unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 4-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wessman (EP 2530181 A1) in view of Ortiz (EP 2466071 A2).
Re Claim 1, 8-10, as best understood, Wessman discloses a turbine rotor disk (para. 17), comprising: a radially inner portion comprising a [wrought] nickel alloy having a yield strength of at least 126 ksi at 1,000 degrees F (para. 16: Inconel); and a radially outer portion bonded to the radially inner portion, said radially outer portion comprising a cast nickel alloy configured with a grain size of ASTM 2 or larger (para. 17, 23, 28-29), the radially outer portion joined to the radially inner portion by an inertia bond (para. 29), wherein a plurality of attachments for blades are attached to the radially outer portion at a rim of the turbine rotor disk (para. 3). Wessman discloses using nickel alloys which can be certain nickel-base superalloys under the trademark Inconel as well as other nickel alloys. Wessman does not disclose radially inner portion comprising nickel alloy having a yield strength of at least 126 ksi at 1,000 degrees F, the radially inner portion comprises one of Inconel 718, Waspaloy, a powder-based alloy, IN-100 or a combination thereof and the radially outer portion has a yield strength of about 135 ksi at 1,000 degrees F, the radially outer portion has a yield strength of about 150 ksi at 1,000 degrees F, the radially outer portion comprises one of Mar-M-200, Mar-M-247, Rene 80, Rene 125, CMSX-4 or a combination thereof. However, Ortiz teaches using Inconel 718 for a similar component (hub and/or ring; para. 17) which is a nickel alloy having a yield strength of at least 126 ksi at 1,000 degrees F (see instant specification) and teaches using MAR-M-247 for a similar component (hub and/or ring; para. 17) which is a nickel alloy having a yield strength of about 135/150 ksi at 1,000 degrees F (see instant specification). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize nickel alloy with these properties, as taught by Ortiz, for the purpose of ensuring high strength at elevated temperatures and since Wessman discloses use of Inconel materials and other nickel alloys and also since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Furthermore, the claimed phase "wrought" is being treated as a product-by-process limitation and since it has been held that a product-by-process limitation is not construed as being limited to the product formed by the specific process recited, therefore, even though Wessman is silent as to the process used to form one deflection point, Wessman's product meets the claimed structural limitations.
Re Claim 4, Wessman discloses the radially outer portion has a grain size of ASTM 1 or larger (para. 17, 23, 28-29).
Re Claim 5, Wessman discloses the radially outer portion has a grain size of ASTM 0 or larger (para. 17, 23, 28-29).
Re Claim 6, Wessman discloses the radially inner portion includes a bore of the turbine rotor disk, and the radially outer portion includes the rim of the turbine rotor disk (para. 3, 17, 23, 28-29).
Re Claim 7, Wessman discloses a gas turbine engine comprising a compressor, a combustor, and a turbine disposed along an air flow path, the gas turbine engine including the turbine rotor disk of claim 1 (para. 3).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wessman in view of Ortiz, in further view of Jenkel (US 5,113,583).
Re Claim 11, Wessman does not disclose the radially outer portion is joined to the radially inner portion at a joint that is at an angle to a rotational axis of the turbine rotor disk. However, Jenkel teaches an angled joint 42 (Fig. 2, 7). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize an angled joint, as taught by Jenkel, for the purpose of obtaining a desired geometry component and since an angled joint could easily be formed on the component as it would merely require a different shape of the joining surfaces and also since it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the component of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Aplicant argues that Ortiz is cited as teaching that a hub of a rotor can be made of Inconel 718, which the examiner alleges has a yield strength of at least 126 ksi at 1,000°F. Without agreeing with the examiner, Applicant submits that Ortiz does not teach a specified yield strength for the radially outer portion. Thus, Ortiz does not teach or suggest the feature of wherein the radially outer portion has a yield strength of about 135 ksi at 1,000°F, as specified in amended claim 1. Applicant therefore submits that Wessman and Ortiz, either alone or in any combination, do not teach or suggest at least this feature of amended claim 1. Accordingly, Applicant submits that claim 1 as amended is patentable over Wessman, Ortiz and the prior art of record. Claims 4-7 are dependent from claim 1 and are therefore patentable over Wessman, Ortiz and the prior art of record for at least the reasons presented with respect to claim 1. -In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the rejection has been adjusted to correspond to the newly amended claims and Examiner contends that Ortiz does teach these limitations as well, as described in more detail above. The rejections are upheld.
All other of Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4-11 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
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 RYAN J WALTERS whose telephone number is (571)270-5429. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/Ryan J. Walters/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights