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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/1/2026 has been entered.
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, 12-13 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, 13, Wessman discloses a turbine rotor disk (para. 17), comprising: a radially inner portion comprising a nickel alloy having a yield strength (para. 16: Inconel); 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), and a plurality of attachments for blades attached to the radially outer portion at a rim of the turbine rotor disk (para. 3), wherein the radially outer portion is joined to the radially inner portion by an inertia bond at a joint (para. 29: “separate preforms could be produced for the rim, bore and/or web, which then undergo a joining process, such as inertia welding… to yield a profile having rim, bore and web portions joined by one or more solid-state joints”) and wherein the joint is a solid state weld joint (para. 29). 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), where these nickel alloys have a yield strength of about 135 and 150 ksi at 1,000 degrees F (see instant specification). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize these nickel alloys 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.
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).
Re Claim 12, Wessman discloses the joint contains elements from metal alloys of each of the radially outer portion and the radially inner portion (para. 29; implicit).
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 Tolbert (PGPub 2011/0194940).
Re Claim 11, Wessman does not disclose the joint that is at an angle to a rotational axis of the turbine rotor disk. However, Tolbert teaches a joint that is at an angle to a rotational axis of the turbine rotor disk (Fig. 1-4; para. 16-21). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a joint that is at an angle to a rotational axis of the turbine rotor disk, as taught by Tolbert, for the purpose of providing a contact (draft) angle that facilitates assembling and mating of the annular-shaped rim preform 22 within the hub preform 24 (para. 20) and since the angle will make it easier to line the components up accurately 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 4/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the incremental forging process of Wessman does not teach the claimed joining process and goes into detail about the forging process of Wessman as well as arguing that Ortiz also does not teach the joining steps claimed. -In response, Examiner respectfully notes that the rejection relies on the joining process described in para. 29 of Wessman, as explained above, thus Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive as they do not address the rejections being applied. Additionally, note that the rejection has been adjusted to correspond to the newly amended claims. The rejections are upheld.
All other of Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4-13 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
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