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 .
Claims 1-5, 9-16, 18, and 20-26 are currently pending. Claims 1-5, 9-16, 18, and 20-26 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 9 of the remarks, filed February 19, 2026, with respect to the objection of Claim 23 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of amendments. The objection of Claim 23 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Pg. 9-12 of the remarks, filed with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the discussion of Munson (US 2008/0190700 A1) and Metal Foams, it is not the Office’s position to provide metal foam as suggested by the arguments. The limitation addressed refers to the dimensions of the annular lattice structure for the centrifugal breather. Munson and Metal Foams provide teachings which evidence the appropriate size of cells that are usable for centrifugal breathers using a routine optimization type rationale. The portions of the present application cited by Applicant, which discuss why metal foam as a material is not desirable, have no relation with respect to the cell size within the foam. Rather, they refer to other properties of metal foam, such as the frontal surface formed during high speeds.
Metal foam does have an internal lattice structure forming cells of particular sizes (see Retimet grade examples on Pg.2 of Metal Foams). Applicant’s interpretation appears to conflate the term “lattice” in general with the lattice of the instant application that includes additional features. The limiting of pressure losses is unclear, as this is a comparative phrase. For instance, is foam compared to an empty space considered limiting pressure loss, even if it is not to a degree as desirable as in the instant application? Other features that are not the size of the cells of the claimed annular lattice are addressed by other references. Limitation (c) has been addressed by McCune (US 2016/0298751 A1) as noted in Pg. 7-8 of the Non-Final Rejection. Determination of obviousness depends upon what the teachings the combination of references would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art, so each reference individually does not need to teach all the limitations.
Applicant asserts Munson and Metal Foams teach away from the claimed dimensions, but it is unclear how they would teach away when they specifically disclose dimensions close to or within the claimed dimensions (Retimet, Pg. 2 as explained in Pg. 8 of the Non-Final Rejection).
Regarding limitations (e) to (g), the respectively claimed parts are already known to be different suitable materials as taught by Fortini et al. (US 2015/0377080 A1) and McCune (see Pg. 5-6 of the Non-Final Rejection). The modification by McCune was explained to result in the additively manufactured component and eliminate the need for a nut as explained on Pg. 7 of the Non-Final Rejection. McCune describes the attachment formed from additively manufacturing one part to another as being “essentially laser welded” to [0055]. In other words, it is already firmly attached and has no other fasteners present as resulting from the modification. It is unclear why one of ordinary skill would further require the clamped nut portion for fixing when the combination already results in fixed components.
The teachings of McCune do not need to be of a centrifugal breather to be applicable. The teachings of McCune relate to general manufacturing techniques, particularly relating to rotary components. Applicant’s addition argument on Pg. 12 discussing the replacement of Nifenecker with additive manufacturing and the interface of other embodiments of McCune are unclear, as it is unclear how they are related and the conclusory statement of “without mechanical interlock (112) or bond layer (114)” does not appear to relate to any claim limitations of the independent claims, i.e. the conclusory statement appears to be directed towards features not claimed. Further, these are in fact, optional as denoted by what the interface “may” be (McCune, [0055]).
Claim Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 26, Lines 21 recites “to milit the pressure losses”. The term “milit” is believed to be a typographical error of “limit”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 9-15, and 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nifenecker et al. (WO 2019/063458 A1), hereinafter Nifenecker, in view of Fortini et al. (US 2015/0377080 A1), hereinafter Fortini, McCune (US 2016/0298751 A1), hereinafter McCune, Munson (US 2008/0190700 A1), hereinafter Munson, and “Metal Foams in Aerospace”, hereinafter “Metal Foams”. A copy of Nifenecker was provided with the IDS filed July 19, 2023. References to the text of Nifenecker will refer to the Machine Translation provided with the action of February 15, 2024. A copy of “Metal Foams” is provided with the action of December 18, 2025.
Regarding Claim 1, Figure 1 of Nifenecker teaches a rotor for a centrifugal breather for a turbomachine air/oil mixture (see paragraph [0021-0022]), said rotor comprising: a hollow shaft (15) extending along an axis (X) and defining an internal air circulation cavity after separation of said mixture (see F1), the hollow shaft (15) extending axially between a first portion (portion from right end to where 18 and 15 connect) and a pinion (18), said pinion (18) for rotating the hollow shaft (15), said pinion (18) extending radially about the axis (X), the pinion (18) and the first portion of the hollow shaft (15) being formed in one piece and in a first material, and an annular lattice structure (1) extending around the axis (X) and secured in rotation to the hollow shaft (15), the annular lattice structure (1) forming an annular shell (3) which extends around the hollow shaft (15) and is disposed radially outer in respect to the axis (X) of said hollow shaft (15), said annular lattice structure (1) and a second portion (13) of the hollow shaft (15) being formed in one piece, and the annular lattice structure (1) configured to ensure a centrifugal separation of said mixture [0027, 0056-0057, 0064, 0082]. Paragraph [0058] describes the structure (1), comprising (2, 3, 5), is formed by additive manufacture and is shown in one piece in the figure. Any portion adjacent and connected to the shaft portion (15) is interpretable as a second portion. Paragraph [0083] describes the portions (13, 14) providing connection with the shaft portion.
Nifenecker does not expressly teach a first material chosen from a steel hardenable by case-hardening or nitriding thermal treatment as claimed. However, such a material would have been obvious in view of McCune.
Figure 6 of McCune teaches a structure with a pinion, wherein the portion with teeth (104A) is made of gear steel, such as AMS6265 [0054]. As noted in MPEP 2144.07, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie case of obviousness. There does not appear to be any further structure required of the steel which allows or prevents a hardening treatment from being attempted, i.e. merely being a steel allows it to receive treatment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotor taught by Nifenecker such that the first material is an AMS6265 steel, which is a steel hardenable by case hardening as exemplified by McCune, since the use of known materials for their suitability for their intended purposes would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Nifenecker does not expressly teach the annular lattice structure made of stainless steel as claimed. However, stainless steel would have been obvious in view of Fortini.
Figure 2A of Fortini teaches a structure with a lattice (527) intended to act as a separator for oil. Lattice (527) may be made of a variety of materials considered suitable for separating lubricating oil, including stainless steel [0045]. Thus, Fortini teaches stainless steel is suitable for use in applications of the claimed lattice. As noted in MPEP 2144.07, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie case of obviousness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotor taught by Nifenecker-McCune such that the annular lattice structure is made of stainless steel as exemplified by Fortini, since the use of known materials for their suitability for their intended purposes would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Nifenecker does not expressly teach the annular lattice structure secured in rotation to the hollow shaft without a nut, wherein said annular lattice structure is secured to the hollow shaft by an additive manufacture of the annular lattice structure directly on at least one annular surface of the pinion which forms at least one annular support surface for the additive manufacture, wherein the hollow shaft, the pinion and the annular lattice structure form an integral structure, and wherein the annular lattice structure and the hollow shaft are in a non-removable connection as claimed. However, such an additive manufacture would have been obvious in view of McCune.
Figure 6 of McCune teaches an assembly wherein a structure (104B) is secured by an additive manufacture of the structure (104B) directly on at least one surface (at 110) of a pinion (104A) which forms at least one support surface (110) for the additive manufacture, which form an integral structure, and wherein the structure (104B) is in a non-removable connection. The additive manufacturing allows for conventional manufacture of the teeth portion (100) of the pinion and connects the two portions (104A, 104B), since the additive manufacturing process essentially laser welds the portions together [0055]. As can be seen in McCune, the sufficiency of the attachment allows for it to occur without a nut between the two portions (104A, 104B). Paragraph [0058] of Nifenecker describes the structure (1), comprising (2, 3, 5), is formed by additive manufacture. As seen in Figure 1 of Nifenecker, the surface interfacing between structure (1) and the pinion (18) is an annular surface of (18) (where cross-hatching of 1 and 18 meet). Therefore, the combination of teachings would place the securement at that annular surface. The pinion (18) of Nifenecker is also one piece with the hollow shaft (15), thus the additive manufacture as modified will form all of the hollow shaft (15), the pinion (18), and the annular lattice structure (1) as an integral structure that is in a non-removable connection.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the rotor taught by Nifenecker-McCune-Fortini with the annular lattice structure secured in rotation to the hollow shaft without a nut, wherein said annular lattice structure is secured to the hollow shaft by an additive manufacture of the annular lattice structure directly on at least one annular surface of the pinion which forms at least one annular support surface for the additive manufacture, and wherein the hollow shaft, the pinion and the annular lattice structure form an integral structure, and wherein the annular lattice structure and the hollow shaft are in a non-removable connection as suggested by McCune, to provide the benefit of connecting the structure to the pinion by an essentially laser weld-like connection that is sufficient without any further attaching elements.
Nifenecker does not expressly teach the annular lattice structure comprising cells or strands of lattice having dimensions between 0.4 mm and 0.7 mm in diameter as claimed. However, such a size would have been obvious in view of Munson and “Metal Foams”.
Figures 1-2 of Munson teach the usage of metal foam (24) in a turbomachine. Particularly, the size of the cells affects the lubricant flow which occurs. The selection of the exact size involves complex flow dynamics and should be selected based on the conditions of each operating environment [0017]. Thus, the cell size is known to be a results-effective variable, to which one of ordinary skill would routinely optimize (see MPEP 2144.05, II). “Metal Foams” is provided to evidence an optimization to within the claimed range is within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill. “Metal Foams” discusses the usage of a metal foam material called Retimet that is useful in oil separation applications such as in centrifugal breathers (Pg. 3-4, particularly first figure of Pg. 4).The middle of Pg. 2 explains Retimet comes in three grades, 10, 20, 45, 80 which roughly approximates to cell sizes of 0.1, 0.05, 0.0222, 0.0125 inches, respectively. Note the claimed range of 0.4 mm and 0.7 mm is roughly between 0.0157 and 0.0276 inches. Thus, the dimensions (the 45 and 80 grade) of cells known to be appropriate for usage as centrifugal breathers are close to or within the claimed range. This evidences an optimization to within the claimed range would have been obvious, since there already exists lattices with cells that are close to or within the claimed range with suitable cell sizes for breathers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the rotor taught by Nifenecker-McCune-Fortini with the annular lattice structure comprising cells or strands of lattice having dimensions between 0.4 mm and 0.7 mm in diameter as exemplified by Munson-“Metal Foams”, since one of ordinary skill would routinely optimize the diameter of the cells to obtain a desired lubricant flow through the lattice pending the desired application. For breather applications, the claimed diameter contains or is close to dimensions of lattices already known to be suitable for use in breathers.
Regarding Claim 2, Nifenecker, McCune, Fortini, Munson, and “Metal Foams” teach the rotor as set forth in Claim 1.
Figure 1 of Nifenecker teaches wherein the pinion (18) is located at a longitudinal end of said first portion (right end to portion where 18 and 15 connect) of said hollow shaft (15) and said at least one annular surface (left surface of 18 with respect to figure) is located on a side of the pinion (18) opposite to this first portion.
Regarding Claim 3, Nifenecker, McCune, Fortini, Munson, and “Metal Foams” teach the rotor as set forth in Claim 1.
Figure 1 of Nifenecker teaches wherein said at least one annular surface (side of 18) is perpendicular to said axis (X).
Regarding Claim 4, Nifenecker, McCune, Fortini, Munson, and “Metal Foams” teach the rotor as set forth in Claim 1.
Figure 1 of Nifenecker teaches wherein said annular lattice structure is on a singular surface (left surface in figure) of the pinion (18), this single annular surface being flat and extending from an internal periphery (portion of 18 closest to 15) of the pinion (18) to an external periphery (portion of 18 furthest from 15) of the pinion (18).
The modification in Claim 1 by McCune results in being produced by additive manufacturing on the surface, as exemplified in Figure 6 by portion (104B) being produced directly on (104A) [0055].
Regarding Claim 5, Nifenecker, McCune, Fortini, Munson, and “Metal Foams” teach the rotor as set forth in Claim 1.
Figure 1 of Nifenecker teaches wherein the pinon (18) has an external periphery comprising a toothing, an internal periphery connected to the hollow shaft (15), and an intermediate annular web extending between its internal and external peripheries and having a thickness measured along said axis (X) which is less than the thicknesses of said peripheries measured along the same axis (X). See also annotated Figure 1’ below.
PNG
media_image1.png
974
1300
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, Nifenecker, McCune, Fortini, Munson, and “Metal Foams” teach the rotor as set forth in Claim 1.
Nifenecker teaches a centrifugal breather for a turbomachine air/oil mixture comprising a rotor [0021-0022].
Regarding Claim 10, Nifenecker, McCune, Fortini, Munson, and “Metal Foams” teach the rotor as set forth in Claim 1.
Figure 1 of Nifenecker teaches a method for manufacturing the rotor wherein said method comprises the steps of: a) manufacturing the pinion (18) and at least one portion of the hollow shaft (15) in a single piece (note the same cross-hatch continues on both 15, 18) and from the first material, b) additive manufacturing, of the annular lattice structure (1) in a second material. Paragraph [0058] describes the structure (1), comprising (2, 3, 5), is formed by additive manufacture.
The modification in Claim 1 by McCune results in additive manufacturing directly on at least one annular surface of the pinion (left of 18 in Figure 1 of Nifenecker), as exemplified by portion (104B) being additively manufactured directly on adjacent portion (104A) in Figure 6 of McCune (McCune, [0055]). Doing so secures the two together. See also the rejection of Claim 1 above.
The modification in Claim 1 by Fortini and McCune results in the second material being different from the first material, and the second material being stainless steel. Fortini and McCune describe the different parts having different suitable materials with stainless steel as the second material (Fortini [0045], McCune [0054]). See also the rejection of Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 11, Nifenecker, McCune, Fortini, Munson, and “Metal Foams” teach the method as set forth in Claim 10.
Figure 1 of Nifenecker teaches wherein the pinion (18) is located at a longitudinal end of said first portion (right end to portion where 18 and 15 connect) of said hollow shaft (15) and said at least one annular surface (left surface of 18 with respect to figure) is located on a side of the pinion (18) opposite to this first portion.
Regarding Claim 12, Nifenecker, McCune, Fortini, Munson, and “Metal Foams” teach the method as set forth in Claim 10.
Figure 1 of Nifenecker teaches wherein the pinon (18) has an external periphery comprising a toothing, an internal periphery connected to the hollow shaft (15), and an intermediate annular web extending between its internal and external peripheries and having a thickness measured along said axis (X) which is less than the thicknesses of said peripheries measured along the same axis (X). See also annotated Figure 1’ above.
Regarding Claim 13, Nifenecker, McCune, Fortini, Munson, and “Metal Foams” teach the method as set forth in Claim 10.
The modification by McCune in Claim 1 results wherein the pinion and the at least one portion of the hollow shaft are obtained by machining a metal alloy block in step a) and before the step b). Paragraph [0055] notes the first material (forming 104A) is formed by subtractive manufacturing, which satisfies the broadest reasonable interpretation of machining a block of material. This exemplifies the known way to form the first material as a pinion. Thus, the use of machining the pinion and at least one portion is either already a result of the modification in Claim 1, or would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill since machining is shown to be a known method that predictably produces a manufactured product. Paragraph [0054] notes gear steel, such as AMS6265, which is a metal alloy. This step is required to be before step b), since there would be nothing to additive manufacture on otherwise. Note paragraph [0055] of McCune requires the additive manufacturing on the existing object.
Regarding Claim 14, Nifenecker, McCune, Fortini, Munson, and “Metal Foams” teach the method as set forth in Claim 10.
Nifenecker teaches wherein step b) comprises simultaneously manufacturing the annular lattice structure and the second portion of said hollow shaft. Paragraph [0058] describes the structure (1), comprising (2, 3, 5), is formed by additive manufacture. Figure 1 shows the part being manufactured having a portion (13), interpretable as a second portion of said shaft. Any portion adjacent and connected to the shaft portion (15) is interpretable as a second portion. Paragraph [0083] describes the portions (13, 14) providing connection with the shaft.
Regarding Claim 15, Nifenecker, McCune, Fortini, Munson, and “Metal Foams” teach the method as set forth in Claim 14.
Figure 1 of Nifenecker teaches wherein the second portion (13) is located at the internal periphery of the annular lattice structure (1) and extends towards the top of the pinion (towards radially outer portion of 18) from its surface and in the extension of the first portion (right end to where 18 and 15 meet) of the hollow shaft (15).
Regarding Claim 22, Nifenecker, McCune, Fortini, Munson, and “Metal Foams” teach the rotor as set forth in Claim 1.
Figure 1 of Nifenecker teaches wherein the at least one surface (surface where 1 and 18 interface) forming the at least one annular support surface, extends radially in respect to the axis and being common to the pinion (18) and the annular lattice structure (1). The modification by McCune in Claim 1 introduces additive manufacturing. Thus, this surface is considered a support surface.
Regarding Claim 23, Nifenecker, McCune, Fortini, Munson, and “Metal Foams” teach the rotor as set forth in Claim 1.
Figure 1 of Nifenecker teaches wherein the annular lattice structure (1) forming an annular shell (3) which extends entirely around the second portion (13) of the hollow shaft (15).
Regarding Claim 24, Nifenecker, McCune, Fortini, Munson, and “Metal Foams” teach the rotor as set forth in Claim 1.
The modification in Claim 1 by McCune results wherein the rotor comprises a first interface connecting by additive manufacture the at least one annular surface support of the pinion and the second portion of the hollow shaft, and a second interface connecting by additive manufacture the at least one annular surface support of the pinion and the annular lattice structure, wherein the second interface extending radially around the first interface, and wherein the first interface and the second interface are without additional nut type attaching element. Figure 1 of Nifenecker already shows a first interface between second portion (13) of the hollow shaft (15) and the surface of (19), a second interface between the annular structure (3) and the surface of (19), the second interface is radially around the first interface. McCune shows how additive manufacturing is capable of forming an attachment without any nut (Figure 6, [0055]).
Regarding Claim 25, Nifenecker, McCune, Fortini, Munson, and “Metal Foams” teach the rotor as set forth in Claim 24.
The modification in Claim 1 by McCune results wherein the first interface has a first flat surface connecting directly the at least one annular surface support of the pinion and the second portion of the hollow shaft, and the second interface has a second flat surface connecting directly the at least one annular surface support of the pinion and the annular lattice structure. Claim 24 above notes the interfaces. While the embodiment in Figure 8 of McCune shows geometries, it is noted that paragraph [0055] states the interface (110) “may” be of various geometries, meaning the geometries are optional. Furthermore, the geometries illustrated in Figure 8 have flat surfaces, which meets the claim which only requires having a flat surface.
Regarding Claim 26, Figure 1 of Nifenecker teaches a rotor for a centrifugal breather for a turbomachine air/oil mixture (see paragraph [0021-0022]), said rotor comprising: a hollow shaft (15) extending along an axis (X) and defining an internal air circulation cavity after separation of said mixture (see F1), the hollow shaft (15) extending axially between a first portion (portion from right end to where 18 and 15 connect) and a pinion (18), said pinion (18) for rotating the hollow shaft (15), said pinion (18) extending radially about the axis (X), the pinion (18) and the first portion of the hollow shaft (15) being formed in one piece and in a first material, and an annular honeycomb lattice structure (1) (see Figures 3a-d for lattice shape embodiments, a-c more similar to “honeycomb”) extending around the axis (X) and secured in rotation to the hollow shaft (15), the annular honeycomb lattice structure (1) forming an annular shell (3) which extends around the hollow shaft (15) and is disposed radially outer in respect to the axis (X) of said hollow shaft (15), said annular honeycomb lattice structure (1) and a second portion (13) of the hollow shaft (15) being formed in one piece, and the annular honeycomb lattice structure (1) configured to ensure a centrifugal separation of said mixture and also to milit (interpreted as limit) the pressure losses [0027, 0056-0057, 0064, 0082]. Paragraph [0037] describes a honeycomb structure for the lattice that does not have additional pressure losses. Paragraph [0058] describes the structure (1), comprising (2, 3, 5), is formed by additive manufacture and is shown in one piece in the figure. Any portion adjacent and connected to the shaft portion (15) is interpretable as a second portion. Paragraph [0083] describes the portions (13, 14) providing connection with the shaft portion. Paragraphs [0067, 0074, 0081] describe the limiting of pressure losses due to the shape and formation from additive manufacturing.
Nifenecker does not expressly teach a first material chosen from a steel hardenable by case-hardening or nitriding thermal treatment as claimed. However, such a material would have been obvious in view of McCune.
Figure 6 of McCune teaches a structure with a pinion, wherein the portion with teeth (104A) is made of gear steel, such as AMS6265 [0054]. As noted in MPEP 2144.07, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie case of obviousness. There does not appear to be any further structure required of the steel which allows or prevents a hardening treatment from being attempted, i.e. merely being a steel allows it to receive treatment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotor taught by Nifenecker such that the first material is an AMS6265 steel, which is a steel hardenable by case hardening as exemplified by McCune, since the use of known materials for their suitability for their intended purposes would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Nifenecker does not expressly teach the annular honeycomb lattice structure made in a second material of stainless steel, the second material which is different from the first material of the pinion and the first portion of the hollow shaft as claimed. However, stainless steel would have been obvious in view of Fortini.
Figure 2A of Fortini teaches a structure with a lattice (527) intended to act as a separator for oil. Lattice (527) may be made of a variety of materials considered suitable for separating lubricating oil, including stainless steel, like 304 stainless steel [0045]. Thus, Fortini teaches stainless steel is suitable for use in applications of the claimed lattice. As noted in MPEP 2144.07, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie case of obviousness. Note that this material is different than the first material taught by McCune above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotor taught by Nifenecker-McCune such that the annular honeycomb lattice structure is made in a second material of stainless steel, the second material which is different from the first material of the pinion and the first portion of the hollow shaft as exemplified by Fortini, since the use of known materials for their suitability for their intended purposes would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Nifenecker does not expressly teach the annular honeycomb lattice structure secured in rotation to the hollow shaft without a nut, wherein said annular honeycomb lattice structure is secured to the first portion of the hollow shaft by an additive manufacture of the annular lattice structure directly on at least one annular surface of the pinion which forms at least one annular support surface for the additive manufacture, wherein the first and second portions of the hollow shaft, the pinion and the annular honeycomb lattice structure form an integral structure, and wherein the annular honeycomb lattice structure and the first portion of the hollow shaft are in a non-removable connection as claimed. However, such an additive manufacture would have been obvious in view of McCune.
Figure 6 of McCune teaches an assembly wherein a structure (104B) is secured by an additive manufacture of the structure (104B) directly on at least one surface (at 110) of a pinion (104A) which forms at least one support surface (110) for the additive manufacture, which form an integral structure, and wherein the structure (104B) is in a non-removable connection. The additive manufacturing allows for conventional manufacture of the teeth portion (100) of the pinion and connects the two portions (104A, 104B), since the additive manufacturing process essentially laser welds the portions together [0055]. As can be seen in McCune, the sufficiency of the attachment allows for it to occur without a nut between the two portions (104A, 104B). Paragraph [0058] of Nifenecker describes the structure (1), comprising (2, 3, 5), is formed by additive manufacture. As seen in Figure 1 of Nifenecker, the surface interfacing between structure (1) and the pinion (18) is an annular surface of (18) (where cross-hatching of 1 and 18 meet). Therefore, the combination of teachings would place the securement at that annular surface. The pinion (18) of Nifenecker is also one piece with the hollow shaft (15), thus the additive manufacture as modified will form all of the first and second portions (portion from right end to where 18 and 15 connect, and 13) of the hollow shaft (15), the pinion (18), and the annular honeycomb lattice structure (1) as an integral structure that is in a non-removable connection.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the rotor taught by Nifenecker-McCune-Fortini with the annular honeycomb lattice structure secured in rotation to the hollow shaft without a nut, wherein said annular honeycomb lattice structure is secured to the first portion of the hollow shaft by an additive manufacture of the annular lattice structure directly on at least one annular surface of the pinion which forms at least one annular support surface for the additive manufacture, wherein the first and second portions of the hollow shaft, the pinion and the annular honeycomb lattice structure form an integral structure, and wherein the annular honeycomb lattice structure and the first portion of the hollow shaft are in a non-removable connection as suggested by McCune, to provide the benefit of connecting the structure to the pinion by an essentially laser weld-like connection that is sufficient without any further attaching elements.
Nifenecker does not expressly teach the annular honeycomb lattice structure comprising cells or strands of lattice having dimensions between 0.4 mm and 0.7 mm in diameter as claimed. However, such a size would have been obvious in view of Munson and “Metal Foams”.
Figures 1-2 of Munson teach the usage of metal foam (24) in a turbomachine. Particularly, the size of the cells affects the lubricant flow which occurs. The selection of the exact size involves complex flow dynamics and should be selected based on the conditions of each operating environment [0017]. Thus, the cell size is known to be a results-effective variable, to which one of ordinary skill would routinely optimize (see MPEP 2144.05, II). “Metal Foams” is provided to evidence an optimization to within the claimed range is within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill. “Metal Foams” discusses the usage of a metal foam material called Retimet that is useful in oil separation applications such as in centrifugal breathers (Pg. 3-4, particularly first figure of Pg. 4).The middle of Pg. 2 explains Retimet comes in three grades, 10, 20, 45, 80 which roughly approximates to cell sizes of 0.1, 0.05, 0.0222, 0.0125 inches, respectively. Note the claimed range of 0.4 mm and 0.7 mm is roughly between 0.0157 and 0.0276 inches. Thus, the dimensions (the 45 and 80 grade) of cells known to be appropriate for usage as centrifugal breathers are close to or within the claimed range. This evidences an optimization to within the claimed range would have been obvious, since there already exists lattices with cells that are close to or within the claimed range with suitable cell sizes for breathers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the rotor taught by Nifenecker-McCune-Fortini with the annular honeycomb lattice structure comprising cells or strands of lattice having dimensions between 0.4 mm and 0.7 mm in diameter as exemplified by Munson-“Metal Foams”, since one of ordinary skill would routinely optimize the diameter of the cells to obtain a desired lubricant flow through the lattice pending the desired application. For breather applications, the claimed diameter contains or is close to dimensions of lattices already known to be suitable for use in breathers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nifenecker, McCune, Fortini, Munson, and “Metal Foams” as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Morelli (US 2020/0025100 A1), hereinafter Morelli. Claim 3 is rejected again for purposes of expediting prosecution, assuming if Figure 1 of Nifenecker is insufficient for disclosing the claim.
Regarding Claim 3, Nifenecker, McCune, Fortini, Munson, and “Metal Foams” teach the rotor as set forth in Claim 1.
Nifenecker does not expressly teach wherein said at least one annular surface is perpendicular to said axis as claimed. However, being perpendicular would have been obvious in view of Morelli.
Figures 3a-3f of Morelli teach a pinion (110) having a web (110b) with at least one annular surface. In Figures 3a, 3c, 3d, 3f, said at least one annular surface is perpendicular to said axis (dotted line). Meanwhile, Figures 3b, 3e show the annular surface (of 110b) with an angle to said axis (dotted line). The outer end of (110) is where the gear teeth are present [0043]. Having an incline moves the gear teeth from one plane (P2) to a different plane (P1) [0049]. In other words, the orientation of the annular surface is changeable to place the gear teeth to at a desired position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotor taught by Nifenecker-McCune-Fortini-Munson-“Metal Foams” such that said at least one annular surface is perpendicular to said axis as suggested by Morelli, to provide the benefit of placing the gear teeth at any desired location by having a particular orientation of the annular surface with respect to the axis.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nifenecker, McCune, Fortini, Munson, and “Metal Foams” as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of “Aero Fastening And Components”. A copy of “Aero Fastening And Components” is provided with the action of May 28, 2024.
Regarding Claim 16, Nifenecker, McCune, Fortini, Munson, and “Metal Foams” teach the rotor as set forth in Claim 1.
Nifenecker, McCune, Fortini, Munson, and “Metal Foams” do not expressly teach wherein the first material is chosen from E16NCD13 and E32CDV13 type as claimed. However, E16NCD13 type would have been obvious in view of “Aero Fastening And Components”.
“Aero Fastening And Components” teaches E16NCD13 type material is a known steel suitable for use in gears and transmissions (see Table). Thus, this is also a steel material that is known to be suitable for use in gears. As noted in MPEP 2144.07, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie case of obviousness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the rotor taught by Nifenecker-McCune-Fortini-Munson-“Metal Foams” such that the first material is chosen from E16NCD13 type as exemplified by “Aero Fastening And Components”, since the use of known materials for their suitability for their intended purposes would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nifenecker, McCune, Fortini, Munson, and “Metal Foams” as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of “17-4 Stainless Steel”. A copy of “17-4 Stainless Steel” has been provided with the action of May 28, 2024.
Regarding Claim 18, Nifenecker, McCune, Fortini, Munson, and “Metal Foams” teach the rotor as set forth in Claim 1.
Nifenecker, McCune, Fortini, Munson, and “Metal Foams” do not expressly teach wherein the stainless steel is 17-4 PH type as claimed. However, 17-4 PH type would have been obvious in view of “17-4 Stainless Steel”.
“17-4 Stainless Steel” teaches 17-4 PH type material is a known stainless steel with known use in petroleum industries, chemical industries, and aircraft parts (see first section and Applications section). Thus, this is also a stainless steel material that is known to be suitable for use in chemical and turbomachine environments (Paragraphs [0021-0023] of Nifenecker noting contact with oil, and aircrafts known to use turbomachines for propulsion). As noted in MPEP 2144.07, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie case of obviousness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the rotor taught by Nifenecker-McCune-Fortini-Munson-“Metal Foams” such that the stainless steel is 17-4 PH type as exemplified by “17-4 Stainless Steel”, since the use of known materials for their suitability for their intended purposes would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nifenecker, McCune, Fortini, Munson, and “Metal Foams” as applied to Claim 10 above, and further in view of Ackelid (US 2017/0259338 A1), hereinafter Ackelid.
Regarding Claim 20, Nifenecker, McCune, Fortini, Munson, and “Metal Foams” teach the method as set forth in Claim 10.
The modification in Claim 1 by McCune results in wherein the pinion (left of 18 in Figure 1 of Nifenecker) forms a support plate for additive manufacturing, as exemplified by portion (104B) being additively manufactured directly on adjacent portion (104A) in Figure 6 of McCune (McCune, [0055]). The additive manufacturing is applied directly on, forming a support. See also the rejection of Claim 1 above.
Nifenecker, McCune, Fortini, Munson, and “Metal Foams” do not expressly teach a first layer of powder is added and evenly distributed over the at least one annular surface of the pinion during the step b) of additive manufacturing of the annular lattice structure as claimed. However, an even distribution would have been obvious in view of Ackelid.
Ackelid describes an additive manufacturing process wherein a first layer of powder is added and evenly distributed over a surface during the step of additive manufacturing [0009]. Ackelid notes that variations in powder layers affects the quality of the finally manufactured product. Therefore, Ackelid seeks to improve the art by more evenly distributing the powder layers [0006-0007]. Note that paragraph [0047] of Nifenecker also describes implementation of a powder based additive manufacturing, and thus would benefit similarly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method taught by Nifenecker-McCune-Fortini-Munson-“Metal Foams” such that a first layer of powder is added and evenly distributed over the at least one annular surface of the pinion during the step b) of additive manufacturing of the annular lattice structure as suggested by Ackelid, to provide the benefit of improving material quality.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nifenecker, McCune, Fortini, Munson, and “Metal Foams” as applied to Claim 13 above, and further in view of Dobosz et al. (US 2015/0308350 A1), hereinafter Dobosz.
Regarding Claim 21, Nifenecker, McCune, Fortini, Munson, and “Metal Foams” teach the method as set forth in Claim 13.
Nifenecker, McCune, Fortini, Munson, and “Metal Foams” do not expressly teach wherein the metal alloy block is treated after machining by case-hardening or nitriding as claimed. However, treating would have been obvious in view of Dobosz.
Dobosz teaches that being treated by case-hardening or nitriding allows for gears to be hardened to achieve proper tooth surface properties [0030]. Thus, treating allows for gears to have desirable surface properties. Since, the teeth are already present, the treating occurs after machining.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method taught by Nifenecker-McCune-Fortini-Munson-“Metal Foams” such that the metal alloy block is treated after machining by case-hardening or nitriding as suggested by Dobosz, to provide the benefit of imparting proper surface properties to the teeth of the gear.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nifenecker, McCune, Fortini, Munson, and “Metal Foams” as applied to Claim 24 above, and further in view of Lacy et al. (US 2018/0171802 A1), hereinafter Lacy. This claim is rejected again for purposes of expediting prosecution, assuming a narrower interpretation of “has a flat surface”.
Regarding Claim 25, Nifenecker, McCune, Fortini, Munson, and “Metal Foams” teach the rotor as set forth in Claim 24.
Nifenecker, McCune, Fortini, Munson, and “Metal Foams” do not expressly teach wherein the first interface has a first flat surface connecting directly the at least one annular surface support of the pinion and the second portion of the hollow shaft, and the second interface has a second flat surface connecting directly the at least one annular surface support of the pinion and the annular lattice structure as claimed. However, a flat surface would have been obvious in view of Lacy.
Figures 4-5 of Lacy teach a rotor wherein two portions are formed by additively manufacturing one portion (426, 526) onto the other, forming an interface (428) in Figure 4 or (528) in Figure 5. Interface (428) is flat while interface (528) is an alternative embodiment having geometries [0027-0028]. Thus, Lacy teaches how in the field of additively manufacturing onto an existing component, it is known to either have flat or non-flat surfaces alternatively. One of ordinary skill would simply substitute between known surface types, both predictably resulting in attached portions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the rotor taught by Nifenecker-McCune-Fortini-Munson-“Metal Foams” such that the first interface has a first flat surface connecting directly the at least one annular surface support of the pinion and the second portion of the hollow shaft, and the second interface has a second flat surface connecting directly the at least one annular surface support of the pinion and the annular lattice structure by simply substituting between flat and non-flat surfaces as evidenced by Lacy, predictably resulting in the portions being appropriately attached to the annular surface support of the pinion.
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 ELTON K WONG whose telephone number is (408)918-7626. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM - 5:00PM PST.
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.
/ELTON K WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights