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 .
The amendment filed January 9, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanson (US 2016/0003156).
Claim 1: Hanson discloses a method for manufacturing a fuel spray nozzle for a gas turbine engine (abstract). The method includes forming a first section of the fuel spray nozzle by additive layer manufacturing, the first section including a main chamber and a plurality of internal passageways (fig. 6; ¶¶ 43-45), forming a second section of the fuel spray nozzle by additive layer manufacturing on the first section, the second section including at least one metering feature disposed in fluid communication with at least one of the plurality of internal passageways of the first section (fig. 6; ¶¶ 43-45), modifying the at least one metering feature of the second section by a first subtractive manufacturing process to obtain at least one of a desired diameter of the at least one metering feature or a desired surface roughness of the at least one metering feature (fuel orifice 128; fig. 7; ¶ 46); forming a third section of the fuel spray nozzle by additive layer manufacturing on the second section to form the fuel spray nozzle, the third section including a deflector and a spin chamber (fig. 6; ¶¶ 43-45). Hanson is silent as to the modifying step being performed prior to forming a third section of the fuel spray nozzle. However, whether fuel orifice 128 of Hanson was formed prior to, or after, forming the third section, the end result would be exactly the same. The selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel (US 2016/0265780) in view of Hanson (US 2016/0003156).
Claim 1: Patel discloses a method for manufacturing a fuel spray nozzle for a gas turbine engine (abstract). The method includes forming a first section of the fuel spray nozzle by additive layer manufacturing, the first section including a main chamber and a plurality of internal passageways (46, 100, 104; ¶ 71), forming a second section of the fuel spray nozzle by additive layer manufacturing on the first section, the second section including at least one metering feature disposed in fluid communication with at least one of the plurality of internal passageways of the first section (array of angled metering holes 48; ¶ 41), forming a third section of the fuel spray nozzle by additive layer manufacturing on the second section to form the fuel spray nozzle, the third section including a deflector and a spin chamber (spin chamber, shield 70 and baffle 72; ¶ 41).
Patel is silent as to modifying the at least one metering feature of the second section by a first subtractive manufacturing process to obtain at least one of a desired diameter of the at least one metering feature or a desired surface roughness of the at least one metering feature. However, in the same field of endeavor, Hanson discloses a method for manufacturing a fuel spray nozzle for a gas turbine engine (abstract). The method includes forming a first section of the fuel spray nozzle by additive layer manufacturing, the first section including a main chamber and a plurality of internal passageways (fig. 6; ¶¶ 43-45), forming a second section of the fuel spray nozzle by additive layer manufacturing on the first section, the second section including at least one metering feature disposed in fluid communication with at least one of the plurality of internal passageways of the first section (fig. 6; ¶¶ 43-45), modifying the at least one metering feature of the second section by a first subtractive manufacturing process to obtain at least one of a desired diameter of the at least one metering feature or a desired surface roughness of the at least one metering feature (fig. 7; ¶ 46); forming a third section of the fuel spray nozzle by additive layer manufacturing on the second section to form the fuel spray nozzle, the third section including a deflector and a spin chamber (fig. 6; ¶¶ 43-45). As taught by Hanson, subtractive manufacturing of the nozzle formed by additive manufacturing allows for surfaces to be smoothed, edges to be sharpened, and openings or vanes to be created (¶ 45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to have included a subtractive manufacturing finishing step in the method of Patel in order to allows for surfaces to be smoothed, edges to be sharpened, and openings or vanes to be created.
Hanson is silent as to the modifying step being performed prior to forming a third section of the fuel spray nozzle. However, whether the fuel orifice 128 of Hanson was formed prior to, or after, forming the third section, the end result would be exactly the same. The selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.).
Claims 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel (US 2016/0265780) in view of Hanson (US 2016/0003156), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Zink (US 2016/0223201).
Claim 2: Patel is silent as to modifying the plurality of internal passageways of the first section by a second subtractive manufacturing process to obtain at least one of a desired diameter of each of the plurality of internal passageways or a desired surface roughness of each of the plurality of internal passageways. However, in the same field of endeavor, Zink discloses a method for manufacturing a fuel spray nozzle for a gas turbine engine (abstract). The method includes forming a first section of the fuel spray nozzle by additive layer manufacturing, the first section including a main chamber and a plurality of internal passageways (fig. 2; ¶¶ 21-22), forming a second section of the fuel spray nozzle by additive layer manufacturing on the first section, the second section including at least one metering feature disposed in fluid communication with at least one of the plurality of internal passageways of the first section (fig. 2; ¶¶ 21-22), modifying the at least one metering feature of the second section by a first subtractive manufacturing process to obtain at least one of a desired diameter of the at least one metering feature or a desired surface roughness of the at least one metering feature (¶¶ 10, 31); forming a third section of the fuel spray nozzle by additive layer manufacturing on the second section to form the fuel spray nozzle, the third section including a spin chamber (fig. 2; ¶¶ 21-22). As taught by Zink, subtractive manufacturing of the nozzle formed by additive manufacturing allows “internal structures like metering orifices…” to be defined for “suitable flow area within the nozzle body for purposes of establishing restricting flow and establishing a predetermined amount of pressure drop in fuel flow traversing the injector” (¶¶ 10, 31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to have included the second subtractive manufacturing of modifying the plurality of internal passageways of the first section by a second subtractive manufacturing process to obtain at least one of a desired diameter of each of the plurality of internal passageways or a desired surface roughness of each of the plurality of internal passageways in the method of Patel in order to define internal structures like metering orifices to have suitable flow area within the nozzle body for purposes of establishing restricting flow and establishing a predetermined amount of pressure drop in fuel flow traversing the injector.
Claims 3, 5 and 7-8: Zink discloses the subtractive manufacturing process includes hydro-honing (¶ 31).
Claims 4 and 6: Zink discloses that the sections can be formed individually and then joined, and modifying the plurality of internal passageways of the sections by subtractive manufacturing to obtain a desired diameter of each of the plurality of internal passageways (¶¶ 10, 31), but is silent as to the claimed order of steps. However, Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 9, 2026 have been fully considered to the extent they are applicable to the new grounds of rejection, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Metering features are internal, as is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, and would be inaccessible after the formation of the third section, and thus the amendment clarifying that the modifying step happens before the third section is formed shows that claim 1 is novel over Hanson.” This argument has been considered but is not persuasive. The claims do not require the formation of inaccessible metering features, and not all metering features are inaccessible after the third section is formed. Hanson discloses metering orifice 128 in air-flow surface 125 capable of being formed before or after formation of the third section. Whether the fuel orifice 128 of Hanson was formed prior to, or after, forming the third section, the end result would be exactly the same. The selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.).
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 LARRY THROWER whose telephone number is (571)270-5517. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm MT M-F.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1487. 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.
/LARRY W THROWER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights