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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The presence of claim limitations that are preceded by the phrases “wherein” often raises a question as to the limiting effect of the claim limitations (see MPEP §2111.04). The Examiner has interpreted the limitations following the phrase “wherein” as positively being claimed (i.e. the claim limitations are required and/or the claim limitations following the “wherein clause” limits the structure), where “wherein” is being used as a transitional phrase.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 6, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4-6, 10-12, 14, 15, 18, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 11 recite “a ceramic coating disposed on at least one of a discharge surface or a suction surface of the metallic cores, the ceramic coating abutting an interior of the slot, the metallic core exposed at a tip of the vane, and a ceramic shroud coupled to the interior surface, the ceramic shroud including a plurality of discrete segments, the exposed metallic core at the tip of the vane abutting the ceramic shroud”. The original disclosure does not disclose this combination. Figure 4 (¶0041 and ¶0043 in the PG Publication of the current application) discloses a ceramic coating on the discharge surface and suction surface, but with a ceramic tip (406A-406G), and therefore, does not disclose the metallic core exposed at a tip of the vane, and the exposed metallic core at the tip of the vane abutting the ceramic shroud. Figure 5 (¶0048 in the PG Publication of the current application) shows the vane completely covered with a ceramic material. Figure 6 (¶00050 in the PG Publication of the current application) discloses the ceramic shroud with plurality of discreate sections (604A-604G), with vanes (401A-401G) without a ceramic coating. The combination as claimed in claims 1 and 11 of having both a ceramic coating disposed on at least one of a discharge surface or a suction surface of the metallic cores, the ceramic coating abutting an interior of the slot, the metallic core exposed at a tip of the vane, and a ceramic shroud coupled to the interior surface, the ceramic shroud including a plurality of discrete segments, the exposed metallic core at the tip of the vane abutting the ceramic shroud is not disclosed or shown in the original disclosure, and therefore, is considered new matter.
Claims 4-6, 10, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, and 21 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on either claims 1 or 11.
Claim 21 recites “a first number of the plurality of vanes equal to a second number of the plurality of discrete segments” is not disclosed in the original specification. The original specification discloses that the shroud coating being in discrete segments and can include a different number of segments (e.g., 4 segments, 8 segments…) (see ¶0052 of the PG Publication of the current application). The Examiner would like to note that the specification does not specifically disclose the relationship between the first number of the plurality of vanes equal to a second number of the plurality of discrete segments, and therefore is considered new matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 5 and 15 recites an “insertable ceramic tip abutting the interior surface” which undoes the limitations in claims 1 and 11 directed to “the exposed metallic core at the tip of the vane abutting the ceramic shroud “ (where the ceramic shroud is coupled to the interior surface). Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1, 4, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SATO (European Patent Publication EP 3,363,991 A1) in view of ZHANG (Chinese Patent Publication CN 104314812 A, a machine translation is provided with the foreign reference in the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited mailed on 8/27/2025 and is utilized in the rejection below), in view of MALLEN (U.S. Patent 5,524,587), and in view of JP’993 (Japanese Patent Publication JP-S62-60993 A, a machine translation is provided with the foreign reference and is utilized below. The claims are rejected based on the 112(a) and 112(d) rejections above.
Regarding claim 1, SATO discloses: an apparatus comprising:
a pump case (31) defining a fluid pathway between an inlet (inlet is shown in Figure 4 at the arrow going into (31)) and an outlet (the outlet is shown in Figure 4 as represented by an arrow exiting (31)), the pump case including an interior surface (see Figure 4 that shows an interior surface);
a rotor (32) including a slot (see Marked up Figure 4 of SATO, that shows the rotor with a slot that has the vanes (34) sliding within it);
a vane (34) disposed adjacent to the interior surface (see Figure 4) and movably disposed in the slot (see Marked up Figure 4 of SATO, ¶0040), the vane (34) including a metallic core (10) (see Figures 3, 4, 6, and 7, ¶0024-¶0027, ¶0039-¶0040, claims 1-2),
a ceramic coating disposed on at least one of a discharge surface or a suction surface of the metallic cores, the ceramic coating abutting an interior of the slot (SATO also discloses that the interface between the rotor and the vanes should be smooth and have the sliding member be either the vane or the rotor slot, where the sliding member has the ceramic coating on it, in order to maintain the soundness of the compressor for the long time (see ¶0040). The Examiner would like to note that the discharge surface and suction surface of the vane are the interface with the rotor slot, and therefore SATO meets the claimed limitation).
SATO discloses a ceramic interface (11) coupled to at least one of the metallic core (see Figures 3, 6, and 7, ¶0024-¶0027, ¶0039-¶0039, and ¶0042-¶0049), where the interface is a tip of the vane (see Figures 3, 6, and 7, ¶0024-¶0027, ¶0039-¶0040, and ¶0042-¶0049).
SATO fails to disclose a shaft and the vane coupled to the shaft, the metallic core exposed at a tip of the vane, and a ceramic shroud coupled to the interior surface, the ceramic shroud including a plurality of discrete segments, the exposed metallic core at the tip of the vane abutting the ceramic shroud.
PNG
media_image1.png
449
666
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, ZHANG teaches: a shaft (see Figure 1 that shows the shaft integral with the rotor (3)) and the vane (4) (the vane is referred to in the prior art as a vane or sliding sheet) coupled to the shaft (see Figures 1 and 2, where the vane is coupled to the shaft via the rotor (3)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a shaft and the vane coupled to the shaft in the pump of SATO, in order to move the working fluid from the inlet to the outlet. Furthermore, utilizing well known components such as a shaft and the vane coupled to the shaft as taught by ZHANG requires only routine skill in the art and produces predictable results (i.e. the operation of a vane pump to pump the working fluid).
The modified apparatus of SATO/ ZHANG fails to disclose a ceramic shroud coupled to the interior surface, the ceramic shroud including a plurality of discrete segments, the metallic core exposed at a tip of the vane, where the exposed metallic core at the tip of the vane abutting the ceramic shroud.
Regarding claim 1, MALLEN teaches: a ceramic shroud (80) coupled to the interior surface (see Figure 10), the ceramic shroud including a plurality of discrete segments (see Figure 10, Column 11, line 59 – Column 12, line 17).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a ceramic shroud coupled to the interior surface, the ceramic shroud including a plurality of discrete segments in the modified apparatus of SATO/ ZHANG, in order to allow for the segments to expand and contract without a danger of serious fractures (see Column 12, lines 5-17 of MALLEN). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a ceramic shroud coupled to the interior surface, the ceramic shroud including a plurality of discrete segments in the modified apparatus of SATO/ ZHANG, since it requires only routine skill in the art to utilize improvements of utilizing a ceramic shroud that has a plurality of discrete segments, as taught by MALLEN, to improve the modified apparatus of SATO/ ZHANG due to design incentives of reducing serious fractures of the ceramics due to temperature variations.
The modified apparatus of SATO/ ZHANG/MALLEN disclose the claimed invention as discussed above, however, fails to disclose the metallic core exposed at a tip of the vane and the exposed metallic core at the tip of the vane abutting the ceramic shroud.
Regarding claim 1, JP’993 teaches: the vane (6) has two different coatings one at the tip (7) and a different coating on the discharge surface and suction surface of the vane (8) (see Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have the metallic core exposed at a tip of the vane and the exposed metallic core at the tip of the vane abutting the ceramic shroud in the modified apparatus of SATO/ ZHANG/MALLEN, since having different contact surfaces with different finishes is known, as evidence by JP’993. Furthermore, it requires only routine skill in the art to coat the discharge surface and suction surface in order to allow for better sliding of the vane (see ¶0040 of SATO), as well as, with the ceramic shroud it would be obvious to coat the sliding surfaces of the vane (i.e. the discharge surface and suction surface) with ceramic coating in order to aid in the slidability and wear of the vane sides, but not coat the tip (i.e. having an exposes metallic core at the tip of the vane, since the vane slides on the ceramic shroud, thereby making a ceramic tip or ceramic coated tip of the vane unnecessary). The Examiner would like to note that having the metallic core exposed at a tip of the vane and the exposed metallic core at the tip of the vane abutting the ceramic shroud is a matter of design choice. The Examiner has detailed prior art that disclose utilizing different treatments between the tip and the sides of the vane, and therefore, it would require only routine skill in the art to utilize any desired combinations, where the sliding surfaces are treated with ceramics in order to aid in sliding and reduction of wear, and the metallic tip of the vane is not coated since the metallic tip slides on the ceramic shroud.
Regarding claim 4, the modified apparatus of SATO/ ZHANG/MALLEN/ JP’993 discloses the claimed invention, including the ceramic coating is disposed on the discharge surface and on the suction surface (see discussion above, where JP’993 teaches that it is known to provide a different treatment to the discharge surface and the suction surface of the vane versus the tip portion of the vane).
Regarding claim 21, the modified apparatus of SATO/ ZHANG/MALLEN/ JP’993 discloses the claimed invention including the vane is a first vane of a plurality of vanes (SATO discloses 2 vanes where one vane is considered as the first vane) coupled to the shaft (ZHANG teaches the vanes coupled to the shaft, see Figures 1 and 2 of ZHANG). The modified apparatus of SATO/ ZHANG/MALLEN/ JP’993 fails to disclose the relationship between the first number of the plurality of vanes equal to a second number of the plurality of discrete segments.
The current application does not specifically disclose the relationship between the first number of the plurality of vanes equal to a second number of the plurality of discrete segments or the criticality of this relationship. Moreover, the selection of any number of vanes and any number of discrete segments would be commensurate with the desired effect and a design choice with predictable results.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have the first number of the plurality of vanes equal to a second number of the plurality of discrete segments in the modified apparatus of SATO/ ZHANG/MALLEN/ JP’993, since duplicating working areas of the apparatus such as duplicating and changing the number of discrete segments to be equal to the number of vanes requires only routine skill in the art.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified apparatus of SATO/ ZHANG/MALLEN/ JP’993 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WHITESELL (U.S. Patent Publication US 2009/0087334 A1). The Examiner would like to note that this combination is not an acceptable combination (see 112(d) rejection above), but is added to show that insertable ceramic tips are known in the prior art.
Regarding claim 5, the modified pump of SATO/ ZHANG/ MALLEN/ JP’993 discloses the claimed invention as discussed above, however, fails to disclose an insertable ceramic tip abutting the interior surface.
Regarding claim 5, WHITESELL teaches: an insertable ceramic tip (42) abutting the interior surface (see Figure 1, ¶0028, ¶0035-¶0037).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have an insertable ceramic tip abutting the interior surface in the modified apparatus of SATO/ ZHANG/ MALLEN/ JP’993, in order to have an easily replaceable wear item, which can lower the costs of production, as well as, provide the desired materials with various tensile strengths to be used in areas of critical operations (see ¶0035 of WHITESELL).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified apparatus of SATO/ ZHANG/ MALLEN/ JP’993 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WILLIAMSON (U.S. Patent Publication US 2009/0269232 A1).
Regarding claim 6, SATO discloses: the pump case is a stator (see Marked up Figure 4 of SATO, where the pump case acts as a stator due to it contains the working fluid that the vanes move from the inlet to the outlet via the rotation of the rotor), however, SATO fails to disclose further including an outer pump case rotatably coupled to the stator, and the stator is rotatably coupled to the outer pump case.
Regarding claim 6, WILLIAMSON teaches: the pump case (36, 116) is a stator (see Figures 1, 2, 4, and 6) and further including an outer pump case (24, 104) rotatably coupled to the stator (see Figures 1 and 4), and the stator is rotatably coupled to the outer pump case (see Figures 1 and 4, ¶0022, ¶0029).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have an outer pump case rotatably coupled to the stator, and the stator is rotatably coupled to the outer pump case in the modified pump of SATO/ ZHANG/ MALLEN/ JP’993, in order to allow a variable output to the pump (see ¶0022 of WILLIAMSON).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified apparatus of SATO/ ZHANG/ MALLEN/ JP’993 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP‘273 (Japanese Patent Publication JP-4658273-B2, a machine translation is provided with the foreign reference in the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited mailed on 8/27/2025 and is utilized in the rejection below).
The modified pump of SATO/ ZHANG/ MALLEN/ JP’993 disclose the claimed invention, however, fail to disclose the ceramic interface includes a coating with a thickness between 0.01 inches and 0.06 inches.
Regarding claim 10, JP‘273 teaches: the ceramic interface includes a coating (the ceramic coating is called “ABT” see ¶0015) with a thickness between 0.01 inches and 0.06 inches (see ¶0024), where the vane tip and the shroud have this ceramic interface.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have the ceramic shroud includes a coating with a thickness between 0.01 inches and 0.06 inches in the modified pump of SATO/ ZHANG/ MALLEN, in order to have a sufficient thickness to prevent wear and/or thermal damage (see ¶0024 of JP‘273). The current application does not disclose any criticality of having the coating with a thickness between 0.01 inches and 0.06 inches as a matter of design choice. At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the ceramic shroud with a coating of a thickness between 0.01 inches and 0.06 inches in the modified pump of SATO/ ZHANG/ MALLEN/ JP’993 because Applicant has not disclosed that using these specific thicknesses provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the modified pump of SATO/ ZHANG/ MALLEN/ JP’993 /JP‘273, and Applicant's invention, to perform equally well with either the thicknesses taught by JP‘273 or the claimed thickness because both thicknesses would perform the same function of preventing wear. JP‘273 teaches a variety of thicknesses that are included in this range, and also states that once the coating thickness is enough to prevent wear and/or thermal damage (i.e. to provide good protection (see ¶0024 of JP‘273)), the thickness is not critical. JP‘273 also states that the thickness of the ceramic interface should not be so thick to hinder the functionality of the device (see ¶0024 of JP‘273). Developing a useful range requires only routine skill in the art and produces predictable results (i.e. a wearable component that does not have a coating that is too thick to hinder functionality of the device).
Claims 11, 12, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUNDBERG (U.S. Patent 5,545,014) in view of SATO, in view of MALLEN, and in view of JP’993.
Regarding claim 11, SUNDBERG discloses: a gas turbine engine (see Column 1, lines 8-26) including:
a fluid distribution system (see Figure 2, and Column 1, lines 8-26); and
a pump (14) coupled to the fluid distribution system (see Figure 2), the pump including: a pump case (20) defining a fluid pathway between an inlet (36) and an outlet (37) (see Figure 2), the pump case including an interior surface (see Figure 2 that shows an interior surface forming chambers (29) between the vanes (13));
a shaft (21);
a rotor (12) including a slot (32) (see Figure 3);
a vane (13) disposed adjacent to interior surface (see Figure 2), the vane coupled to the shaft (see Figure 1).
SUNDBERG fails to disclose the vane including a metallic core, the metallic core exposed at a tip of the vane, and a ceramic shroud coupled to the interior surface, the ceramic shroud including a plurality of discrete segments, the exposed metallic core at the tip of the vane abutting the ceramic shroud
Regarding claim 11, SATO teaches:
a vane (34) disposed adjacent to the interior surface (see Figure 4), the vane (34) including a metallic core (10) (see Figures 3, 4, 6, and 7, ¶0024-¶0027, ¶0039-¶0040, claims 1-2);
a ceramic coating disposed on at least one of a discharge surface or a suction surface of the metallic cores, the ceramic coating abutting an interior of the slot (SATO also discloses that the interface between the rotor and the vanes should be smooth and have the sliding member be either the vane or the rotor slot, where the sliding member has the ceramic coating on it, in order to maintain the soundness of the compressor for the long time (see ¶0040). The Examiner would like to note that the discharge surface and suction surface of the vane are the interface with the rotor slot, and therefore SATO meets the claimed limitation).
SATO discloses a ceramic interface (11) coupled to at least one of the metallic core (see Figures 3, 6, and 7, ¶0024-¶0027, ¶0039-¶0039, and ¶0042-¶0049), where the interface is a tip of the vane (see Figures 3, 6, and 7, ¶0024-¶0027, ¶0039-¶0040, and ¶0042-¶0049).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have the vane including a metallic core in the gas turbine engine of SUNDBERG, in order to resist abrasion and improved durability (see Abstract of SATO).
The modified gas turbine engine of SUNDBERG/ SATO fails to disclose, a ceramic shroud coupled to the interior surface, the ceramic shroud including a plurality of discrete segments, the metallic core exposed at a tip of the vane and the exposed metallic core at the tip of the vane abutting the ceramic shroud.
Regarding claim 11, MALLEN teaches: a ceramic shroud (80) coupled to the interior surface (see Figure 10), the ceramic shroud including a plurality of discrete segments (see Figure 10, Column 11, line 59 – Column 12, line 17). MALLEN also teaches the vane
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a ceramic shroud coupled to the interior surface, the ceramic shroud including a plurality of discrete segments in the modified apparatus of SUNDBERG / SATO, in order to allow for the segments to expand and contract without a danger of serious fractures (see Column 12, lines 5-17 of MALLEN). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a ceramic shroud coupled to the interior surface, the ceramic shroud including a plurality of discrete segments in the modified apparatus of SUNDBERG / SATO, since it requires only routine skill in the art to utilize improvements of utilizing a ceramic shroud that has a plurality of discrete segments, as taught by MALLEN, to improve the modified apparatus of SUNDBERG / SATO due to design incentives of reducing serious fractures of the ceramics due to temperature variations.
The modified apparatus of SUNDBERG / SATO /MALLEN disclose the claimed invention as discussed above, however, fails to disclose the metallic core exposed at a tip of the vane and the exposed metallic core at the tip of the vane abutting the ceramic shroud.
Regarding claim 11, JP’993 teaches: the vane (6) has two different coatings one at the tip (7) and a different coating on the discharge surface and suction surface of the vane (8) (see Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have the metallic core exposed at a tip of the vane and the exposed metallic core at the tip of the vane abutting the ceramic shroud in the modified apparatus of SUNDBERG / SATO /MALLEN, since having different contact surfaces with different finishes is known, as evidence by JP’993. Furthermore, it requires only routine skill in the art to coat the discharge surface and suction surface in order to allow for better sliding of the vane (see ¶0040 of SATO), as well as, with the ceramic shroud it would be obvious to coat the sliding surfaces of the vane (i.e. the discharge surface and suction surface) with ceramic coating in order to aid in the slidability and wear of the vane sides, but not coat the tip (i.e. having an exposes metallic core at the tip of the vane, since the vane slides on the ceramic shroud, thereby making a ceramic tip or ceramic coated tip of the vane unnecessary). The Examiner would like to note that having the metallic core exposed at a tip of the vane and the exposed metallic core at the tip of the vane abutting the ceramic shroud is a matter of design choice. The Examiner has detailed prior art that disclose utilizing different treatments between the tip and the sides of the vane, and therefore, it would require only routine skill in the art to utilize any desired combinations, where the sliding surfaces are treated with ceramics in order to aid in sliding and reduction of wear, and the metallic tip of the vane is not coated since the metallic tip slides on the ceramic shroud.
Regarding claim 12, SUNDBERG discloses: the pump is a variable displacement vane pump (see Figure 2, Column 8, line 63 – Column 9, line 13).
Regarding claim 14, the modified apparatus of SUNDBERG / SATO/MALLEN/ JP’993 discloses the claimed invention as discussed above, including the ceramic coating is disposed on the discharge surface and on the suction surface (see discussion above, where JP’993 teaches that it is known to provide a different treatment to the discharge surface and the suction surface of the vane).
Regarding claim 18, SUNDBERG discloses: the fluid distribution system is a fuel distribution system (see Figure 2, Column 1, lines 8-13).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified gas turbine engine of SUNDBERG / SATO/ MALLEN/ JP’993 as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of WHITESELL (U.S. Patent Publication US 2009/0087334 A1). The Examiner would like to note that this combination is not an acceptable combination (see 112(d) rejection above), but is added to show that insertable ceramic tips are known in the prior art.
Regarding claim 15, the modified gas turbine engine of SUNDBERG / SATO/ MALLEN/ JP’993 discloses the claimed invention as discussed above, however, fails to disclose the ceramic interface includes an insertable ceramic tip abutting the interior surface.
Regarding claim 15, WHITESELL teaches: the ceramic interface includes an insertable ceramic tip (42) abutting the interior surface (see Figure 1, ¶0028, ¶0035-¶0037).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have the ceramic interface includes an insertable ceramic tip abutting the interior surface in the modified gas turbine engine of SUNDBERG / SATO/ MALLEN/ JP’993, in order to have an easily replaceable wear item, which can lower the costs of production, as well as, provide the desired materials with various tensile strengths to be used in areas of critical operations (see ¶0035 of WHITESELL).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified gas turbine engine of SUNDBERG / SATO/ MALLEN/ JP’993 as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of JP‘273 (Japanese Patent Publication JP-4658273-B2, a machine translation is provided with the foreign reference in the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited mailed on 8/27/2025 and is utilized in the rejection below).
The modified gas turbine engine of SUNDBERG / SATO/ MALLEN/ JP’993 disclose the claimed invention, however, fail to disclose the ceramic shroud includes a coating with a thickness between 0.01 inches and 0.06 inches.
Regarding claim 19, JP‘273 teaches: the ceramic interface includes a coating (the ceramic coating is called “ABT” see ¶0015) with a thickness between 0.01 inches and 0.06 inches (see ¶0024).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have the ceramic shroud includes a coating with a thickness between 0.01 inches and 0.06 inches in the modified gas turbine engine of SUNDBERG / SATO/ MALLEN/ JP’993, in order to have a sufficient thickness to prevent wear and/or thermal damage (see ¶0024 of JP‘273). The current application does not disclose any criticality of having the coating with a thickness between 0.01 inches and 0.06 inches as a matter of design choice. At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the ceramic shroud with a coating of a thickness between 0.01 inches and 0.06 inches in the modified gas turbine engine of SUNDBERG / SATO/ MALLEN/ JP’993 because Applicant has not disclosed that using these specific thicknesses provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the modified gas turbine engine of SUNDBERG / SATO/ MALLEN/ JP’993 /JP‘273, and Applicant's invention, to perform equally well with either the thicknesses taught by JP‘273 or the claimed thickness because both thicknesses would perform the same function of preventing wear. JP‘273 teaches a variety of thicknesses that are included in this range, and also states that once the coating thickness is enough to prevent wear and/or thermal damage (i.e. to provide good protection (see ¶0024 of JP‘273)), the thickness is not critical. JP‘273 also states that the thickness of the ceramic interface should not be so thick to hinder the functionality of the device (see ¶0024 of JP‘273). Developing a useful range requires only routine skill in the art and produces predictable results (i.e. a wearable component that does not have a coating that is too thick to hinder functionality of the device).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection was necessitated by the amendment. The Examiner has addressed the new claim limitation with a new reference (see rejection above).
The Examiner would like to make a quick comment on the withdrawn claims that are recommended to be canceled. As discussed in the Advisory action, a vane located in the slot of the rotor is not present in the non-elected species shown in Figure 7. The combination of the gerotor with a rotor with vanes is not a valid combination.
Additional Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP’889 (Japanese Patent Publication JP-H05-5889 U) discloses a vane pump (see Figure 2) with vanes (25) in the slots of the rotor (24), and discloses a coating on the tip of the vane (see Figure 3A) or on the entire vane (see Figure 3B).
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-9965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am-4pm.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at (469) 295-9278. 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.
/Mary A Davis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights