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.
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.
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 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 and is utilized in the rejection below), and in view of MALLEN (U.S. Patent 5,524,587).
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 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).
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, and a ceramic shroud coupled to the interior surface, the ceramic shroud including a plurality of discrete segments.
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.
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.
Regarding claim 2, SATO discloses: a rotor (32) including a slot (see Marked up Figure 4 of SATO), the vane moveably disposed within the slot (see Marked up Figure 4 of SATO, ¶0040).
Regarding claim 3, SATO discloses: a ceramic coating disposed on the metallic core (see Figures 3, 6, and 7, ¶0024-¶0027, ¶0039-¶0040, and ¶0042-¶0049).
Regarding claim 4, SATO discloses: the ceramic coating is disposed on a tip of the vane (Figures 3, 6, and 7, ¶0024-¶0027, ¶0039-¶0040, and ¶0042-¶0049, where the ceramic coating is disclosed to cover the entire vane, which also includes the tip of the vane).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified pump of SATO/ ZHANG/ MALLEN as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of WHITESELL (U.S. Patent Publication US 2009/0087334 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the modified pump of SATO/ ZHANG/ MALLEN 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 pump of SATO/ ZHANG/ MALLEN, 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 pump of SATO/ ZHANG/ MALLEN as applied to claim 2 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, 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 pump of SATO/ ZHANG/ MALLEN 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 and is utilized in the rejection below).
The modified pump of SATO/ ZHANG/ MALLEN 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 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‘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 11-14, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUNDBERG (U.S. Patent 5,545,014) in view of SATO (European Patent Publication EP 3,363,991 A1).
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 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, and a ceramic shroud coupled to the interior surface, the ceramic shroud including a plurality of discrete segments.
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).
SATO also teaches that there is a ceramic is coupled to at least one of the metallic core 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.
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).
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 gas turbine engine 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 gas turbine engine 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 gas turbine engine of SUNDBERG/ SATO due to design incentives of reducing serious fractures of the ceramics due to temperature variations.
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 13, SATO further teaches: a ceramic coating disposed on the metallic core (see Figures 3, 6, and 7, ¶0024-¶0027, ¶0039-¶0040, and ¶0042-¶0049).
Regarding claim 14, SATO further teaches: the ceramic coating is disposed on a tip of the vane (Figures 3, 6, and 7, ¶0024-¶0027, ¶0039-¶0040, and ¶0042-¶0049, where the ceramic coating is disclosed to cover the entire vane, which also includes the tip 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).
Regarding claim 20, SATO further teaches a coating extending over an entire span of the vane (see Figure 4, ¶0039-¶0040).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified gas turbine engine of SUNDBERG / SATO/ MALLEN as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of WHITESELL (U.S. Patent Publication US 2009/0087334 A1).
Regarding claim 15, the modified gas turbine engine of SUNDBERG / SATO/ MALLEN 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, 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 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 and is utilized in the rejection below).
The modified gas turbine engine of SUNDBERG / SATO/ MALLEN 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, 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 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‘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 amendments filed November 21, 2025 have resulted in a new reference (MALLEN) used in the rejection above. The arguments for the independent and dependent claims are to the amended independent claims, which the new limitations are taught by MALLEN (see rejection above). The arguments with regards to SATO, SUNDBERG, ZHANG, WILLIAMSON, JP‘273, and WHITESELL are moot, since these are based on the newly amended claim limitations, which are taught by MALLEN.
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.
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