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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that: there is no motivation to combine Varennes with Jung to make a modification in which the rotor center portion is formed of Inconel and the blade portions are formed of titanium and that Jung teaches away from the proposed combination.
It is respectfully asserted that: Varennes in view of Jung teaches all of the limitations as presented in the rejection reproduced below and the combination is properly motivated and does not destroy the intended purpose of Varennes. Varennes teaches a rotor made from a hub (9) and blades (10-11). ¶0090 teaches that these different parts can be made from the same or different materials. ¶0068 teaches the rotor is made at least partially from titanium or nickel based alloy, including Inconel 718. Varennes, on its own, teaches (1) that the hub and blades are made from different materials; and (2) that the different materials are chosen from a list including titanium and nickel based alloy. As to selected titanium for the blades, Jung is relied upon for teaching that when using two different materials to form a hub and blades (See ¶0022), titanium is known to be used in the blades and can withstand high loads that the blades are subjected to (¶0022). Therefore, in the combination of teachings, the hub in Varennes is made from one material (either Inconel or stainless steel as taught by Varennes), while the blades are made from another (titanium based on Jung) to achieve predictable results. Varennes does not teach away from using two different materials, and Jung teaches that titanium is suited for a blade portion of an analogous rotor. Based on the above information from the references, the combination is motivated, does not destroy the intended purpose of the primary reference and will be maintained at this time.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varennes (WO2024008348A1) in view of Schudeleit (US20220364471A1), further in view of Jung (EP3085964B1), as evidenced by MATWEB TITANIUM and MATWEB INCONEL 718 (NPL documents W and X, respectively on the attached PTO-892).
Claim 1
Varennes teaches a method of manufacturing a rotor blade (Figure 5, Items 11a and 11b) provided in a vacuum pump (¶0001) and having a center portion (Figure 5, Item 9, hub) and a blade (Figure 5, Item 11a or 11b) radially extending from the center portion (Figure 5), comprising: forming, using a first material (¶0019), the center portion and a first portion of the blade extending from a connection portion between the blade and the center portion by a predetermined length (Figure 5 teaches by illustration that the center portion (9) is of one piece with a protruding portion that extends in a direction of the blades (11a). This protruding portion has a length.), the center portion being a portion at the center of rotation of the rotor blade (Figure 5), by forming the first material in accordance with the shapes of the center portion and the first portion (¶0102 teaches the hub (9) is manufactured using conventional techniques.); and forming, using a second material laminated and formed on the first material, a second portion of the blade extending from a tip end of the first portion to a tip end of the blade (Figure 5 teaches the blades (11a) extend from the protruding portion of the hub (9) to the tip of the blade. ¶0104 teaches that the blades can be added by metal additive manufacturing on the hub.) by laminating and forming the second portion made of the second material in accordance with the shape of the second portion by additive manufacturing. (¶0104 teaches the blades are made by metal additive manufacturing to the hub. Metal additive manufacturing is a method that uses a building up of layers (laminations) in succession to form an object. ¶0090-0091 teaches parts of the rotos can be made from the same or different materials.). Varennes also teaches the first and second materials being different. (¶0068 teaches various materials for use in the rotor. ¶0090-0091 teaches that the hub and blades can be made from different materials.)
Varennes does not explicitly disclose forming integrally, using a first material, the center portion and a first portion of the blade extending from a connection portion between the blade and the center portion by a predetermined length, the center portion being a portion at the center of rotation of the rotor blade, by cutting the first material in accordance with the shapes of the center portion and the first portion. Varennes only states that the hub is formed conventionally.
However, Schudeleit teaches forming integrally, using a first material (¶0057), the center portion (Figure 1, Item 300, hub) and a first portion (Figure 1, Item 110, blade segment) of the blade extending from a connection portion between the blade and the center portion by a predetermined length (Figures 1 and 3 show the blade segment (110) extends from a connection between the segment and the hub (300) to where the blade (120) is formed. This segment (110) has a length.), the center portion being a portion at the center of rotation of the rotor blade (The hub (300) of a bladed rotor is the center of rotation.), by cutting the first material in accordance with the shapes of the center portion and the first portion. (¶0043 or ¶0055 teach subtractive manufacturing or machining respectively for the forming step of removing portions of the provided workpiece (10) to form the hub (300/301) and blade segment (110) to the desired shapes.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known rotor construction technique of Schudeleit to the hub/protrusion/blade formation method of Varennes produce the rotor at a lower cost (Schudeleit ¶0059); produces a more robust bladed rotor that is less prone to fracturing or breaking (Schudeleit ¶0059); and reduce inaccuracies during the build process (Schudeleit ¶0061).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known rotor construction technique of Schudeleit to the hub/protrusion/blade formation method of Varennes because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the rotor of Varennes will be produced using machining to form the hub and protrusions/blade segments, then metal additive manufacturing in a step-wise fashion to form the blades.
Varennes does not explicitly disclose the second material has a smaller specific weight than that of the first material. Varennes does teach the hub is made from metals such as Inconel 718 (¶0068).
However, Jung teaches a rotor (Figure 3) that has a main body portion and a blade portion (See ¶0022) where the main body is formed of one material and the blades are formed of another (¶0022) material, which is titanium. Titanium has a smaller specific weight (density * gravity) than Inconel 718 as shown in the accompanying NPL documents.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known titanium material technique from Jung to the blade manufacturing method in Varennes in order to use a material that is capable of withstanding/resisting high loads during operation. (See Jung ¶0023)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known titanium material technique from Jung to the blade manufacturing method in Varennes because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varennes (WO2024008348A1) in view of Schudeleit (US20220364471A1) and Jung (EP3085964B1), as applied in Claim 1, further in view of Chivers (US20160175983A1).
Claim 4
Varennes in view of Schudeleit teaches the method of manufacturing the rotor blade according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined length of the first portion is determined. (Varennes, Figure 5 teaches the protruding portions off the hub (9) have a length. Schudeleit, Figures 1-2, 5 and ¶0043 disclose that the blade segments (110), which are analogous first portions, are formed through subtractive manufacturing such that the length of these portions are selected/predetermined.)
Varennes in view of Schudeleit does not explicitly disclose wherein the predetermined length of the first portion is determined based on a size of an area where a predetermined level of stress or more is generated at the connection portion.
However, Chivers teaches a rotor formation method (Figure 2 teaches a rotor (27) that has blades (25) formed via metal additive manufacturing (¶0034). ¶0037 teaches that the rotor disc and protrusions are formed integrally by machining (removing excess material) the peripheral region of the blank.) where the predetermined length of the first portion (Figure 5 shows the analogous first portion (protrusion, 35) has a length (“r”) extending from the surface of the hub (34).) is determined based on a size of an area where a predetermined level of stress or more is generated at the connection portion. (Figure 6 and ¶0040 disclose that the length (“r”) is such that the heat-affected zone (“h”) does not extend into an area of critical stresses and ensures the integrity of the part.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known protrusion length selection technique of Chivers to the protrusion formation method of Varennes in view of Schudeleit to prevent the heat-affected zone generated during the metal additive manufacturing from penetrating the critical stress zone of the hub during the process. (See Chivers ¶0040)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known protrusion length selection technique of Chivers to the protrusion formation method of Varennes in view of Schudeleit because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varennes (WO2024008348A1) in view of Schudeleit (US20220364471A1), further in view of Jung (EP3085964B1), as applied in Claim 1, as evidenced by AZO MATERIALS TITANIUM and MATWEB INCONEL 718 (NPL documents V and X, respectively on the attached PTO-892).
Claim 10
Varennes in view of Schudeleit and Jung teaches the method of manufacturing the rotor blade according to claim 1, wherein the second material has a lower 0.2% proof stress than that of the first material. (The combination of Varennes and Jung in Claim 1 results in the hub being made from Inconel 718 and the blades being made from Titanium. As shown in AZO MATERIALS TITANIUM NPL, the 0.2 proof stress of various alloys of Titanium is less than 1000 MPa. MATWEB INCONEL 718 teaches that the 0.2 proof stress for Inconel 718 is 1100 MPa, which is greater.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the most relevant prior art found during the search and examination period for the application does not teach or obviate the limitation(s) of Claim 11.
Claim 11 requires all of the limitations of Claims 1 and 4, as well as specifying that the predetermined length in Claim 4 is based on the predetermined shearing stress of the first material.
The prior art teaches considerations of the stress at the joint between the blade and hub (See US20160175983A1; US20170107832A1 (¶0042); US20100158742A1 (¶0029)), yet none of the prior art references taught or obviated the specific combination of features to arrive at Claims 1, 4 and 11 in combination.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found on the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited Form.
US20160290343A1 - ¶0009 teaches a rotor having blades formed of aluminum and a hub (shaft) formed of a chromium nickel steel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael W Hotchkiss whose telephone number is (571)272-3854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 0800-1600.
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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/MICHAEL W HOTCHKISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights