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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 9, 33-35, 74- 77 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims, 1, 35, 75 and 77 each recites: “capable of achieving one or more of a tip speed of at least 400 m/s, a tip speed of at least about 600 m/s, and a tip speed of at least about 700 m/s” which is indefinite because it includes narrow and broad range or limitations within the same claims. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, each of claims 1, 35, 75 and 77 recites the broad recitation “a tip speed of at least 700 m/s”, and the claim also recites “a tip speed of at least 400m/s” and “a tip speed of at least 600 m/s” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the at least one polyaryl ether ketone” in line 2 (first occurrence”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 33 recites the limitation "the at least one outer banding ring". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 34 and 74 each recites the limitation "the openings”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2, 4 and 9 are indefinite by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 76 is indefinite by virtue of its dependence on claim 34.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gordichon et al. (US 6,402,467 B1) hereinafter Gordichon.
Regarding claim 1, Gordichon teaches an impeller for use with centrifugal compressors or pumps (Col. 5, lines 4-34) comprising:
a composite (12) (Fig. 3) comprising a high-performance polymer matrix material comprising polyurethanes: “Col. 5, lines 36-39 states “a polyurethane type foam and/or resin which may or may not be filled”), and
at least one continuous reinforcing fiber (20A,20B,21A,21B) (Col. 6, lines 35-42; Fig. 2), separate composite pre-pregs (6, 7) (Col. 5, lines 49-56 recites “a plurality of "prepreg" plies, 60 and 70, (see FIGS. 11 to 13) of synthetic fiber fabric, which are known per se, forming reinforcing layers of fabric which can be formed from carbon fibers, glass fibers or from KEVLAR brand fibers or aramid fibers or any other equivalent material, each layer being impregnated with epoxy resin, for example)” wherein within the separate elements, portions of the fibers of the at a least one continuous fiber are substantially aligned (Figs. 1, 6 and 11-13) and the separate elements are continuous pre-pregs (Col. 5, lines 49-56).
With respect to the limitation “wherein re-molded assembly of separate composite pre-preg elements", it is noted that this limitation is a product-by-process limitation and only requires the process to the extent it provides a structural difference. See MPEP 2113. Here, Godichon's use of a finalizing assembly of the impeller parts through a "vacuum bonded in a single operation" (Col. 8, lines 8-15) is considered a re-molding process or to the extent it is not, results in the same structural end product as the process so claimed.
Further with respect to the limitation of “the impeller in operation is capable of achieving one or more of a tip speed of at least 400 m/s, a tip speed of at least about 600 m/s, and a tip speed of at least about 700 m/s”, it is noted that “When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP 2112.01. Here, as the claimed structural elements are present in Godichon, see above, it is therein presumed that these operational properties are inherently disclosed and thus Godichon anticipates this limitation.
Regarding claim 2, Gordichon teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Gordichon further teaches the matrix material is a thermoplastic polymer (Applicant’s disclosure [0019] acknowledges that polyurethane is a thermoplastic polymer).
Regarding claim 9, Gordichon teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Gordichon further teaches the at least one continuous reinforcing fibers (20A, 20B, 21A, 21B are carbon fibers (Col. 6, lines 35-39).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 11, 13, 15-16, 18, 21-22, 25-26, 34-35 and 76-77 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordichon.
Regarding claim 11, Gordichon teaches an impeller for use with centrifugal compressors or pumps (Col. 5, lines 4-34) comprising:
a first composite (12) (Fig. 3) comprising a high-performance polymer matrix material comprising polyurethanes: “Col. 5, lines 36-39 states “a polyurethane type foam and/or resin which may or may not be filled”), and
at least one continuous reinforcing fiber (20A,20B,21A,21B) (Col. 6, lines 35-42; Fig. 2); and a second composite (6, 7) comprising a second matrix (epoxy resin” material which is a thermosetting polymer (Col. 5, lines 49-56 recites “a plurality of "prepreg" plies, 60 and 70, (see FIGS. 11 to 13) of synthetic fiber fabric, which are known per se, forming reinforcing layers of fabric which can be formed from carbon fibers, glass fibers or from KEVLAR brand fibers or aramid fibers or any other equivalent material, each layer being impregnated with epoxy resin, for example)”; and the at least one continuous fiber (20A,20B,21A,21B) (Col. 6, lines 35-42; Fig. 2),
wherein the impeller comprises at least one first flange (2A) (Fig. 1) comprising the first composite (12) (Figs. 1-3) and having an exterior surface (7A) and an interior surface (6A) (Fig. 1), the at least one flange defining a first opening (central area as shown in Fig. 10) extending longitudinally therethrough (Fig. 10); and
at least one rib (3) (Figs. 1 and 10) comprising a composite material and positioned on the first flange (2A) such that the rib (3) engaged the interior surface (6A) of the first flange (2A).
Regarding the limitation of the impeller being "a re-molded assembly of separate composite pre-preg elements", it is noted that this limitation is a product-by-process limitation and only requires the process to the extent it provides a structural difference. See MPEP 2113. Here, Godichon's use of a finalizing assembly of the impeller parts through a "vacuum bonded in a single operation" is considered a re-molding process or to the extent it is not, results in the same structural end product as the process so claimed.
While Godichon does identify the rib (3) as being made of a composite material (Godichon column 8, lines 9-12), it does not specify what specific composite material is used for those elements. However, given the skin/layer like similarities of Godichon’s vanes (3) to like elements of skins (6,7) it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized second composite material of a prepreg plies formed of fiber reinforcement within an epoxy resin as the composite material of the ribs/vanes (3).
Regarding claim 13, Gordichon as modified teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 11. Gordichon as modified further teaches at least one ring member (Gordichon, annotated FIG. 1A below) in contact with the at least one first flange (2A), wherein the pre-preg elements further include the at least one ring member (“each skin 6 and 7 is formed by a stack of a plurality of prepreg plies”; Col. 5, lines 46-56) and since the ring member is part of the first flange 2A, it also comprises the pre-preg.
PNG
media_image1.png
441
768
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Gordichon as modified teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 11. Gordichon further teaches the impeller further comprises a second flange (2B) (Figs. 1, 1A) comprising the first composite or the second composite (Col. 5, lines 46-56) the second flange having an exterior surface and an interior surface (Figs. 1, 1A), and wherein the second flange comprises at least one surface feature on the interior surface thereof (Figs. 1, 1A, 10 and Godichon, annotated FIG. 1A above), and the second flange defines a second opening extending longitudinally therethrough (Fig 1A and Godichon, annotated FIG. 1A above); wherein the at least one rib has a first end (3c) and a second end (3c) (Gordichon, Fig. 10), the interior surface of the at least one first flange also comprises at least one surface feature (58) (Fig. 10, Col. 8, lines 47-58) and the first end of the at least one rib engages the at least one surface feature on the interior surface of the at least one first flange (Fig. 10), wherein the second end of the at least one rib engages the at least one surface feature on the interior surface of the second flange and wherein the first and the second openings are positioned to be at least substantially aligned, and wherein the pre-preg elements further include the second flange (Figs. 1, 1A, 10; Col. 5, lines 46-56).
Regarding claim 16, Gordichon teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 15. Gordichon as modified further teaches there are a plurality of surface features on the interior surface of the at least one first flange and on the interior surface of the second flange and a plurality of ribs (Figs. 1A, 10; Col. 8, lines 47-58).
Regarding claim 18, Gordichon teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 15. Gordichon as modified further teaches the at least one surface feature on each of the interior surfaces of the at least one first flange and the second flange are at least substantially aligned for engaging the first and second ends of the at least one rib (Fig. 1A, 10).
Regarding claim 21, Gordichon as modified teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 15. Gordichon as modified further teaches at least one ring member (Gordichon, annotated FIG. 1A above) in contact with the at least one first flange (2A), wherein the pre-preg elements further include the at least one ring member (“each skin 6 and 7 is formed by a stack of a plurality of prepreg plies”; Col. 5, lines 46-56) and since the ring member is part of the first flange 2A, it also comprises the pre-preg.
Regarding claim 22, Gordichon as modified teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 21. Gordichon as modified further teaches the at least one ring member comprises a second ring member (Gordichon, annotated FIG. 1A above, note that only one ring member is shown), the second ring member having an opening extending longitudinally therethrough, wherein the second ring member is configured for engaging the exterior surface of the second flange such that the second opening in the second flange and the opening in the second ring member are at least substantially (Fig. 1A and Gordichon, annotated FIG. 1A above).
Regarding claim 25, Gordichon as modified teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 21. Gordichon as modified further teaches the at least one ring member further comprises a first ring member defining an opening (Gordichon, annotated FIG. 1A above) extending longitudinally therethrough for engaging the exterior surface of the first flange such that the first opening in the first flange and the opening in the first ring member are substantially aligned (Gordichon, annotated FIG. 1A above).
Regarding claim 26, Gordichon, as modified teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 25. Gordichon as modified further teaches the at least one ring member further teaches the first ring member comprises the first composite material (Col. 5, lines 36-39 and Col. 5, lines 46-56) and the first ring member comprises unidirectionally oriented fibers extending in circumferential direction (continuous reinforcing fiber (20A,20B,21A,21B) are unidirectionally oriented in a circumferential direction (see at least Figs. 1,6, and 11-13).
Regarding claim 34, Godichon as modified teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 11 including the second composite comprises an engineering polymer (the second matrix comprises epoxy resin which is an engineering polymer; see rejection claim 11).
Regarding claim 35, Godichon as modified teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 11. With respect to the limitation of “the impeller in operation is capable of achieving one or more of a tip speed of at least 400 m/s, a tip speed of at least about 600 m/s, and a tip speed of at least about 700 m/s”, it is noted that “When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP 2112.01. Here, as the claimed structural elements are present in Godichon, see above, it is therein presumed that these operational properties are inherently disclosed and thus Godichon anticipates this limitation.
Regarding claim 76, Gordichon as modified teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 34. Gordichon does not specifically teach that the second composites a matrix material selected from polycarbonates, linear aromatic polyesters, linear aromatic polyimides, polyurethanes, polyphenylene oxides, polyphenylene ethers, polyphenylene esters, polyphenylene ether esters, polyphenylene sulfides, polysulfones, polyether sulfones, polyphenylsulfones, polymethylpentenes, polyketones, aramids, polyaryl ethers, polyaryl ether ketones, and combinations and co-polymers thereof.
However, since Gordichon discloses that first composite comprises high performance polymer matrix material which comprises polyurethane (Col. 5, lines 36-39), one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to utilize a polyurethane as a matrix for the second composite as all claimed parts were known and would have yielded none but an expected result; namely forming a high-performance composite material.
Regarding claim 77, Godichon as modified teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 76. With respect to the limitation of “the impeller in operation is capable of achieving one or more of a tip speed of at least 400 m/s, a tip speed of at least about 600 m/s, and a tip speed of at least about 700 m/s”, it is noted that “When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP 2112.01. Here, as the claimed structural elements are present in Godichon, see above, it is therein presumed that these operational properties are inherently disclosed and thus Godichon anticipates this limitation.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Godichon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Peggy (WO 2013/087496 A1).
Godichon teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1 but does not specifically teach the matrix material comprises at least one polyaryl ether ketone selected from polyetherketone, polyetherketoneketone, polyetheretherketone, polyetheretherketoneketone, polyetherketoneetherketoneketone and combinations and copolymers thereof.
However, Peggy in the same filed teaches an impeller comprising a high-performance polymer material, wherein the matrix material comprises at least one polyaryl ether ketone selected from polyetherketone, polyetherketoneketone, polyetheretherketone, polyetheretherketoneketone, polyetherketoneetherketoneketone and combinations and copolymers thereof (page, 4, line 23-page 5, line 21). Here is the teaching that the use of polyaryl ether ketone as matrix is well known in the art of impeller.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Godichon such that the matrix material comprises polyaryl ether ketone as all claimed part were known and would have yielded none but an expect result namely; densifying the reinforcing fibers of the composite forming the impeller.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Godichon as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Cortello (US 2019/0128277 A1).
Godichon as modified teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 11 but does not specifically state the first composite is the dame as the second composite.
Cortello in the same filed of endeavor discloses an impeller for use with a centrifugal compressor comprising a flange (2, 3) (Fig. 1) formed from a first composite and at least one rib/vane (5) formed from a second composite (para. 0018). Cortello teaches that the first composite is the same as the second composite (para. 0018). Here is the teaching that it is well known in the art to form impeller flange/disk and ribs/vanes with the same composite.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to utilize the same composite to form the flange and the at least one rib in order to unitarily form the impeller.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Godichon as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Ahaus et al. (US 2010/0166559 A1) hereinafter Ahaus.
Godichon as modified teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 15 but fails to teach the exterior surface of the second flange comprises Hirth toothing formed in an inner annular portion of the second flange.
However, Ahaus teaches a support wheel (14)n comprising a flange (Fig. 3), the flange comprising a Hirth toothing (18) for forming a form-fitting connection with an adjacent component (para. 0041).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify Godichon by providing a hirth toothing on the second flange as taught by Ahaus in order to form a form fitting connection between the second flange and the second ring member.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Godichon as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Urabe et al. (US 2015/0159656 A1) hereinafter Urabe.
Godichon as modified teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 21 including the ribs provided with metal parts (Figs. 8-9; Col. 8, lines 28-35). Gordichon as modified fails to teach the second ring member and the second flange each define one or more openings for receiving fasteners to secure the second ring to the second flange and wherein the second ring member comprises a metal or metal alloy.
However, Urabe directed to an impeller teaches the use of fasteners (160) configured to secured two members together, each of the members defining one or more openings to for receiving the fasteners (Fig. 2, para. 0048).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to utilize fasteners as taught by Godichon to secure the second ring member to the second flange.
With respect to the limitation the second ring member comprises a metal or a metal alloy, since Gordichon discloses parts of its impeller comprising metallic parts, it would have been obvious to form the second ring member with metal as metallic material are widely known to be used in the art of impeller. Furthermore, it has been held (see MPEP 2144.07) that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)).
Claim(s) 28, 29, 31, 33, 74-75 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Godichon as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Alfieri et al. (US 2019/0175853 A1) hereinafter Alfieri.
Regarding claim 28, Godichon as modified teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 21 including each of the at least one first flange and the second flange has a circumferential outer surface extending longitudinally between the interior surface and the exterior surface thereof (Figs. 1, 1A and 10) but fails to the impeller comprises an outer banding ring, wherein the outer banding ring is configured to be positioned circumferentially around and in engagement with the outer surface of the at least one first flange.
However, Alfieri drawn to a centrifugal compressor teaches an impeller comprising a first flange and a second flange and a plurality of vanes (16) disposed between the first and second flanges (Figs. 2-3). Alfieri further teaches an outer banding ring (22), the outer banding ring configured to be positioned circumferentially around and in engagement with the outer surface of the first flange (Figs. 2-3 and [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify Godichon by providing an outer banding ring as taught by Alfieri in order to couple the first flange to adjacent housing.
Regarding claim 29, Godichon as modified by Alfieri teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 28 wherein the outer banding including a third material. Although Godichon as modified by Alfieri does not specifically state that the third material is a composite material having a matrix material and a reinforcing fiber as claimed; based on the fact that Godichon as modified (per rejection of claim 11) teaches the impeller comprising a first and a second composite matrix material with reinforcing fibers that unidirectionally oriented extending in the circumferential direction and including pre-preg elements, one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to form the outer banding ring with a third composite that is same with the first composite and second composite as claimed in order to have an impeller with components that are integrally or uniformly formed.
Regarding claim 31, Godichon as modified by Alfieri teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 29 but does not specifically teach a second outer banding ring configured to be positioned circumferentially around and to engage the outer surface of the second flange, wherein the second outer banding ring comprises the third composite. However, having a second outer banding ring on the second flange is not inventive and is simply a duplication of parts and because there is a first outer banding ring on the first flange, one of ordinary skill would also have known to have a second outer banding ring on the second flange in order to couple the second flange to adjacent housing.
Regarding claim 33, Godichon as modified by Alfieri teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 29 including the re-molded assembly further includes the at least one outer banding ring.
Regarding claim 74, Godichon as modified by Alfieri teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 31. Godichon as modified by Alfieri further teaches the openings in the impeller are formed by removable core molding. it is noted that this limitation “formed by removable core molding” is a product-by-process limitation and only requires the process to the extent it provides a structural difference. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 75, Godichon as modified by Alfieri teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 34. Godichon as modified by Alfieri further teaches “the impeller in operation is capable of achieving one or more of a tip speed of at least 400 m/s, a tip speed of at least about 600 m/s, and a tip speed of at least about 700 m/s”
With respect to the limitation of “the impeller in operation is capable of achieving one or more of a tip speed of at least 400 m/s, a tip speed of at least about 600 m/s, and a tip speed of at least about 700 m/s”, it is noted that “When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP 2112.01. Here, as the claimed structural elements are present in Godichon, see above, it is therein presumed that these operational properties are inherently disclosed and thus Godichon anticipates this limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAXIME M ADJAGBE whose telephone number is (571)272-4920. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-6.
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, NATHANIEL E WIEHE can be reached at 571-272-8648. 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.
/MAXIME M ADJAGBE/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745