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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicants’ submission filed on 9/8/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ response filed 9/8/2026 did not include any claim amendments. Applicants’ arguments filed 8/18/2026 overcome the 35 USC 102 rejection over Sridhar from the office action mailed 5/6/2026; therefore, this rejection is withdrawn. Applicants’ arguments addressed below do not overcome the 35 USC 103 rejections over Sridhar, Sridhar in view of Suzuki, and Sridhar in view of Marcos Izquierdo from the office action mailed 5/6/2026; therefore, these rejections are maintained below.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 7, 10-17 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sridhar et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0372151 (hereinafter referred to as Sridhar).
Regarding claims 1-4, 7 and 10-17, Sridhar discloses a system and method wherein the system includes an assembly with a base, and a coating disposed on the base. The assembly includes a shaft and a journal bearing coupled to the shaft, wherein at least one of the shaft and the journal bearing includes the base. The assembly may include a valve coupled to a valve seat, wherein at least one of the valve and the valve seat includes the base, and the base includes a plurality of dimples, the coating disposed on at least some dimples. The method is for disposing a coating on a base of the assembly using a friction surface process (as recited in claims 10 and 12-17) (see Abstract).
The function of the coating is to provide lubrication between valves and valve seats, and hence reduce friction. The base includes a plurality of dimples on the surface. As the pin tool is traversed along the base, iron-based alloy, or other material of the pin tool is deposited to form a coating of the pin tool material on the surface of the base (an amorphous metal as recited in claim 1 and reads on claims 2-3). The pin tool material is coated on some dimples. The coating may further comprise a solid lubricant, such as, molybdenum disulfide which can be mixed and therefore dispersed in the coating with the amorphous metal component (solid lubricant as recited in claim 1 and reads on claims 4 and 7 – reads on claim 7 as paragraph 0102 explicitly discloses that a desired mixture of solid lubricants can be used and concentration is a result effective variable and as such can be optimized without undue experimentation) (Para. [0066] and [0080]-[0102]) wherein the coating does not include any fluid lubricants (as recited in claim 11) (Para. [0097]).
Regarding claims 20-21, see discussion above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 5-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sridhar in view of Suzuki et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0167849 (hereinafter referred to as Suzuki).
Regarding claims 5-6, Sridhar discloses all the limitations discussed above but does not explicitly disclose the surface roughness recited in claims 5-6.
Suzuki discloses a turbo fluid machine includes a rotating member having a bearing-contact surface; an operating part configured to rotate together with the rotating member to compress and discharge a fluid; a housing accommodating the rotating member and the operating part; and a foil bearing having a bearing surface that faces the bearing-contact surface and supporting the rotating member such that the rotating member is rotatable relative to the housing. At least one of the bearing-contact surfaces or the bearing surface has thereon a coating layer. The coating layer comprises polyamide-imide serving as a binder resin and molybdenum disulfide serving as a solid lubricant and has a surface roughness ranging from 0.05 to 0.3 (as recited in claims 5-6 and 10-19) (see Abstract and see Figure 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Sridhar with Suzuki as it is combining art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 8-9, Sridhar/Suzuki do not explicitly disclose the relationship recited in the claims. It is the position of the examiner that as the combination of references disclose all the limitations of claims 1 and 6 that the combination of references would inherently read on claims 8-9. This is especially the case when taking into account paragraph 0057 of Suzuki. Polyamide-imide as the binder resin has high hardness and high wear resistance. Polyamide-imide further has high toughness and high viscosity. A transfer particle (abrasion powders) of polyamide-imide is transferred largely from the surface of the coating layer by initial wear due to sliding of the coating layer on a counterpart. This largely roughens the surface of the coating layer, thereby increasing the surface roughness of the coating layer after the initial wear. This raises the upper limit of the thickness of the fluid film in the foil bearing. That is, this increases the thickness of the fluid film in the transition from contact support of the rotating member by the foil bearing to non-contact support of the rotating member by the foil bearing, i.e., the thickness of the fluid film at the floating rotational speed at which the rotating member floats off the foil bearing, thereby decreasing the floating capability of the foil bearing. The decrease in the floating capability of the foil bearing increases the possibility of wear of the coating layer due to sliding of the coating layer on the counterpart, thereby decreasing the durability of the coating layer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sridhar in view of Marcos Izquierdo, US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0390004 (hereinafter referred to as Marcos Izquierdo).
Regarding claim 18, Sridhar discloses all the limitations discussed above but does not explicitly disclose the limitations recited in claim 18.
Marcos Izquierdo discloses a fan mounted upstream of a low-pressure compressor. The fan is driven by a fan shaft which is driven by the LP shaft by means of a mechanical reducer. The fan comprises a plurality of fan vanes that extend radially outward from a fan disc. The fan vanes are radially delimited by a fan casing. The latter carries a nacelle attached to the aircraft. The reducer is formed with a gear train and is known by the acronym RGB for “Reduction Gear Box”. The reducer is generally of the planetary or epicyclic type. The reducer comprises, a sun gear, planet gears, a planet carrier, and a ring gear. The sun gear, the ring gear and the planet carrier are planetary because their axes of revolution coincide with the longitudinal axis X of the turbomachine. The planet gears each have a different axis of revolution and are equally distributed on the same operating diameter around the axis of the planetaries. These axes are parallel to the longitudinal axis X. The reducer is here with a planetary gear train. The input of the reducer is coupled to the LP shaft while the output of the reducer is coupled to the fan shaft. In particular, the ring gear is rotatable and the planet carrier is non-rotatable wherein the surface includes a coating (as recited in claim 18) (see Abstract and Para. [0036]-[0038]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the coating of Sridhar in the mechanical part of Marcos Izquierdo in order to enhance the friction reducing properties of the mechanical part.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 8/18/2026 regarding claims 1-18 and 20-21 have been fully considered and are not persuasive regarding the obviousness rejections set forth above. Applicants argue that Sridhar cannot disclose an amorphous coating when the coating layers are taught as being crystalline in Sridhar. This argument is persuasive in overcoming the 35 USC 102 rejection over Sridhar as no example uses an amorphous metal in the coating layer. However, this argument is not persuasive in overcoming the obviousness rejection over Sridhar as paragraphs 0042, 0053, 0055, 0082, 0098 and see Claim 5 all explicitly disclose iron-based alloys, such as, steel for use in coating a base material. For this reason the obviousness rejections set forth in the office action mailed 5/6/2026 are maintained herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL V VASISTH whose telephone number is (571)270-3716. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-4:30 and 7:00-10:00p.
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, Prem Singh can be reached at 5712726381. 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.
/VISHAL V VASISTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights