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
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 7/15/2026, with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 over Parkos (US 2014/0010663) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of Applicant’s amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Chen et al. (US 2022/0127745) and Liu et al. (US 2020/0199300).
Claim Objections
Claims 3-4 are objected to because of the following informalities: “zinc, chromium and titanium” is missing an Oxford comma. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parkos et al. (US 2014/0010663) in view of Liu et al. (US 2020/0199300).
Regarding claims 14, 16-17 and 19, Parkos teaches subjecting the fan blade in a plasma electrolytic oxidation (¶ 58), which is the same process used to make the claimed aluminum oxide layer (see Spec., ¶¶ 35-36). Plasma electrolytic oxidation inherently includes disposing the fan blade in an electrochemical cell including a dilute alkaline solution, and electrically connecting the fan blade as an electrode to another electrode and passing a voltage to create an oxide coating. Parkos teaches the voltage passed is at least 200 volts (¶ 58), and the fan blade body is a 7000 series aluminum alloy (¶ 19). This oxidation process is expected to result in mesopores as it is identical to the claimed process, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.
Parkos does not expressly teach the mesopores of the aluminum oxide layer are sealed with an epoxy-based polymer film. Parkos teaching applying a polyurethane coating on the surface of the fan blade (¶ 56). Liu teaches the apertures of anodized aluminum surfaces can be sealed with an epoxy or urethane composition (¶¶ 876-877). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to apply an epoxy-based polymer film on an anodized aluminum surface, as taught by Liu, for the fan blade of Parkos because it is readily apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art that sealing the pores of an anodized aluminum surface will prevent infiltration of the pores by foreign or undesirable material.
Regarding claim 18, Parkos teaches the thickness of the aluminum oxide layer is at least 13 μm (¶ 9). This overlaps the claimed range, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 20, the crystalline oxidation layer has a hardness of at least 1700 HV (¶ 10). Although Parkos does not expressly disclose the crystalline structure of the aluminum oxide, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the same crystal structures in Parkos as those claimed, given that the aluminum oxide layer in Parkos is made by the same process as that used to make the claimed aluminum oxide layer, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parkos et al. (US 2014/0010663) in view of Liu et al. (US 2020/0199300), as applied to claim 14, further in view of Shashkov et al. (US 2016/0186352).
Regarding claim 15, the limitations of claim 14 have been addressed above. Modified Parkos does not expressly teach using KOH as the dilute alkaline solution for performing PEO. Shashkov teaches using PEO to form a coating of aluminum oxide on an aluminum alloy substrate (¶¶ 118-119). The PEO process includes using a KOH solution (¶ 113). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to apply particulars of the PEO process disclosed in Shashkov for the PEO process of Parkos because the prior art establishes the Shashkov process is effective for making aluminum oxide coatings on aluminum alloys using PEO.
Claims 1, 10-12, 14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parkos et al. (US 2014/0010663) in view of Chen et al. (US 2022/0127745).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Parkos teaches a fan blade for a gas turbine engine (¶ 1). The fan blade body is a 2000 or 7000 series aluminum alloy (¶ 19) having a crystalline oxidation layer on it (¶ 16). The crystalline oxidation layer is aluminum oxide (¶ 8) formed by anodization (¶ 58). The presence of mesopores in the resulting aluminum oxide layer is considered to be inherent since the oxidation in Parkos is obtained via the same process as the claimed product (see discussion of claim 14 below), absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.
Parkos does not expressly teach the mesopores of the aluminum oxide layer are sealed with trivalent or hexavalent chromates. Chen discloses an anodized aluminum alloy having pores (¶ 18). The anodized aluminum alloy may be a turbine engine component such as a stator vane, fan case, or shroud (¶ 33). Chen teaches applying a corrosion inhibitor to seal the pores of oxide layer of the anodized metal (¶ 19). The corrosion inhibitor includes a trivalent or hexavalent chromium compound (¶ 24). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to apply a chromate film to the aluminum oxide layer of Parkos because Chen teaches the sealant provides excellent corrosion resistance and prevents corrosion from reaching the underlying metal (¶ 19).
Regarding claim 10, the crystalline oxidation layer has a hardness of at least 1700 HV (¶ 10). Although Parkos does not expressly disclose the crystalline structure of the aluminum oxide, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the same crystal structures in Parkos as those claimed, given that the aluminum oxide layer in Parkos is made by the same process (discussed in further detail in the rejection of claim 14 below) as that used to make the claimed aluminum oxide layer, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 12, Parkos teaches the thickness of the aluminum oxide layer is at least 13 μm (¶ 9). This overlaps the claimed range, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claims 14, 16-17 and 19, Parkos teaches subjecting the fan blade in a plasma electrolytic oxidation (¶ 58), which is the same process used to make the claimed aluminum oxide layer (see Spec., ¶¶ 35-36). Plasma electrolytic oxidation inherently includes disposing the fan blade in an electrochemical cell including a dilute alkaline solution, and electrically connecting the fan blade as an electrode to another electrode and passing a voltage to create an oxide coating. Parkos teaches the voltage passed is at least 200 volts (¶ 58), and the fan blade body is a 7000 series aluminum alloy (¶ 19). This oxidation process is expected to result in mesopores as it is identical to the claimed process, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.
Parkos does not expressly teach the mesopores of the aluminum oxide layer are sealed with trivalent or hexavalent chromates. Chen discloses an anodized aluminum alloy having pores (¶ 18). The anodized aluminum alloy may be a turbine engine component such as a stator vane, fan case, or shroud (¶ 33). Chen teaches applying a corrosion inhibitor to seal the pores of oxide layer of the anodized metal (¶ 19). The corrosion inhibitor includes a trivalent or hexavalent chromium compound (¶ 24). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to apply a chromate film to the aluminum oxide layer of Parkos because Chen teaches the sealant provides excellent corrosion resistance and prevents corrosion from reaching the underlying metal (¶ 19).
Regarding claim 18, Parkos teaches the thickness of the aluminum oxide layer is at least 13 μm (¶ 9). This overlaps the claimed range, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 20, the crystalline oxidation layer has a hardness of at least 1700 HV (¶ 10). Although Parkos does not expressly disclose the crystalline structure of the aluminum oxide, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the same crystal structures in Parkos as those claimed, given that the aluminum oxide layer in Parkos is made by the same process as that used to make the claimed aluminum oxide layer, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.
Claims 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parkos et al. (US 2014/0010663) in view of Chen et al. (US 2022/0127745), as applied to claim 1, further evidenced by The Aluminum Association.
Regarding claims 3-9, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed above. Modified Parkos does not expressly teach the composition of the aluminum alloy beyond stating the aluminum alloy is a 2000 or 7000 series alloy. As evidenced by The Aluminum Association, 2000 and 7000 series alloys contain up to 10%wt elements including Si, Mn, Mg, Cu, Fe, Zn, Cr, and Ti, with aluminum being roughly in the 88%-98% range (pp. 2-5 and 13-15). 2000 series alloy contain Fe, Zn, Cr, and Ti in amounts up to about 0.8% (pp. 2-5). These ranges lie within or overlap the claimed ranges, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parkos et al. (US 2014/0010663) in view of Chen et al. (US 2022/0127745), as applied to claims 1 and 14, respectively, further in view of Peng et al. (CN 114754021).
Regarding claims 11 and 20, the limitations of claims 1 and 14 have been addressed above. Modified Parkos does not expressly teach using a 3000, 4000, 5000 or 6000 series aluminum alloy for a gas turbine blade. Peng teaches an impeller for a turbine (p. 4, ¶ 1). The impeller can be made of a 3 series, 4 series, 5 series, 6 series, or 7 series aluminum alloy (p. 4, ¶ 4). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for one of ordinary skill in the art to use a 3000, 4000, 5000, or 6000 series aluminum alloy in place of a 7000 series aluminum alloy because Peng suggests these are equivalent choices for a turbine blade.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parkos et al. (US 2014/0010663) in view of Chen et al. (US 2022/0127745), as applied to claim 14, further in view of Shashkov et al. (US 2016/0186352).
Regarding claim 15, the limitations of claim 14 have been addressed above. Modified Parkos does not expressly teach using KOH as the dilute alkaline solution for performing PEO. Shashkov teaches using PEO to form a coating of aluminum oxide on an aluminum alloy substrate (¶¶ 118-119). The PEO process includes using a KOH solution (¶ 113). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to apply particulars of the PEO process disclosed in Shashkov for the PEO process of Parkos because the prior art establishes the Shashkov process is effective for making aluminum oxide coatings on aluminum alloys using PEO.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAOBEI WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5705. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/XIAOBEI WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights