DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
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.
Claims 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 4192634 to Campos in view of US Patent 3791781 to Fujiyama and further in view of US Patent 3918137 to Telang.
As to claim 1, Campos discloses forming at least a main rotor housing (12), a first side housing (13) and a second side housing (14); forming a first side plate (43) and a second side plate (44).
Campos discloses how the first and second side plates house a cooling channel (16) but does not expressly disclose how the housing is made from an aluminum alloy and selecting interface surfaces between at least the main rotor housing, the first side housing, the second side housing, the first side plate and the second side plate; masking non-selected surface of the each of the at least the main rotor housing, the first side housing, the second side housing, the first side plate and the second side plate; and applying an anti-fretting coating to the selected interface surfaces.
Fujuyama discloses how the housing is made from an aluminum alloy (Col 2 Line 8-9) and selecting all interfaces that adjoin fastening surfaces and applying an anti-fretting coating to the selected interface surfaces (Col 2, Line 19-37) to accommodate wear brought about by thermal expansion and contraction due to a cooling channel and its influence on those surfaces (Col 1, Line 15-36).
Telang discloses how during wear resistant coating all non-coating surfaces ae masking to prevent coating on undesired surfaces (Col 5, Line 38-50).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Campos to include how the housing is made from an aluminum alloy and selecting interface surfaces between at least the main rotor housing, the first side housing, the second side housing, the first side plate and the second side plate; masking non-selected surface of the each of the at least the main rotor housing, the first side housing, the second side housing, the first side plate and the second side plate; and applying an anti-fretting coating to the selected interface surfaces using the combined teachings of Fujuyama and Telang so as to made the housing of a durable and stable material as known in the art, while providing a wear resistant material at all interfaces between components held by fasteners and interfacing with a cooling channel (Fujiyama Col 2, Line 19-37) to avoid wear on components due to thermal expansion and contraction which would lead to coolant leaking, where the an anti-fretting coating is applied by masking non-selected surface of the each of the at least the main rotor housing, the first side housing, the second side housing, the first side plate and the second side plate so as to avoid application of the coating on other undesired surfaces which could cause additional waste of material, work to remove said undesired material, and negative influence on component tolerance during assembly.
Claims 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 4192634 to Campos in view of US Patent 3791781 to Fujiyama and further in view of US Patent 3918137 to Telang as applied to Claim 1 above and further in view of US Patent 5911809 to Cordy.
As to claim 3, Campos does not expressly disclose comprising applying the anti-fretting coating to first thickness and machining the anti-fretting coating to a second thickness that is less than the first thickness, however it is commonly known as shown in Cordy (Col 1, Line 45-56) that masked coatings are applied in a spray range and then machined down to the desired tolerance to create a flat surface and to adhere to the tolerances of the machine as a whole.
Claims 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 4192634 to Campos in view of US Patent 3791781 to Fujiyama and further in view of US Patent 3918137 to Telang as applied to Claim 1 above and further in view of US Patent 11333068 to Savaria.
As to claim 6, Campos does not expressly disclose the anti-fretting coating comprises one of a chromium carbide, an aluminum bronze, or a tungsten carbide.
Savaria discloses a similar rotary internal combustion engine including an anti-fretting coating [50 and/or 70] comprising a thermal spray coating containing at least one of a chromium carbide or tungsten carbide (col. 5 lines 44-50, col. 6 lines 32-47, col. 7 lines 12-17, and Figures 1-4). I At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Campos to include the anti-fretting coating to contain chromium carbide or tungsten carbide using the teachings of Savaria as that these compositions are also wear-resistant (col. 4 lines 63-65 and col. 5 lines 44-50) capable of achieving the desired results. This amounts to a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-16 allowed.
Claim 2,4-5,7 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSE SAMUEL BOGUE whose telephone number is (571)270-1406. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Laurenzi can be reached on 571-270-7878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESSE S BOGUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746