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 .
Claims 1-8, 10-21 are currently pending. Claims 1-7 are rejected. Claims 8, 10-21 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Pg. 8-9 of the response, filed July 15, 2026 with respect to the withdrawing of previously presented Claims 9, 16 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants arguments are directed towards possession of a variant rather than showing the withdrawn claims are directed towards the elected Species P: the species of Figure 10A, wherein the airfoil includes dilatant material and cells positioned in the internal cavity as described in paragraph [0073]. Therefore, the arguments are found to be unpersuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 9-10, filed July 15, 2026, with respect to the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Battig et al. (US 2009/0185897 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood, Applicant argues Malmborg (US 2018/0340425 A1) and Sellinger et al. (US 2018/0010614 A1) do not expressly teach the wear-resistant coating as amended. The Office agrees. However, this limitation is believed to be obvious in view of Battig as detailed in the rejection below.
Note the amendments have caused the withdrawal of Claims 8 and 15, therefore the arguments are moot.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8, 10-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 8 and 15 have been amended to be directed towards non-elected species (see statement regarding previously withdrawn Claim 9 of the Non-Final Rejection of April 20, 2026). Therefore, the claims and their dependents have been withdrawn.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malmborg (US 2018/0340425 A1), hereinafter Malmborg, in view of Sellinger et al. (US 2018/0010614 A1), hereinafter Sellinger, and Battig et al. (US 2009/0185897 A1), hereainfter Battig.
Regarding Claim 1, Figure 2 of Malmborg teaches an apparatus comprising: an airfoil (60) including an internal leading axial surface, an internal trailing axial surface, an internal root surface, and an internal tip surface radially outward of the internal root surface, wherein the internal leading axial surface, the internal trailing axial surface, the internal root surface, and the internal tip surface form a cavity (72); a first wall positioned in the cavity (72), wherein the first wall is coupled to at least one of the internal leading axial surface and the internal trailing axial surface, the internal root surface, or the internal tip surface; a second wall positioned in the cavity, wherein the second wall is coupled to at least one of the internal leading axial surface, the internal trailing axial surface, the internal root surface, or the internal tip surface, and wherein the first wall and the second wall intersect to define a cell (76, includes 86, 88) within the cavity (72); and a damping material (90) positioned in the cell (76) [0034-0038]. Note that while (90) is only illustrated in one cell (76), it may be present in any multiple of the cells. See also annotated Figure 2’ below. In this instance, “cell” is interpreted to be any of (76) which is bordered by the first and second walls, i.e. the four in the top left corner of the view in Figure 2. The “walls” are the entire extending portion between the internal surfaces.
PNG
media_image1.png
720
1036
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Malmborg does not expressly teach the material being a dilatant material as claimed. However, a dilatant material would have been obvious in view of Sellinger.
Figures 4-5 of Sellinger teach an airfoil with a damping material (114). In one instance, the damping material (114) is a dilatant material that provides enhanced vibratory isolation. The shear thickening behavior is desirable for airfoils to withstand sudden impacts [0032-0033]. Malmborg notes that any suitable damping fluid may be used [0038]. One of ordinary skill in the art would simply substitute between known suitable damping fluids, predictably resulting in the desired result of dampening.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus taught by Malmborg such that the material is a dilatant material as evidenced by Sellinger, since one of ordinary skill would simply substitute between known vibratory dampening materials to predictably result in a dampened airfoil. The modification additionally provides the benefit of utilizing the known enhanced vibratory isolation and impact resistance capabilities of dilatant materials.
Malmborg does not expressly teach wherein the first wall is coated with a wear-resistant coating; wherein the second wall is coated with the wear-resistant coating; the dilatant material surrounded by the wear-resistant coating as claimed. However, a wear-resistant coating would have been obvious in view of Battig.
Figure 1 of Battig an apparatus with a damping material a cell (31) defined by walls [0024]. Battig contemplates having the walls coated with a wear-resistant coating; the damping material surrounded by the wear-resistant coating. Such a coating help prevent wear of the walls of the cell [0027]. Although Battig is not directed towards the same type of apparatus, the teachings are considered analogous art, since they are in the same field of endeavor (damping) and reasonably pertinent to the problem of damping faced by the inventor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the apparatus taught by Malmborg-Sellinger such that the first wall is coated with a wear-resistant coating; wherein the second wall is coated with the wear-resistant coating; the dilatant material surrounded by the wear-resistant coating as suggested by Battig, to provide the benefit of preventing wear of the walls.
Regarding Claim 2, Malmborg, Sellinger, and Battig teach the apparatus as set forth in Claim 1.
Figure 2 of Malmborg teaches wherein the first wall is coupled to the internal leading axial surface and the internal trailing axial surface. See annotated Figure 2’ above.
Regarding Claim 3, Malmborg, Sellinger, and Battig teach the apparatus as set forth in Claim 2.
Figure 2 of Malmborg teaches wherein the internal leading axial surface defines a portion of a perimeter of the cell (76). See also annotated Figure 2’ above. This narrows the interpretation of the cell to be the cells (76) that are bordered by the first wall and to the left of the second wall.
Regarding Claim 4, Malmborg, Sellinger, and Battig teach the apparatus as set forth in Claim 2.
Figure 2 of Malmborg teaches wherein the second wall is coupled to the internal root surface and to the internal tip surface. See also annotated Figure 2’ above.
Regarding Claim 5, Malmborg, Sellinger, and Battig teach the apparatus as set forth in Claim 4.
Figure 2 of Malmborg teaches wherein the internal tip surface defines a portion of a perimeter of the cell (76). See also annotated Figure 2’ above. This interpretation narrows the interpretation of the cell to be the cells (76) that are bordered by the second wall and above the first wall.
Regarding Claim 6, Malmborg, Sellinger, and Battig teach the apparatus as set forth in Claim 4.
Figure 2 of Malmborg teaches a third wall positioned in the cavity (72), wherein the third wall is coupled to the internal root surface and the internal tip surface, wherein the third wall intersects the first wall; and a fourth wall positioned in the cavity (72), wherein the fourth wall is coupled to the internal leading axial surface and the internal trailing axial surface, wherein the fourth wall intersects the second wall, and wherein the first wall, the second wall, the third wall, and the fourth wall are positioned around the material. See also annotated Figure 2’ above. The material is in the cells (76). This narrows the interpretation of “cell” to be the one surrounded by the first wall, second wall, third wall, and fourth wall.
The modification in Claim 1 by Sellinger results in a dilatant material, as noted in Claim 1 above and described in paragraphs [0032-0033] of Sellinger.
Regarding Claim 7, Malmborg, Sellinger, and Battig teach the apparatus as set forth in Claim 6.
Figure 2 of Malmborg teaches wherein the cell (76) is a first cell containing a first material, further including a fifth wall coupled to the internal leading axial surface and the internal trailing axial surface, wherein the fifth wall intersects the second wall and the third wall, and wherein the second wall, the third wall, the fourth wall, and the fifth wall define a second cell (76) within the cavity (72) different from the first cell (76), and wherein the second cell (76) contains a second material fluidly separated from the first material [0034-0038]. See also annotated Figure 2’ above. The first cell was specified in Claim 6 above. The second cell is the cell (76) surrounded by the second wall, third wall, fourth wall, and fifth wall, shown to be separate from the cell (76) surrounded by the first wall, second wall, third wall, and fourth wall. The material is in the cells (76).
The modification in Claim 1 by Sellinger results in a dilatant material, as noted in Claim 1 above and described in paragraphs [0032-0033] of Sellinger.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Kellerer et al. (US 2013/0058785 A1) discloses use of a coating with a damper.
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 ELTON K WONG whose telephone number is (408)918-7626. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM - 5:00PM PST.
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, Court Heinle can be reached at (571)270-3508. 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.
/ELTON K WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights