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 .
Examiner’s note: Applicant’s preliminary amendment of 11/04/2025 was entered.
Election/Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A-2, B-1, C-1, D-1 (claims 1-20) in the reply filed on 11/07/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that:
Applicant considers that searching all Species to not be a serious burden. This is not found persuasive because Applicant has not provided any specific arguments or reason to support the conclusory assertion that there is no serious search burden. A serious burden exists for the reasons set forth in the original requirement and the requirement is maintained.
The election/restriction requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
As Applicant's election encompasses claims 1-20, no claims are withdrawn from further consideration at this time pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
“the damping material (76) is located at a radial location (78) of from 2/3 the exterior radius up to the exterior radius of the disk (64)” identified in claims 9 and 19. It is unclear what exactly the “exterior radius” is, and it is unclear exactly which location of the damping material is being referenced here in which figure. The drawings must make the limitation clear.
“the damping material (76) comprises a width dimension (80) 1/4 of said exterior radius to 1/8 of the exterior radius” identified in claims 3 and 13. It is unclear what exactly the “exterior radius” is. Also, it is noted that amended Fig 3 (date 11/04/2025) appears to show a width dimension 80 which is approximately 1/2 of the width of the distance from axis 68 to the exterior radius flange 70.
Note that 35 U.S.C. 113 identifies the requirement for drawings to be generally provided (“The applicant shall furnish a drawing where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented.”) and 37 CFR 1.83(a) identifies requirements for what those drawings must show (“The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box).”)
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a width dimension 1/4 of said exterior radius to 1/8 of the exterior radius” which may cause confusion regarding the intended requirement. It is suggested the limitation be rewritten as -- a width dimension that is from 1/4 of said exterior radius to 1/8 of the exterior radius --.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a width dimension 1/4 of the exterior radius to 1/8 of the exterior radius” which may cause confusion regarding the intended requirement. It is suggested the limitation be rewritten as -- a width dimension that is from 1/4 of the exterior radius to 1/8 of the exterior radius --.
Claims 9 and 19 each recite the limitation “a radial location of from 2/3 the exterior radius up to the exterior radius” which may cause confusion regarding the intended requirement. It is suggested the limitation be rewritten as -- a radial location ranging from 2/3 the exterior radius up to the exterior radius --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner’s note: For the purposes of examining this application, the claim 3 limitation “the damping material (76) comprises a width dimension (80) 1/4 of said exterior radius to 1/8 of the exterior radius” is interpreted to mean that the width dimension (80) must have a minimum value of “1/8 of the exterior radius” and a maximum value of “1/4 of said exterior radius”. This interpretation appears supported by the disclosure at, e.g., para 0042-0043.
Examiner’s note: For the purposes of examining this application, the claim 13 limitation “disposing the damping material (76) at a width dimension (80) 1/4 of the exterior radius to 1/8 of the exterior radius” is interpreted to mean that the width dimension (80) must have a minimum value of “1/8 of the exterior radius” and a maximum value of “1/4 of the exterior radius”. This interpretation appears supported by the disclosure at, e.g., para 0042-0043.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/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.
Claim 1 (line 5) recites the limitation “the exterior radius flange portion” which lacks proper antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 11 (line 5) recites the limitation “the exterior radius flange portion” which lacks proper antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 3 (line 3) recites the limitation “said exterior radius” which lacks proper antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 3 (line 4) recites the limitation “the exterior radius” which lacks proper antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 9 (2 locations) recites the limitation “the exterior radius” which lacks proper antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 13 (2 locations) recites the limitation “the exterior radius” which lacks proper antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 19 (2 locations) recites the limitation “the exterior radius” which lacks proper antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a high response” which renders the claim indefinite because “high” is a relative term. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would be unable to identify whether a response is a high response or not high. Also, an object would have one response to a given frequency, as one having ordinary skill in the art would know, so it is unclear whether this implies that an object also has a “low” response to the same frequency; this causes confusion.
Claim(s) 2-10, 12-20 is/are also rejected by virtue of dependency.
In view of the 112(b) rejections set forth above, the claims are rejected below as best understood.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-12, 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180216464 A1 (hereinafter Bezanson) in view of US 20070081901 A1 (hereinafter Wagner).
Regarding claim 1, Bezanson discloses:
A vibration mitigation coating for an integrally bladed rotor comprising:
a disk (blisk 65; Fig 2) including an interior radius hub (86; Fig 2) proximate to an axis (12; Fig 1) and an exterior radius flange (the platform at the radially-inner end of the blades in Fig 2) distal from the axis,
blades (31; Fig 2) originating from the exterior radius flange portion of the disk,
the blades extend from the exterior radius flange at an exterior radius flange outer face (Fig 2 shows this);
the disk including a substrate (inherent to solid objects) with an external surface (inherent to solid objects),
the external surface extends from the interior radius hub to the exterior radius flange and along the exterior radius flange outer face (“the external surface” may be the surfaces of the hub and the platform in Fig 2);
Bezanson may not explicitly disclose:
and a damping material disposed directly onto the external surface of the substrate, the damping material is located radially between the interior radius hub and the exterior radius flange and along the exterior radius flange outer face and between the blades.
However, Wagner, in the same field of endeavor, turbines, teaches:
A damping material (para 001: vibration damping coating) applied to a blisk (2000; Fig 2) wherein the coating is applied to the entire blisk (para 0026: "The coating is applied to the blisk blade 210 and may be extended to include the entire blisk 200 or disk 220") in order to provide a “damping effect that increases the life and structural integrity of components subject to vibrational energy” (para 0009).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bezanson to include Wagner’s teachings as described above, having Wagner’s damping coating applied to Bezanson’s blisk, in order to provide a “damping effect that increases the life and structural integrity of components subject to vibrational energy” (para 0009). This modification results in teaching the limitation above.
Regarding claim 11, the process comprising providing a disk, blades, and disposing a damping material as claimed is exhibited by the above combination of Bezanson and Wagner at least in that the combination’s disclosure of the disk and blades and vibration damping material, as discussed above in claim 1, is evidence that the process steps have occurred.
Regarding claim 2, Bezanson as modified above discloses:
the damping material is located at a radial location across the exterior radius flange and exterior radius flange outer face (Wagner para 0026: "The coating is applied to the blisk blade 210 and may be extended to include the entire blisk 200 or disk 220").
Regarding claim 12, the process comprising locating the damping material at a radial location as claimed is disclosed by the prior art as discussed in claim 2 above. The disclosure of the structure, as discussed above, is evidence that the process step(s) has/have occurred.
Regarding claim 5, Bezanson as modified above discloses:
the damping material comprises a cross section shape configured to mitigate a high response at a predetermined frequency (Wagner cross sections discussed for example at para 0027; predetermined frequencies discussed for example at para 0002, 0023).
Regarding claim 15, the process comprising disposing said damping material with a cross section shape as claimed is disclosed by the prior art as discussed in claim 5 above. The disclosure of the structure, as discussed above, is evidence that the process step(s) has/have occurred.
Regarding claim 6, Bezanson as modified above discloses:
the damping material comprises a predetermined shape responsive to a frequency range targeted to be dampened and material properties of the damping material (Wagner cross sections discussed for example at para 0027 including predetermined thickness variation; predetermined frequencies discussed for example at para 0002, 0023).
Regarding claim 16, the process comprising disposing said damping material in a predetermined shape as claimed is disclosed by the prior art as discussed in claim 6 above. The disclosure of the structure, as discussed above, is evidence that the process step(s) has/have occurred.
Regarding claim 7, Bezanson as modified above discloses:
the damping material is selected from the group consisting of a viscoelastic material, a super-elastic memory alloy and combinations thereof (Wagner abstract: “visco-elastic material”).
Regarding claim 17, the process comprising selecting said damping material as claimed is disclosed by the prior art as discussed in claim 7 above. The disclosure of the structure, as discussed above, is evidence that the process step(s) has/have occurred.
Regarding claim 8, Bezanson as modified above discloses:
the damping material comprises a thickness dimension with a range from 10 mils to 50 mils (Wagner para 0029: “thicknesses from about 0.03 to about 0.2 inches” which corresponds to “from about 30 mils to about 200 mils”).
Regarding claim 18, the process comprising disposing the damping material with a thickness dimension as claimed is disclosed by the prior art as discussed in claim 8 above. The disclosure of the structure, as discussed above, is evidence that the process step(s) has/have occurred.
Regarding claim 9, Bezanson as modified above discloses:
the damping material is located at a radial location of from 2/3 the exterior radius up to the exterior radius of the disk (Wagner para 0026: "The coating is applied to the blisk blade 210 and may be extended to include the entire blisk 200 or disk 220").
Regarding claim 19, the process comprising disposing the damping material at a radial location as claimed is disclosed by the prior art as discussed in claim 9 above. The disclosure of the structure, as discussed above, is evidence that the process step(s) has/have occurred.
Regarding claim 10, Bezanson as modified above discloses:
the damping material is located on opposite sides of the disk (Wagner para 0026: "The coating is applied to the blisk blade 210 and may be extended to include the entire blisk 200 or disk 220").
Regarding claim 20, the process comprising disposing the damping material on opposite sides of the disk as claimed is disclosed by the prior art as discussed in claim 10 above. The disclosure of the structure, as discussed above, is evidence that the process step(s) has/have occurred.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bezanson in view of Wagner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2015102696 A2 (Shen).
Regarding claim 4 Bezanson, as modified above, discloses all claim limitations (see above) except may not explicitly disclose:
the damping material comprises a first damping material disposed on the external surface and a second damping material disposed on the first damping material.
However, Shen, in the same field of endeavor, application of vibration damping coatings on turbomachines (page 2 lines 2-4), teaches:
a component coated with a two layer damping coating (10; Fig 3) having a first damping coating (14), applied to a substrate (20), and a second, erosion-resistant, damping coating (16) applied to the first damping coating (page 37 lines 29-33), in order to protect the first damping coating against erosion (page 37 lines 29-33, page 38 lines 15-16), wherein “the substrate (20) may comprise a turbine component, such as a fan blade, compressor blade, impeller, blisk, or integrally bladed rotor” (page 38 lines 15-16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bezanson to include Shen’s teachings as described above, having the damping material comprising a first damping material disposed on said external surface and a second damping material disposed on said first damping material, in order to provide a second damping material disposed on said first damping material in order to apply a second, erosion-resistant, damping coating on top of the first damping coating in order to protect the first damping coating against erosion (page 37 lines 29-33, page 38 lines 15-16).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bezanson in view of Wagner as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of WO 2015102696 A2 (Shen).
Regarding claim 14, Bezanson, as modified above, discloses all claim limitations (see above) except may not explicitly disclose:
disposing a first damping material on the external surface (74); and disposing a second damping material on the first damping material.
However, Shen, in the same field of endeavor, application of vibration damping coatings on turbomachines (page 2 lines 2-4), teaches:
a component coated with a two layer damping coating (10; Fig 3) having a first damping coating (14), applied to a substrate (20), and a second, erosion-resistant, damping coating (16) applied to the first damping coating (page 37 lines 29-33), in order to protect the first damping coating against erosion (page 37 lines 29-33, page 38 lines 15-16), wherein “the substrate (20) may comprise a turbine component, such as a fan blade, compressor blade, impeller, blisk, or integrally bladed rotor” (page 38 lines 15-16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bezanson to include Shen’s teachings as described above, having the damping material comprising a first damping material disposed on said external surface and a second damping material disposed on said first damping material, in order to provide a second damping material disposed on said first damping material in order to apply a second, erosion-resistant, damping coating on top of the first damping coating in order to protect the first damping coating against erosion (page 37 lines 29-33, page 38 lines 15-16).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim(s) 3, 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 3, 13, at this time, the prior art of record does not fairly disclose, teach, or suggest the missing limitation(s) as described above such that a modification would be possible in order to arrive at the claimed invention. One would not be motivated to modify Wagner’s coating to comprise a width dimension that is from 1/4 of said exterior radius to 1/8 of the exterior radius, such that it would read on Applicant’s claim, without improper hindsight from Applicant’s disclosure. The claim is therefore deemed to be allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
The following prior art, made of record and not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
FR 3060050 A1 - cited for teaching in Fig 4 a blisk with a dampening coating applied to the hub portion.
US 20090004021 A1 - cited for teaching in Fig 8 a blisk with layers of damping means 301 and 302.
US 6494679 B1 - cited for teaching in Fig 2 a blade with damping means 24 attached.
JP 2013253522 A - cited for teaching a blisk with dampers 11 and 23.
US 20220003129 A1 - cited for teaching a blisk with a platform and a damping material applied.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Art Golik whose telephone number is (571)272-6211. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00.
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 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.
/Art Golik/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745