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 .
Unity of Invention
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted
Group I, claim(s) 19-36, drawn to a method
Group II, claim(s) 37, drawn to an impeller.
Group III, claim(s) 38, drawn to a flow machine.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I-III lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of Claim 19, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Rettberg (US20170341178A1).
Claim 19
Rettberg teaches a method for producing an impeller (1) of a flow machine (¶0044), comprising a base body (10) and at least one impeller blade (3), wherein the base body (10) and the impeller blade are connected in a material-locking manner (The blades are added to the base using build up welding (¶0070)), the method comprising: a) processing a blank (10) formed from solid material to generate a first partial section of the base body (Figure 2-3, Item 113 is processed to create Items 3 and 21), b) applying at least one material layer to the first partial section of the base body for generating a second partial section (2) of the base body, at least in sections, by using an additive manufacture method (¶0072 “missing regions…. of the hub plate 2 are, for example, generated by selective laser melting”), and c) applying at least one material layer to at least the first partial section or the second partial section for generating at least one impeller blade on the base body (Figure 4, Item 3), at least in sections, by using an additive manufacture method (¶0072 “The still missing region of the partition walls 3 (blades 3)…..are, for example, generated by selective laser melting.”)
During a telephone conversation with Alessandro Steinfl (Reg. 56448) on 09/01/2026 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I Claims 19-36. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 37-38 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 19-22, 29, 31, and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rettberg (US20170341178A1).
Claim 19
Rettberg teaches a method for producing an impeller (1) of a flow machine (¶0044), comprising a base body (10) and at least one impeller blade (3), wherein the base body (10) and the impeller blade are connected in a material-locking manner (The blades are added to the base using build up welding (¶0070)), the method comprising: a) processing a blank (10) formed from solid material to generate a first partial section of the base body (Figure 2-3, Item 113 is processed to create Items 3 and 21), b) applying at least one material layer to the first partial section of the base body for generating a second partial section (2) of the base body, at least in sections, by using an additive manufacture method (¶0072 “missing regions…. of the hub plate 2 are, for example, generated by selective laser melting”), and c) applying at least one material layer to at least the first partial section or the second partial section for generating at least one impeller blade on the base body (Figure 4, Item 3), at least in sections, by using an additive manufacture method (¶0072 “The still missing region of the partition walls 3 (blades 3)…..are, for example, generated by selective laser melting.”)
Claim 20
Rettberg teaches the method according to claim 19, wherein application of the material layer in at least stage b) or c) is performed by build-up welding. (¶0073 “laser build-up welding”)
Claim 21
Rettberg teaches the method according to claim 19, wherein an axis of rotation of the first partial section and an axis of rotation of the second partial section are arranged coaxially (The blades (3) and hub plate (2) are coaxial.) or wherein the second partial section encloses the first partial section at least in sections. (This alternative was not selected.)
Claim 22
Rettberg teaches the method according to claim 19, wherein the first partial section and the second partial section of the base body are formed at least in sections from the same material (¶0072 teaches the blades (3) and hub plate (2) are generated via a build up and melting of material. The use of an additive technique means that the sections are built up in sections.) or wherein at least one partial section of the base body and at least one impeller blade are formed at least in sections from the same material. (This alternative was not selected for the rejection.)
Claim 29
Rettberg teaches the method according to claim 19, further comprising processing of at least the first or second partial section at least in sections, at least to produce at least i) a continuous surface profile at least in sections over the first and second partial sections (Figure 4 shows the first and second sections (where item 2 is built up) form a continuous surface profile.) or ii) a required surface quality. (¶0079 teaches deviations from the desired geometry are compensated by a cutting step.)
Claim 31
Rettberg teaches the method according to claim 19, wherein at least the processing a) is performed by at least a machining manufacture method. (¶0058)
Claim 34
Rettberg teaches the method according to claim 19, wherein the applying in c) is performed several times (¶0072 “This cycle is repeated for so long until the component 1 is completed.”) and at least one material layer of at least one impeller blade has a smaller layer width than a previously applied material layer of a same impeller blade. (Figure 4 shows the blades (3) that are formed during the layer manufacturing method come to a point such that the tips of the blades have a smaller cross sectional width than the base. Therefore, the layers applied have different widths during the repetition of the layering process.)
Claim 35
Rettberg teaches the method according to claim 19, wherein a), b) and c) are performed in sequence. (¶0069 teaches the additive manufacturing is completed after the machining step (step a). ¶0075-0076 teach that the process can occur such that individual elements are built up until completion (such that item (2) can be completed then item (3) can be completed within the scope of the disclosure) OR also that layers of some parts are placed, then layers of another part are placed.)
Claim 36
Rettberg teaches the method according to claim 20, wherein the build-up welding is a laser build-up welding. (¶0070)
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.
Claims 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rettberg (US20170341178A1) in view of Giannozzi (US20170189966A1), as evidenced by / further in view of NPL U (Rolled Alloys 17-4PH data sheet).
Claim 23
Rettberg teaches the method according to claim 19, wherein at least one partial section of the base body or wherein at least one impeller blade are formed at least in sections from a material.
Rettberg does not disclose a martensitic, precipitation-hardened steel. Rettberg does disclose the blank is made from steel (¶0050).
However, Giannozzi teaches the use of a martensitic, precipitation-hardened steel (The table between ¶0077 and ¶0078 teaches the use of 17-4PH steel for portions of the impeller. 17-4PH is a precipitation hardening martensitic stainless steel alloy (See NPL U).) in an additive manufacturing method for a turbomachine impeller (¶0017).
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known 17-4PH steel alloy of Giannozzi to the unknown alloy in Rettberg in order to provide a material that reduces the component weight/increases the component speed, and is a “cheap” powder. (See Giannozzi “technical result” section of ¶0077-0078)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known 17-4PH steel alloy of Giannozzi to the unknown alloy in Rettberg because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Claim 24
Rettberg in view of Giannozzi and NPL U teaches the method according to claim 23, wherein the steel contains at least one alloying element selected from the group comprising: 10% to 20% chromium, 1% to 7% nickel, and 1% to 7% copper. (Giannozzi teaches the use of 17-4PH steel. NPL U teaches this steel alloy meets the claimed compositional requirements.)
Claim 25
Rettberg in view of Giannozzi and NPL U teaches the method according to claim 23, wherein the steel has at least one substance property selected from the group comprising: tensile strength (Rm) of 900 N/mm2 to 1400 N/mm2, yield strength (Rp0,2) of at least 800 N/mm2, E-modulus of 100 to 300 kN/mm2, elongation at break (A5) of at least 5%, hardness (HB30) from 250 HB to 450 HB, and notched impact strength of at least 10 J. (NPL U discloses that 17-4 PH steel meets the claimed mechanical characteristic requirements. Although some values in the tables of NPL U are different, the conversion between units arrives at values within the claimed ranges. Tensile strength: NPL U teaches 200ksi which equates to 1378 N/mm2; Yield Strength: NPL U teaches 185 ksi which equates to 1275 N/mm2; Modulus of Elasticity: NPL U teaches 29 x 10^6 psi which equates to around 200 kN/mm2; Elongation at break: NPL U teaches 14%; Hardness: NPL U teaches 420 HB; Impact: NPL U teaches 15 ft-lbs which equates to around 20 J.)
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rettberg (US20170341178A1) in view of Giannozzi (US20170189966A1).
Claim 26
Rettberg teaches the method according to claim 19, whereinat least one partial section of the base body or wherein at least one impeller blade is produced at least in sections from substance.
Rettberg does not disclose a titanium substance. Rettberg does disclose the base body is made from titanium. (¶0050)
However, Giannozzi teaches the use of titanium. (The table between ¶0077 and ¶0078 teaches the use of Ti64, which is another name for Ti-6Al-4v, for portions of the impeller.) in an additive manufacturing method for a turbomachine impeller (¶0017).
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known Ti-6Al-4v titanium alloy of Giannozzi to the unknown alloy in Rettberg in order to provide a material that reduces the component weight/increases the component speed, and protects the components from corrosion. (See Giannozzi “technical result” section of ¶0077-0078)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known Ti-6Al-4v titanium alloy of Giannozzi to the unknown alloy in Rettberg because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Claims 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rettberg (US20170341178A1) in view of Giannozzi (US20170189966A1), as evidenced by / further in view of NPL V (Wikipedia Ti-6Al-4V).
Claim 27
Rettberg in view of Giannozzi and NPL V teaches the method according to claim 26, wherein the titanium substance contains at least one alloying element selected from the group comprising: 3% to 10% aluminum and 1% to 7% vanadium. (Giannozzi teaches the use of Ti-6Al-4V for the impeller component. NPLV teaches this alloy of titanium meets the claimed compositional requirements.)
Claim 28
Rettberg in view of Giannozzi and NPL V teaches the method according to claim 26, wherein the titanium substance has at least one substance property selected from the group comprising: tensile strength (Rm) of at least 700 N/mm2, yield strength (Rp0,2) of at least 700 N/mm2, E-modulus of 80 kN/mm2 to 130 kN/mm2, elongation at break (A5) of at least 5% and hardness (HB30) from 200 HB to 350 HB. (Giannozzi teaches the use of Ti-6Al-4V for the impeller component. NPLV teaches this alloy of titanium meets the claimed mechanical characteristic requirements. Although some values in the tables of NPL V are different, the conversion between units arrives at values within the claimed ranges. Tensile strength: NPL V teaches 900 MPa which equates to 900 N/mm2; Yield Strength: NPL V teaches 880 MPa which equates to 880 N/mm2; Modulus of Elasticity (Young’s Modulus): NPL V teaches 104 GPa which equates to 104 kN/mm2; Elongation at break: NPL V teaches 5-18%; Hardness: NPL V teaches 36 Rockwell C which equates to around 330 HB.)
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rettberg (US20170341178A1) in view of Pulnikov (WO2016149774A1).
Claim 30
Rettberg teaches the method according to claim 19, further comprising processing, at least in sections, at least i) the first partial section or ii) the second partial section or iii) at least one impeller blade, at least for a) removing redundant material (¶0079 teaches deviations from the desired geometry are compensated by a cutting step.) or b) producing a required surface quality, balancing the impeller, and cleaning the impeller. (This alternative was not selected.)
Rettberg does not disclose performing at least one heat treatment to improve mechanical properties of the impeller.
However, Pulnikov (WO2016149774A1) teaches performing at least one heat treatment to improve mechanical properties of the impeller. (Page 12 Lines 20-28 teache the use of a heat treatment step after forming of the blades on the impeller.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known heat treatment step from Pulnikov to the method of Rettberg in order to relieve internal stresses in the blade that occur during construction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known heat treatment step from Pulnikov to the method of Rettberg because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rettberg (US20170341178A1) in view of Hanley (US20170081752A1).
Claim 32
Rettberg teaches the method according to claim 19.
Rettberg does not disclose further comprising: inserting i) the blank formed from at least the solid material or ii) the first partial section or iii) the second partial section into an interior of a processing chamber, and producing an inert gas atmosphere in the interior of the processing chamber.
However, Hanley (US20170081752A1) teaches inserting i) the blank formed from at least the solid material or ii) the first partial section or iii) the second partial section into an interior of a processing chamber, and producing an inert gas atmosphere in the interior of the processing chamber. (¶0021 teaches the base is inserted into the build chamber (202) and the chamber is filled with an inert gas.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known inert gas build chamber technique of Hanley to the method of Rettberg in order to use a system that provides a protective atmosphere for the molten metal. (See Hanley ¶0021)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known inert gas build chamber technique of Hanley to the method of Rettberg because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rettberg (US20170341178A1).
Claim 33
Rettberg teaches the method according to claim 19.
Rettberg does not disclose wherein the impeller has at least i) a diameter of at least 400 mm or ii) an axial extension of at least 150 mm. (Applicant discusses these features in ¶0086-0087 of the published application using phrases such as “within the scope of invention” or “it is also conceivable”. The motivation that is provided by the applicant to use these sizes is that the method according to the invention has been shown to be particularly effective. The disclosure does not indicate which parts of the method is particularly effective or why this size is suited for use with the method as claimed.)
However, at the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to size impeller as claimed applicant has not disclosed that having the size provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Rettberg’s impeller, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either the size taught by Rettberg or the claimed at size because both sizes would perform the same function of providing an impeller for use in a flow machine.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Rettberg to obtain the invention as specified in Claim 33 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Rettberg
See also MPEP 2144.04, subsection IV. A. – change in size or proportion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found on the PTO-892 Form.
Document
Date
Description of Relevant Subject Matter
US20180209276A1
2018-02-07
Figure 3 shows a build up welding / additive manufacturing machine and process for forming an impeller including a base body and blades. The material(s) used in the formation method include titanium or steel (¶0028-0029).
US20220282636A1
2021-03-03
¶0026 teaches the production of vanes for an impeller using steel OR titanium using additive manufacturing.
US20160312791A1
2014-12-15
¶0040 teaches the use of titanium alloys, a precipitation hardening stainless steel, or a martensitic stainless steel for components of an impeller. “These materials have a good erosion resistance, in particular resistance to liquid droplets erosion; accordingly, these elements provide protection against hitting liquid droplets both as they are able to withstand these collisions and also to the rest of the impeller, i.e. the main body.”
US20160312653A1
2014-12-10
DiDomizio teaches an alloy used for production of an impeller. The alloy is a steel alloy that includes “martensitic, duplex, austenitic stainless steel or precipitation hardened steel” (¶0023).
US20230415415A1
2023-05-24
¶0224 teaches the use of 17-4 PH steel for additive manufacturing. This steel meets the required features of Claims 23-25.
US20170189966A1
2015-05-22
¶0078 teaches the use of steel 17-4PH OR Ti64 (Ti-6Al-4V) for the skin or core material in order to reduce component weight and increase component speed and use a cheaper material for the skin.
US20150017013A1
2013-02-20
¶0027-0028 teach the use of Ti-6Al-4V or steel 17-4 for the impeller that is created by additive manufacturing.
US20170184086A1
2016-12-01
¶0059 teaches the use of Ti-6Al-4V for the additive manufacture of a turbine component.
US20170081752A1
2016-09-21
Figure 2 teaches an additive manufacturing system for making a blade. ¶0022 teaches the method uses titanium or stainless steel alloys. ¶0025 teaches the use of post build heat treatment, polishing or grinding in order to enhance part geometry, surface conditions, and material characteristics.
¶0021 teaches the use of an inert gas atmosphere within the build chamber (202) in order to provide a protective atmosphere for the molten metal.
US20180079038A1
2017-09-08
Figure 2 shows a blank (10) that is made from machining a forged material (¶0075-0076). Figure 4 shows the blank after a subtractive machining occurs. Figure 1 shows the blank after a build-up or additive manufacturing process occurs, where parts of the blades (3) or outer channels (7) are added using laser build up welding (¶0091-¶0092). ¶0097 teaches a finishing subtractive processing step to achieve a desired geometry.
US20220134426A1
Figure 5 teaches a blank (21) obtained by forging and milling (¶0034). The blades (22) are build up upon by depositing material to form the finished blades in Figure 6. See ¶0036. The second partial section can be the outer blade (26) area and the blade can be interpreted as the top (27).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael W Hotchkiss whose telephone number is (571)272-3854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 0800-1600.
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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/MICHAEL W HOTCHKISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights