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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “fastening device” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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.
Claims 1, 20 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Steinhardt et al. (US2014/0044549).
PNG
media_image1.png
499
455
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Steinhardt teaches a blade for a turbomachine, comprising: an airfoil part (paragraph [0003]), and a blade root (10), the blade root comprising at least one bearing surface (generally 16,17) configured to cooperate with a fastening device (11) of the turbomachine, wherein at least the blade root is made of TiAI (paragraph [0042]), and wherein the bearing surface is provided with an anti-wear coating (19), this anti-wear coating being made of a Nickel-based alloy comprising at least 9.5% by mass of Co and/or at least 14% by mass of Cr (paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 20, Steinhardt teaches the anti-wear coating is devoid of a protective varnish (Steinhardt makes no disclosure of a protective varnish).
Regarding claim 23, Steinhardt teaches a turbomachine module, comprising: a disc (12), comprising a plurality of cells (11), and a plurality of blades according to claim 1, the blade root of each blade being engaged in a cell of the disc so that the bearing surfaces of the blade root are in contact with retaining surfaces of the cell.
Regarding claim 24, Steinhardt teaches a turbomachine, comprising a blade according to claim 1.
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 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 of this title, 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 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinhardt.
Regarding claims 17-19, Steinhardt fails to explicitly teach the anti-wear coating comprises a thickness comprised between 0.1 and 1.5 mm, a thickness comprised between 0.1 and 1.0 mm and a thickness comprised between 0.1 and 0.3 mm.
However, Steinhardt teaches the coating is relatively thin so that no net-shape machining is required (see paragraph [0046]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the blade of Steinhardt and change it so that the anti-wear coating comprises a thickness comprised between 0.1 and 1.5 mm, a thickness comprised between 0.1 and 1.0 mm and a thickness comprised between 0.1 and 0.3 mm to use a relatively thin coating that does not require net-shape machining.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinhardt in view of Werner et al. (US2014/0356644).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Steinhardt fails to teach the anti-wear coating is made of an alloy comprising at least 3% by mass of Molybdenum, and an alloy comprising between 3 and 30% by mass of Molybdenum.
In an analogous art, Werner teaches a turbomachine component with a coated region. Werner teaches the coating is made from 27% to 30% Molybdenum (paragraph [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the blade of Steinhardt and change it to have an anti-wear coating made of an alloy comprising at least 3% by mass of Molybdenum, and an alloy comprising between 3 and 30% by mass of Molybdenum as taught by Werner to provide protection to selected regions.
Claims 12-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinhardt in view of Chamberlain et al. (US2017/0073820).
Regarding claims 12-13 and 16, Steinhardt fails to teach the anti-wear coating is made of an alloy comprising at least 3% by mass of Silicon, an alloy comprising between 3 and 5% by mass of Silicon, wherein the anti-wear coating is made of one of the following alloys: Rene 80, Cr3C2-Ni20Cr or Inconel 718 (registered trademark).
In an analogous art, Chamberlain teaches a turbine blade with a protective coating. Chamberlain teaches the coating is made from 4-5% Silicon (see paragraph [0006]) and suggests the use of Inconel (see paragraph [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the blade of Steinhardt and change it so that the anti-wear coating is made of an alloy comprising at least 3% by mass of Silicon, an alloy comprising between 3 and 5% by mass of Silicon, wherein the anti-wear coating is made of one of the following alloys: Rene 80, Cr3C2-Ni20Cr or Inconel 718 (registered trademark) as taught by Steinhardt to provide protection to selected regions.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinhardt in view of Bruce et al. (US2006/0018760).
Regarding claims 14-15, Steinhardt fails to teach, the alloy of the anti-wear coating comprises carbide particles, wherein the alloy of the anti-wear coating comprises chromium carbide.
In an analogous art, Bruce teaches a turbine airfoil with a coating. Bruce teaches the coating comprises chromium carbide for erosion resistance (paragraph [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the blade of Steinhardt and change it so that the alloy of the anti-wear coating comprises carbide particles, wherein the alloy of the anti-wear coating comprises chromium carbide as taught by Bruce for erosion resistance.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinhardt in view of DaCunha et al. (US2016/0169012).
Regarding claims 21-22, Steinhardt fails to teach the anti-wear coating is deposited by thermal spraying and the anti-wear coating is deposited by plasma spraying.
In an analogous art, DaCunha teaches a plated turbine component. DaCunha teaches applying the plating with either thermal or plasma spray coating (paragraph [0103]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the blade of Steinhardt and change it so that the anti-wear coating is deposited by thermal spraying and the anti-wear coating is deposited by plasma spraying as taught by DaCunha as known art processes for applying coatings.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the PTO-892 for relevant coated turbine component references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMERON A CORDAY whose telephone number is (571)272-0383. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 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, Courtney 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.
/CAMERON A CORDAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights