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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 23 recites “a radially inner and a radially outer trunnion” which should read: “a radially inner and a radially outer trunnions”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 10-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ralf (WO 2022/017563 A1) in view of Jacobs et al. (US 2022/0384820 A1) hereinafter Jacobs.
Regarding claims 10 and 14, Ralf teaches a plain bearing arrangement for an aircraft engine, the plain bearing arrangement comprising:
a compressor casing component (22) (Figs. 1-3, “Preferred embodiment”: paras. 1 and 2)
a variable stator vane (22) slidingly mounted on the compressor casing component, the variable stator vane or the compressor casing component having at least one tribological coating (37, 40) (Figs. 2-3), the at least tribological coating being a single-layer amorphous carbon coating (see, “presentation of the invention”: paras. 1-7).
Ralf does not specifically state that, the coating has sp2 content and sp3 content, the sp3 content being between 55 at. % and 75 at. %, based on a total amount of substance of the coating or the sp3 content is between 55 at. % and 70 at. %, based on the total amount of substance of the coating.
However, Jacobs teaches a tribological coating for use in a turbomachine (paras. 0037-0049; Figs. 1-6), the tribological coating comprising being a carbon coating having an sp2 and an sp3 content, the sp3 content being between 55 at. % and 75 at. % based on total amount of substance of the coating (para. 0051 discloses an sp3 ranges of 61% at. % to 71 at. %; 54 at. % to 64 at. % which fall in the clamed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Ralf such that the sp3 content of the coating is at least 48% based on a total amount of substance of the coating the coating as taught by Jacobs in order in order to reduce friction loss.
Regarding claim 11, Ralf as modified by Jacobs teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 10. Ralf as modified by Jacobs further teaches a content of hydrogenated carbon is less than 10 at. % (Jacobs, para. 0050).
Regarding claim 12, Ralf as modified by Jacobs teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 10. Ralf as modified by Jacobs further teaches a content of hydrogenated carbon is less than 1 at. % (Jacobs, para. 0050).
Regarding claim 13, Ralf as modified by Jacobs teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 10. Ralf as modified by Jacobs further teaches a content of hydrogenated carbon is less than 1 at. % (para. 0050). Although Ralf as modified by Jacobs does not explicitly state that the hydrogenated carbon content is 0 at. %, one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to produce a coating with hydrogenated carbon content of 0 at. % for particular application.
Regarding claim 15, Ralf as modified by Jacobs teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 10. Ralf as modified by Jacobs further teaches the variable stator vane and the compressor casing component form a ball-and-socket joint (Ralf, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, Ralf as modified by Jacobs teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 10. Ralf as modified by Jacobs further teaches the variable stator vane has at least one trunnion (Ralf, Fig. 2) and the compressor casing component has at least one bushing (36) (Ralf, Fig. 2), the trunnion of the variable stator vane being slidingly rotatably mounted in the bushing of the compressor casing component (Ralf, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 17, Ralf as modified by Jacobs teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 10. Ralf as modified by Jacobs further teaches at least one trunnion of the variable stator vane or at least one bushing of the compressor casing component have at least two spaced-apart coatings (Ralf, Figs. 2-3, “Preferred embodiment”: paras. 1-6).
Regarding claims 18-19, Ralf as modified by Jacobs teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 10. Ralf as modified by Jacobs does not specifically teach the coating has a layer of thickness between 500 nm and 2000 nm or between 500 nm and 1500 nm.
However, a careful examination of the specification reveals that no criticality for the specific thickness has been shown nor any reason as to why the coating of the applicant with the claimed thickness would operate any different than the coating of Ralf as modified by Jacobs, and Applicant has not disclosed that this design with the specific thickness provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. Hence this design for the coating has a layer of thickness between 500 nm and 2000 nm or between 500 nm and 1500 nm is considered to be a design choice by the applicant. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the plain bearing of Ralf as modified by Jacobs, and Applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with the coating thickness taught by Ralf as modified by Jacobs or the claimed thicknesses, because both would perform the same function.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the claimed coating thickness with the plain bearing of Ralf as modified by Jacobs in order to achieve a desired dimension, shape, or configuration, as they are a matter of design choice. Such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 20, Ralf as modified by Jacobs teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 10. Ralf as modified by Jacobs further teaches the coating is applied by vapor deposition (Ralf, “presentation of the invention”: para. 7; Jacobs, para. 0067).
Regarding claim 21, Ralf as modified by Jacobs teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 10. Ralf as modified by Jacobs further teaches the coating is applied by physical vapor deposition (Ralf, “presentation of the invention”: para. 7; Jacobs, para. 0067).
Regarding claim 22, Ralf as modified by Jacobs teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 10. Ralf as modified by Jacobs further teaches an aircraft engine comprising at least one plain bearing arrangement (Ralf, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 23, Ralf as modified by Jacobs teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 10. Ralf as modified by Jacobs further teaches the variable stator vane comprises a radially inner (25, 26) and a radially outer trunnion (25, 27) (Ralf; Fig. 2), the radially inner and radially outer trunnions being on opposite ends of the variable stator vane (Raff; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 24, Ralf as modified by Jacobs teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 23. Ralf as modified by Jacobs further teaches the radially inner trunnion has a first tribological coating (37; Ralf; Fig. 2, “PREFERRED EMBODIMENT OF THE INVENTION” paras 3-5) of the at least one tribological coating and the radially outer trunnion has a second tribological coating of the at least one tribological coating (37; Ralf; Fig. 2, “PREFERRED EMBODIMENT OF THE INVENTION” paras 3-5).
Regarding claim 25, Ralf as modified by Jacobs teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 23. Ralf as modified by Jacobs further teaches the radially outer trunnion has a third tribological coating of the at least one tribological coating spaced from the second tribological coating (37; Ralf; Fig. 2, “PREFERRED EMBODIMENT OF THE INVENTION” paras 3-5).
Regarding claim 26, Ralf as modified by Jacobs teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 10. Ralf as modified by Jacobs further teaches the variable stator vane has the at least one tribological coating (47; Ralf; “PREFERRED EMBODIMENT OF THE INVENTION” para. 6).
Conclusion
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.
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.
/MAXIME M ADJAGBE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745