DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/04/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3 are pending and presented for examination on the merits.
Claim 1 is currently amended.
Status of Previous Claim Objections
The previous objection to claim 1 is withdrawn in view of the amendment to the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the amended limitation reciting that the heat treatment step includes transferring feat between the blade portion through the fixture is new matter because the limitation is not disclosed in the specification as originally filed. The specification discloses examples of heat treatment techniques at para. [0029], but does not mention any specific direction or transfer of heat through a fixture. In addition, the term “fixture” (line 10) is not found in the specification. Thus, the specification does not support the amendment to the claim.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the claims are likewise rejected, as they depend on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-3 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.
Regarding claim 1, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the fixture” (line 10) in the claim. There is no prior mention of a fixture in the claim.
Further regarding claim 1, the claim is indefinite because it is ambiguous. Because there is no prior mention of a fixture in the claim, it is unclear what is being labeled as a fixture. Since the heat is being transferred between the blade through the fixture, it is further unclear where the heat is originating.
In addition, there is lack of clarity in the phrase “transferring heat between the blade portion though the fixture” (line 10). When the preposition “between” it utilized, two or more entities are involved (example: Store B is located between Street A and Street C). In the present instance, the claimed phrase at issue names one entity (here, the blade portion) involved in the heat transfer, but a second entity is missing. The claimed phrase “through the fixture” appears to suggest that the fixture supplies heat to the blade portion. However, it is unclear whether the fixture is merely the source of the heat or both the heat source and the second entity.
For examination purposes, the phrase will be interpreted as meaning that heat is transferred between the blade portion and the fixture (jig/mold), the heat being transferred to the blade portion from the fixture. However, appropriate correction is still required.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the claims are likewise rejected, as they depend on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0037163 (A1) to Ikegaya et al. (“Ikegaya”) in view of US 2012/0057986 (A1) to Inoue et al. (“Inoue”), further in view of US 3,739,617 to Stejskal (“Stejskal”), further in view of US 2015/0352623 (A1) to Yamamoto et al. (“Yamamoto”), and further in view of US 2,910,269 (A) to Haworth et al. (“Haworth”), with evidence from Ashby et al., Materials and Design: The Art and Science of Material Selection in Product Design, Second ed., "Material Profiles: Stainless Steels," 2010, p. 231 (“Ashby”) and Mondragón Rodríguez et al., “Oxynitride c-Al0.7Cr0.3OxN(1-x) arc-PVD hard-coatings, processing, mechanical properties & stability at high temperatures,” Surface Coatings & Technology, 449, 2022, 128973 (“Mondragón Rodríguez”).
Regarding claim 1, Ikegaya teaches a method of manufacturing blades and vanes for an axial flow compressor used in mechanical equipment, such as a gas turbine engine (blade manufacturing method). Title; abstract; para. [0003], [0010]. The method includes the following steps:
(a) metal injection molding process for forming a green body by loading kneading material comprising metal particles into a cavity of an injection die (mold) that corresponds to the shape approximate to the shape of the final product, the final product being a blade unit (blade) (1) comprising platform section (blade root portion) (2) and airfoil section (blade portion) (3) (molding step of injecting a metal particle toward a mold and shaping a blade having a blade root portion and blade portion through metal injection molding) (para. [0024], [0027]-[0029], [0033], [0039]); and
(b) correcting process in which the shape is forcibly corrected or rectified by sandwiching the blade surface with a pair of correcting jigs that are shaped so as to correspond to the shape of the front and rear shapes of the blade surface (jig attaching step of sandwiching the blade portion of a mold different from the mold of the molding step, the jig being divided into at least two parts and serving as a mold in which a shape of the blade portion is formed, the jig mold formed on the surface and attached to the blade portion) (para. [0056], [0057]).
Ikegaya teaches a step of hot isostatic pressing (HIP) (heat treatment step) to collapse large voids and cracks and enhance the mechanical strength of the product. Para. [0054]. In addition to HIP, annealing (also a heat treatment step) is performed to render the hardness of the product suitable for the correcting process. Para. [0056]. It is not clear in Ikegaya whether the HIP and/or annealing takes place while the product resides in the correcting jigs.
Because Ikegaya’s correction jigs correspond to the shape of the blade surface and can maintain the position of the blade, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the correction jigs to hold the blade in place during HIP and/or annealing in order to ensure stability and support of the blade as well as to minimize warping during heating (performing heat treatment on the blade to which the jig is attached with an entire outer surface of the blade portion in contact with the jig).
Inoue is directed to the manufacture of an impeller, which comprises blades extending radially around a wheel. Para. [0001], [0003]. The manufacturing method includes a metal powder injecting step of injecting powder in a mold to form the blades (para. [0019]-[0022]) and modifying the shape in a die and press (para. [0028]). The elements of the outer die (functions as a jig) are inserted into the gaps between the blade, and the outer die abut on locations of the blades to radially modify these locations and also pressurize them. Para. [0046], [0047]. The modifying step may take place in a warm condition. Para. [0047].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have carried out the correction process of Ikegaya (corresponds to Inoue’s modifying step), which uses a correction jig, under warm or heated conditions (performing heat treatment on the blade while attached to the jig) in order to make the metal more malleable and to facilitate shaping. It would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined or continuously carried out the HIP and/or annealing steps of Ikegaya with the correction step in Ikegaya such that the product is heated and remains held by the correction jig/mold during these steps because this would increase process efficiency by eliminating the need to transfer the blade to a different holding device or to a furnace.
Ikegaya and Inoue are silent regarding heat transfer between the product and the jig/mold.
Stejskal is directed to a vacuum creep forming fixture that contains a die with heating electrodes therein for receiving a metallic blank. Abstract; col. 2, lines 60-61. The blank may be made of titanium, refractory metals, superalloys, nickelchrome, and stainless steel. Col. 2, lines 57-66. The die (fixture) is heated to forming temperature such that the blank can be formed into the shape of the die (transferring heat between the formed blank through the fixture). Col. 3, lines 20-26.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the heat source of the HIP, annealing, and/or correction steps of Ikegaya and Inoue by way of electrodes embedded into the jig/mold of Ikegaya because the electrodes would be able to provide a direct heat source to the product, thereby facilitating the softening and malleability desired in the annealing and correction step.
Ikegaya does not teach a step of forming an insulator layer on the surface of the jig that comes into contact with the blade during the heat treatment steps of correction, HIP, and/or annealing.
Yamamoto is directed to a hard coating film that is insusceptible to adhesion to soft metal. Abstract; para. [0005]. The insulating properties of the hard coating film are enhanced by the inclusion of oxygen in the film (insulator layer). Para. [0017]. The film can be deposited using various techniques on the surface of a die-jig, jig-tool, or die (mold formed of an insulator layer on a surface coming into contact with the blade portion). Para. [0006], [0014], [0016], [0026], [0029]. The film can be applied to dies (molds) in forging, extrusion, cutting, drilling, milling, blanking punching, and hot working/hot pressing. Para. [0016], [0034].
Yamamoto teaches that the film is heat resistant and oxidation resistant. Para. [0021]. Because of the film’s anti-adhesion property, it is possible to control the adhesion of soft metal on the surface of the jig-tool, which enables it to be stably and repeatedly used in the long term. Para. [0016]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have applied the hard coating film, as suggested by Yamamoto, to the inner surfaces of the correcting jigs of Ikegaya because the hard coating film would prevent any softened metal from sticking to the die and protect the dies from oxidation and heat damage, thereby prolonging their in-service lifetime and decreasing the frequency with which they would need to be replaced or repaired.
With respect to the relative hardness between the insulator layer and blade, metals generally become more malleable (softer) at elevated temperatures, and Yamamoto teaches that the coating film is hard and heat resistant even when deforming steel sheet at high hot working temperatures (para. [0021]). It follows that the hard coating film (an oxide or oxynitride – Yamamoto at Tables 1 and 3) would have a higher hardness compared to stainless steel at elevated temperatures in the heat treatment step of Ikegaya.
In Ikegaya, the metal powder for making the blade can be a stainless alloy that is Fe-based (stainless steel) (para. [0033]), which has a Vickers hardness (HV) ranging from 130 to 600 (Ashby at p. 231 – Technical Attributes section). The hard coating films of Yamamoto include AlCrON oxynitrides, which have a hardness of about 29 GPa (2957 HV) in the as-coated state and about 20.7 GPa (2111 HV) after exposure at 950oC (Mondragón Rodríguez at Fig. 7; p. 8 – Section 3.3). Therefore, the hardness of the insulator layer is higher than the hardness of the molded blade.
Ikegaya teaches that the blade unit (blade) (1) comprises a platform section (blade root portion) (2) and airfoil section (blade portion) (3) (FIGS. 1-3; para. [0024]-[0029], but is silent regarding a shroud portion.
Haworth is directed to axial-flow fluid machines, such as axial-flow compressors and turbines of gas-turbine engines. Col. 1, lines 15-17. The rotor blades (10, 11, 12) preferably have integral shrouds at their tips (24, 25, 26). Col. 1, lines 52-65; col. 2, lines 7-12, 34-48; sole figure. This solves the difficulties encountered when an annular shroud encircles rotor blades, which must take thermal expansion and distortion into account. Col. 1, lines 43-52. Fluid flow may also be controlled with the tip shroud setup. Col. 1, lines 56-72; col. 2, lines 1-2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added a tip shroud on the blade of Ikegawa, as taught by Haworth, because shrouds placed at the tip portion of the blade would address the problems of an annular shroud and provide a manner of controlling gas flow. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to have manufactured the blade unit, including platform, airfoil, and tip shroud, in a metal injection molding process because this aligns with the need to have the tip shroud integrally formed (Haworth at col. 1, lines 56-57) and metal injection molding molds may take on the shape of the final article to be manufactured (Ikegawa at para. [0027], [0029]).
Regarding claim 2, Ikegaya teaches attaching a hydraulic press or a mechanical press (pressing units) onto the blade during the correction process when jigs are attached (pressing units are attached to the jig, the pressing unit capable of pressing the jig in a direction sandwiching the blade attached to the jig in a state where the jig sandwiches the blade). Para. [0057].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have carried out the correction process of Ikegaya (corresponds to Inoue’s modifying step), which uses a correction jig, under warm or heated conditions in order to make the metal more malleable and to facilitate shaping. It would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined or continuously carried out the HIP and/or annealing steps of Ikegaya with the correction step in Ikegaya such that the product is heated and remains held by the correction jig/mold during these steps because this would increase process efficiency by eliminating the need to transfer the blade to a different holding device or to a furnace.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikegaya in view of Inoue, Skejskal, Yamamoto, and Haworth, with evidence from Ashby and Mondragón Rodríguez, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2007/0017817 (A1) to Mueller et al. (“Mueller”), with evidence from US 2001/0022946 (A1) to Tetsui et al. (“Tetsui”).
Regarding claim 3, Ikegaya teaches stainless powder, such as Fe-based metal powders, for the kneading material for the injection molding step (para. [0033]), but does not disclose titanium aluminum particle powders.
Mueller is directed to a method for manufacturing components of a gas turbine engine. Title; abstract; para. [0002]. Gas turbine engine parts include vane blades. Para. [0037]. Important materials used in aircraft engines or other gas turbine engines are titanium alloys, nickel alloys, and high-strength steels (Fe-based alloys). Para. [0004]. Injection molding materials for injection molding processes include nickel base alloy powder, steel alloy (Fe-based) powder, titanium base alloy powder, or intermetallic alloy powder and TiAl (titanium aluminum) alloy powder. Para. [0016], [0034]; claim 13.
It has been held that it is obvious to substitute known equivalents for one another if used for the same purpose. See MPEP § 2144.06(II). In the present instance, steel or Fe-based powders and TiAl powders are materials both known in the production of parts for gas turbine engines and shown to be suitable for metal injection molding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used TiAl powders in the method of Ikegaya because their equivalency is recognized in the art. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used any suitable metal powder, such as TiAl powder particles, for the manufacture of a blade in the method of Ikegaya because of the suitability of titanium-based alloys in the manufacture of gas turbine parts, as noted by Mueller at para. [0004]. See MPEP § 2144.07.
With respect to the relative hardness between insulating material and molded metal particles, metals generally become more malleable (softer) at elevated temperatures, and Yamamoto teaches that the coating film is hard and heat resistant even when deforming steel sheet at high hot working temperatures (para. [0021]). It follows that the hard coating film (an oxide or oxynitride – Yamamoto at Tables 1 and 3) would have a higher hardness compared to stainless steel at elevated temperatures in the heat treatment step of Ikegaya.
In Mueller, the molded metal particle material for making the blade can be TiAl (titanium aluminum) alloy (para. [0016], [0034]; claim 13), which may have a Vickers hardness (Hv) ranging from 290 to 400 (Tetsui at Table 2 – Examples 1 and 2-5). The hard coating films of Yamamoto include AlCrON oxynitrides, which have a hardness of about 29 GPa (2957 HV) in the as-coated state and about 20.7 GPa (2111 HV) after exposure at 950oC (Mondragón Rodríguez at Fig. 7; p. 8 – Section 3.3). Therefore, the hardness of the insulator layer is higher than the hardness of the molded blade.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/04/2025 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Office action conceded that Ikegaya fails to teach or suggest the recited heat treatment step.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ikegaya teaches hot isostatic pressing (HIP) and annealing, which are both forms of heat treatment. What is not clear in Ikegaya is whether the heat from the HIP and/or annealing takes place while the product is held by the correcting jigs. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to carry out the correction process of Ikegaya, which uses a correction jig to hold the blade, under warm or heated conditions (heat treatment) in order to make the metal more malleable and to facilitate shaping. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have combined or continuously carried out the HIP and/or annealing steps of Ikegaya with the correction step in Ikegaya because the jig would ensure that the blade remains securely fixed and would eliminating an extraneous step of transferring the blade to a different holding device or furnace, improving process efficiency.
Applicant argues that the prior art documents do not teach or suggest the limitation directed to the jig being attached with an entire outer surface of the blade portion in contact with the jig.
In response, Ikegaya teaches that the jigs sandwich the blade surface, the jigs shaped so as to correspond to the front and rear shapes of the blade (para. [0057]). The sandwiching action hugs the blade and meets the claim limitation of the entire outer surface of the blade portion in contact with the jig. The positioning of die/mold/jig over an entire object surface is seen in the outer die (53) in Inoue and the dies (15, 21) in Stejskal. Thus, the prior art documents teach and suggest the limitation as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VANESSA T. LUK whose telephone number is (571)270-3587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM ET.
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, Keith D. Hendricks, can be reached at 571-272-1401. 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.
/VANESSA T. LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
January 03, 2026