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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claims 11-12, the limitations are merely the intended function of the diffuser section, and do not relate to any active steps of the method of the claimed invention. Therefore the limitations in claims 11-12 do not further limit the method.
Regarding claims 13-14, the limitations are merely the intended function of the preform component, and do not relate to any active steps of the method of the claimed invention. Therefore the limitations in claims 13-14 do not further limit the method.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 6-17 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janssen (US 7,992,272) in view of Richerzhagen (US 2007/0193990).
PNG
media_image1.png
362
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
834
344
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Janssen teaches a manufacturing method, comprising:
providing a preform component (turbine blade 35) for a turbine engine, the preform component (turbine blade 35) including a substrate (metal blade 5) and an outer coating (ceramic coating 10) on the substrate (metal blade 5), the substrate (metal blade 5) comprising electrically conductive material (see col.2, lines 5-7 “the metal blade 5 may be composed of any metal, including steel, titanium, or carbide.” Hence metal blade 5 comprises a electrically conductive material.), and the outer coating (ceramic coating 10) comprising non-electrically conductive material (ceramic coating 10 comprising ceramic); and
forming, subsequent to providing the preform component, a cooling aperture (cooling aperture; see the annotation of fig.2) in the preform component (turbine blade 35), the cooling aperture (cooling aperture) including a diffuser section (counterbore 20) and a meter section (cooling hole 25), the diffuser section (counterbore 20) extending through the outer coating (ceramic coating 10) and into the substrate (metal blade 5), the meter section (cooling hole 25) extending within the substrate (metal blade 5), and the forming of the cooling aperture comprising
forming the diffuser section (counterbore 20) through the outer coating (ceramic coating 10) and into the substrate (metal blade 5) using a first machining process (see col.2, lines 30-31 “The counterbore 20 may be created by selectively removing (i.e., milling) a portion of the ceramic coating 10.”); and
forming, subsequent to the forming the diffuser section, the meter section (cooling hole 25) using a second machining process (EDM; see col.5, lines 8-15) that is different than the first machining process. (See figs.2 and 5);
wherein the second machining process comprises an electrical discharge machining process (EDM; see col.5, lines 8-15).
Janssen does not explicitly teach the first machining process comprises a water-jet guided laser machining process or an abrasive water jet machining process.
However, Richerzhagen teaches in the same field of endeavor of a manufacturing method, comprising machining a workpiece using a water-jet guided laser machining process (See para.[0010] “In a method for machining a workpiece by means of laser radiation injected and guided in a liquid jet”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify first machining process of Janssen with a water-jet guided laser machining process as taught by Richerzhagen, in order to prevent the ejections occurring during machining from being deposited on the workpiece surface (para.[0009] of Richezhagen).
Regarding claim 6, Janssen teaches the providing of the preform component comprises providing the substrate (metal blade 5); and applying the outer coating (ceramic coating 10) over the substrate (metal blade 5).
Regarding claim 7, Janssen teaches the preform component further includes an inner coating (bond coat 15) between the substrate (metal blade 5) and the outer coating (ceramic coating 10), and the diffuser section (counterbore 20) further extends through the inner coating (bond coat 15) (see fig.2).
Regarding claim 8, Janssen teaches the inner coating (bond coat 15) comprises electrically conductive material (MCrAlX) that is different than the electrically conductive material of the substrate (steel) (see col.2, lines 5-7).
Regarding claim 9, Janssen teaches the cooling aperture (cooling aperture) extends through the substrate (metal blade 5) and the outer coating (ceramic coating 10) along a centerline (see fig.2, the centerline is merely the imagine defined by operator), and the diffuser section (counterbore 20) has a cross-sectional geometry that changes as the cooling aperture extends along the centerline (operator can define a line that meet the requirement).
Regarding claim 10, Janssen teaches the cooling aperture (cooling aperture) extends through the substrate (metal blade 5) and the outer coating (ceramic coating 10) along a centerline (see fig.2, the centerline is the imagine defined by operator), and the meter section (counterbore 20) has a cross-sectional geometry that is uniform as the cooling aperture extends along the centerline (operator can define a line that meet the requirement).
Regarding claim 11, Janssen teaches the diffuser section (diffuser 13) is formed in a single lobed diffuser section configuration (diffuser 13 can be a section of a single lobed diffuser section.).
Regarding claim 12, Janssen teaches the diffuser section (diffuser 13) is formed in a multi-lobed diffuser section configuration (diffuser 13 can be a section of a multi-lobed diffuser section.).
Regarding claim 13, Janssen teaches the preform component (turbine blade 35) comprises a preform of an airfoil (turbine blade 35) for the turbine engine (turbine blade 35 can be a component of an airfoil).
Regarding claim 14, Janssen teaches the preform component (turbine blade 35) comprises a preform of a flowpath wall (turbine blade 35) for the turbine engine (turbine blade 35 can be a component of an flowpath wall).
Regarding claim 15, Janssen teaches the electrically conductive material comprises metal (see col.2, lines 5-7 “the metal blade 5 may be composed of any metal, including steel, titanium, or carbide.”)
Regarding claim 16, Janssen teaches the non-electrically conductive material comprises ceramic (ceramic coating 10 comprising ceramic).
Regarding claim 17, Janssen teaches a manufacturing method, comprising:
providing a substrate (metal blade 5);
applying a coating (ceramic coating 10) over the substrate (metal blade 5) to provide a preform component (turbine blade 35) for a turbine engine;
forming a diffuser section (counterbore 20) of a cooling aperture in the preform component using a first machining process see col.2, lines 30-31 “The counterbore 20 may be created by selectively removing (i.e., milling) a portion of the ceramic coating 10.”), the diffuser section (counterbore 20) extending through the coating (ceramic coating 10) and into the substrate (metal blade 5) (see fig.2), and the first machining process includes machining through the coating (ceramic coating 10) and into the substrate (metal blade 5); and
forming, after forming the diffuser section, a meter section (cooling hole 25) of the cooling aperture in the preform component using a second machining process (EDM; see col. 5, lines 8-15) that is different than the first machining process (selectively removing), the meter section (cooling hole 25) extending within the substrate (metal blade 5) to the diffuser section (counterbore 20) (see fig.2);
wherein the second machining process comprises an electrical discharge machining process (EDM; see col.5, lines 8-15).
Janssen does not explicitly teach the first machining process comprises a water-jet guided laser machining process or an abrasive water jet machining process.
However, Richerzhagen teaches in the same field of endeavor of a manufacturing method, comprising machining a workpiece using a water-jet guided laser machining process (See para.[0010] “In a method for machining a workpiece by means of laser radiation injected and guided in a liquid jet”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify first machining process of Janssen with a water-jet guided laser machining process as taught by Richerzhagen, in order to prevent the ejections occurring during machining from being deposited on the workpiece surface (para.[0009] of Richezhagen).
Regarding claim 19, Janssen teaches the substrate (metal blade 5) is configured from metal (see col.2, lines 5-7 “the metal blade 5 may be composed of any metal, including steel, titanium, or carbide.”); and the coating is configured from ceramic (ceramic coating 10 comprising ceramic).
Regarding claim 20, Janssen teaches a manufacturing method, comprising:
providing a substrate (metal blade 5), the substrate comprising metal (see col.2, lines 5-7 “the metal blade 5 may be composed of any metal, including steel, titanium, or carbide.”);
applying a coating (ceramic coating 10) over the substrate (metal blade 5) to provide a preform component (turbine blade 35) for a turbine engine;
forming a first section (counterbore 20) of a cooling aperture in the preform component (laser machining; see col.3, line 40), the first section (counterbore 20) extending through the coating (ceramic coating 10) and into the substrate (metal blade 5) (see fig.2), the first section (counterbore 20) extending to an interface (interface; see the annotation of fig.2), the interface (interface) disposed between the first section (counterbore 20) and a second section (cooling hole 25) of the cooling aperture, and wherein the forming the first section (counterbore 20) of the cooling aperture includes machining through the coating (ceramic coating 10) and into the substrate (metal blade 5) by a vertical distance (see fig.2); and
forming, at the interface (interface), the second section (cooling hole 25) of the cooling aperture in the preform component using an electrical discharge machining process (EDM; see col. 5, lines 8-15), the second section (cooling hole 25) extending within the substrate (metal blade 5);
wherein a transition from the machining process of first section to the electrical discharge machining process occurs at the interface (See fig.2).
Janssen does not explicitly teach forming the first section by using a laser machining process.
However, Richerzhagen teaches in the same field of endeavor of a manufacturing method, comprising machining a workpiece using a water-jet guided laser machining process (See para.[0010] “In a method for machining a workpiece by means of laser radiation injected and guided in a liquid jet”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify first machining process of Janssen with a water-jet guided laser machining process as taught by Richerzhagen, in order to prevent the ejections occurring during machining from being deposited on the workpiece surface (para.[0009] of Richezhagen).
Regarding claim 21, Janssen teaches the diffuser section (counterbore 20) extends through the outer coating (bond coat 15) (see fig.2) and into the substrate along a first centerline; the meter section (cooling hole 25) extends through the substrate along a second centerline; and the first centerline is angularly offset from the second centerline [Examiner’s note: The first centerline and the second centerline are merely imagery lines by operator. Operator cam define a first line angularly offset from a second line. In addition, as shown in fig.2, the centerline of counterbore 20 is angularly offset form the centerline of cooling 25.]
Regarding claim 22, Janssen teaches an interface (interface; see the annotation of fig.2) separates the metering section (cooling hole 25) and the diffuser section (counterbore 20); the interface is vertically recessed in the substrate by a vertical distance; and a lateral width of the interface is equal to a lateral width of the metering section (See fig.2, interface is vertically recessed in the substrate by a vertical distance; and a lateral width of the interface is equal to a lateral width of the metering section.).
Regarding claim 22, Janssen teaches the metering section (cooling hole 25) includes a metering section longitudinal length and a metering section lateral width; and the metering section lateral width is constant along the metering section longitudinal length (See fig.2 the width of cooling hole 25 is constant along the longitudinal length.).
Response to Arguments
With respect to the claim rejection under 35 USC 112 (d), applicant’s argument is not persuasive, because the limitations of claims 11-14 do not further limit the manufacturing method as MPEP 608.01 instructs “When examining a dependent claim, the examiner should determine whether the claim complies with 35 U.S.C. 112(d), which requires that dependent claims contain a reference to a previous claim in the same application, specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed, and include all the limitations of the previous claim. If the dependent claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(d), the examiner should reject the dependent claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as unpatentable rather than objecting to the claim.” In this case, claims 11-14 do not relate to any active steps in claim 1.
With respect to the rejection of claims 1, 6-16, 19 and 20, Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that reference Janssen in view of Richerzhagen does not teach the limitation “the diffuser section extending through the outer coating and into the substrate… forming the diffuser section through the outer coating and into the substrate using a first machining process …wherein the first machining process comprises a water-jet guided laser machining process or an abrasive water jet machining process; and wherein the second machining process comprises an electrical discharge machining process” in claim 1; “forming a diffuser section of a cooling aperture in the preform component using a first machining process, the diffuser section extending through the coating and into the substrate, and the first machining process includes machining through the coating and into the substrate” in claim 17; “forming a first section of a cooling aperture in the preform component using a laser machining process, the first section extending through the coating and into the substrate, the first section extending to an interface, the interface disposed between the first section and a second section of the cooling aperture, and wherein the forming the first section of the cooling aperture includes machining through the coating and into the substrate by a vertical distance using the laser machining process” in claim 20.
Examiner respectfully disagree. As clearly shown in the figures and specification, Janssen teaches counterbore 20 extending through ceramic coating 10 and into metal blade 5, counterbore 20 through the ceramic coating 10 and into metal blade 5, forming cooling hole 25 using a EDM, counterbore 20 extending to an interface, the interface disposed between counterbore 20 and cooling hole 25 of the cooling aperture, wherein the interface is the boundary between the counterbore 20 and cooling hole 25.
PNG
media_image3.png
306
398
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Richerzhagen teaches machining a workpiece using a water-jet guided laser machining process. Furthermore, Col.5, lines 16-22 of Janssen discloses “selective removal may be discontinued a predetermined period of time after electrical conductivity is sensed. According to another embodiment, selective removal may be continued until the electrical conductivity reaches a predetermined strength” , which indicated Janssen would further remove additional material of metal blade 5 after removal of ceramic coating 10.
Therefore the rejection is respectfully maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS Q LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-8241. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/CHRIS Q LIU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights