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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 28, 2026 has been entered.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. The Applicant’s claim for benefit of PCT/SG2019/050049 filed 01/30/2019, has been received and acknowledged.
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks and Claim Amendments filed January 28, 2026.
Claims Filing Date
January 28, 2026
Amended
1, 4
Cancelled
12-24
Pending
1-11, 25-27
The applicant argues support for the amended claims in [0046] (Remarks p. 7 para. 2).
Withdrawn Drawings Objection
The following objection is withdrawn due to drawing amendment:
Fig. 1 reference numeral 180 not mentioned in applicant’s specification.
Withdrawn Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following 112(a) rejections are withdrawn due to claim amendment:
Claim 1 lines 5-6 “single virtual build plane separate from the tooling assembly”.
Claim 1 lines 9-10 “the single virtual build plane comprises a flat surface on which a straight line joining two points on the plane would wholly lie”.
Claim 1 line 11 “the single virtual build plane”.
Claim 4 lines 1-2 “the single virtual build plane”.
Claim 1 lines 11-14 “scanning… using a vision system, each separate repair toolpath that is determined for each component and accounting for the different component heights”.
The following 112(b) rejections are withdrawn due to claim amendment:
Claim 1 lines 5-6, 9, and 11 “single virtual build plane”.
Claim 1 lines 11-14 “scanning… using a vision system, each separate repair toolpath that is determined for each component and accounting for the different component heights”.
Response to Remarks filed January 28, 2026
Ott in view of Ladewig; Ott in view of Ladewig, Andersson, and Herzog; Ladewig in view of Andersson and Herzog
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Ott in view of Ladewig, Ott in view of Ladewig, Andersson, and Herzog, and Ladewig in view of Andersson and Herzog 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.
The applicant argues the powder dispensing assembly is part of an additive manufacturing machine and the vision system and additive manufacture machine are separate, stand-alone units, which is not taught or suggested by the cited prior art (Remarks p. 7 para. 5).
New Grounds
In light of claim amendment and upon further consideration new grounds of rejection are made over Ott in view of Srinivasan and over Ott in view of Srinivasan and Schoeneborn.
Claim Support
Claim 1 line 4 “a repair surface at an end of each component” is supported by Figs. 1, 3, 4, and 6, which depict “a repair surface 72” at an end of each component 70.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10, 11, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ott (WO 2018/145912 with citations from US 2019/0358755) in view of Srinivasan (US 2018/0243866).
Regarding claim 1, Ott discloses a method for repairing multiple components using an additive repair system ([0002], [0025]), the method comprising:
securing the multiple components in a tooling assembly, each of the multiple components having a repair surface at an end of each component (peak 11 on which material it to be built) ([0016], [0052], [0063]-[0065], [0074], Figs. 3-4), wherein the components are secured to the tooling assembly such that the repair surfaces (peak 11) of all of the components (10) are aligned with a single build plane (tolerance range TB, which corresponds to a nominal layer thickness for the additive building up layers) ([0017]-[0018], [0033], [0065]-[0071], [0076]-[0077], Figs. 1-4), each of the multiple components having different heights (individualized repairs corresponding to the length variation) ([0009]-[0010], [0025], [0064], [0067]);
depositing a layer of additive powder over the repair surface of each of the multiple components using a powder dispensing assembly, the powder dispensing assembly being part of an additive manufacturing machine ([0019], [0068]-[0070], [0077]-[0080]); and
selectively irradiating the layer of additive powder along the repair toolpath to fuse the layer of additive powder onto the repair surface of each of the multiple components ([0021], [0049]).
Ott is silent to scanning including the end of each component to determine a repair toolpath corresponding to the repair surface of each of the multiple components using a vision system, each separate repair toolpath being determined for each component, wherein the vision system and the additive manufacturing machine are separate, stand-alone units.
Srinivasan discloses a method for repairing multiple components ([0026]) using an additive repair system ([0001], [0003], [0014], [0027], [0028], Fig. 1) comprising scanning the end of each component to determine a repair toolpath (instruct AM system) corresponding to the repair surface of each of the multiple components using a vision system (in response to scanning to identify flaw data) ([0004], [0017]-[0019], [0025], [0030]), each separate repair toolpath being determined for each component (repeat process for each of a set of components) ([0026]), wherein the vision (scanning) system and the additive manufacturing machine are separate, stand-alone units (separate physical components) ([0015]-[0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Ott to scan the build plane of each component using a vision system as disclosed by Srinivasan because it accurately repairs turbomachinery, improving lifespan (Srinivasan [0002]) and reducing cost (Srinivasan [0030]), where the scanning system identifies at least one flaw in the component, including identifying characteristics, such as size, shape, location, dimension, etc. by comparing the scan to the model (Srinivasan [0015]), allowing for selective application of fill material to correct the at least one flaw (Srinivasan [0016]).
Ott in view of Srinivasan discloses securing multiple components (Ott [0016], [0052], [0063]-[0065], [0074], Figs. 3-4; Srinivasan [0026]) and scanning using a vision system that is physical separate from the additive machine (Srinivasan [0015]-[0016]), such that scanning the single build plane naturally flows from the combined disclosures of the prior art.
Regarding claim 2, Ott discloses removing material above the repair surface of each of the multiple components using a material removal assembly (Ott [0025], [0028], [0063], [0073]).
Regarding claim 3, Ott in view of Srinivasan discloses the vision system comprises one or more cameras or a three-dimensional scanner (Srinivasan [0014]-[0017]).
Regarding claim 4, Ott in view of Srinivasan discloses wherein the step of scanning the single build plane (Srinivasan [0004], [0017]-[0019], [0025], [0030]) comprises:
obtaining a digital representation of the multiple components (Ott [0016], [0052], [0074]) using the vision system (Srinivasan [0025]-[0026]); and
determining coordinates of the repair surface of each of the multiple components (Ott [0016], [0052], [0074]) from the digital representation of the multiple components (in response to identifying flaw, instruct AM system to additively manufacture) (Srinivasan [0018]).
Regarding claim 5, Ott in view of Srinivasan discloses polishing the layer of additive powder fused to the repair surface (Srinivasan [0030]).
Regarding claim 6, Ott in view of Srinivasan discloses the multiple components (Ott [0016], [0052], [0074]; Srinivasan [0026]) comprise at least one airfoil of a gas turbine engine (Ott [0009]-[0010], [0032], [0063], [0080]; Srinivasan [0002], [0014]).
Regarding claim 7, Ott discloses the repair toolpath traverses the repair surface at a tip of the at least one airfoil (Ott [0032], [0063], [0080]).
Regarding claim 8, Ott in view of Srinivasan discloses the at least one airfoil is a high pressure compressor blade (Ott [0003], [0008]; Srinivasan [0002], [0014]).
Regarding claim 10, Ott in view of Srinivasan discloses the repair toolpath defines a plurality of layers to be fused onto the repair surface to rebuild each of the multiple components (Ott [0013], [0021], [0023], [0034], [0039]; Srinivasan [0027]-[0030]).
Regarding claim 11, Ott in view of Srinivasan discloses fusing the layer of additive powder is achieved using a direct metal laser melting (DMLM) system, an electron beam melting (EBM) system, a selective laser melting (SLM) system, a direct metal laser sintering (DMLS) system, or a selective laser sintering (SLS) system (Ott [0004], [0013], [0021], [0049]; Srinivasan [0012], [0027]).
Regarding claim 25, Ott discloses the removing comprises grinding, machining, brushing, etching, polishing, wire electrical discharge (EDM), or cutting (machined) (Ott [0063]).
Regarding claim 26, Ott in view of Srinivasan discloses the repair toolpath is determined at least in part using a computer aided design (CAD) model (Srinivasan [0030]).
Regarding claim 27, XXX discloses the method of claim 26, wherein the CAD model is a morphed model.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ott (WO 2018/145912 with citations from US 2019/0358755) in view of Srinivasan (US 2018/0243866) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Rockstroh (US 2009/0313823).
In the event it is determined that the blade or vane of a gas turbine of Ott in view of Srinivasan does not read on a high pressure compressor blade, then the below rejection further in view of Rockstroh is applied.
Regarding claim 8, Ott in view of Srinivasan discloses a blade or vane of a gas turbine (Ott [0003], [0008]; Srinivasan [0002], [0014]).
Rockstroh discloses a method of repairing a component using an additive repair system ([0001], [0009]) where the component comprises at least one airfoil of a gas turbine engine ([0001], [0009]), and the airfoil is a high pressure compressor blade ([0034], [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Ott in view of Srinivasan for the blade or vane of a gas turbine engine to be a high pressure compressor blade because such a component experiences a high level of axial stress, such that the airfoils are subject to structural damage from solid particles other than the intended fluid flowing across, around and generally into the leading edge of the airfoil, such that forces damage the airfoil (Rockstroh [0040]).
Regarding claim 9, Ott in view of Srinivasan is silent to the ratio of a blade height of the high pressure compressor blade to a repair height of a repair segment.
Rockstroh discloses a method of repairing a component using an additive repair system ([0001], [0009]), where the component comprises at least one airfoil of a gas turbine engine ([0001], [0009]), and the airfoil is a high pressure compressor blade ([0034], [0040]), wherein a ratio of a blade height of the high pressure compressor blade to a repair height of a repair segment is approximately 10:1 (vertical length L2 (blade height) is about 90%, therefore repair height is about 10%, such that the ratio is about 9:1, [0042], Fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Ott in view of Srinivasan for the ratio of a blade height of the airfoil to a repair height of the repair segment to be about 9:1 to impart deep compressive residual stresses into the repair (Rockstroh [0042]) and to enable blade repair to become more economically viable over replacement (Rockstroh [0016]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ott (WO 2018/145912 with citations from US 2019/0358755) in view of Srinivasan (US 2018/0243866) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Rockstroh (US 2009/0313823).
Regarding claim 9, Ott in view of Srinivasan is silent to the ratio of a blade height of the high pressure compressor blade to a repair height of a repair segment.
Rockstroh discloses a method of repairing a component using an additive repair system ([0001], [0009]), where the component comprises at least one airfoil of a gas turbine engine ([0001], [0009]), and the airfoil is a high pressure compressor blade ([0034], [0040]), wherein a ratio of a blade height of the high pressure compressor blade to a repair height of a repair segment is approximately 10:1 (vertical length L2 (blade height) is about 90%, therefore repair height is about 10%, such that the ratio is about 9:1, [0042], Fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Ott in view of Srinivasan for the ratio of a blade height of the airfoil to a repair height of the repair segment to be about 9:1 to impart deep compressive residual stresses into the repair (Rockstroh [0042]) and to enable blade repair to become more economically viable over replacement (Rockstroh [0016]).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ott (WO 2018/145912 with citations from US 2019/0358755) in view of Srinivasan (US 2018/0243866) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Praniewicz (Praniewicz et al. Adaptive geometry transformation and repair for hybrid manufacturing. Procedia Manufacturing 26 (2018) 228-236.).
Regarding claim 27, Ott in view of Srinivasan does not call the CAD model a morphed model.
Praniewicz discloses a method of repairing a component using an additive repair system (Abstract, 2. Methodology, 5. Conclusion), wherein the repair toolpath is determined at least in part using a computer aided design (CAD) model and the CAD model is a morphed model (3. Results, 4. Discussion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Ott in view of Andersson, Ladewig, and Herzog for the CAD model to be a morphed model to advantageously adapt the repair process to adapt to the fluctuations in geometry that result from use of the part, resulting in a high accuracy repair that is capable of yielding significant improvements in material usage efficiency and processing time (Praniewicz Abstract, 5. Conclusion).
Claims 1-8, 10, 11, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ott (WO 2018/145912 with citations from US 2019/0358755) in view of Srinivasan (US 2018/0243866) and Schoeneborn (US 2015/0079306).
In the event it is determined that the combination of Ott in view of Srinivasan does not read on scanning the single build plane, then the following rejection in view of Schoeneborn is applied.
Regarding claim 1, Ott discloses a method for repairing multiple components using an additive repair system ([0002], [0025]), the method comprising:
securing the multiple components in a tooling assembly, each of the multiple components having a repair surface at an end of each component (peak 11 on which material it to be built) ([0016], [0052], [0063]-[0065], [0074], Figs. 3-4), wherein the components are secured to the tooling assembly such that the repair surfaces (peak 11) of all of the components (10) are aligned with a single build plane (tolerance range TB, which corresponds to a nominal layer thickness for the additive building up layers) ([0017]-[0018], [0033], [0065]-[0071], [0076]-[0077], Figs. 1-4), each of the multiple components having different heights (individualized repairs corresponding to the length variation) ([0009]-[0010], [0025], [0064], [0067]);
depositing a layer of additive powder over the repair surface of each of the multiple components using a powder dispensing assembly, the powder dispensing assembly being part of an additive manufacturing machine ([0019], [0068]-[0070], [0077]-[0080]); and
selectively irradiating the layer of additive powder along the repair toolpath to fuse the layer of additive powder onto the repair surface of each of the multiple components ([0021], [0049]).
Ott is silent to scanning the single build plane including the end of each component to determine a repair toolpath corresponding to the repair surface of each of the multiple components using a vision system, each separate repair toolpath being determined for each component, wherein the vision system and the additive manufacturing machine are separate, stand-alone units.
Srinivasan discloses a method for repairing multiple components ([0026]) using an additive repair system ([0001], [0003], [0014], [0027], [0028], Fig. 1) comprising scanning the end of each component to determine a repair toolpath (instruct AM system) corresponding to the repair surface of each of the multiple components using a vision system (in response to scanning to identify flaw data) ([0004], [0017]-[0019], [0025], [0030]), each separate repair toolpath being determined for each component (repeat process for each of a set of components) ([0026]), wherein the vision (scanning) system and the additive manufacturing machine are separate, stand-alone units (separate physical components) ([0015]-[0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Ott to scan the build plane of each component using a vision system as disclosed by Srinivasan because it accurately repairs turbomachinery, improving lifespan (Srinivasan [0002]) and reducing cost (Srinivasan [0030]), where the scanning system identifies at least one flaw in the component, including identifying characteristics, such as size, shape, location, dimension, etc. by comparing the scan to the model (Srinivasan [0015]), allowing for selective application of fill material to correct the at least one flaw (Srinivasan [0016]).
Ott in view of Srinivasan are silent to scanning the single build plane.
Schoeneborn discloses a method for repairing multiple components using an additive repair system ([0001]) to produce a repair segment configured to reconstruct the original shape and dimensions of the component prior to damage ([0014]) by positioning the components in a carrier ([0007], [0041]) that is used to support the component for both removal and replacement ([0016], [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Ott in view of Srinivasan to secure the multiple components in a carrier as disclosed by Schoeneborn to support the components (Schoeneborn [0023], [0041]), which allows for a high quality repair (Schoeneborn [0005]) that is highly efficient (Schoeneborn [0016]) and advantageously displaces the component to a desired (vertical) position (Schoeneborn [0020], [0046]).
Ott in view of Srinivasan and Schoeneborn discloses securing multiple components (Ott [0016], [0052], [0063]-[0065], [0074], Figs. 3-4; Srinivasan [0026]; Schoeneborn [0007], [0014]) in a movable carrier (Schoeneborn [0016], [0047]) and scanning using a vision system that is physical separate from the additive machine (Srinivasan [0015]-[0016]), such that scanning the single build plane naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art.
Regarding claim 2, Ott in view of Schoeneborn discloses removing material above the repair surface of each of the multiple components using a material removal assembly (Ott [0025], [0028], [0063], [0073]; Schoeneborn [0015]-[0017]).
Regarding claim 3, Ott in view of Srinivasan discloses the vision system comprises one or more cameras or a three-dimensional scanner (Srinivasan [0014]-[0017]).
Regarding claim 4, Ott in view of Srinivasan discloses wherein the step of scanning the single build plane (Srinivasan [0004], [0017]-[0019], [0025], [0030]) comprises:
obtaining a digital representation of the multiple components (Ott [0016], [0052], [0074]) using the vision system (Srinivasan [0025]-[0026]); and
determining coordinates of the repair surface of each of the multiple components (Ott [0016], [0052], [0074]) from the digital representation of the multiple components (in response to identifying flaw, instruct AM system to additively manufacture) (Srinivasan [0018]).
Regarding claim 5, Ott in view of Srinivasan discloses polishing the layer of additive powder fused to the repair surface (Srinivasan [0030]).
Regarding claim 6, Ott in view of Srinivasan and Schoeneborn discloses the multiple components (Ott [0016], [0052], [0074]; Srinivasan [0026]; Schoeneborn [0007], [0041]) comprise at least one airfoil of a gas turbine engine (Ott [0009]-[0010], [0032], [0063], [0080]; Srinivasan [0002], [0014]; Schoeneborn [0007]).
Regarding claim 7, Ott in view of Schoeneborn discloses the repair toolpath traverses the repair surface at a tip of the at least one airfoil (Ott [0032], [0063], [0080]; Schoeneborn [0007], [0041]).
Regarding claim 8, Ott in view of Srinivasan and Schoeneborn discloses the at least one airfoil is a high pressure compressor blade (Ott [0003], [0008]; Srinivasan [0002], [0014]; Schoeneborn [0007], [0019]).
Regarding claim 10, Ott in view of Srinivasan and Schoeneborn discloses the repair toolpath defines a plurality of layers to be fused onto the repair surface to rebuild each of the multiple components (Ott [0013], [0021], [0023], [0034], [0039]; Srinivasan [0027]-[0030]; Schoeneborn [0011]-[0014]).
Regarding claim 11, Ott in view of Srinivasan and Schoeneborn discloses fusing the layer of additive powder is achieved using a direct metal laser melting (DMLM) system, an electron beam melting (EBM) system, a selective laser melting (SLM) system, a direct metal laser sintering (DMLS) system, or a selective laser sintering (SLS) system (Ott [0004], [0013], [0021], [0049]; Srinivasan [0012], [0027]; Schoeneborn [0038]-[0040], [0049]-[0050]).
Regarding claim 25, Ott in view of Schoeneborn discloses the removing comprises grinding, machining, brushing, etching, polishing, wire electrical discharge (EDM), or cutting (machined) (Ott [0063]; Schoeneborn [0017], [0022]).
Regarding claim 26, Ott in view of Srinivasan and Schoeneborn discloses the repair toolpath is determined at least in part using a computer aided design (CAD) model (Srinivasan [0030]; Schoeneborn [0014]-[0015], [0050]).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ott (WO 2018/145912 with citations from US 2019/0358755) in view of Srinivasan (US 2018/0243866) and Schoeneborn (US 2015/0079306) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Rockstroh (US 2009/0313823).
In the event it is determined that the blade or vane of a gas turbine of Ott in view of Srinivasan and Schoeneborn does not read on a high pressure compressor blade, then the below rejection further in view of Rockstroh is applied.
Regarding claim 8, Ott in view of Srinivasan discloses a blade or vane of a gas turbine (Ott [0003], [0008]; Srinivasan [0002], [0014]).
Rockstroh discloses a method of repairing a component using an additive repair system ([0001], [0009]) where the component comprises at least one airfoil of a gas turbine engine ([0001], [0009]), and the airfoil is a high pressure compressor blade ([0034], [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Ott in view of Srinivasan for the blade or vane of a gas turbine engine to be a high pressure compressor blade because such a component experiences a high level of axial stress, such that the airfoils are subject to structural damage from solid particles other than the intended fluid flowing across, around and generally into the leading edge of the airfoil, such that forces damage the airfoil (Rockstroh [0040]).
Regarding claim 9, Ott in view of Srinivasan is silent to the ratio of a blade height of the high pressure compressor blade to a repair height of a repair segment.
Rockstroh discloses a method of repairing a component using an additive repair system ([0001], [0009]), where the component comprises at least one airfoil of a gas turbine engine ([0001], [0009]), and the airfoil is a high pressure compressor blade ([0034], [0040]), wherein a ratio of a blade height of the high pressure compressor blade to a repair height of a repair segment is approximately 10:1 (vertical length L2 (blade height) is about 90%, therefore repair height is about 10%, such that the ratio is about 9:1, [0042], Fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Ott in view of Srinivasan for the ratio of a blade height of the airfoil to a repair height of the repair segment to be about 9:1 to impart deep compressive residual stresses into the repair (Rockstroh [0042]) and to enable blade repair to become more economically viable over replacement (Rockstroh [0016]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ott (WO 2018/145912 with citations from US 2019/0358755) in view of Srinivasan (US 2018/0243866) and Schoeneborn (US 2015/0079306) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Rockstroh (US 2009/0313823).
Regarding claim 9, Ott in view of Srinivasan is silent to the ratio of a blade height of the high pressure compressor blade to a repair height of a repair segment.
Rockstroh discloses a method of repairing a component using an additive repair system ([0001], [0009]), where the component comprises at least one airfoil of a gas turbine engine ([0001], [0009]), and the airfoil is a high pressure compressor blade ([0034], [0040]), wherein a ratio of a blade height of the high pressure compressor blade to a repair height of a repair segment is approximately 10:1 (vertical length L2 (blade height) is about 90%, therefore repair height is about 10%, such that the ratio is about 9:1, [0042], Fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Ott in view of Srinivasan for the ratio of a blade height of the airfoil to a repair height of the repair segment to be about 9:1 to impart deep compressive residual stresses into the repair (Rockstroh [0042]) and to enable blade repair to become more economically viable over replacement (Rockstroh [0016]).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ott (WO 2018/145912 with citations from US 2019/0358755) in view of Srinivasan (US 2018/0243866) and Schoeneborn (US 2015/0079306) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Praniewicz (Praniewicz et al. Adaptive geometry transformation and repair for hybrid manufacturing. Procedia Manufacturing 26 (2018) 228-236.).
Regarding claim 27, Ott in view of Srinivasan does not call the CAD model a morphed model.
Praniewicz discloses a method of repairing a component using an additive repair system (Abstract, 2. Methodology, 5. Conclusion), wherein the repair toolpath is determined at least in part using a computer aided design (CAD) model and the CAD model is a morphed model (3. Results, 4. Discussion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Ott in view of Andersson, Ladewig, and Herzog for the CAD model to be a morphed model to advantageously adapt the repair process to adapt to the fluctuations in geometry that result from use of the part, resulting in a high accuracy repair that is capable of yielding significant improvements in material usage efficiency and processing time (Praniewicz Abstract, 5. Conclusion).
Related Art
Shkolnik (US 2010/0125356)
Shkolnik discloses three-dimensional manufacturing ([0002]) that uses an imager 106 (e.g., a camera) to correct the pattern generator(s) output and provide feedback to the system, where the focal distance of the imager is chosen to be the same as the imager(s) so that scaling and/or other translations and transformations may not be required ([0088], [0110], [0121], [0124], [0137], [0242]).
McKinnon (US 2013/0328227)
McKinnon discloses a method for fabricating three dimensional models by successive deposition of layers of a model material ([0003]) that uses an imaging monitoring system ([0023]) that has a fixed focal length for optimum focus ([0028], [0094]-[0097]).
Wehning (US 2012/0211155)
Wehning discloses producing a first and a further product simultaneously using a generative process ([0013]) with substrate plate segments 12a-f ([0063], Fig. 1a) that are set to different heights ([0068]).
Herzog (US 2018/0215103)
Herzog discloses a method of additive manufacturing at least one three-dimensional object ([0002]) comprising scanning a single build plane (construction material layer) using a vision system (detection unit 11) ([0019], [0055], [0059]), where a change in distance effects the layer information, such as changes in focus of the detection unit being reflected in the corresponding layer information as changes in resolution, focus, brightness, etc. ([0059]).
Krol (US 2016/0250724)
Krol discloses a carrier arrangement ([0007]-[0009]) for use in simultaneously repairing a plurality of components ([0001], [0013]-[0014]), such as turbine blades ([0002])
O’Neill (US 2016/0031010)
O’Neill discloses mounting an object to a movable platform for additive manufacturing ([0010]-[0011]).
Coskun (US 2019/0022760)
Coskun discloses disposing an additive structure on a build surface ([0004]-[0006]) by capturing an image of the build surface, processing the data, then selecting a model for printing ([0007]-[0020]) for use in repair ([0034]-[0036]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANI HILL whose telephone number is (571)272-2523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday-Friday 7am-12pm.
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 WALKER can be reached on 571-272-3458. 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.
/STEPHANI HILL/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights