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 .
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 July 14, 2026.
Claims Filing Date
July 14, 2026
Amended
1
Cancelled
12-24, 26, 27
Pending
1-11, 25
The applicant argues support for the claim amendments in [0031] and [0074]-[0076] of applicant’s disclosure (p. 6 para. 2).
Response to Remarks filed July 14, 2026
Ott (WO 2018/145912 with citations from US 2019/0358755) in view of Srinivasan (US 2018/0243866) and further in view of Praniewicz (Praniewicz et al. Adaptive geometry transformation and repair for hybrid manufacturing. Procedia Manufacturing 26 (2018) 228-236.)
Ott (WO 2018/145912 with citations from US 2019/0358755) in view of Srinivasan (US 2018/0243866) and Schoeneborn (US 2015/0079306) and further in view of Praniewicz (Praniewicz et al. Adaptive geometry transformation and repair for hybrid manufacturing. Procedia Manufacturing 26 (2018) 228-236.)
The applicant argues Praniewicz teaches an adaptive repair framework for compressor blade tips using transformed/morphed nominal CAD geometry, but does not expressly teach (i) using a vision system that captures blade tips and recognizes tip contours at the repair surface, (ii) morphing the nominal blade-tip CAD model to conform to those recognized tip contours, (iii) importing the morphed CAD model into an additive manufacturing machine as recited (p. 6 para. 3), or (iv) converting the morphed CAD model into a plurality of additive-manufacturing slices/segments along a central axis, with depositing and irradiating steps building up the component (p. 6 para. 3).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Ott in view of Srivasan, optionally Schoeneborn, and Praniewicz discloses a method for repairing multiple components using an additive repair system (Ott [0002], [0025]) comprising securing multiple components (Ott [0009]-[0010], [0016]-[0018], [0025], [0033], [0052], [0063]-[0071], [0074]-[0077], Figs. 1-4) optionally in a carrier for efficiency (Schoeneborn [0007], [0014], [0016], [0041], [0047]), scanning using a vision system to determine a repair toolpath for accurate repair (Srinivasan [0001], [0003]-[0004], [0014]-[0019], [0025]-[0020], Fig. 1), and using a morphed CAD model for adaptive, high accuracy repair (Praniewicz Abstract, 2. Methodology, 3. Results, 4. Discussion, 5. Conclusion) by additive manufacturing (Ott [0019], [0021], [0049], [0068]-[0070], [0077]-[0080]) as instantly claimed.
Therefore, Ott in view of Srivasan, optionally Schoeneborn, and Praniewicz discloses wherein the morphed CAD model (Praniewicz Abstract, 2. Methodology, 5. Conclusion, Fig. 3) is obtained by scanning the tips (Ott [0032], [0063], [0080]; Praniewicz 2.1. Blade geometry input para. 1) with the vision system that captures the tips and recognizes tip contours of the tips at the repair surface (Srivasan [0004], [0017]-[0019], [0025], [0030]), and wherein the morphed CAD model is imported into the additive manufacturing machine to facilitate repairs (Srinivasan [0001], [0003], [0004], [0014], [0017]-[0019], [0025], [0027], [0028], [0030], Fig. 1; Praniewicz 1. Introduction para. 6, 4. Discussion paras. 2, 5); wherein the morphed CAD model is converted into a plurality of slices or segments along a central axis of the component (Srinivasan [0028]-[0030]), each slice defining a cross section of the component for a predetermined height of the slice (Ott [0033]; Srinivasan [0028]-[0030]), a plurality of successive cross-sectional slices together forming a three dimensional (3D) component (Ott [0033]; Srinivasan [0028]-[0030]; optionally Schoeneborn [0014], [0049]-[0051]), and the depositing and irradiating steps building up the component (Ott [0019], [0021], [0049], [0068]-[0070], [0077]-[0080]; optionally Schoeneborn [0049]-[0051]).
The rejections over Ott in view of Srinivasan and Praniewicz and over Ott in view of Srinivasan, Schoeneborn, and Praniewicz are maintained.
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, and 25 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 Praniewicz (Praniewicz et al. Adaptive geometry transformation and repair for hybrid manufacturing. Procedia Manufacturing 26 (2018) 228-236.).
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.
Ott in view of Srinivasan discloses the components are blades having tips (Ott [0032], [0063], [0080]).
Ott in view of Srinivasan are silent to the repair toolpath being determined at least in part using a morphed computer aided design (CAD) model.
Praniewicz discloses components that are blades having tips (1. Introduction paras. 4, 6; 2.1 Blade geometry input para. 3; 2.2 Rigid profile registration para. 2; 3. Results paras. 2-3) and a repair toolpath is determined at least in part using a morphed computer aided design (CAD) model (Abstract, 2. Methodology, 5. Conclusion, Fig. 3), wherein the morphed CAD model is obtained by scanning (actual blade geometry is captured by probing) (2.1. Blade geometry input para. 1), and wherein a nominal CAD model of blade tips is morphed (transformed) into the morphed CAD model to conform the tips in the morphed CAD model to the tip contours (Abstract, 2. Methodology, 3. Results paras. 2-3 ), and wherein the morphed CAD model is imported into the additive manufacturing machine to facilitate repairs (1. Introduction para. 6, 4. Discussion paras. 2, 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Ott in view of Srinivasan 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).
Therefore, Ott in view of Srivasan and Praniewicz discloses wherein the morphed CAD model (Praniewicz Abstract, 2. Methodology, 5. Conclusion, Fig. 3) is obtained by scanning the tips (Ott [0032], [0063], [0080]; Praniewicz 2.1. Blade geometry input para. 1) with the vision system that captures the tips and recognizes tip contours of the tips at the repair surface (Srivasan [0004], [0017]-[0019], [0025], [0030]), and wherein the morphed CAD model is imported into the additive manufacturing machine to facilitate repairs (Srinivasan [0001], [0003], [0004], [0014], [0017]-[0019], [0025], [0027], [0028], [0030], Fig. 1; Praniewicz 1. Introduction para. 6, 4. Discussion paras. 2, 5);
wherein the morphed CAD model is converted into a plurality of slices or segments along a central axis of the component (Srinivasan [0028]-[0030]), each slice defining a cross section of the component for a predetermined height of the slice (Ott [0033]; Srinivasan [0028]-[0030]), a plurality of successive cross-sectional slices together forming a three dimensional (3D) component (Ott [0033]; Srinivasan [0028]-[0030]), and the depositing and irradiating steps building up the component (Ott [0019], [0021], [0049], [0068]-[0070], [0077]-[0080]).
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 and Praniewicz 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]; Praniewicz 1. Introduction paras. 4, 6; 2.1 Blade geometry input para. 3; 2.2 Rigid profile registration para. 2; 3. Results paras. 2-3).
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]).
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 Praniewicz (Praniewicz et al. Adaptive geometry transformation and repair for hybrid manufacturing. Procedia Manufacturing 26 (2018) 228-236.) 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 and Praniewicz discloses a blade or vane of a gas turbine (Ott [0003], [0008]; Srinivasan [0002], [0014]; Praniewicz 1. Introduction paras. 4, 6; 2.1 Blade geometry input para. 3; 2.2 Rigid profile registration para. 2; 3. Results paras. 2-3).
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 Praniewicz (Praniewicz et al. Adaptive geometry transformation and repair for hybrid manufacturing. Procedia Manufacturing 26 (2018) 228-236.) 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]).
Claims 1-8, 10, 11, and 25 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) and Praniewicz (Praniewicz et al. Adaptive geometry transformation and repair for hybrid manufacturing. Procedia Manufacturing 26 (2018) 228-236.).
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.
Ott in view of Srinivasan and Schoeneborn discloses the components are blades having tips (Ott [0032], [0063], [0080]; Schoeneborn [0007], [0041]).
Ott in view of Srinivasan and Schoeneborn are silent to the repair toolpath being determined at least in part using a morphed computer aided design (CAD) model.
Praniewicz discloses components that are blades having tips (1. Introduction paras. 4, 6; 2.1 Blade geometry input para. 3; 2.2 Rigid profile registration para. 2; 3. Results paras. 2-3) and a repair toolpath is determined at least in part using a morphed computer aided design (CAD) model (Abstract, 2. Methodology, 5. Conclusion, Fig. 3), wherein the morphed CAD model is obtained by scanning (actual blade geometry is captured by probing) (2.1. Blade geometry input para. 1), and wherein a nominal CAD model of blade tips is morphed (transformed) into the morphed CAD model to conform the tips in the morphed CAD model to the tip contours (Abstract, 2. Methodology, 3. Results paras. 2-3 ), and wherein the morphed CAD model is imported into the additive manufacturing machine to facilitate repairs (1. Introduction para. 6, 4. Discussion paras. 2, 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Ott in view of Srinivasan and Schoeneborn 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).
Therefore, Ott in view of Srivasan, Schoeneborn, and Praniewicz discloses wherein the morphed CAD model (Praniewicz Abstract, 2. Methodology, 5. Conclusion, Fig. 3) is obtained by scanning the tips (Ott [0032], [0063], [0080]; Praniewicz 2.1. Blade geometry input para. 1) with the vision system that captures the tips and recognizes tip contours of the tips at the repair surface (Srivasan [0004], [0017]-[0019], [0025], [0030]), and wherein the morphed CAD model is imported into the additive manufacturing machine to facilitate repairs (Srinivasan [0001], [0003], [0004], [0014], [0017]-[0019], [0025], [0027], [0028], [0030], Fig. 1; Praniewicz 1. Introduction para. 6, 4. Discussion paras. 2, 5);
wherein the morphed CAD model is converted into a plurality of slices or segments along a central axis of the component (Srinivasan [0028]-[0030]), each slice defining a cross section of the component for a predetermined height of the slice (Ott [0033]; Srinivasan [0028]-[0030]), a plurality of successive cross-sectional slices together forming a three dimensional (3D) component (Ott [0033]; Srinivasan [0028]-[0030]; Schoeneborn [0014], [0049]-[0051]), and the depositing and irradiating steps building up the component (Ott [0019], [0021], [0049], [0068]-[0070], [0077]-[0080]; Schoeneborn [0049]-[0051]).
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, Schoeneborn, and Praniewicz discloses the at least one airfoil is a high pressure compressor blade (Ott [0003], [0008]; Srinivasan [0002], [0014]; Schoeneborn [0007], [0019]; Praniewicz 1. Introduction paras. 4, 6; 2.1 Blade geometry input para. 3; 2.2 Rigid profile registration para. 2; 3. Results paras. 2-3).
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]).
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), Schoeneborn (US 2015/0079306) and Praniewicz (Praniewicz et al. Adaptive geometry transformation and repair for hybrid manufacturing. Procedia Manufacturing 26 (2018) 228-236.) 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), Schoeneborn (US 2015/0079306) and Praniewicz (Praniewicz et al. Adaptive geometry transformation and repair for hybrid manufacturing. Procedia Manufacturing 26 (2018) 228-236.) 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]).
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]).
Ernst (US 2015/0283654)
Ernst discloses repairing and aircraft and/or gas turbine component ([0001]) by optical measurement to gather geometric and/or damage data, generating adaptive processing based on the father data, machining the component, gathering altered geometry data, then repair welding ([0012]-[0018], [0027], [0037]-[0040]).
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.
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