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 September 2, 2025.
Claims Filing Date
September 2, 2025
Amended
1, 4
Cancelled
12-24
Pending
1-11, 25-27
The applicant argues support for the claim amendments at [0042]-[0043] of applicant’s disclosure (Remarks p. 6 para. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following 112(a) rejections are withdrawn due to claim amendment:
Claim 1 line 5 “a single build plane external to the tooling assembly”.
Claim 1 lines 6-7 “each of the multiple components having different physical characteristics”.
Claim 1 lines 9-11 “each separate repair toolpath that is determined for each component being individually determined and accounts for the different physical characteristics”.
The following 112(b) rejections are withdrawn due to claim amendment:
Claim 1 line 5 “a single build plane external to the tooling assembly”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 2, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Ott in view of Ladewig
The applicant argues Ott does not show a single build plane (Remarks p. 6 para. 4) because Figs. 3-4 and [0065] arrange structural peaks 11 within a predetermined tolerance range TB (Remarks para. spanning pp. 6-7) of 10-80 um (Remarks p. 7 para. 2).
The pending claims recites a “single virtual build plane”. A “build plane” is a flat surface (plane) on which something is constructed (built). Ott discloses positioning the structural peak of each component within a predetermined tolerance range, which corresponds to a nominal layer thickness for the additive building up layers ([0017]-[0018], [0033], [0065]-[0071]). Adding (building) the layer of powder to the structural peak of each component within the tolerance range reads on a “single virtual build plane” that comprises a flat surface on which a straight line joining two points on the plane would wholly lie.
Ott in view of Ladewig, Andersson, and Herzog
The applicant argues Ott does not show a single build plane (Remarks p. 6 para. 4) because Figs. 3-4 and [0065] disclose arranging the structural peaks 11 within a predetermined tolerance range TB (Remarks para. spanning pp. 6-7) in the range of 10-80 um (Remarks p. 7 para. 2).
The pending claims recites a “single virtual build plane”. A “build plane” is a flat surface (plane) on which something is constructed (or built). Ott discloses positioning the structural peak of each component within a predetermined tolerance range, which corresponds to a nominal layer thickness for the additive building up layers ([0017]-[0018], [0033], [0065]-[0071]). Adding (building) the layer of powder to the structural peak of each component within the tolerance range reads on the claimed “single virtual build plane” that comprises a flat surface on which a straight line joining two points on the plane would wholly lie.
Further, Ott in view of Andersson discloses repairing multiple components (Ott [0002], [0025]) by positioning the repair surfaces of each component within a tolerance range TB (Ott [0017]-[0018], [0065]-[0071], [0076]-[0077], Figs. 1-4), where each component within the tolerance range is positioned within a single (common) build plane (Andersson [0079]-[0082], Figs. 10a to 10c) to simultaneously repair multiple objects in a continuous process (Andersson [0079]), which is efficient and saves on labor and time (Andersson [0004]-[0005]). Therefore, Andersson renders obvious aligning the components of Ott within the tolerance range TB to have a common (single) build plane that comprises a flat surface on which a straight line joining two points on the plane would wholly lie.
The applicant argues Andersson discloses a physical table ([0079]-[0082]) and not a virtual build plane (Remarks p. 7 para. 4).
The pending rejection modifies the process and tooling assembly of Ott, which discloses a virtual build plane ([0002], [0016], [0025], [0052], [0063]-[0065], [0074], Figs. 3-4), with the concept of aligning components to be repaired with a single (common) build plane (Andersson [0079]-[0082], Figs. 10a to 10c). Absent evidence to the contrary, the alignment of the multiple components to be repaired in a single (common) build plane and the advantages of a continuous, efficient process (Andersson [0079]-[0082], Figs. 10a to 10c) are applicable to the tooling assembly of Ott.
The applicant argues Herzog shows a constructure material layer 9, which is a physical element and not the claimed virtual plane (Remarks p. 7 para. 4).
Ott in view of Herzog modifies the process and tooling assembly of Ott, which discloses a virtual build plane ([0002], [0016], [0025], [0052], [0063]-[0065], [0074], Figs. 3-4), with the alignment of the image acquisition system of Herzog to scan a single build plane to prevent a change in distance effects in the layer information (Herzog [0019], [0055], [0059]). Absent evidence to the contrary, Herzog’s image system alignment is applicable to the tooling assembly of Ott.
Ladewig in view of Andersson and optionally Herzog
The applicant argues Andersson discloses a physical table ([0079]-[0082]) and not a virtual build plane (Remarks p. 7 para. 4).
The pending rejection modifies the process and tooling assembly of Ladewig ([0008], [0012], [0021], [0027], [0029], Fig. 1) with the concept of repairing multiple components aligned in a single (common) build plane (Andersson [0064], [0079]-[0082], Figs. 10a to 10c). Absent evidence to the contrary, the advantages of simultaneous repair in a continuous process (Andersson [0079]) being efficient and saving on labor and time (Andersson [0004]-[0005]) are applicable to the process and tooling assembly of Ladewig. A single virtual build plane naturally flows from the combined disclosure of the process of Ladewig modified with multiple components aligned in a single (common) build plane.
The applicant argues Herzog shows a constructure material layer 9, which is a physical element and not the claimed virtual plane (Remarks p. 7 para. 4).
Ladewig in view of Herzog modifies the process and tooling assembly of Ladewig ([0002], [0016], [0025], [0052], [0063]-[0065], [0074], Figs. 3-4) with the alignment of the image acquisition system of Herzog to scan a single build plane to prevent a change in distance effects in the layer information (Herzog [0019], [0055], [0059]). Absent evidence to the contrary, Herzog’s image system alignment is applicable to the tooling assembly of Ladewig.
New Grounds
In light of claim amendment and upon further consideration new grounds of rejection are made over 112(a) and 112(b).
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.
Drawings Objection
The drawings are objected to because
Fig. 1 includes reference numeral 180 not mentioned in applicant’s specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-11 and 25-27 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.
Claim 1 lines 5-6 “single virtual build plane separate from the tooling assembly” fails to comply with the written description requirement.
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” fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 1 line 11 “the single virtual build plane” fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 4 lines 1-2 “the single virtual build plane” fails to comply with the written description requirement.
The applicant argues support for the claim amendments at [0042]-[0043] of applicant’s disclosure (Remarks p. 6 para. 1).
Applicant’s specification recites a “single build plane”. It does not mention the word “virtual” nor the term “single virtual build plane”.
Applicant’s [0042] recites “one or more blades 70 may be secured to tooling assembly 52…with repair surface 72 of the respective blades 70 aligned to a single build plane 82”. Applicant’s [0043] recites that “With the repair surface 72 of one or more blades 70 aligned to the build plane 82, the one or more cameras may readily obtain digital images of the repair surface 72.”
These cited paragraphs refer to a single build plane 82. They do not recite a “single virtual plane”. The metes and bounds of a “single virtual build plane” are not disclosed.
Further, applicant’s specification also does not recite a single build plane being “separate from the tooling assembly”. Rather, in [0042] the blades are secured to a tooling assembly 52 with repair surface 72 of the respective blades 70 aligned to a single build plane 82. Since the blades are secured to the tooling assembly, it appears that the single build plane is associated with rather than separate from the tooling assembly.
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” fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Applicant’s specification does not support scanning using a vision system and/or each separate repair toolpath accounting for the different component heights. According to applicant’s specification, the blades are positioned at the same height ([0039]) and the tooling fixture levels the blades to the same height ([0068]). Neither mention how the different component heights are related to the scanning and/or separate repair toolpaths. Rather, [0009], [0022], and [0069] recite that the toolpath corresponds to the repair surface. The repair surface is the top surface of the component that is undergoing repair and is distinct from the claimed component heights.
Claims 2, 3, 5-11 and 25-27 are rejected as depending from 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 1-11 and 25-27 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.
Claim 1 lines 5-6, 9, and 11 “single virtual build plane” renders the claim indefinite. Applicant’s specification does not recite the word “virtual” nor the term “single virtual build plane”. Therefore, it is unclear what is meant by this term. According to Merriam-Webster the term “virtual” could mean 1: being such in essence or effect though not formally recognized or admitted or 2: being on or simulated on a computer or computer network. With respect to definition 1, if the single build plan is not formally recognized or admitted, then it appears it does not exist. With respect to definition 2, if the single build plane is simulated on a computer, then how can physical components be aligned to something that is on a computer? For the purposes of examination claim 1 will be given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed “single virtual build plane” being a “single build plane” as supported by applicant’s [0042] and [0043], in which “one or more blades 70 may be secured to tooling assembly 52…with repair surface 72 of the respective blades 70 aligned to a single build plane 82” and “With the repair surface 72 of one or more blades 70 aligned to the build plane 82, the one or more cameras may readily obtain digital images of the repair surface 72”, respectively.
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” renders the claim indefinite. Claim 1 lines 3-10 already requires aligning of the repair surfaces in a single virtual build plane. It is unclear how then scanning using a vision system accounts for the different component heights, which already appear to be have been accounted for by the aligning. Further, if the component repair surfaces are aligned into a single build plane, then how are there still differences in the component heights? If each repair toolpath is determined for each component accounting for the different component heights, how do the repair toolpaths on the top repair surface of the components require accounting of the component height? Are the repair toolpaths different based on the component height? It appears that the repair toolpaths are based on the repair surface, which is irrespective of the component height.
Claims 2-11 and 25-27 are rejected as depending from claim 1.
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 25-27 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 Ladewig.
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 within a single virtual build plane (tolerance range TB) separate from the tooling assembly (baseplate 1) ([0017]-[0018], [0065]-[0071], [0076]-[0077], Figs. 1-4), each of the multiple components having different heights and accounting for the difference component 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 ([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 discloses positioning the structural peak of each component within a predetermined tolerance range, which corresponds to a nominal layer thickness for the additive building up layers ([0017]-[0018], [0033], [0065]-[0071]). Adding (building) the layer of powder to the structural peak of each component within the tolerance range reads on the claimed “single virtual build plane” that comprises a flat surface on which a straight line joining two points on the plane would wholly lie.
Ott is silent to scanning the end of each component to determine a repair toolpath corresponding to the repair surface of each of the components using a vision system.
Ladewig discloses a method for repairing a component using an additive repair system ([0001], [0005]), the method comprising: scanning the repair surface to determine a repair toolpath corresponding to the repair surface of the component using a vision system ([0008]-[0009], [0012], [0020], [0029]-[0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Ott to scan the end of each component to determine a repair toolpath to advantageously permit a good consideration of the individual pattern of damage, limiting the separating step to the damaged region of the component (Ladewig [0010], [0020]), a rapid and precise detection of the actual geometry (Ladewig [0012], [0015]), and match the actual and target geometries to correctly align the component and model data (Ladewig [0013]) with compensation for deviations (Ladewig [0014]).
Ott in view of Ladewig discloses additive manufacturing repair (Ott [0002], [0025]) of a plurality of components (Ott [0016], [0052], [0074]) with improved consideration of individual damage patterns (repair) (Ott [0009]-[0010], [0025], [0064], [0067]; Ladewig [0005], [0008], [0010], [0020], [0032]), such that the claim limitation of each separate repair toolpath that is determined for each component and accounting for the different component heights naturally flows.
Ott in view of Ladewig discloses multiple components positioned in a single virtual build plane (Ott [0016]-[0018], [0052], [0065]-[0067], [0074], [0076]) and scanning the repair surface to determine a repair toolpath corresponding to the repair surface using a vision system (Ladewig [0008]-[0009], [0012], [0020], [0029]-[0032]). Therefore, Ott in view of Ladewig scans repair surface arranged in a single virtual build plane, such that the scanning encompasses the single virtual build plane including the end of each component.
Regarding claim 2, Ott in view of Ladewig discloses removing material above the repair surface of each of the multiple components using a material removal assembly (Ott [0025], [0028], [0063], [0073]; Ladewig [0008], [0020]-[0021], [0028]).
Regarding claim 3, Ott in view of Ladewig discloses the vision system comprises one or more cameras or a three-dimensional scanner (Ladewig [0012]).
Regarding claim 4, Ott in view of Ladewig discloses the step of scanning (Ladewig [0008]-[0009], [0012], [0020], [0029]-[0032]) comprises:
obtaining a digital representation of the multiple components (Ott [0016], [0052], [0074]) using the vision system (Ladewig [0012]); 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 (Ladewig [0008]-[0009], [0012]-[0014], [0020], [0029]-[0032]).
Regarding claim 5, Ott in view of Ladewig discloses polishing the layer of additive powder fused to the repair surface (Ladewig [0019]).
Regarding claim 6, Ott in view of Ladewig discloses the multiple components (Ott [0016], [0052], [0074]) comprise at least one airfoil of a gas turbine engine (Ott [0009]-[0010], [0032], [0063], [0080]; Ladewig [0001], Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Ott in view of Ladewig discloses the repair toolpath traverses the repair surface at a tip of the at least one airfoil (Ott [0032], [0063], [0080]; Ladewig [0008]).
Regarding claim 8, Ott in view of Ladewig discloses the at least one airfoil is a high-pressure compressor blade (blade or vane of a gas turbine, Ott [0003], [0008]; Ladewig [0001], [0020]).
Regarding claim 10, Ott in view of Ladewig 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]; Ladewig [0018], [0021], [0027], [0031]).
Regarding claim 11, Ott in view of Ladewig 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]; Ladewig [0021], [0027]).
Regarding claim 25, Ott in view of Ladewig discloses the removing comprises grinding, machining, brushing, etching, polishing, wire electrical discharge (EDM), or cutting (machined, Ott [0063]; cut, Ladewig [0003]).
Regarding claim 26, Ott in view of Ladewig discloses the repair toolpath is determined at least in part using a computer aided design (CAD) model (Ladewig [0029]).
Regarding claim 27, Ott in view of Ladewig discloses the CAD model is a morphed model (third structural data is based on the actual geometry (first structural data) and the target geometry (second structural data), Ladewig [0008]-[0009], [0020], [0029]-[0031]).
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 Ladewig (US 2016/0121438) 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 Ladewig 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 Ladewig discloses a blade or vane of a gas turbine (Ott [0003], [0008]; Ladewig [0001], [0020]).
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 Ladewig 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 Ladewig 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 Ladewig 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 Ladewig (US 2016/0121438) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Rockstroh (US 2009/0313823).
Regarding claim 9, Ott in view of Ladewig 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 Ladewig 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 Ladewig (US 2016/0121438) 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.).
In the event it is determined that the third structural data in the disclosure of Ott in view of Ladewig does not read on the CAD model being a morphed model, then the below rejection of Ott in view of Ladewig and further in view of Praniewicz is applied.
Regarding claim 27, Ott in view of Ladewig 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, and 25-27 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 Ladewig (US 2016/0121438), Andersson (US 2017/0334140), and Herzog (US 2018/0215103).
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 within a single virtual build plane (tolerance range TB) separate from the tooling assembly (baseplate 1) ([0017]-[0018], [0065]-[0071], [0076]-[0077], Figs. 1-4), each of the multiple components having different heights and accounting for the difference component 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 ([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 end of each component to determine a repair toolpath corresponding to the repair surface of each of the components using a vision system.
Ladewig discloses a method for repairing a component using an additive repair system ([0001], [0005]), the method comprising: scanning the repair surface to determine a repair toolpath corresponding to the repair surface of the component using a vision system ([0008]-[0009], [0012], [0020], [0029]-[0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Ott to scan the end of each component to determine a repair toolpath to advantageously permit a good consideration of the individual pattern of damage, limiting the separating step to the damaged region of the component (Ladewig [0010], [0020]), a rapid and precise detection of the actual geometry (Ladewig [0012], [0015]), and match the actual and target geometries to correctly align the component and model data (Ladewig [0013]) with compensation for deviations (Ladewig [0014]).
Ott in view of Ladewig discloses additive manufacturing repair (Ott [0002], [0025]) of a plurality of components (Ott [0016], [0052], [0074]) with improved consideration of individual damage patterns (repair) (Ott [0009]-[0010], [0025], [0064], [0067]; Ladewig [0005], [0008], [0010], [0020], [0032]), such that the claim limitation of each separate repair toolpath that is determined for each component and accounting for the different component heights naturally flows.
Ott in view of Ladewig discloses multiple components positioned in a single virtual build plane (Ott [0016]-[0018], [0052], [0065]-[0067], [0074], [0076]) and scanning the repair surface to determine a repair toolpath corresponding to the repair surface using a vision system (Ladewig [0008]-[0009], [0012], [0020], [0029]-[0032]). Therefore, Ott in view of Ladewig scans repair surface arranged in a single virtual build plane, such that the scanning encompasses the single virtual build plane including the end of each component.
Ott discloses positioning the structural peak of each component within a predetermined tolerance range, which corresponds to a nominal layer thickness for the additive building up layers ([0017]-[0018], [0033], [0065]-[0071]).
Ott is silent to the single virtual build plane comprising a flat surface on which a straight line joining two points on the plane would wholly lie.
Andersson discloses a method for using an additive system ([0001]) comprising multiple components (series of objects) ([0006]), each component positioned in a single (common) build plane; wherein the single build plane comprises a flat surface on which a straight line joining two points on the plane would wholly lie (common plane) ([0079]-[0082], Figs. 10a to 10c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the single virtual build plane (tolerance range TB) of Ott to position each component in a common (single) build plane in order to repair multiple objects simultaneously in a continuous process (Andersson [0079]), where manufacturing multiple objects in the same manufacturing run is efficient and saves on labor and time (Andersson [0004]-[0005]).
Ott in view of Ladewig discloses multiple components positioned in a single build plane (Ott [0016]-[0018], [0052], [0065]-[0067], [0074], [0076]) and scanning the repair surface to determine a repair toolpath corresponding to the repair surface using a vision system (Ladewig [0008]-[0009], [0012], [0020], [0029]-[0032]). Therefore, Ott in view of Ladewig scans repair surfaces arranged in a single build plane, such that the scanning encompasses the single build plane including the end of each component.
Furthermore, 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]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Ott in view of Ladewig to scan the single build plane because 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. (Herzog [0059]).
Regarding claim 2, Ott in view of Ladewig discloses removing material above the repair surface of each of the multiple components using a material removal assembly (Ott [0025], [0028], [0063], [0073]; Ladewig [0008], [0020]-[0021], [0028]).
Regarding claim 3, Ott in view of Ladewig discloses the vision system comprises one or more cameras or a three-dimensional scanner (Ladewig [0012]).
Regarding claim 4, Ott in view of Ladewig discloses the step of scanning (Ladewig [0008]-[0009], [0012], [0020], [0029]-[0032]) comprises:
obtaining a digital representation of the multiple components (Ott [0016], [0052], [0074]) using the vision system (Ladewig [0012]); 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 (Ladewig [0008]-[0009], [0012]-[0014], [0020], [0029]-[0032]).
Regarding claim 5, Ott in view of Ladewig discloses polishing the layer of additive powder fused to the repair surface (Ladewig [0019]).
Regarding claim 6, Ott in view of Ladewig discloses the multiple components (Ott [0016], [0052], [0074]) comprise at least one airfoil of a gas turbine engine (Ott [0009]-[0010], [0032], [0063], [0080]; Ladewig [0001], Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Ott in view of Ladewig discloses the repair toolpath traverses the repair surface at a tip of the at least one airfoil (Ott [0032], [0063], [0080]; Ladewig [0008]).
Regarding claim 8, Ott in view of Ladewig discloses the at least one airfoil is a high pressure compressor blade (blade or vane of a gas turbine, Ott [0003], [0008]; Ladewig [0001], [0020]).
Regarding claim 10, Ott in view of Ladewig 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]; Ladewig [0018], [0021], [0027], [0031]).
Regarding claim 11, Ott in view of Ladewig 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]; Ladewig [0021], [0027]).
Regarding claim 25, Ott in view of Ladewig discloses the removing comprises grinding, machining, brushing, etching, polishing, wire electrical discharge (EDM), or cutting (machined, Ott [0063]; cut, Ladewig [0003]).
Regarding claim 26, Ott in view of Ladewig discloses the repair toolpath is determined at least in part using a computer aided design (CAD) model (Ladewig [0029]).
Regarding claim 27, Ott in view of Ladewig discloses the CAD model is a morphed model (third structural data is based on the actual geometry (first structural data) and the target geometry (second structural data), Ladewig [0008]-[0009], [0020], [0029]-[0031]).
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 Ladewig (US 2016/0121438), Andersson (US 2017/0334140), and Herzog (US 2018/0215103) 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 Ladewig, Andersson, and Herzog 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 Ladewig discloses a blade or vane of a gas turbine (Ott [0003], [0008]; Ladewig [0001], [0020]).
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 Ladewig 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 Ladewig 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 Ladewig 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 Ladewig (US 2016/0121438), Andersson (US 2017/0334140), and Herzog (US 2018/0215103) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Rockstroh (US 2009/0313823).
Regarding claim 9, Ott in view of Ladewig 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 Ladewig 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 Ladewig (US 2016/0121438), Andersson (US 2017/0334140), and Herzog (US 2018/0215103) 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.).
In the event it is determined that the third structural data in the disclosure of Ott in view of Andersson, Ladewig, and Herzog does not read on the CAD model being a morphed model, then the below rejection of Ott in view of Ladewig and further in view of Praniewicz is applied.
Regarding claim 27, Ott in view of Andersson, Ladewig, and Herzog 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 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ladewig (US 2017/0334140) in view of Andersson (US 2017/0334140) and Herzog (US 2018/0215103).
Regarding claim 1, Ladewig discloses a method for repairing a component using an additive repair system ([0001], [0005]), the method comprising:
securing the component in a tooling assembly ([0011], [0027], Fig. 1), the component having a repair surface at an end of each component ([0008], [0010], [0015], [0022], [0030]);
scanning the single build plane including the end of a component to determine a repair toolpath corresponding to the repair surface of the component using a vision system (measurement system using a camera) ([0008], [0012], [0029], Fig. 1);
depositing a layer of additive powder over the repair surface of the component using a powder dispensing assembly ([0021], [0027], Fig. 1); and
selectively irradiating the layer of additive powder along the repair toolpath to fuse the layer of additive powder onto the repair surface of the component ([0021], [0027], Fig. 1).
Ladewig is silent to multiple components.
Andersson discloses a method for using an additive system ([0001]) comprising multiple components (series of objects) ([0006]), each component positioned in a single (common) build plane ([0079]-[0082], Figs. 10a to 10c), each of the multiple components (series of objects) having different heights ([0064], [0079]) and each separate repair toolpath that is determined for each component being individually determined and accounting for the different heights (multiple individual objects includes objects having individual (different) heights) ([0079]), wherein the single (common) build plane comprises a flat surface on which a straight line joining two points on the plane would wholly lie ([0079]-[0082], Figs. 10a to 10c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Ladewig to secure and repair multiple components so that multiple objects can be individually repairs simultaneously in a continuous process (Andersson [0079]) because manufacturing multiple objects in the same manufacturing run is efficient and saves on labor and time (Andersson [0004]-[0005]).
With respect to the single build plane being a single virtual build plane separate from the tooling assembly, Ladewig in view of Andersson discloses a single virtual build plane separate from the tooling assembly because the build plane is in the air such that it is in essence or effect but not formally recognized or admitted (Merriam-Webster virtual definition 1) and it is separate from the tooling assembly because the single virtual build plane is not physically attached to the tooling assembly (Ladewig [0011], [0027], Fig. 1; Andersson [0079]-[0082], Figs. 10a to 10c).
Ladewig in view of Andersson discloses additive manufacturing repair (Ladewig [0001], [0005]) of a plurality of components (Andersson [0006], [0079]-[0082], Figs. 10a to 10c) with improved consideration of individual damage patterns (repair) (Ladewig [0005], [0008], [0010], [0020], [0032]; Andersson [0079]), such that the claim limitation of each separate repair toolpath that is determined for each component being individually determined and accounting for the different heights naturally flows.
Ladewig in view of Andersson discloses multiple components positioned in a single build plane (Andersson [0079]-[0082], Figs. 10a to 10c) and scanning the repair surface to determine a repair toolpath corresponding to the repair surface using a vision system (Ladewig [0008]-[0009], [0012], [0020], [0029]-[0032]). Therefore, Ladewig in view of Andersson scans repair surfaces arranged in a single build plane, such that the scanning encompasses the single build plane including the end of each component.
Further, 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]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Ladewig in view of Andersson to scan the single build plane because 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. (Herzog [0059]).
Regarding claim 2, Ladewig in view of Andersson discloses removing material above the repair surface using a material removal assembly (Ladewig [0008]-[0010], [0028]) of each of the multiple components (series of objects) (Andersson [0006], [0079]-[0082], Figs. 10a to 10c).
Regarding claim 3, Ladewig discloses the vision system comprises one or more cameras or a three-dimensional scanner ([0012], [0029], Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Ladewig in view of Andersson discloses the step of scanning the single virtual build plane (Ladewig [0011], [0027], Fig. 1; Andersson [0079]-[0082], Figs. 10a to 10c) comprises:
obtaining a digital representation using the vision system (Ladewig [0012], [0029], Fig. 1) of the multiple components (series of objects) (Andersson [0006], [0079]-[0082], Figs. 10a to 10c); and
determining coordinates of the repair surface from the digital representation of the multiple components (Ladewig [0008]-[0009], [0012]-[0014], [0020]) of each of the multiple components (series of objects) (Andersson [0006], [0079]-[0082], Figs. 10a to 10c).
Regarding claim 5, Ladewig discloses polishing the layer of additive powder fused to the repair surface ([0019]).
Regarding claim 6, Ladewig in view of Andersson discloses the multiple components (series of objects) (Andersson [0006], [0079]-[0082], Figs. 10a to 10c) comprise at least one airfoil of a gas turbine engine (Ladewig [0001], [0020], [0027]).
Regarding claim 7, Ladewig discloses the repair toolpath traverses the repair surface at a tip of the at least one airfoil ([0008]).
Regarding claim 8, Ladewig discloses the at least one airfoil is a high pressure compressor blade ([0008]).
Regarding claim 10, Ladewig discloses the repair toolpath defines a plurality of layers to be fused onto the repair surface to rebuild each of the multiple components ([0018]).
Regarding claim 11, Ladewig 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 (SLS) ([0027], Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 25, Ladewig discloses the removing comprises grinding, machining, brushing, etching, polishing, wire electrical discharge (EDM), or cutting (cut) ([0003]).
Regarding claim 26, Ladewig discloses the repair toolpath is determined at least in par