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 .
Applicant's submission filed on 1/12/26 has been entered.
Claims 1-3, 11-18 and 21-26 are pending examination, claims 4-10, and 19-20 have been canceled.
Claim Interpretation
At [0025] of Applicant’s Specification it states: “The terms “redefine,” “redefining,” and the like refer to removing material from a component to define a hole, aperture, or other opening in the component, such as through machining (e.g., drilling, electric discharge machining, etc.) or other means for material removal.” The examiner accepts this statement as a special definition for “redefine” “redefining” in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 11-14, 16-18, 21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al (US 2016/0003052; hereafter Shi) in view of Messelling (US 6,283,356; hereafter Messelling) and Weaver et al (US 2016/0114351; hereafter Weaver).
Claim 1: Shi teaches a method comprising:
filling an opening with a filling material (100) (see, for example, Fig 5A-B),
the opening defined in a body of a composite component and opening onto a surface (such as upper external surface) defined by the composite component (see, for example, Figs, abstract);
and redefining the opening to form a redefined opening that extends into the body wherein the opening is defined at an original location and has an original width in the body prior to filling the opening with the filling material (See, for example, Fig 5D-5E, [0007], [0021],[0051], [0057-0058]), wherein the composite component is a ceramic matrix composite component comprising ceramic reinforcement material disposed in a component matrix material (see, for example, [0019], [0028-0029]).
Shi further is directed to barrier coated (EBC / TBC) components in a gas turbine engine wherein damage and repair are well known (See, for example [0003-0007] [0018]). Shi further teaches wherein the component substrate is a CMC (See, for example, [0028-29]). But it does not explicitly teach wherein the filling material comprises a ceramic matrix material. Messelling teaches a method of repairing recesses, particularly in gas turbine engine components (See, for example, abstract, col 1 lines 5-9). Messelling further teaches wherein cooling openings on airfoil portions undergo strenuous operating conditions ultimately resulting in a need for repair, replacement and / or relocation within such components (see, for example, col 2 lines 32-46, Fig 8-11, col 4 lines 1-12 and lines 57-col 5 line 4 ). The particular filling material described in Messelling is selected according to the chemistry of the blade substrate, wherein the focus is on metallic superalloy blades, thus the filling material comprises a compatible metal (see, for example, abstract, col 2 lines 33-54). Messelling further teaches wherein its method is not limited to particular materials, and is open to modification (See, for example, col 5 lines 12-18), but it does not explicitly teach an appropriate filling material for repairing CMC based substrates like those of Shi. Weaver teaches a method of repairing holes in CMC components by applying a filling material within the hole, particularly for repairing CMC components in gas turbine assemblies (see, for example, abstract, [0011], [0014]). Weaver further teaches wherein the filling formulation should be designed to yield a finished product that is similar to the matrix composition of the substrate, and further following testing showed that the repaired sections were statistically indistinguishable from undamaged substrate (See, for example, [0013], [0042]). Further Weaver has taught wherein the substrates are SiC-SiC CMC and the fillers as similarly silicon carbide or carbonaceous materials designed to react with silicon infiltrant to form Silicon carbide (See, for example, [0013], [0017]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a filler of ceramic matrix material as such a composition would predictably provide part performance uniformity as it would be statistically indistinguishable in performance from undamaged sections of the CMC, and as repairing damaged cooling channels would extend the serviceable life of previously damaged CMC gas turbine components.
With respect to the limitation of the opening being defined at an original location and an original width prior to filling, and wherein the redefined opening is at a new, different location is within one-half the original width of the original location Messelling has further taught relocating the cooling hole, such as in response to damage in previous operation (See, for example, Fig 10-12, col 2 lines 33-47). Although a quantity shift of the relocated cooling hole not explicitly quantified, as the location influences the resulting cooling and high temperature performance of the turbine component, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated an shift in position within one-half of the original width of the original cooling channel location since “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Weaver further teaches wherein filling the opening with the filling material comprises applying the filling material to the surface, placing the composite component with the filling material applied thereto within an enclosure (bag), and creating a pressure differential between an interior of the enclosure and an exterior of the enclosure (vacuum) (See, for example, [0042] vacuum bag autoclaving).
Claims 2 and 21: refer to the rejection of claim 1 above; Shi further teaches applying a coating (102) to the surface after filling the opening with the filling material (see, for example, Fig 5D, [0055]).
Claim 11: Shi further teaches wherein the opening prior to filling has a length extending substantially orthogonal to the surface. (see, for example, Figures, [0051]).
Claim 12: Shi further teaches wherein the opening prior to filling has a length extending at a non-zero and non-orthogonal angle to the surface (see, for example, [0051] such as oblique angle).
Claim 13: Shi further teaches the opening prior to filling has a width of 15 mils to about 30 mils (see, for example, [0036]).
Claim 14: Shi further teaches wherein the composite component is an airfoil, shroud, combustor liner, turbine nozzle band, or frame and the opening prior to filling is a cooling hole (abstract, [0022).
Claim 16: refer to the rejection of claims 1 and 2 above. Shi further teaches removing an existing coating from a surface of a ceramic matrix composite component (see, for example, Fig 5B, [0053-0054], removal of excess coating 100 present on the outer surface (96) of CMC component).
Claim 17: refer to the rejection of claims 1 and 16 above. Weaver further teaches wherein the filling material further comprises a liquid carrier, and a polymeric binder disposed in the liquid carrier (See, for example, abstract, [0006-7], [0017]).
Claim 18: Shi further teaches the opening prior to filling has a width of 15 mils to about 30 mils (see, for example, [0036]).
Claim 23 Shi further teaches wherein the opening is defined at an original width, and wherein the redefined opening has a redefined width that that is different than the original width (See, for example, Fig 5E, [0056-0057] wherein the redefined opening can possess a different diameter than the original diameter)
Claim(s) 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi in view of Messelling and Weaver as applied to claims 1, 16, and 21 above, and further in view of D’Amour et al (US 2007/0003690; hereafter D’Amour).
Claims 24-26: Shi in view of Messelling and Weaver teach the method of claims 1, 16, and 21 above, but do not explicitly teach placing the composite component with the filling material applied thereto within an enclosure and creating a pressure differential between an interior of the enclosure and an exterior of the enclosure particularly wherein the enclosure pushes the filling material into the opening after the pressure differential is applied. D’Amour is directed to a method of repair of TBC components involving filling openings therein with a filling material (See, for example, abstract, Figures, [0002], [0022-0026]). D’Amour teaches wherein conventional filling processes suffer from disadvantages including incomplete or missed filling of holes, being ergonomically suboptimal, and time consuming (See, for example, [0007], [0032]). D’Amour teaches such problems can be overcome by placing the component with the filling material applied thereto within an enclosure (Tool 54) and creating a pressure differential between an interior of the enclosure and an exterior of the enclosure (such as by placing the interior in compressive pressure against the exterior surface of the airfoil since the pads do not close to their relaxed state they exert a slight pressure along the interior interface) resulting in the enclosure pushing the filling material into the opening after the pressure differential is applied (see, for example, Figures 4-5, [0030], [0032]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated placing the composite component with the filling material applied thereto within an enclosure and creating a pressure differential between an interior of the enclosure and an exterior of the enclosure particularly wherein the enclosure pushes the filling material into the opening after the pressure differential is applied since it would predictably avoid incomplete or missed filling of holes, is more satisfactory from an ergonomic standpoint and less time consuming.
Claim(s) 1-3, 11-18 and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi in view of Messelling and Weaver as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bogue et al. (US 2014/0174092; hereafter Bogue).
Claim 3 and 16 : Shi in view of Messelling and Weaver teaches the method of claim 1-2 above, wherein prior to application of the protective coating, the cooling holes are filled. Shi further is directed to barrier coated (EBC / TBC) components in a gas turbine engine wherein damage and repair are well known (See, for example [0003-0007] [0018]). Shi does not explicitly teach removing an existing coating from the surface of the composite component prior to filling the opening with the filling material. Bogue is directed to methods used in repairing and / or redesigning gas turbine components comprising cooling channels (See, for example, abstract, [0005-0006], [0050]). Bogue further teaches wherein it is well known in the art that when in service, barrier coatings applied to such components degrade and refurbishment / repair is performed to restore deteriorated vanes to serviceable condition (See, for example, [0006] and [0008]). Bogue further teaches wherein repair methods comprise removing existing protective coatings prior to filling the cooling holes and applying replacement protective coatings (see, for example, [0006], [0011], [0050-51]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed the method of Shi on used gas turbine components in for repair or redesign as it saves on cost, saves material waste, and predictably restores the component to serviceable / updated condition. By combination the component is stripped of previously applied barrier coating(s) prior to filling and re-coating.
Claim 15: Shi in view of Messelling, Weaver, and Bogue teaches the method of claim 3 above, wherein Shi further teaches wherein the replacement coating, and thus, the existing coating, is an environmental barrier coating (see for example, [0005], [0055]).
Claim 18: Shi further teaches the opening prior to filling has a width of 15 mils to about 30 mils (see, for example, [0036]).
Further with respect to all of Claims 1-3, 11-18, 21 and 23: refer to rejections of claims 1-2, 11-14, 17-18, 21 and 23 over Shi in view of Messelling, and Weaver above and rejections of claims 3, and 15-16 and 18 over Shi in view of Messelling, Weaver and Bogue. Bogue further teaches wherein the shape, sizes, and orientations of new cooling holes is readily determined by the skilled artisan according to each application, and has demonstrated that new cooling holes are known and readily redefined at locations which overlap through just part of the old cooling hole (See, for example, [0060], Fig 7). Although a quantity overlap of the relocated cooling hole is not explicitly quantified, as the location influences the resulting cooling and high temperature performance of the turbine component, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated an shift in position within one-half of the original width of the original cooling channel location since “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 22: Shi further teaches wherein although the cooling holes as illustrated extend substantially normal to the outer surface of the substrate, at least some of the cooling holes may extend at an oblique angle with respect to the surface (see, for example, [0034], [0051]). But they do not explicitly teach redefining the angle. Bogue similarly teaches wherein the new cooling holes may be obliquely oriented or adopt other orientations, and wherein the orientation of the new cooling holes are readily determined by the skilled artisan. Although a quantity change in orientation angle of the relocated cooling hole is not explicitly quantified, as the orientation angle influences the resulting cooling and high temperature performance of the turbine component, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a different angle or orientation of the new cooling hole with respect to the original since “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 22 is/are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi in view of Messelling and Weaver as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shigetomi et al (US 2013/0025770).
Claim 22: Shi in view of Messelling and Weaver teach the method of claim 1 above, and Shi further teaches wherein although the cooling holes as illustrated extend substantially normal to the outer surface of the substrate, at least some of the cooling holes may extend at an oblique angle with respect to the surface (see, for example, [0034], [0051]), but they do not explicitly teach wherein the redefined opening is formed at an angle different than the original. Shigetomi teaches a method of repairing through holes within composite articles (See, for example, abstract). Shigetomi further teaches wherein it is well known in the art for originally defined holes within composite parts to be formed at incorrect angles than those desired, and thus are ripe for repair to redefine the holes to the correct angular orientation (See, for example, abstract, [0003]) wherein initial holes through initial working error are formed slantwise from desired parameters). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the repair method of Shi in view of Messelling and Weaver to repair initial holes possessing errant angular orientation and provide them the a different, correct angular orientation as such improper orientation is known to occur within the art and as such action would predictably correct the problem while avoiding wasting the entire part.
Claim(s) 22 is/are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi in view of Messelling, Weaver and Bogue as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shigetomi et al (US 2013/0025770).
Claim 22: Shi in view of Messelling, Weaver and Bogue teach the method of claim 1 above, and Shi further teaches wherein although the cooling holes as illustrated extend substantially normal to the outer surface of the substrate, at least some of the cooling holes may extend at an oblique angle with respect to the surface (see, for example, [0034], [0051]), but they do not explicitly teach wherein the redefined opening is formed at an angle different than the original. Shigetomi teaches a method of repairing through holes within composite articles (See, for example, abstract). Shigetomi further teaches wherein it is well known in the art for originally defined holes within composite parts to be formed at incorrect angles than those desired, and thus are ripe for repair to redefine the holes to the correct angular orientation (See, for example, abstract, [0003]) wherein initial holes through initial working error are formed slantwise from desired parameters). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the repair method of Shi in view of Messelling, Weaver and Bogue to repair initial holes possessing errant angular orientation and provide them the a different, correct angular orientation as such improper orientation is known to occur within the art and as such action would predictably correct the problem while avoiding wasting the entire part.
Claim(s) 24-26 is/are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi in view of Messelling, Weaver and Bogue as applied to claims 1, 16, and 21 above, and further in view of D’Amour.
Claims 24-26: Shi in view of Messelling, Weaver, and Bogue teach the method of claims 1, 16, and 21 above, but do not explicitly teach placing the composite component with the filling material applied thereto within an enclosure and creating a pressure differential between an interior of the enclosure and an exterior of the enclosure particularly wherein the enclosure pushes the filling material into the opening after the pressure differential is applied. D’Amour is directed to a method of repair of TBC components involving filling openings therein with a filling material (See, for example, abstract, Figures, [0002], [0022-0026]). D’Amour teaches wherein conventional filling processes suffer from disadvantages including incomplete or missed filling of holes, being ergonomically suboptimal, and time consuming (See, for example, [0007], [0032]). D’Amour teaches such problems can be overcome by placing the component with the filling material applied thereto within an enclosure (Tool 54) and creating a pressure differential between an interior of the enclosure and an exterior of the enclosure (such as by placing the interior in compressive pressure against the exterior surface of the airfoil since the pads do not close to their relaxed state they exert a slight pressure along the interior interface) resulting in the enclosure pushing the filling material into the opening after the pressure differential is applied (see, for example, Figures 4-5, [0030], [0032]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated placing the composite component with the filling material applied thereto within an enclosure and creating a pressure differential between an interior of the enclosure and an exterior of the enclosure particularly wherein the enclosure pushes the filling material into the opening after the pressure differential is applied since it would predictably avoid incomplete or missed filling of holes, is more satisfactory from an ergonomic standpoint and less time consuming.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and two Declarations under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 1/12/26 are insufficient to overcome the rejections of claims 1-2, 11-14, 16-18, 21 and 23 based upon Shi in view of Messelling and Weaver; the rejections of claim(s) 1-3, 11-18 and 21-23 based upon Shi in view of Messelling, Weaver, and Bogue; and the rejection of claim 22 based upon Shi in view of Messelling, Weaver, Bogue, and Shigetomi as set forth in the last Office action because:
In response to applicant's argument that the vacuum treatment of Weaver is intended to remove remaining carrier, not “to push the composite component 100 and force the filling material 114 into the openings 108”, these features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s); nor do they effectively support the basis of a special definition. Therefore, the Examiner does not accept Applicant’s asserted “broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim”. The present scope of the claim only explicitly recites: “wherein filling the opening with the filling material comprises applying the filling material to the surface, placing the composite component with the filling material applied thereto within an enclosure, and creating a pressure differential between an interior of the enclosure and an exterior of the enclosure”. The claim further is drafted in open comprising language allowing for any additional steps. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The combination of the prior art, including the vacuum bag autoclaving taught at at least [0042] of Weaver meets the actually recited / presently claimed scope.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments that the references do not teach the newly added limitations (as actively recited in claims 24-26) are unconvincing in view of newly-cited D’Amour, as discussed in the rejections above and as required by Applicant’s amendments.
As to the remaining dependent claims they remain rejected as no additional separate arguments are provided.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN H EMPIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30AM - 4 PM.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/NATHAN H EMPIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712