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 .
Request for Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 07/07/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Miller in view of Bosscher and Chillman
Claims 1, 3-5, 13-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 7544112 A (“Miller”) in view of US 20180154521 A1 (“Bosscher”) and US 20130025422 A1 (“Chillman”).
Miller pertains to a method for removing a coating from a turbine fan blade, including a computer controlled abrasive water jet and measuring tool (Abstr.; Figs. 2-3; 6:11-8:14). Bosscher pertains to a computer controlled robot manipulator system that includes a water jet cutter and measurement sensors (Abstr.; Fig. 1; ¶ 0016). Chillman pertains to a computer controlled robot manipulator system that includes a water jet cutter and measurement sensors (Abstr.; Figs. 1-7). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 1, Miller discloses a method for removing a leading edge fixed to a fan blade, the fan blade comprising a first material, and the leading edge comprising a second material different from the first material (Fig. 1, turbine fan blade 18 is made of a base metal 10 and has coatings 12 (bond coat including yttrium) and 14 (ceramic thermal barrier coating “TBC”) to be removed (a turbine fan blade inherently has a leading edge and a trailing edge (see discussion below)); 4:24-49, “the turbine blade 18”; 5:23-26, “In the present invention, the workpiece 18, such as a turbine blade, from which coatings 12 and 14 (see FIG. 1) are to be removed”; 6:15-18);
the method comprising steps of:
determining thicknesses of the leading edge as a function of a position on the leading edge by means of a measuring tool fixed on a tool holder (Figs. 2-3, Eddy current probe 40’, detection device 42, and touch probe 40 are measuring tools for determining thicknesses as a function of position and are fixed on a tool holder (portion of arm of apparatus 22 that holds the “measuring tool” and the “injection nozzle”); 6:11-8:14),
the tool holder...being rotatable about at least two axes of rotation with respect to a ground (Figs. 2-3; 4:65-5:12, the tool holder that holds nozzle 32 is rotatable about at least two axes of rotation with respect to the ground),
and removing the leading edge by means of a pressurized water injection tool having an injection nozzle fixed on the tool holder and configured to remove the leading edge by means of a pressurized water jet moving over the leading edge as a function of the thicknesses determined in the determination step (Figs. 2-3, pressurized water injection tool 24/26/32 has nozzle 32, and is fixed on the tool holder (arm of apparatus 22), and is capable of performing the recited function on a leading edge using pressurized water jet 34; 7:51-55, “It will be understood also that the abrasive water jet apparatus 22 can be operated so that it removes only a TBC coating 14 having an irregular surface configuration from a particular workpiece using the mapping step described above”; 6:11-8:14).
Miller does not explicitly disclose the tool holder as a whole being rotatable about at least two axes of rotation with respect to a ground. However, the Miller/Bosscher/Chillman combination makes obvious this claim.
Bosscher discloses:
the tool holder as a whole being rotatable about at least two axes of rotation with respect to a ground (Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0015-0016, tool holder 112/110 is rotatable about at least two axes of rotation with respect to the ground and is capable of holding “water jet cutters” and “sensor[s]”).
Chillman discloses:
the tool holder as a whole being rotatable about at least two axes of rotation with respect to a ground (Figs. 1-7; ¶¶ 0061-0062, 0067-0072, measurement device 60 (with laser beam 64) is mounted close to the water jet nozzle 40 on the same tool holder 22 that is rotatable about two axes of rotation B/C with respect to the ground).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Bosscher and Chillman with Miller by modifying the tool holder of Miller such that not only does it hold the injection nozzle (which is capable of rotating in at least two axes), but so that it also holds one or more of sensors 40, 42, and 40’ (which would rotate together with the injection nozzle in at least two axes). This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because having the sensors mounted together with the injection nozzle would allow for a more accurate reading of workpiece thickness, for example, where the workpiece has a curved surface that would require a sensor to be perpendicular to the surface in order to obtain the most accurate thickness measurement (or where the sensor would be unable to measure thickness due to lack of access because of the curved surface or other structural geometry (see Miller 7:60-8:6, “touch probe 40” is required to contact the surface being mapped)). Further, this modification would allow accurate real-time thickness measurement because the thickness sensor would be located very close to the injection nozzle and would be facing the same direction as the injection nozzle while it is removing material from the curved surface of the workpiece (compared to the disclosed Miller sensor 40/42/40’ location). Examiner notes that having a computer controlled arm with different end effectors including a water jet and measurement tool is well known (see e.g., US 20180243928 A1 (“Haddadin”) ¶ 0021).
Regarding the limitation “a leading edge”, Miller discloses that the recited method is to be performed on a fan blade comprising a first material and a second material different from the first material (Fig. 1, turbine blade 18 is made of a base metal 10 and has coatings 12 (bond coat including yttrium) and 14 (ceramic thermal barrier coating “TBC”) to be removed; 4:24-49, “the turbine blade 18”; 5:23-26, “In the present invention, the workpiece 18, such as a turbine blade, from which coatings 12 and 14 (see FIG. 1) are to be removed”; 6:15-18). To the extent Miller does not disclose that the method pertains to removing material from a leading edge of a fan blade, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to adapt the method of Miller to also remove material from the leading edge of a fan blade (in addition to other surfaces of the fan blade) because a “leading edge” is an aerodynamic feature that exists on every fan blade that would also need to be abraded (see e.g., US 20210293152 A1 (“Joudon”) ¶ 0003, “It should be recalled that the leading edge corresponds to the front part of an airfoil that faces the airflow and divides the airflow into a lower airflow and an upper airflow. In contrast, the trailing edge corresponds the rear part of an airfoil where the upper and lower airflows meet.”). Thus, because the disclosed method of Miller pertains to an abrasion process on a fan blade, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to also perform the disclosed method on the leading edge portion of the fan blade.
Regarding claim 3, the Miller/Bosscher/Chillman combination makes obvious the method of claim 1 as applied above. Miller further discloses wherein a pressure of the water jet is between 100 and 1,000 bars (4:63-65, “the combined water and abrasive is delivered from a delivery nozzle 32 as a jetted fluid stream or abrasive water jet 34, usually in the range of 5,000 psi to 55,000 psi” (5,000 psi is equal to 344.7378 bars)).
Regarding claim 4, the Miller/Bosscher/Chillman combination makes obvious the method of claim 1 as applied above. Miller further discloses wherein an injected water includes an abrasive media (4:63-65, “the combined water and abrasive is delivered from a delivery nozzle 32 as a jetted fluid stream or abrasive water jet 34, usually in the range of 5,000 psi to 55,000 psi”).
Regarding claim 5, the Miller/Bosscher/Chillman combination makes obvious the method of claim 1 as applied above. Miller further discloses wherein the water jet is applied by means of a nozzle oriented so as to form an angle between +/-15° and +/-25° relative to a normal to a plane tangent to a surface of the leading edge at a point on which the water jet is applied (Fig. 3, the abrasive water jet 34 is applied substantially perpendicular (i.e., at 0°) relative to the normal of the surface of workpiece 18 as shown; thus, the Miller abrasion method would be applied to the leading edge portion of the fan blade (as discussed in claim 1) at an angle of 0° relative to the normal of the local surface of the leading edge portion; Examiner notes that this limitation is very broad due to the phrase “relative to a normal to a plane tangent to the surface of the leading edge” (emphasis added)).
Regarding claim 13, the Miller/Bosscher/Chillman combination makes obvious the method of claim 1 as applied above. Miller further discloses wherein the water jet is applied by means of a nozzle oriented so as to form an angle equal to +/- 20° relative to a normal to a plane tangent to a surface of the leading edge at a point on which the water jet is applied (Fig. 3, the abrasive water jet 34 is applied substantially perpendicular (i.e., at 0°) relative to the normal of the surface of workpiece 18 as shown; thus, the Miller abrasion method would be applied to the leading edge portion of the fan blade (as discussed in claim 1) at an angle of 0° relative to the normal of the local surface of the leading edge portion; Examiner notes that this limitation is very broad due to the phrase “relative to a normal to a plane tangent to the surface of the leading edge” (emphasis added)).
Regarding claim 14, the Miller/Bosscher/Chillman combination makes obvious the method of claim 1 as applied above. As modified in claim 1, the Miller/Bosscher/Chillman combination makes obvious the limitation “wherein the measuring tool and the injection nozzle jointly rotate about the at least two axes.”
Regarding claim 16, the Miller/Bosscher/Chillman combination makes obvious the method of claim 1 as applied above. Miller further discloses wherein the tool holder is connected to a control unit, the control unit configured to control a movement of the tool holder (Figs. 2-3, 4:65-5:12, 6:11-8:14, tool holder is electrically connected to control system 38, which controls the movement of the tool holder).
Miller in view of Bosscher, Chillman, and Gascher
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 7544112 A (“Miller”) in view of US 20180154521 A1 (“Bosscher”), US 20130025422 A1 (“Chillman”), and US 20170252896 A1 (“Gascher”).
Miller pertains to a method for removing a coating from a turbine fan blade (Abstr.; Fig. 3). Bosscher pertains to a computer controlled robot manipulator system that includes a water jet cutter and measurement sensors (Abstr.; Fig. 1; ¶ 0016). Chillman pertains to a computer controlled robot manipulator system that includes a water jet cutter and measurement sensors (Abstr.; Figs. 1-7). Gascher pertains to a method for treating a coating on a turbine fan blade (¶ 0001). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 2, the Miller/Bosscher/Chillman combination makes obvious the method of claim 1 as applied above. Miller does not explicitly disclose wherein the first material is an organic matrix composite, and the second material is a metal. However, the Miller/Bosscher/Chillman/Gascher combination makes obvious this claim.
Gascher discloses wherein the first material is an organic matrix composite, and the second material is a metal (¶ 0035, “The blade 10 comprises a composite core 11, being obtained for example by drape-forming or weaving of a thermoplastic or thermosetting composite material. The latter may be an assembly of carbon fibers woven and molded by an RTM (Resin Transfer Molding) vacuum injection process. The core 11 is produced with an aerodynamic shape and it is covered on its leading edge by a metal skin 12 forming a shield, which is fastened by a binder 14 to the core. The skin 12 defines, by its frontal portion, the leading edge 13 of the part 10.”; ¶ 0002).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Gascher with the Miller/Bosscher/Chillman combination and use the recited method on a fan blade having the recited composition. Miller discloses a turbine fan blade made of two different materials, including a metal and a ceramic. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been familiar with fan blades having different layer combinations using different materials, and would have recognized that the abrasion method of Miller would not be limited for use on the exact fan blade composition disclosed in Miller, but could be used (with or without modification) to abrade fan blades with other material layer compositions.
Miller in view of Bosscher, Chillman, and Campbell
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 7544112 A (“Miller”) in view of US 20180154521 A1 (“Bosscher”), US 20130025422 A1 (“Chillman”), and US 8720526 B1 (“Campbell”).
Miller pertains to a method for removing a coating from a turbine fan blade (Abstr.; Fig. 3). Bosscher pertains to a computer controlled robot manipulator system that includes a water jet cutter and measurement sensors (Abstr.; Fig. 1; ¶ 0016). Chillman pertains to a computer controlled robot manipulator system that includes a water jet cutter and measurement sensors (Abstr.; Figs. 1-7). Campbell pertains to a method for forming and measuring a turbine fan blade (1:40-67). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 6, the Miller/Bosscher/Chillman combination makes obvious the method of claim 1 as applied above. Miller does not explicitly disclose wherein the determination of the thicknesses of the leading edge as a function of the position on the leading edge is performed via ultrasound. However, the Miller/Bosscher/Chillman/Campbell combination makes obvious this claim.
Campbell discloses wherein the determination of the thicknesses of the leading edge as a function of the position on the leading edge is performed via ultrasound (Fig. 7; 4:23-44, “A conventional thickness measuring device TMD is provided, which, in the illustrated embodiment comprises an ultrasonic measuring device 50 having a sonic thickness probe 50A for measuring the thickness of the outer section OS of the main wall 120 at any point such that non-destructive wall thickness data is collected from the casting C and provided to a computer system 60. It is also contemplated that the thickness measuring device may comprise any other known device, such as an X-ray inspection measuring apparatus, an eddy current measurement apparatus or a thermal imaging measuring device.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Campbell with the Miller/Bosscher/Chillman combination to perform the thickness determination using ultrasound. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill because using ultrasound to measure thickness is a commonly known technique that Campbell explicitly states could be used to replace other measurement techniques such as the eddy-current technique disclosed in Miller (Miller 7:22-59; Campbell 4:23-44, “A conventional thickness measuring device TMD is provided, which, in the illustrated embodiment comprises an ultrasonic measuring device 50 having a sonic thickness probe 50A for measuring the thickness of the outer section OS of the main wall 120 at any point such that non-destructive wall thickness data is collected from the casting C and provided to a computer system 60. It is also contemplated that the thickness measuring device may comprise any other known device, such as an X-ray inspection measuring apparatus, an eddy current measurement apparatus or a thermal imaging measuring device.”).
Miller in view of Bosscher, Chillman, and Mase
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 7544112 A (“Miller”) in view of US 20180154521 A1 (“Bosscher”), US 20130025422 A1 (“Chillman”), and US 20160023325 A1 (“Mase”).
Miller pertains to a method for removing a coating from a turbine fan blade (Abstr.; Fig. 3). Bosscher pertains to a computer controlled robot manipulator system that includes a water jet cutter and measurement sensors (Abstr.; Fig. 1; ¶ 0016). Chillman pertains to a computer controlled robot manipulator system that includes a water jet cutter and measurement sensors (Abstr.; Figs. 1-7). Mase pertains to a blasting machine (Abstr.; Figs. 1-2). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 15, the Miller/Bosscher/Chillman combination makes obvious the method of claim 1 as applied above. Miller does not explicitly disclose wherein during removal of the leading edge, further comprises; maintaining a distance of less than or equal to 20 cm from an end of the injection nozzle and each point of contact of the pressurized water jet on the leading edge. However, the Miller/Bosscher/Chillman/Mase combination makes obvious this claim.
Mase discloses wherein during removal of the leading edge, further comprises; maintaining a distance of less than or equal to 20 cm from an end of the injection nozzle and each point of contact of the pressurized water jet on the leading edge (¶ 0023, “ejecting the abrasive together with compressed gas on a surface of a workpiece W without masking at an ejection distance (a distance between a tip of the ejection nozzle 20 and the workpiece W) of 0.1 mm to 3.0 mm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Mase with the Miller/Bosscher/Chillman combination to perform the method of removal of the leading edge using the recited distance range between the nozzle and workpiece. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill because “where 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 (CCPA 1955); MPEP § 2144.05(II). Here, the distance between the nozzle and the workpiece is a known result-effective variable because it affects the strength and dispersion of the abrasive water jet upon the workpiece surface (e.g., a further distance reduces the strength and increases dispersion). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the effect of this variable and found the claimed range through routine experimentation. Further, Applicant has not disclosed that the recited distance is critical, and only mentions the ordinary result that a distance greater than 20 mm would generate a dispersed water jet and thereby a loss of abrading accuracy (Spec. ¶¶ 0025-0026). Without evidence of criticality or unexpected results, where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 267 (CCPA 1976); MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment and remarks have been considered. Claims 1-16 are pending. Claims 7-12 have been withdrawn from further consideration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention. Claims 1-6 and 13-16 are rejected.
Claims – The objection to claim 1 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments regarding amended claim 1 are premature and moot in view of the new rejection above due to the amended limitations. Applicant does not present any further arguments concerning the remaining claims.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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, MONICA S CARTER can be reached at (571)272-4475. 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.
/KENT N SHUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723