DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Claims 1 and 3-20 filed on 11/19/2025 have been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Claims 1 and 19 have been amended.
Claim 2 has been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 11/19/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 17 under 35 USC § 102 and claim 19 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Melzer-Jokisch et al. (US 2012/0179285 A1).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-10, and 14-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 8, 10, 11, and 16-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,370,603 B2 (reference patent), in view of Melzer-Jokisch et al. (US 2012/0179285 A1).
The claims of the instant application and the claims of the reference patent are compared in the table below.
17/942,045
12,370,603
1. A method for providing a component, comprising:providing a substrate;
performing a first scan of the substrate using computed tomography, prior to any additive manufacturing, to provide substrate scan data;
additive manufacturing a first object by depositing material with the substrate;
performing a second scan of the first object using the computed tomography to provide first object scan data;
comparing the first object scan data to the substrate scan data and to first object reference data to provide machining data;
and machining the first object using the machining data to provide a second object.
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
scanning the substrate using computed tomography to provide substrate scan data;
comparing the substrate scan data to substrate reference data to provide additive manufacturing data;
and the braze powder deposited with the substrate based on the additive manufacturing data.
1. A method for providing a component, comprising:
depositing braze powder with a substrate, the braze powder sintered together during the depositing of the braze powder to provide the substrate with sintered braze material;
heating the sintered braze material to melt the sintered braze material and diffusion bond the braze powder to the substrate to provide braze filler material;
scanning a first object using computed tomography to provide first object scan data, the first object comprising the substrate and the braze filler material diffusion bonded to the substrate;
comparing the first object scan data to first object reference data to provide machining data;
and machining the first object using the machining data to provide a second object.
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
comparing the substrate scan data to substrate reference data to provide additive manufacturing data;
and performing the depositing of the material with the substrate based on the additive manufacturing data.
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
scanning the substrate using computed tomography to provide substrate scan data;
comparing the substrate scan data to substrate reference data to provide additive manufacturing data;
and the braze powder deposited with the substrate based on the additive manufacturing data.
4. The method of claim 3, wherein the substrate reference data comprises data from a design specification for the component.
4. The method of claim 3, wherein the substrate reference data comprises data from a design specification for the component.
5. The method of claim 3, wherein the first object reference data comprises the substrate scan data.
5. The method of claim 3, wherein the first object reference data comprises the substrate scan data.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the machining removes some of the material deposited with the substrate during the additive manufacturing.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the machining removes some of the braze filler material diffusion bonded to the substrate.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the additive manufacturing fills a void in the substrate.
11. The method of claim 1, wherein the braze powder is deposited with the substrate to fill a void in the substrate.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the additive manufacturing forms a cladding over a surface of the substrate.
16. The method of claim 1, wherein the braze powder is deposited with the substrate to form a cladding over the substrate.
11. The method of claim 1, wherein the additive manufacturing comprises laser metal deposition.
8. The method of claim 7, wherein the depositing of the braze powder includes directing the braze powder towards the substrate through a nozzle; and sintering the braze powder using a laser beam.
15. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a damaged component;
and performing the additive manufacturing and the machining to repair the damaged component to provide the component.
17. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a damaged component previously installed within an engine;
and the depositing, the heating and the machining performed to repair the damaged component to provide the component.
17. A method for providing a component, comprising:
performing a first scan of a substrate using a computed tomography scanner, prior to any additive manufacturing, to provide substrate scan data;
depositing material with the substrate using an additive manufacturing device to provide a first object;
performing a second scan of the first object using a computed tomography scanner to provide first object scan data;
processing the first object scan data based on the substrate scan data to provide machining data;
and machining at least the material deposited onto the substrate using an automated machining tool based on the machining data.
1. A method for providing a component, comprising:
depositing braze powder with a substrate, the braze powder sintered together during the depositing of the braze powder to provide the substrate with sintered braze material;
heating the sintered braze material to melt the sintered braze material and diffusion bond the braze powder to the substrate to provide braze filler material;
scanning a first object using computed tomography to provide first object scan data, the first object comprising the substrate and the braze filler material diffusion bonded to the substrate;
comparing the first object scan data to first object reference data to provide machining data;
and machining the first object using the machining data to provide a second object.
18. The method of claim 17, further comprising
processing the substrate scan data to provide additive manufacturing data;
and performing the depositing of the material with the substrate based on the additive manufacturing data.
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
scanning the substrate using computed tomography to provide substrate scan data;
comparing the substrate scan data to substrate reference data to provide additive manufacturing data;
and the braze powder deposited with the substrate based on the additive manufacturing data.
19. A method for providing a component, comprising:
providing a substrate;
performing a first scan of the substrate using computed tomography, prior to any additive manufacturing, to provide substrate scan data;
comparing the substrate scan data to substrate reference data to provide additive manufacturing data;
depositing material with the substrate using an additive manufacturing device based on the additive manufacturing data to form a first object;
performing a second scan of the first object using the computed tomography to provide first object scan data; and
comparing the first object scan data to the substrate scan data to provide machining data.
20. The method of claim 19, further comprising:
machining the first object using the machining data.
18. A method for providing a component, comprising:
scanning a substrate using a computed tomography device to provide substrate scan data;
comparing the substrate scan data to substrate reference data to provide additive manufacturing data;
depositing braze powder with the substrate using an additive manufacturing device based on the additive manufacturing data, the braze powder sintered to provide the substrate with sintered braze material;
heating the sintered braze material to melt the sintered braze material and diffusion bond the sintered braze material to the substrate to provide braze filler material;
scanning a first object using the computed tomography device to provide first object scan data, the first object comprising the substrate and the braze filler material diffusion bonded to the substrate;
comparing the first object scan data to first object reference data to provide machining data;
and machining the first object using the machining data to provide a second object.
Regarding claim 1, claims 1 and 3 of the reference patent recites all of the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application except “performing a first scan of the substrate using computed tomography, prior to any additive manufacturing, to provide substrate scan data” and “additive manufacturing a first object by depositing material with the substrate.”
However, claim 1 of the reference patent recites “depositing braze powder with a substrate, the braze powder sintered together during the depositing of the braze powder to provide the substrate with sintered braze material,” which is one embodiment of additive manufacturing a first object by depositing material with the substrate. Therefore, claim 1 of the reference patent is in essence a “species” of the generic invention of instant application claim 1. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Melzer-Jokisch teaches performing a first scan of the substrate using computed tomography, prior to any additive manufacturing, to provide substrate scan data ([0007]: “The underlying idea of the present invention is to automate the repair process by digitizing the geometry of the component after every operation and using the digitized geometry as an input condition for numerically controlling the subsequent operation. This involves setting up of a data flow of the digitized geometries of the component which is updated after each individual operation of the proposed repair process”; [0047]: “The illustrated system 200 also includes imaging means 206 for capturing digitalized geometrical data of the geometry of the component (i.e., the blade in this case) subsequent to each operation... The imaging means 206 may alternately include scanning means for three-dimensional scanning the blade based, for example, on laser triangulation or tomographic techniques”).
Independent claims 17 and 19 have substantially similar limitations to claim 1 and are therefore rejected on the same premises.
Aside from minor stylistic and grammatical differences, claims 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 16, 8, 17, 3, and 18 of the reference patent recite the same limitations as claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 15, 18, and 20 of the instant application, respectively, are therefore rejected on the same premises.
Regarding claim 7, claim 3 of the reference patent recites all of the limitations of claim 7 of the instant application except “wherein the substrate comprises substrate material; and the machining removes some of the substrate material.”
Melzer-Jokisch teaches wherein the substrate comprises substrate material ([0031]: “The present invention thus provides an automated process for weld repairing a damaged portion of a machine component… although the embodiments illustrated hereinafter refer particularly to a hollow air cooled blade used in the turbine section of a gas turbine engine, the present invention is equally applicable for repair of other components, such as stationary vanes, or indeed repair of any other metallic machine component”); and
the machining removes some of the substrate material ([0038]: “Block 104 involves the removing of material from the identified damaged portion of the blade by machining, for example, means of milling or any other manufacturing process”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the reference patent to incorporate the teachings of Melzer-Jokisch so as to include the substrate comprising substrate material; and the machining removing some of the substrate material. Doing so would allow the substrate material to be repaired with the aim of minimizing the repair cost (Melzer-Jokisch, [0004]: “In the past, it has often been necessary to completely replace the entirety of the worn turbine blades or vanes. However, for cost reasons, a method of repairing only the worn out portion of the blade or vane instead of completely replacing the entire worn out blade or vane is desirable”).
Regarding claim 10, claim 3 of the reference patent recites all of the limitations of claim 10 of the instant application except “removing a coating from the substrate to expose a surface of the substrate; and wherein the material is deposited with the substrate after the removing of the coating.”
Melzer-Jokisch teaches further comprising: removing a coating from the substrate to expose a surface of the substrate ([0036]: “The repair method 100 begins at block 101 which involves stripping the blade to remove any coating from the blade, to allow a visual inspection of the blade to identify any damaged portion and to ensure that the blade is indeed a candidate for repair”); and
wherein the material is deposited with the substrate after the removing of the coating ([0036]: “Removing the coating also exposes the base metal of the blade for subsequent machining and welding”; [0040]: “Block 108 involves deposition of a filler material to fill up the trough”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the reference patent to incorporate the teachings of Melzer-Jokisch so as to include “removing a coating from the substrate to expose a surface of the substrate; and wherein the material is deposited with the substrate after the removing of the coating.” Doing so would allow material to be deposited on a specific area on the surface of the substrate with the aim minimizing cost (Melzer-Jokisch, [0004]: “for cost reasons, a method of repairing only the worn out portion of the blade or vane instead of completely replacing the entire worn out blade or vane is desirable”; [0036]: “Removing the coating also exposes the base metal of the blade for subsequent machining and welding”).
Regarding claim 12, claim 3 of the reference patent recites all of the limitations of claim 12 of the instant application except “wherein the machining comprises milling the first object to provide the second object.”
Melzer-Jokisch further teaches wherein the machining comprises milling the first object to provide the second object ([0043]: “at block 111, a further machining, including for example, a milling operation, is performed on blade to remove the excess material deposition and re-contour the blade”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the reference patent to incorporate the teachings of Melzer-Jokisch so as to include the machining comprising milling the first object to provide the second object. As set forth in MPEP 2143, as established by Melzer-Jokisch, there are a number of different methodologies to implement repair measures by machining, and choosing a particular method from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions is considered an obvious modification. As Melzer-Jokisch discloses a number of alternatives, including using milling, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement any of these known repair measures with Mayer as they would all have a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 14, claim 3 of the reference patent recites all of the limitations of claim 14 of the instant application except “coating a surface of the second object.”
Melzer-Jokisch teaches further comprising coating a surface of the second object ([0044]: “Subsequent to the re-contouring, a further FPI test may be carried out at block 112 to detect any defects on the blade, following which the blade is re-coated with a protective coating at block 113”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the reference patent to incorporate the teachings of Melzer-Jokisch so as to include coating a surface of the second object. Doing so would allow a thermal barrier to be applied to the object with the aim of protecting it from high temperatures (Melzer-Jokisch, [0044]: “The protective coating acts as a thermal barrier to protect the component from high operational temperatures. Such a coating is particularly useful for gas turbine components”).
Regarding claim 16, claim 3 of the reference patent recites all of the limitations of claim 16 of the instant application except “wherein the component is a gas turbine engine component.”
Melzer-Jokisch teaches wherein the component is a gas turbine engine component ([0031]: “although the embodiments illustrated hereinafter refer particularly to a hollow air cooled blade used in the turbine section of a gas turbine engine, the present invention is equally applicable for repair of other components”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the reference patent to incorporate the teachings of Melzer-Jokisch so as to include the component being a gas turbine engine component. Doing so would allow damaged gas turbine engine components to be repaired with the aim of reducing cost due to mandatory disposal of components (Melzer-Jokisch, [0003]: “Metallic machine components may be subject to deterioration resulting from use. Turbomachine components, for instance, deteriorate due to mechanical forces, as well as wear due to friction, erosion and corrosion from use in the fluid medium… Eventually, the thickness, or other dimensions such as chord width, of the vane or blade are reduced below the minimum allowable serviceable limits, resulting in mandatory disposal or repair of the worn out blade or vane”).
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 (submitted 12/27/2024) of U.S. Patent No. 12,370,603 B2 (reference patent), in view of Mayer et al. (DE-102019203796-A1) (Note: a machine translation is used for mapping).
Regarding claim 13, claim 3 of the reference patent recites all of the limitations of claim 13 of the instant application except “wherein the machining comprises polishing the first object to provide the second object.”
Mayer teaches wherein the machining comprises polishing the first object to provide the second object (FIG. 1 and [0042]: In step S25, the specific areas of the object to be repaired are repaired by measures such as polishing/removal by grinding).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the reference patent to incorporate the teachings of Mayer so as to include the machining comprising polishing the first object to provide the second object. As set forth in MPEP 2143, as established by Mayer, there are a number of different methodologies to implement repair measures by machining, and choosing a particular method from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions is considered an obvious modification. As Mayer discloses a number of alternatives, including using polishing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement any of these known repair measures with Mayer as they would all have a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 1 and 3-20 are also rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting in view of the following patents: US 12,115,598 B2, US 12,251,757 B2, US 12,358,232 B2 and provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting in view of the following copending applications: 17/942,050, 17/942,062, 18/108,132, 18/116,580, 18/116,559, 18/116,588, 18/117,184, 18/117,200. All of the claims of these patents and applications are substantially similar to the claims of US 12,370,603 B2, and Claims 1 and 3-20 are rejected in view of these applications and patents in view of Melzer-Jokisch et al. (US 2012/0179285 A1) and in view of Mayer et al. (DE-102019203796-A1) for the same reasons as listed above. The Examiner is not providing mappings for each of these patents/applications at this time for the sake of brevity, but Applicant is welcome to contact the Examiner for further information if needed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Melzer-Jokisch et al. (US 2012/0179285 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Melzer-Jokisch teaches a method for providing a component, comprising: providing a substrate ([0005]: “The object of the present invention is to provide a system and method for repair of a machine component”);
performing a first scan of the substrate using computed tomography, prior to any additive manufacturing, to provide substrate scan data ([0007]: “The underlying idea of the present invention is to automate the repair process by digitizing the geometry of the component after every operation and using the digitized geometry as an input condition for numerically controlling the subsequent operation. This involves setting up of a data flow of the digitized geometries of the component which is updated after each individual operation of the proposed repair process”; [0047]: “The illustrated system 200 also includes imaging means 206 for capturing digitalized geometrical data of the geometry of the component (i.e., the blade in this case) subsequent to each operation... The imaging means 206 may alternately include scanning means for three-dimensional scanning the blade based, for example, on laser triangulation or tomographic techniques”):
additive manufacturing a first object by depositing material with the substrate ([0040]: “Block 108 involves deposition of a filler material to fill up the trough”);
performing a second scan of the first object using the computed tomography to provide first object scan data ([0042]: “Referring back to FIG. 3, at block 109, a third geometry of the blade is digitalized subsequent to the welding process with the aim of capturing the protrusion or excess material deposit”) ;
comparing the first object scan data to the substrate scan data and to first object reference data to provide machining data ([0043]: “The next block 110 involves measuring the excess of material deposit on the blade that needs to be subsequently removed by machining. This excess may be calculated, for example, based on a comparison of the digitalized geometrical data of the third geometry of the blade with stored reference geometry data of the blade that includes allowable tolerances”; [0039]: “The stored reference geometry data of the blade may include, for example, digitalized geometrical data of the geometry of the blade when it was newly manufactured, digitalized geometrical data of the geometry of the blade subsequent to a previous repair of the blade, or a digitalized three-dimensional design drawing of the component. Advantageously, for improved measurement accuracy, the reference geometry data used herein may comprise a combination of the above mentioned geometrical data”); and
machining the first object using the machining data to provide a second object ([0043]: “at block 111, a further machining, including for example, a milling operation, is performed on blade to remove the excess material deposition and re-contour the blade. The re-contouring is numerically controlled using a third NC program, which is generated in response to the digitalized third geometry of the blade obtained at block 109 and the calculation of the excess material to be removed, at block 110”).
Regarding claim 3, Melzer-Jokisch teaches the method of claim 1.
Melzer-Jokisch further teaches further comprising: comparing the substrate scan data to substrate reference data to provide additive manufacturing data ([0009]: “numerically controlling said deposition includes determining a material deposition path in response to identifying a position of the trough on said component, based on a comparison of the digitalized geometrical data of said first geometry to stored reference geometry data of said component. This provides an automated generation of a trajectory for the material deposition”); and
performing the depositing of the material with the substrate based on the additive manufacturing data ([0040]: “Block 108 involves deposition of a filler material to fill up the trough… The second NC program receives as input the digitalized geometrical data of the second geometry of the blade obtained at block 106 and the position of the trough identified at block 107, and generates a material deposition path in response thereto”).
Regarding claim 4, Melzer-Jokisch teaches the method of claim 3.
Melzer-Jokisch further teaches wherein the substrate reference data comprises data from a design specification for the component ([0020]: “reference geometry data includes a… digitalized three-dimensional design drawing of said component”).
Regarding claim 5, Melzer-Jokisch teaches the method of claim 3.
Melzer-Jokisch further teaches wherein the first object reference data comprises the substrate scan data ([0021]: “the proposed method further comprises storing digitalized geometrical data of the component subsequent to a completion of a current repair of the component and using said stored digitalized geometrical data as reference geometry of the component for a subsequent repair of the component”).
Regarding claim 6, Melzer-Jokisch teaches the method of claim 1.
Melzer-Jokisch further teaches wherein the machining removes some of the material deposited with the substrate during the additive manufacturing ([0043]: “at block 111, a further machining, including for example, a milling operation, is performed on blade to remove the excess material deposition and re-contour the blade”).
Regarding claim 7, Melzer-Jokisch teaches the method of claim 1.
Melzer-Jokisch further teaches wherein the substrate comprises substrate material ([0031]: “The present invention thus provides an automated process for weld repairing a damaged portion of a machine component… although the embodiments illustrated hereinafter refer particularly to a hollow air cooled blade used in the turbine section of a gas turbine engine, the present invention is equally applicable for repair of other components, such as stationary vanes, or indeed repair of any other metallic machine component”); and
the machining removes some of the substrate material ([0038]: “Block 104 involves the removing of material from the identified damaged portion of the blade by machining, for example, means of milling or any other manufacturing process”).
Regarding claim 8, Melzer-Jokisch teaches the method of claim 1.
Melzer-Jokisch further teaches wherein the additive manufacturing fills a void in the substrate ([0040]: “Block 108 involves deposition of a filler material to fill up the trough”).
Regarding claim 9, Melzer-Jokisch teaches the method of claim 1.
Melzer-Jokisch further teaches wherein the additive manufacturing forms a cladding over a surface of the substrate ([0040]: “a preferred embodiment of the present invention involves laser power build-up welding, also referred to as laser power cladding or microcladding. Laser powder cladding provides good dimensional control of the welding seam and provides an accurately controllable energy input which permits low heat input and produces small heat affected zones”).
Regarding claim 10, Melzer-Jokisch teaches the method of claim 1.
Melzer-Jokisch further teaches further comprising: removing a coating from the substrate to expose a surface of the substrate ([0036]: “The repair method 100 begins at block 101 which involves stripping the blade to remove any coating from the blade, to allow a visual inspection of the blade to identify any damaged portion and to ensure that the blade is indeed a candidate for repair”); and
wherein the material is deposited with the substrate after the removing of the coating ([0036]: “Removing the coating also exposes the base metal of the blade for subsequent machining and welding”; [0040]: “Block 108 involves deposition of a filler material to fill up the trough”).
Regarding claim 11, Melzer-Jokisch teaches the method of claim 1.
Melzer-Jokisch further teaches wherein the additive manufacturing comprises laser metal deposition ([0040]: “Although the deposition process may involve any welding process, a preferred embodiment of the present invention involves laser power build-up welding, also referred to as laser power cladding or microcladding”).
Regarding claim 12, Melzer-Jokisch teaches the method of claim 1.
Melzer-Jokisch further teaches wherein the machining comprises milling the first object to provide the second object ([0043]: “at block 111, a further machining, including for example, a milling operation, is performed on blade to remove the excess material deposition and re-contour the blade”).
Regarding claim 14, Melzer-Jokisch teaches the method of claim 1.
Melzer-Jokisch further teaches further comprising coating a surface of the second object ([0044]: “Subsequent to the re-contouring, a further FPI test may be carried out at block 112 to detect any defects on the blade, following which the blade is re-coated with a protective coating at block 113. The protective coating acts as a thermal barrier to protect the component from high operational temperatures”).
Regarding claim 15, Melzer-Jokisch teaches the method of claim 1.
Melzer-Jokisch further teaches further comprising: receiving a damaged component ([0031]: “The present invention thus provides an automated process for weld repairing a damaged portion of a machine component”); and
performing the additive manufacturing ([0038]: “Based on the machining path generated by the first NC program, a trough is milled over the damaged portion of the blade”; [0040]: “Block 108 involves deposition of a filler material to fill up the trough”) and the machining to repair the damaged component to provide the component ([0043]: “at block 111, a further machining, including for example, a milling operation, is performed on blade to remove the excess material deposition and re-contour the blade”).
Regarding claim 16, Melzer-Jokisch teaches the method of claim 1.
Melzer-Jokisch further teaches wherein the component is a gas turbine engine component ([0031]: “although the embodiments illustrated hereinafter refer particularly to a hollow air cooled blade used in the turbine section of a gas turbine engine, the present invention is equally applicable for repair of other components”).
Regarding claim 17, Melzer-Jokisch teaches a method for providing a component, comprising: performing a first scan of a substrate using a computed tomography scanner, prior to any additive manufacturing, to provide substrate scan data ([0007]: “The underlying idea of the present invention is to automate the repair process by digitizing the geometry of the component after every operation and using the digitized geometry as an input condition for numerically controlling the subsequent operation. This involves setting up of a data flow of the digitized geometries of the component which is updated after each individual operation of the proposed repair process”; [0047]: “The illustrated system 200 also includes imaging means 206 for capturing digitalized geometrical data of the geometry of the component (i.e., the blade in this case) subsequent to each operation... The imaging means 206 may alternately include scanning means for three-dimensional scanning the blade based, for example, on laser triangulation or tomographic techniques”);
depositing material with the substrate using an additive manufacturing device to provide a first object ([0040]: “Block 108 involves deposition of a filler material to fill up the trough”);
performing a second scan of the first object using the computed tomography scanner to provide first object scan data ([0042]: “Referring back to FIG. 3, at block 109, a third geometry of the blade is digitalized subsequent to the welding process with the aim of capturing the protrusion or excess material deposit”);
processing the first object scan data based on the substrate scan data to provide machining data ([0043]: “The next block 110 involves measuring the excess of material deposit on the blade that needs to be subsequently removed by machining. This excess may be calculated, for example, based on a comparison of the digitalized geometrical data of the third geometry of the blade with stored reference geometry data of the blade that includes allowable tolerances”; [0039]: “The stored reference geometry data of the blade may include, for example, digitalized geometrical data of the geometry of the blade when it was newly manufactured, digitalized geometrical data of the geometry of the blade subsequent to a previous repair of the blade, or a digitalized three-dimensional design drawing of the component. Advantageously, for improved measurement accuracy, the reference geometry data used herein may comprise a combination of the above mentioned geometrical data”); and
machining at least the material deposited onto the substrate using an automated machining tool based on the machining data ([0043]: “at block 111, a further machining, including for example, a milling operation, is performed on blade to remove the excess material deposition and re-contour the blade. The re-contouring is numerically controlled using a third NC program, which is generated in response to the digitalized third geometry of the blade obtained at block 109 and the calculation of the excess material to be removed, at block 110”).
Regarding claim 18, Melzer-Jokisch teaches the method of claim 17.
Melzer-Jokisch further teaches processing the substrate scan data to provide additive manufacturing data ([0009]: “numerically controlling said deposition includes determining a material deposition path in response to identifying a position of the trough on said component, based on a comparison of the digitalized geometrical data of said first geometry to stored reference geometry data of said component. This provides an automated generation of a trajectory for the material deposition”); and
performing the depositing of the material with the substrate based on the additive manufacturing data ([0040]: “Block 108 involves deposition of a filler material to fill up the trough… The second NC program receives as input the digitalized geometrical data of the second geometry of the blade obtained at block 106 and the position of the trough identified at block 107, and generates a material deposition path in response thereto”).
Regarding claim 19, Melzer-Jokisch teaches a method for providing a component, comprising: providing a substrate ([0005]: “The object of the present invention is to provide a system and method for repair of a machine component”);
performing a first scan of the substrate using computed tomography, prior to any additive manufacturing, to provide substrate scan data ([0007]: “The underlying idea of the present invention is to automate the repair process by digitizing the geometry of the component after every operation and using the digitized geometry as an input condition for numerically controlling the subsequent operation. This involves setting up of a data flow of the digitized geometries of the component which is updated after each individual operation of the proposed repair process”; [0047]: “The illustrated system 200 also includes imaging means 206 for capturing digitalized geometrical data of the geometry of the component (i.e., the blade in this case) subsequent to each operation... The imaging means 206 may alternately include scanning means for three-dimensional scanning the blade based, for example, on laser triangulation or tomographic techniques”).
comparing the substrate scan data to substrate reference data to provide additive manufacturing data ([0043]: “The next block 110 involves measuring the excess of material deposit on the blade that needs to be subsequently removed by machining. This excess may be calculated, for example, based on a comparison of the digitalized geometrical data of the third geometry of the blade with stored reference geometry data of the blade that includes allowable tolerances”; [0039]: “The stored reference geometry data of the blade may include, for example, digitalized geometrical data of the geometry of the blade when it was newly manufactured, digitalized geometrical data of the geometry of the blade subsequent to a previous repair of the blade, or a digitalized three-dimensional design drawing of the component. Advantageously, for improved measurement accuracy, the reference geometry data used herein may comprise a combination of the above mentioned geometrical data”);
depositing material with the substrate using an additive manufacturing device based on the additive manufacturing data to form a first object ([0040]: “Block 108 involves deposition of a filler material to fill up the trough… The second NC program receives as input the digitalized geometrical data of the second geometry of the blade obtained at block 106 and the position of the trough identified at block 107, and generates a material deposition path in response thereto”);
performing a second scan of the first object using the computed tomography to provide first object scan data ([0042]: “Referring back to FIG. 3, at block 109, a third geometry of the blade is digitalized subsequent to the welding process with the aim of capturing the protrusion or excess material deposit”); and
comparing the first object scan data to the substrate scan data to provide machining data ([0043]: “The next block 110 involves measuring the excess of material deposit on the blade that needs to be subsequently removed by machining. This excess may be calculated, for example, based on a comparison of the digitalized geometrical data of the third geometry of the blade with stored reference geometry data of the blade that includes allowable tolerances”; [0039]: “The stored reference geometry data of the blade may include, for example, digitalized geometrical data of the geometry of the blade when it was newly manufactured, digitalized geometrical data of the geometry of the blade subsequent to a previous repair of the blade, or a digitalized three-dimensional design drawing of the component. Advantageously, for improved measurement accuracy, the reference geometry data used herein may comprise a combination of the above mentioned geometrical data”).
Regarding claim 20, Melzer-Jokisch teaches the method of claim 19.
Melzer-Jokisch further teaches machining the first object using the machining data ([0043]: “at block 111, a further machining, including for example, a milling operation, is performed on blade to remove the excess material deposition and re-contour the blade. The re-contouring is numerically controlled using a third NC program, which is generated in response to the digitalized third geometry of the blade obtained at block 109 and the calculation of the excess material to be removed, at block 110”).
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melzer-Jokisch et al. (US 2012/0179285 A1), in view of Mayer et al. (DE-102019203796-A1) (Note: a machine translation is used for mapping).
Regarding claim 13, Melzer-Jokisch teaches the method of claim 1.
Melzer-Jokisch does not explicitly teach “wherein the machining comprises polishing the first object to provide the second object.”
Mayer further teaches wherein the machining comprises polishing the first object to provide the second object (FIG. 1 and [0042]: In step S25, the specific areas of the object to be repaired are repaired by measures such as polishing/removal by grinding).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the method of Melzer-Jokisch to incorporate the teachings of Mayer so as to include the machining comprising polishing the first object to provide the second object. As set forth in MPEP 2143, as established by Mayer, there are a number of different methodologies to implement repair measures by machining, and choosing a particular method from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions is considered an obvious modification. As Mayer discloses a number of alternatives, including using polishing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement any of these known repair measures with Mayer as they would all have a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Magdalena Kossek whose telephone number is (571)272-5603. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00 EST.
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, Robert Fennema can be reached on (571)272-2748. 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.
/M.I.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117