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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/30/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the first metal alloy" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the second metal alloy" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 22 recites “wherein the first metal alloy comprises PWA 1429 and the second metal alloy comprises Rene 195”. Presuming that the first and second metal alloys (lacking antecedent basis as noted above) refer to those of the airfoil body and tip body of claim 9, then this limitation is essentially incorporated in claim 9 from which claim 22 ultimately depends and thus fails to limit claim 22.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-15, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tsukamoto et al. (U.S. PGPub 2003/0143074) and Rhemer et al. (U.S. Patent 4,475,980), and alternatively further in view of Cologna et al. (U.S. PGPub 2016/0158840, cited in IDS).
Claim 1: Tsukamoto et al. discloses a method (see Embodiment 3, paragraphs 54-57 and Figs. 8A-8C) of repairing a tip (20) for an airfoil (19), the method comprising: removing a portion (tip 20) of the airfoil to reduce a radial height of the airfoil (see Figs. 8A-8B) and define a first mating surface (3a) of the airfoil; forming a blade tip body (2) for the airfoil, the blade tip body defining a second mating surface (3b), wherein the first mating surface and the second mating surface comprise a single crystal alloy (both the new tip 2 and the airfoil 19 can be made from single crystal alloy - paragraph 56); and joining the first mating surface to the second mating surface via a Field Assisted Sintering Technology (“FAST”) process (noting the remaining steps follow that of Embodiment 1, which involves pressing the surfaces together while exerting a pulsed current to heat the joint and diffusion bond the parts together - paragraph 39), wherein the airfoil comprises a first metal alloy and the blade tip body comprises a second metal alloy, wherein the first metal alloy is different from the second metal alloy (e.g. paragraphs 20 and 61). It is noted that while Tsukamoto does not explicitly describe this technique as “FAST” or an alternative name, the technique essentially meets the criteria of the process, that is applying a current to workpieces under a mechanical joining pressure to heat and diffusion bond them at the mating interface.
Tsukamoto generally discloses that various nickel-based superalloys may be used in the method, and suggests that the combination of materials used for the attached portions of the airfoil "are selected by taking into account the design strength...determined according to use conditions of the blade, production efficiency, and production cost" (paragraph 61). Thus, Tsukamoto at least acknowledges selecting different materials for the different airfoil portions based on design needs, but not specifically wherein the first metal alloy comprises PWA 1429 and the second metal alloy comprises Rene 195. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used either of these alloys since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 55, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed materials.
Tsukamoto does not disclose wherein the first mating surface is within a 0.05 inch profile of the second mating surface. However, Rhemer teaches that in diffusion bonding nickel superalloy parts for a turbine, for example, surface flatness of less than 0.0002 inches and roughness of less than 15 microinches is targeted to achieve a good bond (column 3, lines 10-27). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have ensured the first mating surface is within a 0.05 inch profile of the second mating surface in order to have ensured a successful diffusion bond using the FAST process of Tsukamoto.
In the event that Tsukamoto is determined not to specifically use the FAST process, Cologna generally teaches that Spark Plasma Sintering (SPS, another name for FAST) is particularly useful for joining turbine components made from different nickel-based super alloys (e.g. paragraphs 3, 5, 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used FAST/SPS in joining the turbine blade components of Tsukamoto as it is a similar technique and allows for firmly joining a first component to a second component (Id.).
Claim 3: Referring to Tsukamoto, the first mating surface and the second mating surface each comprises ribs and at least partially define cooling passages of a cooling network for the airfoil (e.g. paragraph 60 and Figs. 9A and 9C).
Claim 5: Forming the blade tip body comprises casting the blade tip body from a metal alloy (paragraph 59).
Claims 7-8: As cited above, Rhemer further teaches wherein the first mating surface and the second mating surface each comprise a flatness between 0.0001 inches and 0.01 inches and a surface roughness of the first mating surface and the second mating surface are each less than 16 micro inches. (column 3, lines 10-27).
Claim 9: Tsukamoto et al. discloses a method of manufacture (see Embodiment 1 related to new manufacture, paragraphs 34-44), comprising: forming a main airfoil body (6) of a bladed rotor (1), the main airfoil body comprising a first metal alloy; forming a blade tip body (2) for the bladed rotor, the blade tip body comprising a second metal alloy, the second metal alloy being different from the first metal alloy (the alloys of the body and tip may be different - e.g. paragraphs 20 and 61); and joining a first mating surface of the main airfoil body (e.g. top end thereof) to a second mating surface of the blade tip body (e.g. bottom end thereof, mating surfaces bonded at interface 3) via a Field Assisted Sintering Technology (“FAST”) process (involving pressing the surfaces together while exerting a pulsed current to heat the joint and diffusion bond the parts together - paragraph 39), wherein the main airfoil body and the blade tip body comprise a single crystal alloy (paragraph 35). It is noted that while Tsukamoto does not explicitly describe this technique as “FAST” or an alternative name, the technique essentially meets the criteria of the process, that is applying a current to workpieces under a mechanical joining pressure to heat and diffusion bond them at the mating interface.
Alternatively, Tsukamoto et al. discloses a method of manufacture (see Embodiment 3 related to a repair process, paragraphs 54-57 and Figs. 8A-8C), comprising: forming a main airfoil body (19) of a bladed rotor, the main airfoil body comprising a first metal alloy (paragraph 56); forming a blade tip body (2) for the bladed rotor, the blade tip body comprising a second metal alloy (Id.), the second metal alloy being different from the first metal alloy (e.g. implied at paragraphs 20 and 61); and joining a first mating surface (3a) of the main airfoil body to a second mating surface (3b) of the blade tip body via a Field Assisted Sintering Technology (“FAST”) process (noting the remaining steps follow that of Embodiment 1, which involves pressing the surfaces together while exerting a pulsed current to heat the joint and diffusion bond the parts together - paragraph 39), wherein the main airfoil body and the blade tip body comprise a single crystal alloy (both the new tip 2 and the airfoil 19 can be made from single crystal alloy - paragraph 56).
Tsukamoto generally discloses that various nickel-based superalloys may be used in the method, and suggests that the combination of materials used for the attached portions of the airfoil "are selected by taking into account the design strength...determined according to use conditions of the blade, production efficiency, and production cost" (paragraph 61). Thus, Tsukamoto at least acknowledges selecting different materials for the different airfoil portions based on design needs, but not specifically wherein the first metal alloy comprises PWA 1429 and the second metal alloy comprises Rene 195. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used either of these alloys since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 55, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed materials.
In either embodiment, Tsukamoto does not disclose wherein the first mating surface is within a 0.05 inch profile of the second mating surface. However, Rhemer teaches that in diffusion bonding nickel superalloy parts for a turbine, for example, surface flatness of less than 0.0002 inches and roughness of less than 15 microinches is targeted to achieve a good bond (column 3, lines 10-27). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have ensured the first mating surface is within a 0.05 inch profile of the second mating surface in order to have ensured a successful diffusion bond using the FAST process of Tsukamoto.
In the event that Tsukamoto is determined not to specifically use the FAST process, Cologna generally teaches that Spark Plasma Sintering (SPS, another name for FAST) is particularly useful for joining turbine components made from different nickel-based super alloys (e.g. paragraphs 3, 5, 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used FAST/SPS in joining the turbine blade components of Tsukamoto as it is a similar technique and allows for firmly joining a first component to a second component (Id.).
Claim 10: Turning again to Tsukamoto, the examiner notes that while the processes are exemplified with a single blade, it is common knowledge that a turbine requires plural blades to function, and so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have repeated the above process(es) to assemble/repair multiple blade bodies to multiple respective blade tips for the purpose of manufacturing/repairing the requisite blades of a turbine rotor in an equivalent manner.
Claim 12: In an embodiment such as in Fig. 9A or 9C, the first mating surface and the second mating surface each comprises ribs (25) and at least partially define cooling passages of a cooling network for the airfoil (paragraph 60).
Claim 14: Forming the blade tip body includes casting a preform of the blade tip body (paragraphs 37-38 or 59).
Claim 15: The first mating surface of the main airfoil body is disposed radially outward from a cooling passages network (11) disposed within the main airfoil body (see Figs. 2 and 9A-9D).
Claim 22: The claimed alloys would have been obvious as discussed above for claim 9.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukamoto et al. and Rhemer et al. (and alternatively also Cologna et al. as applicable) in view of Ribic et al. (U.S. PGPub 2016/0069184).
Tsukamoto discloses that the tip 20 to be replaced is “removed by machining or the like” (paragraph 56 - implicitly to remove a defect in that it is “worn”, paragraph 55), but does not specify grinding. However, Ribic teaches a method of replacing a damaged turbine blade tip wherein the damaged tip is removed by “machining…using a grinder” (paragraph 28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used grinding to remove the tip as it represents a conventional machining technique for this exact purpose and would have served to remove not only the damaged tip but also any coatings on the turbine blade.
Claims 9-10, 12, 14, 15, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Farris (U.S. PGPub 2021/0254474, cited in IDS) in view of Rhemer et al.
Claim 9: Farris discloses a method of manufacture, comprising: forming a main airfoil body (102) of a bladed rotor (20), the main airfoil body comprising a first metal alloy (paragraph 45); forming a blade tip body (100) for the bladed rotor, the blade tip body comprising a second metal alloy, the second metal alloy being different from the first metal alloy (Id.); and joining a first mating surface of the main airfoil body to a second mating surface of the blade tip body via a Field Assisted Sintering Technology (“FAST”) process (paragraph 46), wherein the main airfoil body and the blade tip body comprise a single crystal alloy (e.g. paragraph 61).
Farris generally discloses that various nickel-based superalloys may be used in the method (paragraph 45), but not specifically wherein the first metal alloy comprises PWA 1429 and the second metal alloy comprises Rene 195. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used either of these alloys since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 55, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed materials.
Farris further discloses that the first mating surface and the second mating surface are in “good alignment and mating” (paragraph 60), but does not disclose wherein the first mating surface is within a 0.05 inch profile of the second mating surface. However, Rhemer teaches that in diffusion bonding nickel superalloy parts for a turbine, for example, surface flatness of less than 0.0002 inches and roughness of less than 15 microinches is targeted to achieve a good bond (column 3, lines 10-27). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have ensured the first mating surface is within a 0.05 inch profile of the second mating surface in order to have ensured a successful diffusion bond using the FAST process of Farris.
Claim 10: The method comprises joining each blade tip body of a plurality of blade tip bodies to a corresponding main airfoil body of a plurality of the main airfoil bodies via the FAST process (multiple such assemblies implied by “mass production” in paragraph 74).
Claim 12: The first mating surface and the second mating surface each comprises ribs and at least partially define cooling passages of a cooling network for the airfoil (paragraph 70, Fig. 6 - tip and body pieces each having ribs defining various cooling passages).
Claim 14: Forming the blade tip body includes casting a preform of the blade tip body (e.g. paragraphs 47, 49).
Claim 15: The first mating surface of the main airfoil body is disposed radially outward from a cooling passages network disposed within the main airfoil body (e.g. Fig. 6).
Claim 22: The claimed alloys would have been obvious as discussed above for claim 9.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/31/2025 (entered with the RCE filed 7/30/2025) have been fully considered.
The examiner reiterates the arguments made in the Advisory Action of 4/8/2025.
Applicant cites to paragraphs 44 and 55 of the instant specification, for example. However, these paragraphs each recite “The present disclosure is not limited in this regard” or similar, including with regard to the claimed alloys. While certain benefits may be attributed to the use of different combinations of alloys, these benefits are not attributable solely to the claimed combination of PWA 1429 and Rene 195.
At least paragraph 61 of Tsukamoto also generally discusses that the combination of materials used for the attached portions of the airfoil "are selected by taking into account the design strength...determined according to use conditions of the blade, production efficiency, and production cost". Thus, Tsukamoto at least acknowledges selecting different materials for the different airfoil portions based on design needs. It is also generally known in the turbine blade art to use multi-material blade construction to provide different parts of the blade with targeted material properties.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW P TRAVERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3218. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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, Sunil K. Singh can be reached on 571-272-3460. 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.
/Matthew P Travers/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726