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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to Claim 3 is supported by previously presented Claim 6, Figures 4-5 and Page 13 of the specification.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (US20160194967A1) in view of Carter (US20170120359A1), Varela Boydo (WO2019103596A1) and Dobson (WO2014064450A1).
Claim 3
Xu (US20160194967A1) teaches a method of manufacturing a device for high-temperature gas (¶0005 teaches the device is a gas turbine blade.) comprising three-dimensional lattice structures (Figures 2-3, Item 80 is a lattice structure that is incorporated into the airfoil (¶0022).), comprising: a three-dimensional structure formation step of forming three-dimensional lattice structures using a 3D metal printing method (¶0023 teaches the lattice structures (80) are made using additive manufacturing.); and fixing the three-dimensional lattice structures into different internal spaces of the device for high-temperature gas (Figure 2 shows the lattice structures (80) are in locations that are within the outer perimeter of the airfoil. These locations are internal spaces. ¶0017 teaches the lattice structures are placed inside the walls of the component.), the different internal spaces separated by one or more partitions. (Figure 2 shows the lattice structure (80) locations are separated by solid material.)
Xu does not explicitly disclose a surface strength improvement step of increasing surface strength of the three-dimensional lattice structures.
Carter (US20170120359A1) teaches a surface strength improvement step of increasing surface strength of the three-dimensional lattice structures (¶0035 teaches the workpiece can be a lattice structure. ¶0038 teaches post processing steps including hardening heat treatments or shot peening, both of which increase the strength.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use the known post manufacturing processes of Carter with the method of Xu in order to further process the workpiece to relieve stress, harden, or polish to finish the workpiece. (Carter ¶0038)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known post manufacturing processes of Carter with the method of Xu because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the additively manufactured lattice(s) of Xu will undergo a post treatment based on the teachings of Carter.
Xu in view of Carter does not explicitly disclose a press-fitting step of press-fitting the three-dimensional lattice structures into a device for high-temperature gas.
Varela Boydo (WO2019103596A1) teaches a press-fitting step of press-fitting the three-dimensional lattice structures into a device for high-temperature gas. (Figure 9A teaches lattice structures that are added to a blade using press fit elements (5200) into female fastening elements (5305) on the blade.) and inserting and fixing the lattice structures in internal spaces. (Figure 9B shows at least some of the lattice structures are in an interior space.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known press fit connection technique of Varela Boydo to the blade manufacturing method of Xu in view of Carter in order to allow for replacement of the lattice structures. (Varela Boydo teaches in Lines 114-116 the removable nature of the sheets allows for partial or total removal without the need to resort to a new integral structure or aerodynamic body.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known press fit connection technique of Varela Boydo to the blade manufacturing method of Xu in view of Carter because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the lattice(s) of Xu will be manufactured outside of the blade and inserted and secured via press fit.
Xu in view of Carter and Varela Boydo does not explicitly disclose a coating step of applying a nano-coating material to improve roughness of inner surface of the three-dimensional lattice structures or the device for high-temperature gas, wherein the nano-coating material prevents frictional damage to the device for high- temperature gas and the three-dimensional lattice structures when press-fitting the three- dimensional lattice structures into the device for high-temperature gas.
However, Dobson (WO2014064450A1) teaches a coating step of applying a nano-coating material (Page 9, Lines 16-20 teach the use of a coating (2) on the surface of a heat transfer element made from metal. Page 3 Lines 21-22 teach the coating is a nano-rough coating.) to improve roughness of inner surface of the heat transfer structures (Figure 2 teaches the surface of the heat transfer structure (1) has a coating (2) that has increased the roughness.); wherein the nano-coating material prevents frictional damage to the device for high- temperature gas and the three-dimensional lattice structures when press-fitting the three- dimensional lattice structures into the device for high-temperature gas. (Applicant does not claim how this prevention of frictional damage occurs or what qualities/materials/dimensions the coating has (other than nanometer size) to achieve the claimed prevention. The specification does not elaborate on what features of the coating achieve this result. Therefore, since Dobson teaches the coating (2) is a nano-rough coating, it will achieve the same function of preventing frictional damage.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known nano-coating technique of Dobson with the heat transfer structure formation method of Xu in view of Carter and Varela Boyda in order to create a surface with excellent heat transfer properties. (See Dobson Page 4 Lines 3-4)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known nano-coating technique of Dobson with the heat transfer structure formation method of Xu in view of Carter and Varela Boyda because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the lattice of Xu in view of Carter and Varela Boyda will have a coating applied to it that includes nano scale roughness to improve the heat transfer capabilities.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (US20160194967A1) in view of Carter (US20170120359A1), Varela Boydo (WO2019103596A1) and Dobson (WO2014064450A1) , as applied in Claim 3, further in view of Feldmann (DE102012001989A1).
Claim 4
Xu in view of Carter, Varela Boyda and Dobson teaches the method according to claim 3.
Xu in view of Carter, Varela Boyda and Dobson does not disclose the method comprising an internal strength improvement step of increasing internal strength of the device for high-temperature gas.
However, Feldmann (DE102012001989A1) teaches an internal strength improvement step of increasing internal strength of the device for high-temperature gas. (Applicant states that the internal strength improvement step is done by surface rolling in Claim 5. Figures 3-4 and ¶0042 teach the deep rolling method where rollers press on the blade causing in increase in internal compressive stresses and, in turn, an increase (positive effect) on the fatigue strength of the blade.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known deep rolling technique of Feldmann to the turbine blade manufacturing method of Xu in view of Carter, Varela Boyda and Dobson in order to smooth the front surface of the blade and make it more aerodynamic. (Feldmann ¶0043)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known deep rolling technique of Feldmann to the turbine blade manufacturing method of Xu in view of Carter, Varela Boyda and Dobson because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the blade of Xu in view of Carter, Varela Boyda and Dobson will be subject to deep rolling to increase the internal compressive stresses to prevent cracking and improve fatigue strength.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (US20160194967A1) in view of Carter (US20170120359A1), Varela Boydo (WO2019103596A1), Dobson (WO2014064450A1) and Feldmann (DE102012001989A1) as applied in Claim 3, further in view of Davis (US20160312630A1).
Claim 7
Xu in view of Carter, Varela Boyda, Dobson and Feldmann teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein the lattice is made separately from the blade and inserted and press fit. (Xu, based on the teachings from Varela Boyda, teaches the creation of a lattice for heat transfer within a cooling channel of a turbine blade (See Figure 2) and then inserting it and securing it with a press fit.)
Xu in view of Carter, Varela Boyda, Dobson and Feldmann does not disclose a brazing step of bonding the three-dimensional lattice structures after the press-fitting step.
However, Davis (US20160312630A1) teaches a brazing step of bonding a blade structure after securing it using a press fit. (¶0033 teaches the use of press fitting and brazing in combination for a portions of a turbine (rib cap and rib).)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known press fitting and brazing technique of Davis with the turbine structure formation method of Xu in view of Carter, Varela Boyda, Dobson and Feldmann in order to secure the components to one another. (See Davis ¶0033)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known press fitting and brazing technique of Davis with the turbine structure formation method of Xu in view of Carter, Varela Boyda, Dobson and Feldmann because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the lattice Xu in view of Carter, Varela Boyda, Dobson and Feldmann will be press fit and brazed to the turbine blade.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant essentially argues that the prior art does not teach the newly added limitations to Claim 3.
It is respectfully asserted that the rejection has been updated to suit the new limitations and is proper. Xu teaches, in Figure 2, that the lattice structures are in locations within the outer perimeter of the blade. Xu also teaches in ¶0017 that the lattice structures are inside the walls of the component. Inside the walls indicates the lattice structures are in an internal space. Figure 2 shows walls/partitions between the lattice structure locations. As to the limitation(s) regarding the prevention of frictional damage, a review of the amended claims and specification did not yield any information regarding how this prevention occurs or what quality of the coating arrives at the claimed prevention. Claim 3’s requirement for the coating is that it has a nanometer quality. Dobson, Page 3, Lines 21-22 teach that the coating is a nano-rough coating. Therefore, since Dobson’s coating meets all the known requirements for the coating, it will predictably achieve the same result of the prevention of frictional damage based on the available information in Applicant’s claims and specification.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found on the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited form.
Document
Date
Description of Relevant Subject Matter
US20100236759A1
2008-04-17
Wadley teaches a device for high temperature gas (¶0004) that includes a lattice structure within an internal space (Figure 6).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael W Hotchkiss whose telephone number is (571)272-3854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 0800-1600.
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 at 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.
/MICHAEL W HOTCHKISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726