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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, 14-15, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaccardi et al. (2019/0078452) in view of Weisse (2013/0108470A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zaccardi discloses a process of brazing one single cover 32b to an open body 32a for a hollow vane assembly comprising: forming the open body (fabricated, paragraph 0057), the open body including an interior (where internal passages 50a, b are located) (paragraph 0058, figures 3-6), wherein the open body comprises a single piece design; forming at least one cover support structure 78 in said open body proximate the interior; forming the single cover 32b (fabricated, paragraph 0057), the single cover being configured to attach to the open body to form at least one flow passage 50a, b; and brazing only the one single cover to the open body (figures 3-6, paragraph 0057-0058).
Zaccardi discloses that the open body and the single cover comprises a different material from the matrix, but is silent to the at least one open body and the single cover being composed of a rigid material, the rigid material selected form the group consisting of a metal alloy composition, a heat-resistant super alloy composition, a nickel-based composition, and a cobalt based composition. However, Weisse discloses a turbine blade with a cover bonded to an open body. Weisse discloses that the open body 12 can be a cobalt or nickel-based superalloy (paragraph 0024). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to use a known material for at turbine as taught by Weisse because Weisse discloses that the material is light and durable for increased strength and impact resistance (paragraph 0024).
Regarding claim 2, Zaccardi discloses forming the at least one flow passage 50a,b between the at least one cover support structure and an interior wall of the open body (figures 3-6, paragraph 0058).
Regarding claim 3, Zaccardi discloses that the at least one flow passage 50a,b is configured as multiple cooling channels that allow for cooling fluid to flow through the interior (paragraph 0058, figures 3-6).
Regarding claim 4, Zaccardi discloses forming an airfoil from the combination of the open body brazed together with the single cover (figure 6).
Regarding claim 14, Zaccardi discloses a process for joining one single cover 32b to an open body 32a comprising: forming the open body (fabricated, paragraph 0057), the open body includes a leading edge 64 opposite a trailing edge 62, the open body includes a pressure side (top of open body) and suction side (bottom of open body) opposite the pressure side (figure 3-6), the open body including an interior (where internal passages 50a, b are located) (paragraph 0058, figures 3-6); forming at least one cover support structure 78 in said open body proximate the interior; forming the single cover (fabricated 0057), the single cover being configured to couple with the open body proximate the pressure side to form at least one flow passage 50a,b (paragraph 0058, figures 3-6); and brazing only the one single cover to the open body (figures 3-6, paragraph 0057-0058).
Zaccardi discloses that the open body and the single cover comprises a different material from the matrix, but is silent to the at least one open body and the single cover being composed of a rigid material, the rigid material selected form the group consisting of a metal alloy composition, a heat-resistant super alloy composition, a nickel-based composition, and a cobalt based composition. However, Weisse discloses a turbine blade with a cover bonded to an open body. Weisse discloses that the open body 12 can be a cobalt or nickel-based superalloy (paragraph 0024). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to use a known material for at turbine as taught by Weisse because Weisse discloses that the material is light and durable for increased strength and impact resistance (paragraph 0024).
Regarding claim 15, Zaccardi discloses forming structural joints (at indentations 77, paragraph 0062, figure 3) along the union between the cover support structure and the cover (figure 3).
Regarding claim 17, Zaccardi discloses forming the at least one flow passage 50a,b between the at least one cover support structure and an interior wall of the open body (figures 3-6).
Regarding claim 18, Zaccardi discloses that the at least one flow passage 50a,b is configured as multiple cooling channels that allow for cooling fluid to flow through the interior (paragraph 0058).
Regarding claim 19, Zaccardi discloses forming an airfoil from the combination of the open body brazed together with the single cover (figure 6).
Regarding claim 20, Zaccardi discloses that at least one cover support structure 78 comprises raised surface features (each sidewall and top surface are considered raised surface features as they are all extend up from the open body) of the open body that extend from the open body distally (figures 3-6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Zaccardi discloses that the matrix can be made from an alloy based on aluminum or titanium and thus one of ordinary skill in the art can understand that Zaccardi discloses that the cover and body are not made of a material based on an alloy of aluminum or titanium.
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner does not understand how this argument pertains to the claim as currently written. The claims do not state that the cover and body are made of aluminum or titanium alloys. With that being said, Zaccardi states that the matrix can be made from an alloy based on aluminum or titanium. Zaccardi doesn’t state that it is made from an alloy based on aluminum or titanium. Therefore, it would be understood that the matrix may be made from an alloy based on aluminum or titanium or it may be made of different material. Furthermore, there are a plurality of alloys of aluminum and titanium. Even if the matrix was made from an alloy based on aluminum or titanium, the cover and body can be made of a different alloy of the same metal.
The Applicant argues that Weisse clearly teaches a two-component configuration for the cover and does not disclose a single cover as claimed. The Applicant argues that Weisse teaches away from the single cover.
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner was not using Weisse to teach the single cover. The single cover was taught in the Zaccardi reference. Weisse was used to show that it is known to make the cover and body of a hollow vane assembly from a cobalt or nickel-based superalloy because the materials are light and durable for increased strength and impact resistance (paragraph 0024). While Weisse does teach a two component cover, one skilled in the art would understand that these materials can be used in a single cover assembly as taught by Zaccardi for the same properties as stated in Weisse.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ERIN B SAAD whose telephone number is (571)270-3634. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a-6p.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/ERIN B SAAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
