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 .
Status of Claims
Responsive to the amendment filed 10 December 2025, claims 1,6, and 10 are amended and claims 3, 4, and 16 are cancelled. Claims 1, 2, 5-15, and 17 are currently under examination.
Status of Previous Rejections
Responsive to the amendment filed 10 December 2025, new grounds of rejection are presented responsive to the amendment.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 19 November 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. No legible copy has been provided for the NPL McMilon article. The text cannot be read and the document has not been submitted in compliance with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 recites that the first material and the second material include “at least some braze material.” This limitation is not found in the specification at any place, and is new matter.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 5 are 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 1 recites the limitation "based upon the additive manufacturing data" in step a). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Prior to this, no “additive manufacturing data” is invoked. Step c) recites the step of developing additive manufacturing data. It is not clear how the data is used prior to the “developing” of the data in this way. Prior to the amendment, the claim recited that additive manufacturing data was developed before it was used, and now additive manufacturing data is used before it is developed. The point of infringement of claim 1 cannot be determined, and the claim is indefinite.
Each of claims 2 and 5 depends on claim 1 and is also indefinite.
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, 2, 6-9, and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 20230294221 A1 (hereinafter “Heinrich”), in view of US 20190193156 A1 (hereinafter “Yang”).
Regarding claim 1, Heinrich teaches a method of repairing a workpiece (See title). Heinrich teaches that the method includes a series of steps for optimizing the repair strategy to the workpiece’s usage requirements (see [0006]-[0015]). Heinrich teaches that the workpiece is a metal component (See [0034]). Heinrich teaches that the method includes phases P1 thru P3 (see Fig 1 and [0021]-[0038]). Heinrich teaches that a defect is milled out, and then filled (See [0028]-[0030]). The fill reads on a “new” component. Additionally Heinrich teaches that a new component is formed visually in Fig. 1, which demonstrates a new component is applied onto the existing part.
Heinrich teaches that the first phase includes a scanner to acquire a present shape of the workpiece, which may use a structured light ([0024]). This reads on scanning to provide scanned data. Heinrich teaches that the shape is compared to a intended shape (See [0025]). Heinrich teaches that the repair unit simulates how a part will be performing, and determines a desired “supplemented” shape to form (see [0025]-[0033]) The reads on step b) as claimed.
Heinrich teaches that the workpiece is enlarged by an additive manufacturing process (see [0034]-[0035]). Heinrich teaches that this may include deposition of a powder and melting (See [0034]). This reads on step c) as claimed.
Heinrich teaches that a physical behavior of the workpiece is evaluated taking into consideration the properties of the printing material (see [0025]-[0033]). This reads on step d) as claimed. Heinrich teaches that this is used to generate data for a machining step in P3 (see [0025]-[0033]), reading on step e) as claimed. Heinrich teaches machining the work ([0035]-[0038]). This reads on step f) as claimed. Heinrich teaches that the workpiece may be scanned again, and steps may be repeated as necessary (See [0036]-[0037]).
Heinrich does not teach wherein a scanning is done using computed tomography. Heinrich envisions that the scanner comprises a laser, a camera, or structured light ([0024]).
Yang teaches a method of simultaneous 3D printing with NDT by Computed tomography (See title). Yang teaches that the method includes using computed tomography for dimensional metrological assessment in order to compare the work to the CAD (see [0008]-[0010]). Yang teaches that the invention is applicable to fields such as aerospace parts (See SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION). Yang teaches that the method includes using a CT scanner with a linear diode array (LDA) such that the scan is scalable to the part (See SUMMARY).
It would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan to have altered the method of Heinrich, by using the CT scanner of Yang for the step of profiling, because Yang teaches that the method using computed tomography is suited for dimensional metrological assessment in order to compare the work to the CAD (see [0008]-[0010]), and is scalable to the part (See SUMMARY).
Regarding claim 2, Heinrich teaches that the intended shape of the workpiece is provided via a CAD model (See [0025]).
Regarding claim 6, Heinrich teaches a method of repairing a workpiece (See title). Heinrich teaches that the method includes a series of steps for optimizing the repair strategy to the workpiece’s usage requirements (see [0006]-[0015]). Heinrich teaches that the workpiece is a metal component (See [0034]). Heinrich teaches that the method includes phases P1 thru P3 (see Fig 1 and [0021]-[0038]).
Heinrich teaches that the first phase includes a scanner to acquire a present shape of the workpiece, which may use a structured light ([0024]). This reads on scanning to provide scanned data.
Heinrich teaches that the shape is compared to a intended shape (See [0025]). Heinrich teaches that the repair unit simulates how a part will be performing, and determines a desired “supplemented” shape to form (see [0025]-[0033]) The reads on step b) as claimed.
Heinrich teaches that the workpiece is enlarged by an additive manufacturing process (see [0034]-[0035]). Heinrich teaches that this may include a melting of the powder ([0034]). This reads on step (c) as claimed.
Heinrich teaches that a physical behavior of the workpiece is evaluated taking into consideration the properties of the printing material (see [0025]-[0033]). This reads on step (d) as claimed. Heinrich teaches that this is used to generate data for a machining step in P3 (see [0025]-[0033]), reading on step (e) as claimed. Heinrich teaches machining the work ([0035]-[0038]). This reads on step (f) as claimed. Heinrich teaches that the workpiece may be scanned again, and steps may be repeated as necessary (See [0036]-[0037]).
Heinrich does not teach wherein a scanning is done using computed tomography. Heinrich envisions that the scanner comprises a laser, a camera, or structured light ([0024]).
Yang teaches a method of simultaneous 3D printing with NDT by Computed tomography (See title). Yang teaches that the method includes using computed tomography for dimensional metrological assessment in order to compare the work to the CAD (see [0008]-[0010]). Yang teaches that the invention is applicable to fields such as aerospace parts (See SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION). Yang teaches that the method includes using a CT scanner with a linear diode array (LDA) such that the scan is scalable to the part (See SUMMARY).
It would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan to have altered the method of Heinrich, by using the CT scanner of Yang for the step of profiling, because Yang teaches that the method using computed tomography is suited for dimensional metrological assessment in order to compare the work to the CAD (see [0008]-[0010]), and is scalable to the part (See SUMMARY).
Regarding claim 7, Heinrich teaches that the intended shape of the workpiece is provided via a CAD model (See [0025]).
Regarding claim 8, Heinrich teaches that a defect is milled out, and then filled (See [0028]-[0030]).
Regarding claim 9, Heinrich teaches that a defect is milled out, and then filled (See [0028]-[0030]). This reads on forming a cladding over a worn portion of the component.
Regarding claim 11, Heinrich teaches that a defect is milled out, and then filled (See [0028]-[0030]).
Regarding claim 12, Heinrich teaches that a defect is milled out, and then filled (See [0028]-[0030]). This reads on forming a cladding over a worn portion of the component.
Regarding claim 13, Heinrich teaches that a coating material is different from the 3D printing material (See [0016]).
Regarding claim 14-15, Heinrich teaches that a defect is milled out, and then filled (See [0028]-[0030]). This reads on removing a residual cladding of the component. Additionally Heinrich teaches that the steps of additive and subtractive manufacturing may be repeated as necessary (See [0036]-[0037]), also reading on what is claimed.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200164465 A1 (hereinafter “Burbaum”), in view of US 20230294221 A1 (hereinafter “Heinrich”) and US 20190193156 A1 (hereinafter “Yang”).
Regarding claim 1, Burbaum teaches a method of overhauling (“filling a defect”) in a component (See title, Fig 1). Burbaum teaches that this may be a turbine component (see [0010] or [0013]). Burbaum teaches that the method includes depositing a braze material using laser welding (see [0010] and [0019]). This meets the limitation of depositing material on the component with an “additive manufacturing device.” Burbaum teaches that the deposition welding uses two different materials (See [0010]).
Burbaum does not teach wherein the method includes steps of determining the characteristics of the object, or providing machining data. Burbaum does not specify the particulars of the process, and just describes a deposition welding process without much embellishment ([0010] and [0018]-[0019]).
Heinrich teaches a method of overhauling (“repairing”) a workpiece (See title). Heinrich teaches that the workpiece is a metal component (See [0034]). Heinrich teaches that the method includes phases P1 thru P3 (see Fig 1 and [0021]-[0038]).
Heinrich teaches that the first phase includes a scanner to acquire a present shape of the workpiece ([0024]), which reads on scanning to provide scanned data. Heinrich teaches that the scanner may use a structured light ([0024]).
Heinrich teaches that the shape is compared to a intended shape (See [0025]). Heinrich teaches that the repair unit simulates how a part will be performing, and determines a desired “supplemented” shape to form (see [0025]-[0033]), reading on step b).
Heinrich teaches that the workpiece is enlarged by an additive manufacturing process (see [0034]-[0035]). This reads on step c) as claimed.
Heinrich teaches that a physical behavior of the workpiece is evaluated taking into consideration the properties of the printing material (see [0025]-[0033]). This reads on step d) as claimed. Heinrich teaches that this is used to generate data for a machining step in P3 (see [0025]-[0033]), reading on step e) as claimed. Heinrich teaches machining the work ([0035]-[0038]). This reads on step f) as claimed. Heinrich teaches that the workpiece may be scanned again, and steps may be repeated as necessary (See [0036]-[0037]). Heinrich teaches that the process optimizes the repair strategy based on the requirements placed on the workpiece ([0015]).
Burbaum in view of Heinrich does not teach wherein a scanning is done using computed tomography. Heinrich envisions that the scanner comprises a laser, a camera, or structured light ([0024]).
Yang teaches a method of simultaneous 3D printing with NDT by Computed tomography (See title). Yang teaches that the method includes using computed tomography for dimensional metrological assessment in order to compare the work to the CAD (see [0008]-[0010]). Yang teaches that the invention is applicable to fields such as aerospace parts (See SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION). Yang teaches that the method includes using a CT scanner with a linear diode array (LDA) such that the scan is scalable to the part (See SUMMARY).
It would have been an obvious matter to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of invention to have altered the deposition welding process of Burbaum by using the method of Heinrich, because Heinrich teaches that this method optimizes the repair strategy based on the requirements placed on the workpiece ([0015]), and further to have used the CT scanner of Yang for the step of profiling, because Yang teaches that the method using computed tomography is suited for dimensional metrological assessment in order to compare the work to the CAD (see [0008]-[0010]), and is scalable to the part (See SUMMARY).
Regarding claim 2, Heinrich teaches that the intended shape of the workpiece is provided via a CAD model (See [0025]).
Regarding claim 5, Burbaum teaches a turbine component (see [0010] or [0013]).
Regarding claim 6, Burbaum teaches a method of overhauling (“filling a defect”) in a component (See title, Fig 1). Burbaum teaches that this may be a turbine component (see [0010] or [0013]). Burbaum teaches that the method includes depositing a braze material using laser welding (see [0010] and [0019]). This meets the limitation of depositing material on the component with an “additive manufacturing device.” Burbaum teaches that the deposition welding uses two different materials (See [0010]).
Burbaum does not teach wherein the method includes steps of determining the characteristics of the object, or providing machining data. Burbaum does not specify the particulars of the process, and just describes a deposition welding process without much embellishment ([0010] and [0018]-[0019]).
Heinrich teaches a method of repairing a workpiece (See title). Heinrich teaches that the workpiece is a metal component (See [0034]). Heinrich teaches that the method includes phases P1 thru P3 (see Fig 1 and [0021]-[0038]).
Heinrich teaches that the first phase includes a scanner to acquire a present shape of the workpiece ([0024]), which reads on step a) scanning to provide scanned data. Heinrich teaches that the scanner may use a structured light ([0024]).
Heinrich teaches that the shape is compared to a intended shape (See [0025]). Heinrich teaches that the repair unit simulates how a part will be performing, and determines a desired “supplemented” shape to form (see [0025]-[0033]) reading on step b).
Heinrich teaches that the workpiece is enlarged by an additive manufacturing process that may use a powder that is melted (see [0034]-[0035]). This reads on step (c) as claimed.
Heinrich teaches that a physical behavior of the workpiece is evaluated taking into consideration the properties of the printing material (see [0025]-[0033]). This reads on step (d) as claimed. Heinrich teaches that this is used to generate data for a machining step in P3 (see [0025]-[0033]), reading on step e) as claimed. Heinrich teaches machining the work ([0035]-[0038]). This reads on step f) as claimed. Heinrich teaches that the workpiece may be scanned again, and steps may be repeated as necessary (See [0036]-[0037]). Heinrich teaches that the process optimizes the repair strategy based on the requirements placed on the workpiece ([0015]).
Burbaum in view of Heinrich does not teach wherein a scanning is done using computed tomography. Heinrich envisions that the scanner comprises a laser, a camera, or structured light ([0024]).
Yang teaches a method of simultaneous 3D printing with NDT by Computed tomography (See title). Yang teaches that the method includes using computed tomography for dimensional metrological assessment in order to compare the work to the CAD (see [0008]-[0010]). Yang teaches that the invention is applicable to fields such as aerospace parts (See SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION). Yang teaches that the method includes using a CT scanner with a linear diode array (LDA) such that the scan is scalable to the part (See SUMMARY).
It would have been an obvious matter to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of invention to have altered the deposition welding process of Burbaum by using the method of Heinrich, because Heinrich teaches that this method optimizes the repair strategy based on the requirements placed on the workpiece ([0015]), and further to have used the CT scanner of Yang for the step of profiling, because Yang teaches that the method using computed tomography is suited for dimensional metrological assessment in order to compare the work to the CAD (see [0008]-[0010]), and is scalable to the part (See SUMMARY).
Regarding claim 7, Heinrich teaches that the intended shape of the workpiece is provided via a CAD model (See [0025]).
Regarding claim 8, Burbaum teaches filling a void in the component (see Fig 1). Heinrich teaches that a defect is milled out, and then filled (See [0028]-[0030]).
Regarding claim 9-10, Burbaum teaches to provide alternating layers of different materials on the work to be repaired (See Fig 1, [0010] and [0016]-[0019]). This reads on forming a cladding over a worn portion of the component.
Burbaum teaches that the metals used are a braze material and either one of a parent metal or a material similar to the parent metal (see [0016]-[0019]). Burbaum teaches that the braze metals are known to be similar to the parent metals (see BACKGROUND and [0003]). The selection of a brase metal as the metal that is similar to the parent metal in the invention of Burbaum would have been an obvious matter because Burbaum identifies the braze metals as being similar (see [0003]), and thus is a suitable material.
Regarding claim 11, Burbaum teaches filling a void in the component (see Fig 1). Heinrich teaches that a defect is milled out, and then filled (See [0028]-[0030]).
Regarding claim 12-13, Burbaum teaches to provide alternating layers of different materials on the work to be repaired (See Fig 1, [0010] and [0016]-[0019]). This reads on forming a cladding over a worn portion of the component.
Regarding claim 14-15, Heinrich teaches that a defect is milled out, and then filled (See [0028]-[0030]). This reads on removing a residual cladding of the component. Additionally Heinrich teaches that the steps of additive and subtractive manufacturing may be repeated as necessary (See [0036]-[0037]), also reading on what is claimed.
Regarding claim 17, Burbaum teaches a turbine component (see [0010] or [0013]).
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.
Claim 1, 2, 5-15 and 17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/116559 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 differs from copending claim 6 in that the material in the copending claim is not melted. However, copending claims 10-11 disclose melting the material, and thus claim 1 is obvious. Other instant claims are similarly detailed by the copending claims. For example instant claim 2 corresponds to copending claim 2, instant claim 3 corresponds to copending claim 3, instant claim 4 corresponds to copending claim 4, and so on.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1, 2, 5-15 and 17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 17/942045 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 differs from copending claim 1 in that the method of the copending claim recites that the copending claim 1 does not include the same comparing step. However copending claim 3 does include the comparing step, and it is considered obvious to have practiced the method of copending claim 3. Other instant claims are similarly detailed by the copending claims. For example instant claim 2 corresponds to copending claim 4, instant claim 3 corresponds to copending claim 8, instant claim 4 corresponds to copending claim 9, and so on.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1, 2, 5-15 and 17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/117184 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 differs from copending claim 1 in that the method of the copending claim includes does not include a step of scanning using computed tomography. However, copending claims 2-3 require the use of scanning using computed tomography. Thus the process using copending claim 3 would have been obvious to the skilled artisan. Other instant claims are similarly detailed by the copending claims. For example instant claim 2 corresponds to copending claim 5, instant claim 3 corresponds to copending claim 6, instant claim 4 corresponds to copending claim 7, and so on.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1 applicant argues that Heinrich “does not disclose forming a new components” (remarks, p. 7). This argument is not persuasive because applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with what is claimed. As described above, it is not clear how the “component” is different from the first object or the “new component.” In addition, as was cited, Heinrich teaches to create the fill of a defect area that has been milled out. The fill is absolutely a “new component” as it is a component that did not exist previously. Additionally Heinrich teaches that a new component is formed visually in Fig. 1, which demonstrates a new component is applied onto the existing part.
Regarding claim 6, applicant argues that Heinrich does not teach the step d) of claim 6. Applicant argues that there is no disclosure of “providing additive manufacturing data” or of depositing material on the component based on that data. Once again, this argument is not persuasive because applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with what is claimed. The comparison of the current state of workpiece with the determined shape and the intended shape is for the purpose of providing additive manufacturing data. The comparison by itself generates the data inherently. Additionally, the properties of the part are considered at least in [0025]-[0033]. [0026] recites that a deviation is measured and used for the process. These are unequivocally “additive manufacturing data,” by a broadest reasonable interpretation of the words. In other words, applicant’s argument seems to depend on some specified form of data being required by the step, which is not recited. The steps are all the same, prior to the step d) and after. Step d) is explicitly met.
Regarding amended claim 10, applicant argues that Heinrich does not teach wherein the two materials include braze material. The claim is rejected for including new matter. Specifically “at least some” is broader in scope than anything found in the specification. Applicant further argues that Burbaum teaches a parent material is alternated with a braze material. This argument is considered but it is not persuasive. Burbaum discloses that the materials used may be a braze material and a material that is similar to the parent ([0016]-[0019]). Burbaum previously had identified that braze metals are known to be similar to the parent ([0003]). Thus the selection of a braze metal as the material similar to the parent would have been an obvious choice based on the teachings of Burbaum.
When all of the evidence if considered as a whole, evidence against patentability outweighs evidence of patentability.
Conclusion
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 CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6510. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
CHRISTOPHER S. KESSLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1759