,b ut I will gi iotDETAILED 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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-18 in the reply filed on April 20, 2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi (US 10,934,853 B2) in view of Reed (US 9,598,979 B2):
PNG
media_image1.png
767
506
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1: Shi teaches a manufacturing method (“a method [for] forming a plurality of cooling holes in a substrate” Col 2 Line 35-36) comprising: forming a substrate aperture through a substrate (Figure 4 “Form Plurality of cooling holes in substrate”) of a preform component (“article” Abstract) for a turbine engine (“turbine engine” Col 1 Line 21) using a first machining process (“Cooling holes may be formed using an suitable technique, including, for example, electrochemical etching, machining (drilling), ablation or the like” Col 9 Lines 30-33); applying a coating system onto the substrate to provide a coated substrate (“coating…. deposited [onto substrate]” Col 10 Line 1 Figure 4) ; and forming a coating aperture through the coating system (“forming a plurality of holes or apertures in the coating at respective locations corresponding to the respective ones of the cooling holes” Col 10 Lines 18-23) using a second machining process (“laser ablation, drilling” Col 10 Line 22-23) that is different than the first machining process, and at least the substrate aperture and the coating aperture collectively forming a cooling aperture through the coated substrate (the second machining process comprises “forming a plurality of holes or apertures in the coating at respective locations corresponding to the respective ones of the cooling holes” Col 10 Lines 18-23).
Shi does not teach that the second machining process comprising percussion laser drilling (“laser ablation, drilling” Col 10 Line 22-23),
However, Reed does teach that the second process comprises percussion laser drilling (percussion “laser machining [or drilling] technique” Col 19 Line 6
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to replace second machining process of Shi with the percussion laser drilling method as taught by Reed in order to provide a system “for original part manufacture… [that can] be used to restore or provide cooling holes with metering or diffusion features” (Col 19 Lines 5-10).
Regarding Claim 2: Shi does not teach that the percussion laser drilling has a pulse frequency between five and thirty hertz.
However, Reed does teach a method of forming cooling holes (“cooling hole” Abstract) wherein the percussion laser drilling has a pulse frequency between five and thirty hertz (“5-100 Hz” Col 19 Line 24)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Shi such that the frequency of the percussion laser drilling is between 5 and 30 Hz as taught by Reed in order to provide a system “for original part manufacture… [that can] be used to restore or provide cooling holes with metering or diffusion features” (Col 19 Lines 5-10).
Regarding Claim 3: Shi as modified by Reed further teaches that the percussion laser drilling uses a single pulse (“long pulse” Col 19 Line 25) or a series of short pulses (“shorter pulse[s]” Col 19 Line 28) with a high pulse frequency (“higher pulse frequency” Col 19 Line 26) ; each of the series of short pulses is less than 100 microseconds ( for shorter pulses… “the operational pulse duration resides in the nano to femto second range” Col 19 Lines 15-20); and the high pulse frequency is greater than 100 hertz (“1000Hz or more” Col 19 Line 27).
Regarding Claim 4: Shi as modified by Reed further teaches that the percussion laser drilling uses a single long pulse (“long pulse” Col 19 Line 25) with a series of short pulses (“shorter pulse[s]” Col 19 Line 28) superimposed on top of the single long pulse; the single long pulse is greater than 0.500 microseconds (longer pulse duration of 0.5- 2.5 milliseconds” Col 19 Line 25); and each of the series of short pulses is less than 100 microseconds (for shorter pulses “the operational pulse duration resides in the nano to femto second range” Col 19 Lines 15-20).
Regarding Claim 15: Shi as modified by Reed teaches that the substrate comprises metal (“substrate may include… a metal” Col 5 Line 26) and the coating system comprises a ceramic (“Thermal Barrier coating… with ceramic layers” Col 5 Lines 51-61) coating over the metal
Regarding Claim 16: Shi as modified by Reed further teaches that the coating system further comprises a bond coating (Shi- “Bond Layer” Col 9 Line 65) between the metal and the ceramic coating (Reed-Bonding Coating Layers “can be applied between [coating] and the metal substrate” Col 11).
Regarding Claim 17: Shi does not teach that the preform component comprises a preform of a flow path wall for the turbine engine.
However, Reed does disclose that the preform component comprises a preform of a flow path (Reed- “flow path” Col 4 Line 8) wall for the turbine engine.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Shi by applying the method of Shi to a flow path wall, as taught by Reed because Reed teaches that a wall of a flow path has similar materials of substrate and coating and a similar need for cooling holes.
Regarding Claim 18: Shi does not teach that the preform is of a combustor liner
However, Reed does teach the preform component comprises a preform of a combustor liner (“combustor liner” Col 18 Line 55) for the turbine engine.
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Shi by applying the method of Shi to a combustor liner as taught by Reed because Reed teaches that a combustor liner has similar materials of substrate and coating and a similar need for cooling holes.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi (US 10,934,853 B2) and Reed (US 9,598,979 B2) in further view of Bunker (US 2013/0043009 A1):
PNG
media_image2.png
447
546
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5: Shi as modified by Reed does not teach that the first machining process comprises electrical discharge machining
However, Bunker does teach that the first machining process comprises electrical discharge machining (“forming the groove(s) includes abrasive liquid jet” [0039] or “electric discharge machining (EDM)” [0039]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Shi as modified by Reed such that the first process is an EDM machining process as disclosed by Bunker as it has been held that substituting equivalent known processes for the same purpose requires only routine skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.06 II In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958)
Regarding Claim 6: Shi as modified by Reed does not teach that the first machining process comprises abrasive waterjet machining
Bunker teaches that the first machining process comprises abrasive water jet machining (“forming the groove(s) includes abrasive liquid jet” [0039] or “electric discharge machining (EDM)” [0039]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Shi as modified by Reed such that the first process is an abrasive Water Jet machining process as disclosed by Bunker as it has been held that substituting equivalent known processes for the same purpose requires only routine skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.06 II In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958)
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi (US 10,934,853 B2) and Reed (US 9,598,979 B2) in further view of Farmer (US 2003/0167621 A1):
PNG
media_image3.png
533
787
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7: Shi as modified by Reed does not teach that the substrate aperture is empty at least at a start of the applying of the coating system onto the substrate.
However, Farmer does teach a method for forming a cooling hole (“cooling hole” Abstract) wherein the substrate aperture (“cooling hole” [0020] Figure 1 Element 12) is empty (Shown in Figure 1) at least at a start of the applying of the coating system (Coating is deposited by “spray nozzle” [0020] Figure 1 Element 26) onto the substrate (Shown in Figure 1where the hole is empty before coating is applied by Element 26, as evidenced by the overrun of coating into the hole).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Shi as modified by Reed by applying the coating at an angle to the holes, thus allowing the coating to be applied without fully plugging the holes as taught by Farmer in order to minimize material waste and to ensure that the coating “does not entirely block the hole” [0022]
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi (US 10,934,853 B2) and Reed (US 9,598,979 B2) in further view of Starkweather (US 2017/0261208 A1):
PNG
media_image4.png
329
831
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8: Shi as modified by Reed does not teach that the cooling aperture extends longitudinally along a centerline through the coated substrate from an inlet into the cooling aperture to an outlet from the cooling aperture; and the centerline has a straight-line geometry from the inlet to the outlet. Shi Fig 1B suggests this, but does not provide enough detail.
However, Starkweather does teach the cooling aperture (“cooling hole” [0093] Figure 26 Element 210) extends longitudinally along a centerline through the coated substrate (Figure 26 Element 220) from an inlet (“inlet” [0093] Figure 26 Element 213) into the cooling aperture to an outlet (“outlet” [0093] Figure 26 Element 211) from the cooling aperture; and the centerline has a straight-line geometry from the inlet to the outlet (Shown in Figure 26).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Shi as modified by Reed such that the centerline has straight-line geometry as shown by Starkweather in order to “maintain a uniform exit temperature profile so that hotspots do not damage the turbine… [and minimize] emission of pollutants” [0005]
Regarding Claim 9: Shi as modified by Reed and Starkweather further teaches the cooling aperture ( Starkweather -“cooling hole” [0093] Figure 26 Element 210) extends longitudinally along a centerline through the coated substrate (Starkweather Figure 26 Element 220) from an inlet (Starkweather “inlet” [0093] Figure 26 Element 213) into the cooling aperture to an outlet (Starkweather “outlet” [0093] Figure 26 Element 211) from the cooling aperture; and the centerline has a straight-line geometry from the inlet to the outlet (Starkweather Shown in Figure 26) and that the inlet and outlet have a common shape (Starkweather “cylindrical” [0010] shape)
Regarding Claim 10: Shi as modified by Reed and Starkweather further teaches the cooling aperture ( Starkweather -“cooling hole” [0093] Figure 26 Element 210) extends longitudinally along a centerline through the coated substrate (Starkweather Figure 26 Element 220) from an inlet (Starkweather “inlet” [0093] Figure 26 Element 213) into the cooling aperture to an outlet (Starkweather “outlet” [0093] Figure 26 Element 211) from the cooling aperture; and the centerline has a straight-line geometry from the inlet to the outlet (Starkweather Shown in Figure 26) and that the inlet and outlet have a common dimension (Starkweather- “diameter…is uniform between the inlet and the outlet” [0010] See Figure 26)
Regarding Claim 11: Shi as modified by Reed and Starkweather further teaches that the cooling aperture (Starkweather -“cooling hole” [0093] Figure 26 Element 210)has a longitudinal length (Starkweather Figure 26 Element 220)across the coated substrate measured from an inlet (Starkweather “inlet” [0093] Figure 26 Element 213)into the cooling aperture to an outlet (Starkweather “outlet” [0093] Figure 26 Element 211) from the cooling aperture; and a cross-sectional geometry of the cooling aperture is uniform along the longitudinal length ( [0010] Shown in Figure 26)
Regarding Claim 12: Shi as modified by Reed and Starkweather further teaches the cooling aperture ( Starkweather -“cooling hole” [0093] Figure 26 Element 210) extends longitudinally along a centerline through the coated substrate (Starkweather Figure 26 Element 220) from an inlet (Starkweather “inlet” [0093] Figure 26 Element 213) into the cooling aperture to an outlet (Starkweather “outlet” [0093] Figure 26 Element 211) from the cooling aperture; and the centerline has a straight-line geometry from the inlet to the outlet (Starkweather Shown in Figure 26); the outlet is formed in an exterior surface of the coating system (Starkweather See Figure 26) that the centerline is angularly offset from the exterior surface by an angle between thirty and fifty degrees (Starkweather the angle may be “greater than 5 degrees” (Claim 3) and “less than 50 degrees” (Claim 2)).
Regarding Claim 13: Shi as modified by Reed and Starkweather further teaches the cooling aperture ( Starkweather -“cooling hole” [0093] Figure 26 Element 210) extends longitudinally along a centerline through the coated substrate (Starkweather Figure 26 Element 220) from an inlet (Starkweather “inlet” [0093] Figure 26 Element 213) into the cooling aperture to an outlet (Starkweather “outlet” [0093] Figure 26 Element 211) from the cooling aperture; and the centerline has a straight-line geometry from the inlet to the outlet (Starkweather Shown in Figure 26) the outlet is formed in an exterior surface of the coating system (Starkweather See Figure 26) and the centerline is angularly offset from the exterior surface by an angle between twenty and forty degrees (Starkweather- the angle may be “greater than 5 degrees” (Claim 3) and “less than 50 degrees” (Claim 2)).
Regarding Claim 14: Shi as modified by Reed and Starkweather further teaches the cooling aperture ( Starkweather -“cooling hole” [0093] Figure 26 Element 210) extends longitudinally along a centerline through the coated substrate (Starkweather Figure 26 Element 220) from an inlet (Starkweather “inlet” [0093] Figure 26 Element 213) into the cooling aperture to an outlet (Starkweather “outlet” [0093] Figure 26 Element 211) from the cooling aperture; and the centerline has a straight-line geometry from the inlet to the outlet (Starkweather Shown in Figure 26); the outlet is formed in an exterior surface of the coating system (Starkweather See Figure 26) ; and the centerline is angularly offset from the exterior surface by an angle between forty and sixty degrees (Starkweather- the angle may be “greater than 5 degrees” (Claim 3) and “less than 50 degrees” (Claim 2)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOLAN OLIVA whose telephone number is (571-)272-2518. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00-3:00.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-8241. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-5569.
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.
/SOLAN OLIVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/TOPAZ L. ELLIOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights