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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically, Applicant argues that Hu (US 20150209899) fails to disclose or teach the newly amended limitations to Claim 1. While Examiner agrees that Hu does not teach these amended limitations, Examiner notes that Hu is not being relied on to teach said limitations. Rather, Beck et al. (US 8237082) is being used in the rejection to teach the newly amended limitations. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are considered moot. The rejection of Claim 1 has been updated under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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 1-2 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al., hereafter Hu (US 20150209899), in view of Beck et al, hereafter Beck (US 8237082).
Regarding Claim 1, Hu teaches a method of laser ablation of one or more holes in an article, the method comprising: establishing an ablation characteristic, the ablation characteristic being at least one of a laser characteristic, a working zone characteristic, a cooling hole characteristic, and a synchronized machine motion characteristic (paragraphs 0043,0049,0053);
creating a laser path plan for a laser beam based on the established ablation characteristic for a first working zone and a second working zone of the article (paragraphs 0040,0053);
ablating the first working zone with a first ablation characteristic and afterwards ablating the second working zone with a second ablation characteristic which is different from the first ablation characteristic (paragraph 0043; thermal barrier coating as first working zone and metal layer as second work zone).
However, Hu fails to teach establishing the ablation characteristic after the article has been coated or recoated such that the one or more previously formed cooling holes are at least partially obstructed by coating material;
the laser path plan directed to removing coating material from within the one or more previously formed cooling holes;
wherein the first working zone corresponds to coating material within the previously formed cooling holes and the ablating removes the coating material from within the previously formed cooling holes to clear debris and obstructions and permit proper functioning of the article.
Beck teaches a method of laser ablation of holes in an article, where the method includes ablating the hole after the article has been recoated such that a previously formed cooling hole is obstructed by the coating material, with the laser path plan directed to removing the coating material from the previously formed holes, the first working zone corresponding to the coating material with the ablating removing the coating material from the holes, in order to remove debris from the holes after refurbishing the article (Fig. 11; Col. 6, lines 15-39). Hu and Beck are analogous prior art as they each relate to ablating holes in articles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the method taught by Hu could include ablating the holes in the article after being recoated for repair, in order to remove debris from the holes after refurbishing the article as taught by Beck (Beck Fig. 11; Col. 6, lines 15-39).
Regarding Claim 2, Hu as modified by Beck teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 above. Hu as modified by Beck further teaches wherein the laser characteristic is at least one of: laser pulse width or pulse duration, laser frequency, laser pulse peak power, wavelength, average laser power, laser beam quality, repetition rate, pulse energy, laser spot size, and focal distance (paragraph 0049 – pulse rate, frequency, power, and wavelength as laser characteristics).
Regarding Claim 8, Hu as modified by Beck teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 above. Hu as modified by Beck further teaches wherein the working zone characteristic is at least one of a first coating layer and a second coating layer of the article. (paragraph 0043).
Regarding Claim 9, Hu as modified by Beck teaches all the limitations of Claim 8 above. Hu as modified by Beck further teaches wherein the first coating layer is a top coat, and the second coating layer is a bond coat (paragraph0043).
Regarding Claim 10, Hu as modified by Beck teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 above. Hu as modified by Beck further teaches further comprising changing the laser path plan without requiring movement of the article relative to the laser (paragraphs 0050,0053 – laser is moved relative to the article).
Regarding Claim 11, Hu as modified by Beck teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 above. Hu as modified by Beck further teaches wherein the laser path plan is a function of at least one of the laser characteristic, the working zone characteristic, the cooling hole characteristic, and the synchronized machine motion characteristic for at least one of the first working zone and the second working zone (paragraphs 0049,0050,0053; path plan is a function of the working zone characteristic, cooling hole characteristic, and laser characteristic).
Regarding Claim 12, Hu as modified by Beck teaches all the limitations of Claim 11 above. Hu as modified by Beck further teaches wherein the laser path plan is comprised of a first ablation pattern and a second ablation pattern, the first ablation pattern being different from the second ablation pattern (paragraph 0053 – laser path plan includes at least two different spiral patterns).
Regarding Claim 13, Hu as modified by Beck teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 above. Hu as modified by Beck further teaches wherein after completion of the establishing, creating and ablating steps, moving at least one of the article and the laser, and repeating the establishing, creating and ablating steps (paragraph 0054).
Regarding Claim 14, Hu as modified by Beck teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 above. Hu as modified by Beck further teaches wherein the cooling hole characteristic includes at least one of a dimension of a hole, a thermal response of a material of the article, an overall three-dimensional shape of a desired cooling hole, a shape of a diffuser section, ceramic fill, metallic fill, and thermal characteristics of a cooling hole including finished, partially ablated, and fully coated (paragraphs 0050,0051,0053 – cooling hole characteristic includes a dimension of the hole and the three-dimensional shape of the desired hole).
Regarding Claim 15, Hu as modified by Beck teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 above. Hu as modified by Beck further teaches wherein the synchronized machine motion characteristic includes at least one of a linear and a rotational acceleration, a linear and a rotational speed, and a field of view (paragraphs 0050,0053).
Regarding Claim 16, Hu as modified by Beck teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 above. Hu as modified by Beck further teaches wherein the laser path plan minimizes or reduces adverse thermal effects to the one or more holes or substrate of the article (paragraphs 0053,0057-0060).
Regarding Claim 17, Hu as modified by Beck teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 above. Hu as modified by Beck further teaches wherein the laser characteristic minimizes or reduces laser beam attenuation caused by ablation products generated by the laser beam (paragraphs 0053,0057-0060).
Regarding Claim 18, Hu as modified by Beck teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 above. Hu as modified by Beck further teaches wherein the step of creating a laser path plan establishes a first ablation pattern and a second ablation pattern, wherein the first ablation pattern is different from the second ablation pattern (paragraph 0053 – laser path plan includes at least two different spiral pattern).
Regarding Claim 19, Hu as modified by Beck teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 above. Hu as modified by Beck further teaches further comprising moving at least one of the laser and the article when transitioning from the first working zone to the second working zone (paragraphs 0050,0053 – laser is moved).
Regarding Claim 20, Hu as modified by Beck teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 above. Hu as modified by Beck further teaches wherein the laser is configured to deliver laser beam pulses in an ON configuration and to deliver no laser beam pulses in an OFF configuration, and minimizing or reducing a time in which the laser is in an OFF configuration (paragraphs 0049-0050,0053-0054).
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu in view of Beck.
Regarding Claim 7, Hu as modified by Beck teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 above.
However, Hu as modified by Beck fails to explicitly teach wherein the average laser power is in the range of 25 W to 250 W.
Hu does teach that the average laser power is in the range of 10 W to 100 W (paragraph 0032), in order to ablate a hole with the laser.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (See MPEP 2144.05 I.). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the average laser power could be in the range of 10 W to 100 W, as Hu teaches that such a range is sufficient to ablate a hole with the laser, and claimed ranges overlapping ranges taught by the prior art are obvious (MPEP 2144. 05 I.).
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu in view of Beck, further in view of Bunker et al., hereafter Bunker (US 20100282721).
Regarding Claim 3, Hu as modified by Beck teaches all the limitations of Claim 2 above.
However, Hu as modified by Beck fails to teach wherein the laser pulse width is in a picosecond range, or within a 1 picosecond to 1,000 picosecond range.
Bunker teaches a method of laser ablation where the laser pulse width is in a 50 microsecond to 1 femtosecond range (paragraph 0025), in order to achieve a wide range of laser intensity, while mitigating negative effects of laser machining and reaching a high material removal rate (paragraph 0025). Hu as modified by Beck and Bunker are analogous prior art as they each relate to methods of laser ablation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the laser pulse width of Hu could be in a 50 microsecond to 1 femtosecond range as taught by Bunker, in order to achieve a wide range of laser intensity, while mitigating negative effects of laser machining and reaching a high material removal rate (Bunker paragraph 0025).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (See MPEP 2144.05 I.). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the laser pulse width could be in a picosecond range, or within a 1 picosecond to 1,000 picosecond range, as Bunker teaches a 50 microsecond to 1 femtosecond range will achieve a wide range of laser intensity, while mitigating negative effects of laser machining and reaching a high material removal rate (paragraph 0025), and claimed ranges overlapping ranges taught by the prior art are obvious (MPEP 2144. 05 I.).
Regarding Claim 4, Hu as modified by Beck teaches all the limitations of Claim 2 above.
However, Hu as modified by Beck fails to teach wherein the laser pulse width is in a range of 1 picosecond to 15 picoseconds.
Bunker teaches a method of laser ablation where the laser pulse width is in a 50 microsecond to 1 femtosecond range (paragraph 0025), in order to achieve a wide range of laser intensity, while mitigating negative effects of laser machining and reaching a high material removal rate (paragraph 0025). Hu as modified by Beck and Bunker are analogous prior art as they each relate to methods of laser ablation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the laser pulse width of Hu could be in a 50 microsecond to 1 femtosecond range as taught by Bunker, in order to achieve a wide range of laser intensity, while mitigating negative effects of laser machining and reaching a high material removal rate (Bunker paragraph 0025).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (See MPEP 2144.05 I.). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the laser pulse width could be in within a 1 picosecond to 15 picosecond range, as Bunker teaches a 50 microsecond to 1 femtosecond range will achieve a wide range of laser intensity, while mitigating negative effects of laser machining and reaching a high material removal rate (paragraph 0025), and claimed ranges overlapping ranges taught by the prior art are obvious (MPEP 2144. 05 I.).
Regarding Claim 5, Hu as modified by Beck teaches all the limitations of Claim 2 above.
However, Hu as modified by Beck fails to teach wherein a first laser pulse width of a first laser characteristic is in the picosecond range, and a second laser pulse width of a second laser characteristic is in a nanosecond range or microsecond range.
Hu does teach a first laser pulse and second laser pulse with different characteristics (paragraph 0043).
Bunker teaches a method of laser ablation where the laser pulse width is in a 50 microsecond to 1 femtosecond range (paragraph 0025), in order to achieve a wide range of laser intensity, while mitigating negative effects of laser machining and reaching a high material removal rate (paragraph 0025). Hu as modified by Beck and Bunker are analogous prior art as they each relate to methods of laser ablation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the laser pulse width of Hu could be in a 50 microsecond to 1 femtosecond range as taught by Bunker, in order to achieve a wide range of laser intensity, while mitigating negative effects of laser machining and reaching a high material removal rate (Bunker paragraph 0025).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (See MPEP 2144.05 I.). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the first laser pulse width of the first laser characteristic could be in the picosecond range, and the second laser pulse width of the second laser characteristic could be in a nanosecond range or microsecond range as Bunker teaches a 50 microsecond to 1 femtosecond range will achieve a wide range of laser intensity, while mitigating negative effects of laser machining and reaching a high material removal rate (paragraph 0025), and claimed ranges overlapping ranges taught by the prior art are obvious (MPEP 2144. 05 I.).
Regarding Claim 6, Hu as modified by Beck teaches all the limitations of Claim 2 above.
However, Hu as modified by Beck fails to teach wherein operating parameters of the laser are one or more of: laser spot size diameter between about 0.05 mm and about 0.5 mm, repetition rate between 10 kHz and 10 MHz, laser beam quality (M2) is between 1 and 3.
Bunker teaches a method of laser ablation where the repetition rate is greater than 1000 Hz (paragraph 0025), in order to achieve a wide range of laser intensity, while mitigating negative effects of laser machining and reaching a high material removal rate (paragraph 0025). Hu as modified by Beck and Bunker are analogous prior art as they each relate to methods of laser ablation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the repetition rate of Hu could be greater than 1000 Hz as taught by Bunker, in order to achieve a wide range of laser intensity, while mitigating negative effects of laser machining and reaching a high material removal rate (Bunker paragraph 0025).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (See MPEP 2144.05 I.). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the repetition rate could be in a range of 10 kHz to 10 MHz, as Bunker teaches a repetition rate greater than 1000 Hz will achieve a wide range of laser intensity, while mitigating negative effects of laser machining and reaching a high material removal rate (paragraph 0025), and claimed ranges overlapping ranges taught by the prior art are obvious (MPEP 2144. 05 I.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Deshi (US 20060169677), Das (US 20040134897), Kinoshita (US 6346687), Grafton-Reed (US 20190134752), Goya (US 20210008668) and Neil (US 6809291) each teaches a method of ablating holes in an article.
Goya (US 10792759) teaches a method of ablating holes in an article including creating a laser path plan based on an ablation characteristic.
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 JACKSON GILLENWATERS whose telephone number is (469)295-9151. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-6:00PM ET, M-F.
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, NATHANIEL WIEHE can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JACKSON N GILLENWATERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights