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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 1, 2025 has been entered.
The amendment filed August 4, 2025 has been entered as requested by the RCE submission of October 1, 2025. With the entry of the amendment, claims 5 and 9-11 are canceled, and claims 1-4, 6-8 and 12 are pending for examination.
Election/Restrictions
It is noted that non-elected claims 9-11 have been canceled by the amendment of January 24, 2025.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “spraying device” in claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
All features of claim 12 have now also be put in claim 1, and therefore claim 12 is not further limiting.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgess et al (US 2007/0124933) in view of Freeman (US 5273708), CN 101480756 (hereinafter ‘756), Gourbesville et al (US 2007/0281104), Oehring et al (US 2006/0138200) and EITHER CN 111187895 (hereinafter ‘895) OR CN 104480465 (hereinafter ‘465).
Claim 1: Burgess indicates the desire to manufacture a turbomachine (turbine engine part) disc, where it is known to be desirable to form rotor disc/disks with a plurality of rotor blades extending therefore, where such discs can be formed in a rotor “blisk” form with the blades formed integrally with the rotor disc, to reduce centrifugal stresses (note 0001-0002), where the manufacture includes providing a blank and machining the blisk from the blank with the forming of the blades (note 0004), where it is described to provide a blank disc in a circular part form with a bore/center of hub 14 (which can be considered a “rough” bore) forming a circular cross section central zone of the disc, installing the bore about an axis of rotation (shaft 16 can be considered such an installation) (note figure 1, 0014) , and rotating the bore about the axis for rotation, and machining the outer surface part of the disc to obtain blades on the outer surface of the disc (note figure 1, 0016, 0022, where the indexing would involve rotation from the pattern shown in figure 1) and obtain a turbomachine part (note 0025-0026).
(A) Burgess does not specifically provide that the disc is formed as a dual material disc, with a second material applied to a first material of the bore to form a uniform layer on the circumferential external surface of the bore to give a dual layer circular part that is to be machined, where the second material is sprayed under solidification conditions generating a columnar or single crystal microstructure onto the circumferential external surface of the rough bore, and where the second material has a creep resistance greater than the first material.
However, Freeman teaches that when providing blisks/rotor with a center hub and outer blades, it is desirable to provide a dual property article with different microstructures/materials at different location, such as providing a blisk with a fine grained hub and a directionally solidified (DS, columnar grain) or single crystal (single grain) blade structure (note column 5,lines 50-65), where if the blisk/bladed rotor has a single structure, this has problems such as inferior stress rupture at the rim, and reduced creep properties (note column 2, lines 25-50), where it would be desirable to have the center disc have one set of properties and the outer blades with single crystal or columnar structure (note column 2,lines 30-68), where by providing the blades/airfoils with DS or single crystal, they have enhanced mechanical properties including creep resistance (note column 6,lines 50-65), and the center hub 11 has mechanical properties appropriate for the hub (note column 12, lines 25-40).
‘756 describes how a disk blank for forming a turbine disk with blades can be provided by a laser fusion/welding/cladding/spraying system where a first alloy powder A is applied using the laser to a mandrel and forms the needed core blank size, then a second alloy powder B is formed on the edge of the blank to be coated by the laser process to be build up to the desired blank size (note the abstract, translation, pages 2-3), where it is indicated to form a turbine disk cylindrical portion blank and have a thickness of 0.5-1.0 mm (note translation, page 3), and there is a sweep speed, indicating the relative movement between the disk and laser device for coating (note translation, page 3).
Gourbesville further describes how nickel based alloy material can be applied to a turbine blade or metallic piece using a laser source (note 0031), where columnar growth can occur giving a solidification of a monocrystalline or directionally solidified material (columnar structure), and where the process includes spraying (projecting) the nickel based alloy material (second material) under such conditions to the substrate surface, where there is relative movement between the substrate and nozzle (note 0031-0032, 0036-0040, 0043, 0056, 0061). Gourbesville further notes that when using a laser application process it can be desired to make the nickel alloy blade structure material either directionally solidified (columnar) structure or monocrystalline (single crystal) (note 0031-0032, and solidification conditions for such, note 0056), and uses powders for the laser application (note 0043)
‘895 describes manufacturing what can be a dual material disc (blisk) used for aero engine (note page 2, translation, where the three parts can be made with two different chemical composition materials, for example, since the wheel disc, boss and blade parts can be independently selected from various materials). The manufacturing includes providing what can be considered a rough bore (such as the wheel disc and boss combined, note figures 1, 2, note steps 1, 2, pages 2-3, translation), where the rough bore can be made of a first material (both wheel disc and boss can be made from titanium alloy or stainless steel, for example, page 2, translation). Thereafter, a second material powder can be applied to an external surface of the rough bore using a laser cladding method, where the powder can be a different chemical composition material such as a nickel based alloy (note figures 1, 2, and step 3, pages 2, 4-5, translation, where the blade forming layer can be different than the rough bore material), thus giving a dual material part, and where the material can be applied to give a columnar microstructure, for example (note page 5, translation). Thereafter, machining of the part to obtain a disc to meet design requirements is provided (note page 5, translation, with the cutting, for example). ‘895 therefore indicates how laser cladding can be used to provide columnar microstructure layer.
‘465 further describes forming a nickel based monocrystalline (single crystal) alloy component, such as turbine blades, by laser cladding, where nickel based monocrystalline powders can be used for the laser cladding (note pages 1, 2, translation). ‘465 therefore indicates how laser cladding can be used to provide a single crystal structure layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Burgess to specifically provide that the blisk is provided in the form of a dual material disk, with a center part of a first material that has desirable hub mechanical features and the outer part where the blades machined has a second material that has features such as good creep resistance, which would be suggested to have a creep resistance greater than the first material since it is the second material that is desired to have the properties of creep resistance, and columnar(DS) or single crystal features as suggested by Freeman and ‘756 to provide a desirable disc structure, since Burgess teaches providing a desirable blisk structure with machined blades formed from a disc blank, and Freeman indicates that for similar blisks it is desirable to have the blisk provided in the form of a dual property/material disk, with a center part of a first material that has desirable hub mechanical features and the outer part where the blades formed has a second material that has features such as good creep resistance and in the form of a columnar (DS) or single crystal microstructure, giving desirable different structural/mechanical features in desirable locations of the blisk, and ‘756 also notes disc blanks can be provided with a first center material and second outer material. Furthermore, as to providing the layer structure with the disk rotated about the axis of rotation and spraying a second material under solidification conditions generating a columnar or single crystal microstructure onto the circumferential external surface of the rough bore to form a uniform layer on the circumferential external surface of the rough bore giving a dual material circular part, it would further be suggested to provide such features by modifying Burgess in view of Freeman and ‘756 by applying the second material to the core of first material that is rotating about an axis of rotation by a laser cladding method as suggested further by ‘756, Gourbesville and EITHER ‘895 or ‘465, since Burgess indicates how treatment can be provided to a disc blank by rotating about an axis of rotation, and ‘756 indicates how dual material disc blanks can be provided by laser cladding a second material in a controlled thickness onto a core area (which would be where the bore is as indicated by Burgess for the center core of the blank, and have a circumferential external surface on which the coating second material applied) where it would be suggested that this clad thickness is unform since as shown by Burgess the same thickness, etc, used for each blade around the blank (note figure 1), and give a resulting circular part for machining, and further as to the laser application features, ‘756 indicates that there would be relative movement between the laser and disc for application, where Burgess shows rotation for relative movement, and Gourbesville further describes a desirable laser application that applies alloy and builds up a columnar coating/single crystal structure for blades for example, where the application includes spraying the material under solidification conditions generating a columnar structure onto an external surface that can have relative movement between the applicator nozzle and the substrate, so by rotating as described Burgess, second material can be applied to the external surface of the bore as described by Gourbesville, where the laser application will give the desired laser application and microstructure desired, and furthermore, ETIHER ‘895 OR ‘465 would indicate that laser cladding described for ‘756 would further conventionally be used to provide columnar or single crystal structures, respectively.
(B) Further as to heating the rough bore, and spraying the second material under solidification conditions, while the rough bore is heated, as discussed above it is suggested to spray the second material under solidification conditions on the rough bore. The heating would be suggested by at least ‘756 and Gourbesville. ‘756 indicates how when using a laser process to apply alloy powder, it is conventional to have the alloy powder melted with the laser at the substrate surface and fusing with rapid solidification (note page 2, translation). Because the molten alloy would be at the surface, and heated (in order to provide molten alloy), it would be understood that there would be at least some heating of the substrate (here the rough bore) from heat transfer of the molten alloy. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that when providing the process of Burgess in view of Freeman, ‘756, Gourbesville and EITHER ‘895 OR ‘465, heat would be predictably and acceptably transferred to the rough bore during the spraying of the second material due to the molten state of this material (so the spray while the rough bore is heated) with the expectation of predictably acceptable results, since ‘756 would indicate the conventional providing of molten alloy at the surface of the substrate during laser application. Alternatively, Gourbesville further describes laser application of alloy material to a substrate surface, as discussed above, and indicates specifically that it is conventional to preheat the substrate to a desired temperature before production of the first layer, where the preheating can be provided by the laser beam, to limit fissuring (0064), and also notes providing cooling the blade/substrate between application of layers to less than 600 degrees, which would therefore mean there can be a heated surface (greater than room temperature to less than 600 degrees) during start of a layer of coating, and also indicating that the surface can be heated to above this temperature during the laser applcation (note 0063, understood to be degrees C, note 0066).. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that when providing the process of Burgess in view of Freeman, ‘756, Gourbesville and EITHER ‘895 OR ‘465, preheating of the substrate (rough bore) such that the spraying of the second material under solidification conditions would be provided while the rough bore is heated (from the preheating) with the expectation of predictably acceptable results, since Gourbesville would indicate the conventional providing of preheating the substrate to a desired temperature before laser application of alloy, and providing the spray of second material while heated would have been suggested to get the benefit of the preheating, and from the range of surface temperatures described when coating to be “cooled” to below 600 degrees after a layer applied.
(C) As to specifically machining vanes in the part so that the vanes are made of the second material (claims 1, 12), as discussed above, it is suggested that blades can be machined so that the blades are made of the second material.
Oehring further indicates that blisks can be provided with blades or vanes (note 0043).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Burgess in view of Freeman, ‘756, Gourbesville and EITHER ‘895 OR ‘465 to provide that vanes are machined in the part instead of blades as suggested by Oehring with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since Burgess describes machining blades in the blisk blank, but Oehring indicates that that blisks can be formed with either blades or vanes.
Claim 7: As to there being junction between the rough bore and the second material located in an intermediate zone between a central zone of the disc and a rim of the disc, it is understood that such would be suggested by ‘756 and Freeman, where from Freeman the blades would be suggested to be of the second material, so the switchover to the second material would be suggested to occur before the blade area to be formed so the entire blade can be the desired second material, giving a junction as claimed, as well, ‘756 indicates that there can also be a functionally gradient material structure (note translation, page 3), further suggesting a junction/intermediate zone of changeover.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgess in view of Freeman, ‘756, Gourbesville, Oehring and EITHER ‘895 OR ‘465 as applied to claims 1, 7 and 12 above, and further in view of CN 104480465 (hereinafter ‘465).
Claim 2: As to providing the second material as a nickel based single crystal material in powder form, Freeman notes using single crystal nickel based alloy as the second material or columnar (note column 5, lines 50-65, column 6, lines 10-68) Gourbesville further notes that when using a laser application process it can be desired to make the nickel alloy blade structure material either directionally solidified (columnar) structure or monocrystalline (single crystal) (note 0031-0032, and solidification conditions for such, note 0056), and uses powders for the laser application (note 0043)
‘465 further describes forming a nickel based monocrystalline (single crystal) alloy component, such as turbine blades, by laser cladding, where nickel based monocrystalline powders can be used for the laser cladding (note pages 1, 2, translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Burgess in view of Freeman, ‘756, Gourbesville, Oehring and EITHER ‘895 OR ‘465 to also apply the second material under solidification conditions to provide a single crystal microstructure, where the second material is applied in powder form that is also a nickel based single crystal material as suggested by Freeman, Gourbesville and ‘465 to provide a further desirable structure for the blades/vanes, since Freeman notes providing a columnar or single crystal microstructure for the blade layer of nickel based alloy, and Gourbesville indicates that as well as columnar, it would similar be shown to provide the blade layer as single crystal with the laser application, with the layer application using a nickel base alloy powder material, and as to using nickel based single crystal material for this powder as well, ‘465 shows that it would be conventional when applying a nickel based single crystal layer by laser application to use a powder that is also a nickel based single crystal, and Oehring indicates the conventional use of either blades or vanes.
Claim 4: Noting the process discussed for claim 2 above, similarly when using the nickel based alloy powder application to form a nickel based columnar/directionally solidified layer as described by Gourbesville, it would therefore be suggested to also use a columnar/directionally solidified powder with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since ‘465 shows the use a powder with the same crystal structure as the resulting coating used when performing laser application, and when used ‘895 would also note the use of laser cladding to provide a columnar microstructure.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgess in view of Freeman, ‘756, Gourbesville, Oehring, ‘465 and optionally ‘895 as applied to claims 2 and 4 above, and further in view of Singh et al (US 2008/0182017).
Claim 3: Furthermore as to the laser spraying by making at least one hole in the external surface of the rough bore, inserting a seed of single crystal material therein, and melting the seed,
Singh describes laser buildup of materials, including application to blisks, and with nickel based alloys (note 0030, 0031, 0034), where the process includes providing the alloy powder, where powder is fed from a nozzle to the surface and melted with a laser that also melts the substrate and creates a melt pool, which cools and solidifies when the laser moved away (note 0035-0036, figure 1). The laser spot can therefore be considered as providing a hole in the surface to be coated, where a powder/particle (seed) of material is provided to the hole and melted.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Burgess in view of Freeman, ‘756, Gourbesville, Oehring, ‘465, and optionally ‘895 to provide that the laser application process also has the laser melt the surface where the laser beam applied giving a formed “hole” where particles/seeds of single crystal powder go into the hole and are melted as part of creating the single crystal layer as suggested by Singh to provide a predictably acceptable coating, since Burgess in view of Freeman, ‘756, Gourbesville, Oehring, ‘465 and optionally ‘895 would indicate applying and melting single crystal powder with a laser to build up a single crystal nickel coating, and Singh indicates how when providing laser application to blisks with nickel alloys for example, the laser can melt the surface as well as the powder, which would create a hole in the surface where melted powder would be provided.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgess in view of Freeman, ‘756, Gourbesville, Oehring and EITHER ‘895 OR ‘465 as applied to claims 1, 7 and 12 above, and further in view of Singh et al (US 2008/0182017).
Claim 6: as to the second material sprayed by a spraying device, Gourbesville indicates using a spraying device understood to meet the requirements under 35 USC 112(f), noting the laser with nozzle 1 to spray in the desired orientation (figure 1, 0036-0040, 0043). As to the material sprayed along a direction perpendicular to a tangent of the external surface of the rough bore. Singh shows how material can be applied to the surface for a direction perpendicular the surface of the substrate (with the laser device providing the direction) (figure 1, 0035), and therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Burgess in view of Freeman, ‘756, Gourbesville, Oehring and EITHER ‘895 OR ‘465 to provide that when spraying as with Gourbesville, the same direction would allow such direction perpendicular to a tangent of the external surface of the rough bore application, with an expectation of predictably acceptable coating, where Gourbesville would also suggest that the direction of the spray would need to be controlled to control the powder/drop application (note 0057), and Singh shows a perpendicular direction, and when applying on the rotating circular core/rough bore as suggested for claim 1 above, would give the application in the tangent, with Gourbesville urther suggesting to optimize the direction giving the claimed direction of spraying.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgess in view of Freeman, ‘756, Gourbesville, Oehring and EITHER ‘895 OR ‘465 as applied to claims 1, 7 and 12 above, and further in view of Derrien (US 2012/0276304).
Claim 8: as to performing hot isostatic compression treatment after the machining, when used, ‘895 indicates providing heat treatment (of well known heat treatment) after the “cutting”/machining (note page 5, translation).
Derrien describes that a well known heat treatment after a laser application treatment of turbine parts, such as blades, which helps remove undesired pores, is hot isostatic pressing (compression) (note 0001, 0010-0011, 0027, 0035).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Burgess in view of Freeman, ‘756, Gourbesville, Oehring and EITHER ‘895 OR ‘465 to provide hot isostatic pressing after the machining as the heat treatment to help remove any undesired pores as suggested by Derrien, since Burgess in view of Freeman, ‘756, Gourbesville, Oehring and EITHER ‘895 OR ‘465 is providing a laser application to a blade layer of material, and Derrien teaches that a well known heat treatment after laser application to turbine blades would be hot isostatic pressing to remove pores in the applied material, and heat treatment after this can occur after the machining or before the machining as it is not limited, and further when using ‘895, it would suggest heat treatment after machining, and as to the use of vanes, Oehring shows the conventional use of either blades or vanes.
Erikson et al (US 2009/0283501) notes preheating before laser application (0001, 0006).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 4, 2025 have been fully considered.
The rejections above have been adjusted due to the amendments to the claims.
As to the 35 USC 103 rejections, as to the arguments regarding heating of the rough bore, after consideration, it is understood that at least ‘756 and Gourbesville suggests this feature to the extent claimed as discussed in the rejection above. As to the argument that Gourbesvilles’s preheating would not provide the heating as claimed during spraying, the Examiner disagrees. Even if preheating stops before spraying, the bore can still be in a heated state during spraying, as it would take time for the bore to cool down completely, and also the laser application itself can be considered as providing heat to the bore as discussed for ‘756.
As to the argument that Burgess does not teach all features of the claims such as the dual material disc, Burgess has not been cited as to teaching all features of the claims, rather all features are suggested by the combination of references. As to Freeman not teaching the rough bore and spraying the second material onto a circumferential external surface of the bore, and does not provide a circular part and machining to form the dual material circular part to from the vanes, with a different order of steps that would improperly alter the operation of Freeman, and as to the further argument that in ‘756 the blank is made of two different materials but is fully formed by laser deposition, not providing the supply of a rough bore and installation on a rotation axis, nor the spraying of a second material onto an external surface of the rough bore or machining to obtain a bladed disc, and as to the further argument that Gourbersville does not overcome the deficiencies, and as to the further argument that ‘895 does not provide the spraying of a second material to form a uniform layer on the external surface of the bore and to provide a dual material circular part, or the machining to provide a bladed disc, and as to the argument that ‘465 does not overcome the deficiencies of the other prior art, where since none of the references individually suggests a method for making a dual material turbomachine disc using a rough bore which is heated, no proper combination of these reference can be made, or other references fill the gap, with improper picking and choosing and hindsight used, the Examiner has reviewed these arguments, however, the above rejections are maintained. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The combination of references would suggest the dual material turbomachine disc with the rough bore as discussed in detail in the above rejection. Note as well, Freeman would suggest a desirability of a dual material structure with a bore/hub of one material and blades of another, even if it does not describe laser application for this. ‘756 also notes a desirable structure for disc parts and at least shows how a second layer can be provided on a bore by laser application. As to installing a bore about an axis of rotation and rotating, this is indicated this is indicated by Burgess. Note in the wording of the claim, the installing and rotating can be at any point, including before the machining. Gourbesville also notes laser buildup. ‘895 would also provide for a dual material part to the extent claimed, noting the discussion in the rejection.
It is the Examiner’s position that there is not picking and choosing or improper hindsight as suggested features of the prior art are used. The cited prior art is relevant and pertinent to the desired laser application and structure desired for the turbomachine discs. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE A BAREFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-1413. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am -3:30 pm, 2nd F 6:00 am -2:30 pm.
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, GORDON BALDWIN can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/KATHERINE A BAREFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718