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
Claims 9-16 are examined in this office action of which claims 1-8 were canceled and claims 9-16 are new in the preliminary amendment dated 7/11/23.
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 12 and 14 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.
The term “high energy beam equipment” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high energy” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. While applicant notes in the specification that the laser parameters include a laser power of 300-400W, this does not elucidate what constitutes “high energy beam equipment”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “allowance addition processing” and “layer separation and cutting processing” in lines 2-3. It is not clear what is meant by these types of processing. These are not terms of art and it is not clear what sort of allowance or addition is involved in “allowance addition processing” nor is it clear what is involved in “layer separation and cutting processing”. It is not clear how layer separations are related to the cutting processes that are performed and how these are processed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9, 12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 112281156 A (cited on IDS dated 4/10/25) and its English machine translation of Yao.
As to claim 9, Yao discloses a method of laser fusion repair which can prevent parts from deforming and where the blade to be repaired is 0.2-0.5 mm thin (Yao, pg. 2, lines 17-18 and pg. 7, lines 1-2), meeting the limitation repairing an ultra-thin structure by additive manufacturing as laser fusion is a form of additive manufacturing and the thickness falls within the claimed range of less than 1mm. Yao discloses where the damaged area of the part is removed by CNC milling or wire cutting (Yao, pg. 5, lines 8-10), meeting the limitation (a) of removing a damaged area of the ultra-thin structure by machining as both CNC milling and wire cutting are forms of machining. Yao discloses obtaining a model of the part to be repaired and using the model to process inner and outer clamping blocks (Yao, pg. 5, lines 12-13), meeting limitations (b) and (c) of obtaining a three-dimensional model of an area to be repaired of the ultra-thin structure and performing three-dimensional model processing on the area to be repaired as by obtaining a model and using it to form blocks, a model of the part and the area to be repaired are obtained and processed. Yao discloses where the clamping blocks are assembled and the assembly surface of the inner clamping block is matched with the inner profile of the part to be repaired, and the assembly face of the outer clamping block is profiled and matched with the outer profile of the part to be repaired (Yao, pg. 5 lines 14-17 and 27-29 and Fig. 3), meeting limitation (d) of building a powder carrying device around a bottom of the area to be repaired, so that powder is filled into the powder carrying device until it is on the same plane as or tangent to a bottom surface of the area to be repaired. Yao discloses spreading powder into the groove of the clamping block, and using the laser to melt the powder in the groove of the clamping block and fuse the upper end of the clamped part together (Yao, pg. 5, lines 31-33) and Yao discloses where the open contour groove is larger than the copper die shaped contour groove, and the copper die shaped contour groove is larger than the blade contour groove to be repaired (Yao, pg. 7, lines 11-13), meeting limitation (e) of melting, sintering or solidifying the powder in the powder carrying device around an outer contour of the ultra-thin structure by a high energy beam or auxiliary heating. As the copper die shaped contour groove is larger than the blade contour groove, this meets the limitation of combining with the outer contour of the ultra-thin structure to form a thickened outer contour structure and this necessarily would possess the property of becoming a flexible fixture and plays a role in supporting subsequent repairing and preventing ablation as this is starting with the same material and applying the same method thereto. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) (emphasis added), see MPEP § 2112.01(I).
Finally, Yao discloses laser scanning after spreading powder which is appropriate for thin parts in the repair area (Yao, pg. 6, lines 1-3), meeting the limitation (f) of based on path planning obtained by the model processing, repairing the area to be repaired by additive manufacturing technique as by laser scanning, there is some path planning that is being implemented from the model.
As to claim 12, it is not clear what is meant by “high energy”, see 112(b) rejection above. For the purposes of applying prior art, this will be interpreted as requiring use of an energy beam. Yao discloses feeding or spreading powder into the groove of the clamping block, and using the laser to melt the powder in the groove of the clamping block and fuse the upper end of the clamped part together (Yao, pg. 5, lines 31-33) and as Yao discloses the use of a laser capable of melting metal powder (Yao, pg. 7, lines 17-20), Yao meets the claim limitations.
As to claim 14, it is not clear what is meant by “allowance addition processing” nor “layer separation and cutting processing”, see 112(b) rejection above. For the purposes of applying prior art, this will be interpreted as requiring some addition beyond the dimensions of the model and cutting planning to be performed. Yao discloses that the mold shaped contour groove is slightly larger than the size of the contour groove of the part to be repaired and is reserved for machining allowance (Yao, pg. 5, lines 22-25), meaning that there is some additions in dimensions beyond the model of the part, meeting the claim limitations. Yao discloses where the damaged area of the part is removed CNC milling or wire cutting (Yao, pg. 5, lines 8-10), meeting the limitation of layer separation and cutting processing as CNC milling involves planning a tool path to remove material. Yao also discloses laser scanning after spreading powder which is appropriate for thin parts in the repair area (Yao, pg. 6, lines 1-3) and as there is laser scanning, there necessarily has been planning of the path of solidification, meeting the claim limitations.
As to claim 15, Yao discloses the use of metal powder (Yao, pg. 7, lines 17-20) and Yao discloses feeding or spreading powder into the groove of the clamping block, and using the laser to melt the powder in the groove of the clamping block and fuse the upper end of the clamped part together (Yao, pg. 5, lines 31-33) and therefore the flexible fixture would be constructed of metallic materials, meeting the claim limitations.
As to claim 16, Yao discloses while laser scanning, the powder is simultaneously fed into the groove, which is suitable for repairing parts with thick parts; powder spreading is to preset an appropriate amount of powder in the groove, which is suitable for parts with thin parts in the repair area (Yao, pg. 6, lines 1-3), meeting the limitation of laser melting deposition technique with synchronous powder feeding, selective laser melting deposition technique with powder spreading or other type of additive manufacturing technique is used for repairing in step (f).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 10-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112281156 A (cited on IDS dated 4/10/25) and its English machine translation of Yao in view of US 2012/0222306 A1 of Mittendorf.
As to claim 10, Yao discloses repairing a structure according to the method of claim 9 as shown in the rejection of claim 9 above. However, Yao is silent concerning further heat treatments.
Mittendorf relates to the same field of endeavor of methods of repairing turbine components for engines (Mittendorf, paragraph [0001]). Mittendorf teaches after repairing the turbine component, performing heat treatment on the component (Mittendorf, paragraph [0046]). Mittendorf teaches that these heat treatments relieve stress that is caused by the repairing process (Mittendorf, paragraph [0046]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a heat treatment as taught by Mittendorf to the method of repairing a part disclosed by Yao, thereby relieving stress that is caused by the repairing process (Mittendorf, paragraph [0046]).
As to claim 11, Yao discloses that the mold shaped contour groove is slightly larger than the size of the contour groove of the part to be repaired and is reserved for machining allowance (Yao, pg. 5, lines 22-25), but Yao does not explicitly recite the use of machining.
Mittendorf teaches applying machining the turbine component after repair (Mittendorf, paragraph [0053]). Mittendorf teaches this involves addition of a tip cap, formation of cooling holes, and grinding the rotor tips to match final specifications (Mittendorf, paragraph [0053]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add machining the repaired part as taught by Mittendorf to the method of repairing a part disclosed by Yao, thereby formation of cooling holes to improve cooling of the part, and producing a part that matches final specifications (Mittendorf, paragraph [0053]).
As to claim 13, Yao discloses creating a profile model of the part to be repaired (Yao, pg. 5, line 12). However, Yao does not disclose where the model is obtained using modelling software or three-dimensional scanning on an original part.
Mittendorf teaches creating a model for the part which may be designed with computer aided design (CAD) software (Mittendorf, paragraph [0037]). Mittendorf teaches that these models can include 3D numeric coordinates of the entire configuration of the component including both external and internal surfaces of an airfoil, platform and dovetail, as well as any internal channels and openings (Mittendorf, paragraph [0037]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add using CAD software as taught by Mittendorf into the method of repairing a part disclosed by Yan, thereby producing a model which include 3D numeric coordinates of the entire configuration of the component including both external and internal surfaces of an airfoil, platform and dovetail, as well as any internal channels and openings (Mittendorf, paragraph [0037]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joshua S Carpenter whose telephone number is (571)272-2724. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
/JOSHUA S CARPENTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JOPHY S. KOSHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733