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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butler et al. (US 2014/0116660 A1) hereinafter Butler in view of Fang et al. (US 2020/0230742 A1) hereinafter Fang.
Regarding claim 1, Butler teaches a method comprising:
machining a closed-pore surface of a silicon-containing gas turbine engine article (110) (Fig. 3, paras. 0033, 004) to produce a feature (130, 132) (para. 0028, Fig. 3), the machining causing removal of the closed-pore surface to produce an open-pore machined surface (130, 132 (para. 0028, Fig. 3); and
heat-treating the open-pore machined surface (Figs. 8-9; paras. 0051-0052), the heat-treating causing formation of an oxide in the silicon-containing gas turbine engine article that seals the open-pore machined surface to produce a closed-pore treated surface (Figs. 8-9, 0051-0052; because the machined open-pore is heat-treated, oxide is formed and seals the open-pore).
Butler does not specifically state the heat-treating is a laser treating.
However, Fang discloses a gas turbine engine component (20) (Figs. 10-11) having a closed pore surface, wherein the surface is laser treated to produce an oxide layer (32B) (Fig. 0033, Figs. 10-11). Here is a teaching that using a laser to treat a component surface to produce oxide is well known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Butler by laser-heating the open-pore machined surface as taught by Fang as all claimed part were known and would have yielded none; but an expected result; namely forming oxide in the silicon component to seal the open pore.
Regarding claim 2, Butler as modified by Fang teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Butler as modified by Fang further teaches the silicon containing gas turbine engine article is a ceramic matrix component (para. 0027).
Regarding claim 3, Butler as modified by Fang teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 2. Butler as modified by Fang further teaches the CMC includes silicon carbide (para. 0027).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butler in view of Fang as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Shi et al. (US. 2019/0063250) hereinafter Shi.
Butler as modified by fang teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 2 but fails to teach the CMC includes silicon nitrate; and the CMC is selected from the group consisting of silicon carbide, silicon nitride and combination thereof.
However, Shi teaches a gas turbine engine component comprising a CMC, the CMC is selected from a group consisting of silicon carbide, silicon nitride, and combination thereof (para. 0030).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify Butler by selecting the CMC from a group consisting of silicon carbide, silicon nitride, and combination thereof as taught by Shi for an intended use. Furthermore, it has been held (see MPEP 2144.07) that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)).
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butler in view of Fang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vikstroem et al. (US 2021/0313651 A1) hereinafter Vikstroem.
Butler as modified by Fang teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim but does not specifically teach that the machining and the laser-treating are conducted concurrently.
However, Vikstroem teaches a ceramic component (120, 130) wherein a portion of the component is machined to remove material (140) to form a machined surface (Figs. 1-4; para. 0036), a laser-treatment of the machined surface is conducted concurrently with the machining (paras. 0016, 0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify Butler such the machining and the laser-treating are conducted concurrently as taught by Vikstroem in order to seal the open pore at the same time as the machining.
Regarding claim 7, Butler as modified by Fang and Vikstroem teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 6. Butler as modified by Fang and Vikstroem further teaches the machining is conducted along a first direction (parallel to the component surface; Vikstroem, Figs. 2-3) and the laser-treatment includes scanning a laser beam across the open-pore machined surface in a second direction (laser beam 170 are directed perpendicularly to the component surface; Vikstroem, Figs. 3-4) that is non-parallel to the first direction.
Regarding claim 8, Butler as modified by Fang and Vikstroem teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 7. Butler as modified by Fang and Vikstroem further teaches the second direction (laser beam 170 are directed perpendicularly to the component surface; Vikstroem, Figs. 3-4) is transverse to the first direction (parallel to the component surface; Vikstroem, Figs. 2-3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2014/0163717 A1 discloses a method for laser-treating a machined surface of a gas turbine blade.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAXIME M ADJAGBE whose telephone number is (571)272-4920. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-6.
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 E 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.
/MAXIME M ADJAGBE/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745