DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 10/21/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-9 remain pending in the application. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejection of claim 9 previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 7/22/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) 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. Claim 6 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 includes the limitation “a seed crystal placing step in which a seed crystal is placed on the surface of the base”. Claim 1 defines the surface as the surface upon which the turbine component is manufactured by laminating shaped layers. Claim 6 includes the limitation “the seed crystal is placed inside a hole formed in the surface of the base”. The turbine component is not manufactured by laminating shaped layers in the hole. Claim 1 requires that the seed crystal is placed on the surface upon which the turbine component is manufactured by laminating shaped layers, not in a hole. Accordingly, claim 6 fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. From the drawings, it appears that the seed crystal may be placed somewhere other than the base with the base placed such that it surrounds the crystal. However, that is not what is claimed. 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 § 102
Language from the reference(s) is shown in quotations. Limitations from the claims are shown in quotations within parenthesis. Examiner explanations are shown in italics.
Claims 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Das et al. (US 20160273079 A1), previously cited.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Das teaches that “the article comprising a superalloy metal formed by the process according to the invention is a turbine blade, a vane, a stator, a diffuser case, TOBI, a rotor, or another component of an engine, particularly a jet engine” (which reads upon “a method for manufacturing a turbine component in which the turbine component is manufactured by”, as recited in the instant claim; which reads upon “a turbine component”, as recited in instant claim 8; paragraph [0025]). Das teaches that “articles of superalloy metal materials may be formed by manufacturing layers of superalloy metal by the process of the invention on top of each other in a layer-by-layer approach” (which reads upon “laminating shaped layers on a surface of a base in a laminating direction, the method comprising”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0061]). Das teaches that “the seed crystal is in the form of a single crystal superalloy plate upon which the processing step is performed” (which reads upon “a seed crystal placing step in which a seed crystal is placed on the surface of the base”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0019]). Das teaches that “the metal alloy powder composition is processed, by melting by electron beam melting” (which reads upon “an energy beam is irradiated to the powder put on the surface of the base by scanning in a scan direction to thereby form the shaped layer”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0053]). Das teaches that “the process starts with the deposition of a thin layer of powder on a build plate” (which reads upon “a shaped layer forming step in which after powder of a constituent constituting the shaped layer is put on the surface of the base to cover the seed crystal”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0046]). Das teaches that “in certain embodiments, the seed crystal is a discrete metal single crystal” (paragraph [0042]). Das teaches that “in other embodiments, the seed crystal is the superalloy plate upon which the superalloy metal is formed” (paragraph [0042]). Das teaches that “the crystal microstructure can be controlled by the inclusion of one or more seed crystals having a single crystal orientation” (paragraph [0057]). Das teaches that “superalloys typically have a matrix with an austenitic face-centered cubic crystal structure” (which reads upon “wherein the seed crystal, being a single crystal, is metal having a face-centered cubic crystal structure or a structure where an L12 phase is coherently precipitated in a face-centered cubic crystal”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0041]; seed crystal may be the superalloy plate). Das teaches that “the crystal orientation of the seed crystal may be such that Y direction shown in FIG. 1 is parallel with any of the following crystallographic orientations, without limitation, <100>, <010>, <001>, <110>, <011>, <101>, <−110>, <0-11>, <−101>, <111>, <−111>, <1-11>, <11-1>, <102>, <−102>, or <200>” (which reads upon “in the seed crystal placing step, the seed crystal is placed on the surface of the base in a manner that a first direction along <001> of the seed crystal has an angle within 15 degrees in absolute value in relation to the laminating direction”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0057]). Das teaches that “the resulting superalloy metal will have a microstructure orientation such that the part growth direction is parallel with one of the following crystallographic orientations, without limitation, of <100>, <010>, <001>, <110>, <011>, <101>, <−110>, <0-11>, <−101>, <111>, <−111>, <1-11>, <11-1>, <102>, <−102>, or <200>” (which reads upon “and in the shaped layer forming step, scanning by the energy beam is performed in a manner that the scan direction has an angle within 20 degrees in absolute value in relation to a second direction being <001> orthogonal to the first direction of the seed crystal”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0057]).
Regarding claim 2, Das teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Das teaches that “the crystal orientation of the seed crystal may be such that Y direction shown in FIG. 1 is parallel with any of the following crystallographic orientations, without limitation, <100>, <010>, <001>, <110>, <011>, <101>, <−110>, <0-11>, <−101>, <111>, <−111>, <1-11>, <11-1>, <102>, <−102>, or <200>” (paragraph [0057]).
Regarding claim 3, Das teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Das teaches that “the resulting superalloy metal will have a microstructure orientation such that the part growth direction is parallel with one of the following crystallographic orientations, without limitation, of <100>, <010>, <001>, <110>, <011>, <101>, <−110>, <0-11>, <−101>, <111>, <−111>, <1-11>, <11-1>, <102>, <−102>, or <200>” (paragraph [0057]).
Regarding claim 4, Das teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Das teaches that “the metal alloy powder composition comprises a powder of Inconel 718, Inconel 600, Inconel 625, Inconel X-750, or Inconel 100” (paragraph [0017]; Iconel is a Nickel based superalloy).
Regarding claim 5, Das teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Das teaches that “to produce a highly (111) textured or single crystal gamma microstructure in IN718 during the electron beam melting a (111) oriented single crystal plate as a seed can be used” (paragraph [0089]; Iconel 718 is a Nickel based superalloy).
Regarding claim 7, Das teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Das teaches that “the processing step is performed by electron beam melting, electron beam solid freeform fabrication, epitaxial laser beam formation, laser engineered net shaping, spray forming, three-dimensional printing, shaped metal deposition, or metal inert gas welding” (paragraph [0015]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das et al. (US 20160273079 A1), previously cited, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakano et al. (JP 2015189618 A), from 5/24/23 IDS, as machine translated, previously cited.
Regarding claim 6, Das teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Das teaches that “in certain embodiments, the seed crystal is a discrete metal single crystal” (paragraph [0042]). Das teaches that “in other embodiments, the seed crystal is the superalloy plate upon which the superalloy metal is formed” (paragraph [0042]). Das teaches that “the crystal microstructure can be controlled by the inclusion of one or more seed crystals having a single crystal orientation” (paragraph [0057]). Das teaches that “the crystal orientation of the seed crystal may be such that Y direction shown in FIG. 1 is parallel with any of the following crystallographic orientations, without limitation, <100>, <010>, <001>, <110>, <011>, <101>, <−110>, <0-11>, <−101>, <111>, <−111>, <1-11>, <11-1>, <102>, <−102>, or <200>” (paragraph [0057]). Das teaches that “the resulting superalloy metal will have a microstructure orientation such that the part growth direction is parallel with one of the following crystallographic orientations, without limitation, of <100>, <010>, <001>, <110>, <011>, <101>, <−110>, <0-11>, <−101>, <111>, <−111>, <1-11>, <11-1>, <102>, <−102>, or <200>” (which reads upon “to thereby obtain a shaped product taking over a crystal direction of the seed crystal”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0057]).
Das is silent regarding wherein the seed crystal is placed inside a hole formed in the surface of the base in a manner that an upper surface of the seed crystal is lower than the base surface.
Nakano is similarly concerned with the production of single crystals in the manufacture of dental-related materials, such as implants typified by turbine blades and bone plates, and dental prostheses (paragraph [0002], see also paragraph [0064]). Nakano teaches that “the method for producing a single crystal according to the present embodiment can produce a single crystal with a crystal orientation in a specific direction in accordance with the shape” (which reads upon “to thereby obtain a shaped product taking over a crystal direction of the seed crystal”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0064]). Nakano teaches that “a single crystal having a chemical composition equivalent to that of Inconel 718 and a parent phase (γ phase) having a face-centered cubic (fcc) structure was produced by the FZ method.” (paragraph [0066]). Nakano teaches that “the seed crystal 1 is placed (fitted) in the hole H 1 of the base 208” (which reads upon “wherein the seed crystal is placed inside a hole formed in the surface of the base”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0041] and FIGs. 3-5). Nakano teaches that “at this time, as shown in FIG. 4, the seed crystal 1 is placed so that the upper surface (crystal growth surface) SF1 of the seed crystal 1 is at the same height as the surface SF208 of the base 208” (paragraph [0041]). Nakano teaches that “the upper surface SF1 of each of the produced crystals 1 was polished with emery paper of No. 400 to form linear scratches on the upper surface” (which reads upon “wherein the seed crystal is placed inside a hole formed in the surface of the base in a manner that an upper surface of the seed crystal is lower than the base surface”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0066]; scratches 150 in the upper surface of the seed crystal are below surface SF208 of base 208). Nakano teaches that “an object of the present invention is to provide a method for producing a single crystal that is different from the conventional methods” (paragraph [0010]). Nakano teaches that “it is easy to form an inorganic layer on the seed crystal” (paragraph [0015]). Nakano teaches that “in the growing step, a single crystal of a Ni-based alloy may be produced” (paragraph [0023]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the unsecured seed crystal in the method of Das with a seed crystal placed in a hole in the base, as taught by Nakano in order to better secure the seed crystal and ensure it keeps the desired orientation when a smaller seed crystal (less than the full plate of Das) and because it is easy to form an inorganic layer on the seed crystal.
Regarding claim 7, modified Das teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Das teaches that “the processing step is performed by electron beam melting, electron beam solid freeform fabrication, epitaxial laser beam formation, laser engineered net shaping, spray forming, three-dimensional printing, shaped metal deposition, or metal inert gas welding” (paragraph [0015]).
Das fails to explicitly state that the three-dimensional printing is a laser powder bed fusion process. Das teaches that “electron beam melting (EBM) is a powder-bed, additive manufacturing technique which creates nearly fully dense metal parts directly from a computer CAD model” (paragraph [0046]).
Nakano teaches that “in the growing step, a laser additive manufacturing method may be used” (paragraph [0022]). Nakano teaches that “in addition, the growth process may use an electron beam additive manufacturing method” (paragraph [0022]). Nakano teaches that “the laser additive manufacturing method, which is one of the powder bed fusion methods, is used as an example” (paragraph [0056]). Nakano teaches that “laser additive manufacturing and electron beam additive manufacturing are types of powder bed fusion processes” (paragraph [0057]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the electron beam additive manufacturing powder bed fusion in the method of Das with laser beam additive manufacturing powder bed fusion, as taught by Nakano because Nakano teaches that both processes are suitable for additively manufacturing shaped single crystal products, such as turbines. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143.A.). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 - 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das et al. (US 20160273079 A1), previously cited, in view of Schwarze et al. (US 20190255613 A1), previously cited.
Regarding claim 9, Das teaches that “the article comprising a superalloy metal formed by the process according to the invention is a turbine blade, a vane, a stator, a diffuser case, TOBI, a rotor, or another component of an engine, particularly a jet engine” (which reads upon “a method for [] a turbine component in which the turbine component is”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0025]). Das teaches that “articles of superalloy metal materials may be formed by manufacturing layers of superalloy metal by the process of the invention on top of each other in a layer-by-layer approach” (which reads upon “laminating shaped layers on a surface of the turbine component in a laminating direction, the method comprising”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0061]). Das teaches that “in certain embodiments, the seed crystal is a discrete metal single crystal” (paragraph [0042]). Das teaches that “in other embodiments, the seed crystal is the superalloy plate upon which the superalloy metal is formed” (paragraph [0042]). Das teaches that “the seed crystal is in the form of a single crystal superalloy plate upon which the processing step is performed” (which reads upon “a seed crystal placing step in which a seed crystal is placed on a surface of a portion [] in the turbine component”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0019]). Das teaches that “the metal alloy powder composition is processed, by melting by electron beam melting” (which reads upon “an energy beam is irradiated to the powder put on the surface by scanning in a scan direction to thereby form the shaped layer”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0053]). Das teaches that “the process starts with the deposition of a thin layer of powder on a build plate” (which reads upon “a shaped layer forming step in which after powder of a constituent constituting the shaped layer is put on the surface to cover the seed crystal”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0046]). Das teaches that “the crystal microstructure can be controlled by the inclusion of one or more seed crystals having a single crystal orientation” (paragraph [0057]). Das teaches that “superalloys typically have a matrix with an austenitic face-centered cubic crystal structure” (which reads upon “wherein the seed crystal, being a single crystal, is metal having a face-centered cubic crystal structure or a structure where an L12 phase is coherently precipitated in a face-centered cubic crystal”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0041]; seed crystal may be the superalloy plate). Das teaches that “the crystal orientation of the seed crystal may be such that Y direction shown in FIG. 1 is parallel with any of the following crystallographic orientations, without limitation, <100>, <010>, <001>, <110>, <011>, <101>, <−110>, <0-11>, <−101>, <111>, <−111>, <1-11>, <11-1>, <102>, <−102>, or <200>” (which reads upon “in the seed crystal placing step, the seed crystal is placed on the surface of the turbine component in a manner that a first direction along <001> of the seed crystal has an angle within 15 degrees in absolute value in relation to the laminating direction”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0057]). Das teaches that “the resulting superalloy metal will have a microstructure orientation such that the part growth direction is parallel with one of the following crystallographic orientations, without limitation, of <100>, <010>, <001>, <110>, <011>, <101>, <−110>, <0-11>, <−101>, <111>, <−111>, <1-11>, <11-1>, <102>, <−102>, or <200>” (which reads upon “and in the shaped layer forming step, scanning by the energy beam is performed in a manner that the scan direction has an angle within 20 degrees in absolute value in relation to a second direction being <001> orthogonal to the first direction of the seed crystal”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0057]).
Das is silent regarding a method for repairing a turbine component in which the turbine component is repaired by.
Schwarze is similarly concerned with a method and apparatus for producing a single-crystalline workpiece by irradiating layers of a raw material powder with electromagnetic or particle radiation (paragraph [0001]). Schwarze teaches “manufacturing components subjected to high mechanical and thermal loads such as, for example, turbine blades or engine parts” (which reads upon “turbine component”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0003]). Schwarze teaches that “producing or generating a workpiece may relate to fully producing a solidified workpiece from raw material powder, whereas repairing a workpiece may relate to only restoring selected regions of an already solidified workpiece which has been damaged” (which reads upon “method for repairing a turbine component in which the turbine component is repaired by laminating shaped layers”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0010]). Schwarze teaches that “the method may be used for manufacturing or repairing workpieces having a desired microstructure and, in particular, a single-crystalline microstructure” (paragraph [0059]). Schwarze teaches that “the substrate may cover at least part of a build area, on which the workpiece is to be produced” (which reads upon “a seed crystal placing step in which a seed crystal is placed on a surface of a portion to be repaired in the turbine component”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0007]; substrate reads on seed crystal and the build area reads on a surface of a portion to be repaired in the turbine component). Schwarze teaches that “the substrate may be a substantially single-crystalline substrate” (paragraph [0011]). Schwarze teaches that “when choosing the scan patterns accordingly and possibly rotating it as explained above, a single crystalline microstructure can be produced with a high quality and high reliability” (paragraph [0143]). Schwarze teaches that “single crystalline metallic materials, in particular stainless steels or Ni, Co or Fe based superalloys, exhibit excellent mechanical, chemical and thermal properties even at elevated temperatures” (paragraph [0003]). Schwarze teaches that “epitaxial growth along the orientation of the crystalline structure of the substrate may be achieved; hence, a single-crystalline microstructure of the produced workpiece layer can more reliably be achieved” (paragraph [0012]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Das to include repairing turbine components, as well as producing new turbine components, as taught by Schwarze, because turbine components are known to wear at the tips and repairing provides significant cost savings over replacing with new components. Growing the repair as a single crystal, as taught by Schwarze, ensures excellent mechanical, chemical and thermal properties even at elevated temperatures, as required in turbine service.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Das (alone or in any combination) does not teach, suggest, or disclose "... scanning by the energy beam is performed in a manner that the scan direction has an angle within 20 degrees in absolute value in relation to a second direction being <001> orthogonal to the first direction of the seed crystal." (remarks, page 6). Applicant argues that Das merely discloses a relationship between the part growth direction and the crystal orientation. (see e.g., "... The crystal orientation of the seed crystal may be such that Y direction shown in FIG. 1 is parallel with any of the following crystallographic orientations, without limitation, <100>, <010>, <001> ... Thus, the resulting superalloy metal will have a microstructure orientation such that the part growth direction is parallel with one of the following crystallographic orientations, without limitation, of <100>, <010>, <001> ..." (Das at [0057], emphasis added), see also e.g., "The grains are aligned such that theirs (sic) <100>crystallographic direction is within 6-8 degrees spread from the growth direction denoted as Y in FIGS. 1 and 4 (remarks, page 6). Applicant argues that the scan direction of claim 1 is not met by the growth direction of Das (remarks, pages 6-7). Applicant further argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the scan direction from Nakano (remarks, page 7). This is not found convincing because the office action does not take the position that the scan direction of claim 1 is met by the growth direction of Das. Das teaches that an electron beam with a defined intensity is then scanned across the Surface at points that correspond to the cross-section of the component“ (paragraph [0046]). Thus Das teaches that the scan direction is orthogonal to the growth direction, as shown, for example in FIG. 15.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA JANSSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5434. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 10-7 and alternating Fri 10-6.
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. The Examiner requests that interviews not be scheduled during the last week of each fiscal quarter or the last half of September, which is the end of the fiscal year. Q1: 1/5-1/9/26; Q2: 3/30-4/3/26; Q3: 6/22-6/26/26; Q4: 9/21-9/30/26.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights