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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 5/24/23, 9/5/23, and 11/19/24 have been considered by the examiner.
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(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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the base" in lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 6 includes the limitation “an upper surface of the seed crystal is lower than the base surface”. An upper surface of the seed crystal cannot be lower than the base surface when the seed crystal is placed on the surface of the base. 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 something 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
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 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.
Language from the reference(s) is shown in quotations. Limitations from the claims are shown in quotations within parentheses. Examiner explanations are shown in italics.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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).
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
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das et al. (US 20160273079 A1), 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.
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 on 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” (paragraph [0041] and FIGs. 3-5). Nakano teaches that “the” (which reads upon “limitation”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [00]). 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 on 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), in view of Schwarze et al. (US 20190255613 A1), from 11/19/24 IDS.
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 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]).
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.
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.
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