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 .
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: “a delivery unit” in claim 1, “a shielding unit” in claim 2, “a coating unit” in claim 9, “a cleaning unit” in claim 10 and “a heating unit” in claim 11, wherein the generic placeholder “unit” is preceded by functional limitations “delivery”, “shielding”, “coating”, “cleaning” and “heating” respectively, without sufficient recitation of what the “unit” structurally entails.
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.
Structural support for “a delivery unit” can be found on page 23, lines 15 – 18 of the spec. and claim 5, wherein the “delivery unit” is described to include a duct, a pair of rollers powered by a power source and a spray nozzle. Thus, “delivery unit” is interpreted to mean any duct or tube comprising powered pair of rollers and a nozzle for spraying gas and equivalent thereof for the purpose of this examination.
Structural support for “shielding unit” can be found in FIG. 11 and is interpreted to mean any source or container that supplies shielding gas to the welding surface and equivalent thereof for the purpose of this examination.
Structural support for “coating unit” can be found in FIG. 7 and on page 22, lines 25 – 28 of the spec. and is interpreted to mean any source or container that supplies coating material to the welding surface and equivalent thereof for the purpose of this examination.
Structural support for “cleaning unit” can be found on page 22, lines 15 – 25 of the spec. and is interpreted to mean any fabric and cleaning solution or surface grinder or miller to clean the welding surface and equivalent thereof for the purpose of this examination.
Structural support for “heating unit” can be found on page 22, lines 08 – 11 of the spec. and is interpreted to mean any gas or electric heater or coil heater to partially heat the flexible metallic mesh fed to the welding surface and equivalent thereof for the purpose of this examination.
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(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 3 – 7 and 14 – 17 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.
Regarding claim 3 – 7, these claims recite “a nozzle”, in claim 3, “a spray nozzle”, in claim 5, and “a delivery nozzle”, in claim 7, “…configured to receive the shielding gas from the shielding unit and spray the shielding gas…” (claims 3, 5 and 6) and/or “… configured to receive the flexible metallic mesh from the delivery unit and deposit the flexible metallic mesh…” (claims 4 and 7). It is not clear whether the claims refer to the same “nozzle”- an orifice for sparing shielding gas and/or delivering metallic mesh or structurally distinct and different elements, rendering the claims indefinite. Similarly,
Regarding claims 14 – 19 these claims recite “via a nozzle”, in claims 14 and 16, “via a spray nozzle”, in claim 18, and “via a delivery nozzle”, in claim 19, “… spraying shielding gas…” (claims 16 and 18) and/or “… receiving flexible metallic mesh…and depositing the flexible metallic mesh…” (claims 14, 15, 17 and 19). It is not clear whether the claims refer to the same “nozzle”- an orifice for sparing shielding gas and/or delivering metallic mesh or structurally distinct and different elements, rendering the claims indefinite.
The “nozzle”, the “spray nozzle” and the “delivery nozzle” are interpreted to be the same “nozzle” or an orifice for sparing shielding gas and/or delivering metallic mesh, for the purpose of this examination.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 5, 7 – 8 and 10 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (US 2002/0117485 A1), hereinafter “Jones”, in view of Fuwa (US 2010/0034982 A1), and hereinafter “Fuwa”.
Regarding claim 1, Jones discloses a repair system for in-situ repair of a machine (a welding system 10, see annotated FIG.1) *note here- the limitation “in-situ repair of a machine” is considered a preamble statement reciting purpose or intended use of the claimed welding system. Thus, it is not patentably distinguishing, see MPEP 2111.02.II.), the repair system comprising:
a laser unit (laser 12, see annotated FIG.1) configured to emit a laser beam (the laser 12 is configured to emit laser beam 18, (0025 – 0026 and see annotated FIG.1));
a source of a (filler wire source 24, see annotated FIG.1);
a delivery unit (powered rotating drive rollers 32 and elongate tube 26, see annotated FIG.2) configured to receive the flexible metallic mesh from the source of the flexible metallic mesh (the rotating drive rollers 32 are configured to receive filler wire 22 from the filler wire source 24, (0031 and see annotated FIG.1)); and
a controller (controller 40, see annotated FIG.1) communicably coupled to the laser unit, , and the delivery unit (the controller 40 is communicably coupled to the laser 12 and drive roller 32, see annotated FIG.1), wherein the controller is configured to:
control the delivery unit to deposit the flexible metallic mesh on a surface of the machine (the controller 40 controls the drive rollers 32 (e.g. rotation speed) to deposit the filler wire 22 through the elongate tube 26 onto a substrate surface 20, (0031, 0052 and see annotated FIG. 1); control the laser unit to emit the laser beam (the controller 40 controls the laser source 12 to apply laser beam 18 onto the weld surface of the substrate 20, (0037, 0052 and see annotated FIG.1)); and
control the laser beam in order to weld the flexible metallic mesh to the surface of the machine, thereby forming a repair patch (adjusts or increase/decrease, the laser beam 18 power to weld the filler wire 22 onto the substrate surface 20, (0037, 0039, 0052 and see annotated FIG.1)).
PNG
media_image1.png
561
816
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jones do not explicitly teach a galvanometer optically coupled to the laser unit and configured to adjust the laser beam received from the laser unit, the controller communicably coupled the galvanometer to adjust the laser beam.
However, Fuwa that relates to a manufacturing method of three-dimensionally shaped object by irradiating a metallic material with laser beams (0001- 0002), also teaches a galvanometer optically coupled to the laser unit and configured to adjust the laser beam received from the laser unit (a galvanometer 72 optically coupled to a laser beam source 71 configured to adjust or direct the laser beam L received from the laser beam source 71 onto the metal mesh 2 , (0030 and see FIG.1)), the controller communicably coupled the galvanometer to adjust the laser beam (a computer controlling the galvanometer 72 to adjust the laser beam focus and irradiation positioning of the laser L onto a metal mesh 2, (0034 and see FIG.1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the laser source of Jones to include a galvanometer optically coupled to the laser source and configured to adjust the laser beam from the laser source by coupling the galvanometer to the controller in order to adjust the positioning of the laser beam on the irradiation surface as taught in Fuwa. POSITA appraised of the galvanometer of Fuwa and a controller guided adjustment of the laser beam L irradiation positioning on the metal mesh would easily and routinely include the same in Jones, within a reasonable expectation of success, in order to adjust the direction/position of the laser beam 18 on the weld surface 20 as taught in Fuwa.
Jones in view of Fuwa still do not teach the source is supplying a flexible metallic mesh.
However, Fuwa, in an embodiment, teaches that a source role 81 suppling metallic mesh 22 (“metallic mesh” is inherently flexible) to be laser welded on a substrate 4 (0040 - 0042 and see FIGS. 9 and 10). Fuwa also discusses the laser welding with a metallic mesh has the advantage of minimizing deformation and warpage providing dimensional accuracy to the shaped object made (0018).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the filler wire of Jones with a flexible metal mesh in order to minimizing deformation and warpage in the weld providing dimensional accuracy to the weld patch on the welding surface.
Regarding claim 2, Jones in view of Fuwa teaches the repair system of claim 1, further comprising a shielding unit configured to emit a shielding gas (shielding gas supply 28 configured to supply shielding inert gases, Jones (0029 and see annotated FIG.1)).
Regarding claim 3, Jones in view of Fuwa teaches the repair system of claim 2, further comprising a nozzle disposed in fluid communication with at least the shielding unit (a bottom portion (nozzle) of the elongate tube 26 in fluid communication with the shielding gas supply 28, Jones (0029 and see annotated FIG.1)), wherein the nozzle is configured to receive the shielding gas from the shielding unit and spray the shielding gas on the surface of the machine (the bottom portion( nozzle) of elongate tube 26 is coupled to the shielding gas supply 28, wherein an inert gas is introduced into top portion the elongate tube 26 and the bottom portion (nozzle) of elongate tube 26 is configured spray the inert gas out onto the substrate surface 20, Jones (0029, 0053 and see FIG.4)).
Regarding claim 4, Jones in view of Fuwa teaches the repair system of claim 3, wherein the nozzle is further disposed in fluid communication with the delivery unit, and wherein the nozzle is further configured to receive the flexible metallic mesh from the delivery unit and deposit the flexible metallic mesh on the surface of the machine (the elongate tube 26 is a duct wherein the top portion is configured to receive the filler metal wire 22 (*Note- the metal wire 22 is the “flexible metal mesh” as taught by Jones in view of Fuwa above) from the pair rollers 32 and a bottom portion(nozzle) for delivering the wire onto the substrate surface 20, Jones (0028, 0029, see annotated FIG.1 and FIG.3)).
Regarding claim 5, Jones in view of Fuwa teaches the repair system of claim 2, wherein the delivery unit (powered pair of drive rollers 32 and elongate tube 26, see Jones’s annotated FIG.1) comprises:
a duct comprising a passage disposed in fluid communication with the shielding unit and the source of the flexible metallic mesh (the elongate tube 26 is a duct in fluid communication with the shielding gas supply 28 and the filler wire reel 24, see Jones’s annotated FIG.1), wherein the duct is configured to receive therein the shielding gas from the shielding unit and the flexible metallic mesh from the source of the flexible metallic mesh (the elongate tube 26 is configured to receive shielding from the shielding gas supply 28 and the filler wire 22 from the reel 24, see Jones’s annotated FIG.1);
a pair of rollers (a pair of rollers 32, see Jones’s annotated FIG.1) configured to receive therebetween the flexible metallic mesh from the duct, wherein the pair of rollers is configured to rotate opposite to each other to deposit the flexible metallic mesh on the surface of the machine (the pair of rollers 32 are configured to receive the filler wire 22, wherein the rollers 32 rotate in opposite direction to each other to draw the filler wire 22 from the feed reel 24 onto the substrate surface 20, Jones (0031 and see Jones’s annotated FIG.1));
a power source (a power source 30, see Jones’s annotated FIG.1) drivably coupled to the pair of rollers and communicably coupled to the controller, wherein the power source is configured to rotate the pair of rollers (the power supply 30 is configured to rotate the pair of rollers 32 and is controlled by the controller 40 , (0031 - 0032 , 0045 and see Jones’s annotated FIG.1)), and wherein the controller is configured to control the power source in order to rotate the pair of rollers opposite to each other (the opposite direction of the rollers 32 is designated by the arrows on the rollers 32, see Jones’s annotated FIG.1)); and
a spray nozzle disposed in fluid communication with the duct and configured to spray the shielding gas on the surface of the machine (the elongate tube 26 is a duct wherein the bottom portion (nozzle) is configured to spray the inert gas introduced from the shielding gas supply 28, as indicated by arrows 40 of FIG.4, onto the surface of the substrate surface 20, Jones (0053 and please see FIG.4)).
Regarding claim 7, Jones in view of Fuwa teaches the repair system of claim 5, further comprising a delivery nozzle disposed in fluid communication with the delivery unit, wherein the delivery nozzle is configured to receive the flexible metallic mesh from the delivery unit and deposit the flexible metallic mesh on the surface of the machine (the elongate tube 26 is a duct wherein the top portion is configured to receive the filler metal wire 22 from the pair rollers 32 and a bottom portion(nozzle) for delivering the wire onto the substrate surface 20, Jones (0028, 0029, see annotated FIG.1 and FIG.3)). .
Regarding claim 8, Jones in view of Fuwa teaches the repair system of claim 2, wherein the controller is communicably coupled to the shielding unit, and wherein the controller is further configured to control the shielding unit in order to emit the shielding gas from the shielding unit (the controller 40 is communicably coupled to the shielding gas supply 28, wherein, depending on the weld application, controls the spray of the shielding inert gas from the shielding gas supply 28 on to the welding surface 20, synchronizing the operation of laser 12, the filler wire reel 24, (0029, 0039, 0052 – 0053)).
Regarding claim 10, Jones in view of Fuwa teaches the repair system of claim 1, further comprising a cleaning unit (milling head 91, see Fuwa’ s FIG11) configured to perform at least one of cleaning, pre-machining, and degreasing of the surface of the machine prior to depositing the flexible metallic mesh on the surface of the machine (the milling head 91 is for grinding or milling the welding surface before a layer of the metal mesh reaches a threshold thickness, Fuwa, (0043, 0045 and see FIG.11) .
Regarding claim 11, Jones in view of Fuwa teaches the repair system of claim 1, further comprising a heating unit configured to at least partially melt the flexible metallic mesh prior to depositing the flexible metallic mesh on the surface of the machine (the power supply 30, in addition to rotating the drive rollers 32, is configured to provide current for electrically heating of the filler wire 22, raising the temperature of the filler wire 22 to partially melt the wire before contacted by the laser beam 18 at the substrate surface 20, Jones (0030, 0032 – 0033 and annotated FIG.1)).
Regarding claim 12, Jones in view of Fuwa teaches the repair system of claim 1, wherein the source of the flexible metallic mesh is a reel, and wherein the reel supplies the flexible metallic mesh to the delivery unit upon a rotation of the reel (the filler wire source 24 is a rotating reel supplying the filler wire 22 onto the substrate surface 20, see Jones’s annotated FIG.1 showing the rotating reel 24 designated by the arrow).
Regarding claim 13, Jones in view of Fuwa teaches the repair system of claim 1, wherein the machine is a gas turbine machine (the welding can be applied in rebuilding the tip of a gas turbine airfoil, Jones (0005)).
Regarding claim 14, Jones discloses a method of in-situ repair of a machine (method of welding (0047 and see annotated FIG.1)), the method comprising the steps of:
identifying a surface of the machine that needs to be repaired (identifying a welding substrate surface 20, see annotated FIG.1);
depositing, via a nozzle of a delivery unit, on the surface of the machine (depositing, via elongate tube 26, a filler wire 22 onto the substrate surface 20, see annotated FIG.1); and
laser welding the to the surface of the machine (laser welding the filler wire 22, see annotated FIG.1) by:
emitting, via a laser unit, a laser beam (emitting, vial laser 12, laser beam 18, see annotated FIG 1); and
directing the laser beam 18 emitted by the laser unit 12 to form a weld patch, see annotated FIG.1.
Jones do not explicitly teach adjusting, via a galvanometer, the laser beam emitted by the laser unit.
However, Fuwa teaches adjusting, via a galvanometer, the laser beam emitted by the laser unit (adjusting, via a galvanometer 72 optically coupled to a laser beam source 71, to direct the laser beam L received from the laser beam source 71 onto the metal mesh 2, (0030 and see FIG.1)),
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of welding of Jones to include adjusting, via a galvanometer, the laser beam emitted by the laser unit to control the position the laser beam from the laser source on the welding surface by adjusting the position of the laser beam on the irradiation surface, via the galvanometer as taught in Fuwa. POSITA appraised of the galvanometer of Fuwa for adjusting of the laser beam L irradiation positioning on the metal mesh would easily and routinely include the same in Jones laser system, within a reasonable expectation of success, in order to control the direction/position of the laser beam 18 on the weld surface 20 as taught in Fuwa.
Jones in view of Fuwa still do not teach depositing a flexible metallic mesh.
However, Fuwa, in an embodiment, teaches depositing metallic mesh 22 from a supply role 81 (*Note- “metallic mesh” is inherently flexible) to be laser welded onto a substrate 4 (0040 - 0042 and see FIGS. 9 and 10). Fuwa also discusses the laser welding with a metallic mesh has the advantage of minimizing deformation and warpage providing dimensional accuracy to the shaped object made (0018).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the filler wire of Jones with a flexible metal mesh in order to minimizing deformation and warpage in the weld providing dimensional accuracy to the weld patch on the welding surface.
Regarding claim 15, Jones in view of Fuwa teaches the method of claim 14, further comprising emitting, via a shielding unit, a shielding gas (emitting, via shielding gas supply 28, shielding inert gases, Jones (0029 and see annotated FIG.1)).
Regarding claim 16, Jones in view of Fuwa teaches the method of claim 14, further comprising spraying, via a nozzle, the shielding gas on the surface of the machine (sparing, via the bottom portion of the elongate tube 26 (nozzle), the shielding inert gas onto the welding surface 20, Jones (0029 and see annotated FIG.1)).
Regarding claim 17, Jones in view of Fuwa teaches the method of claim 14, further comprising: receiving, via the nozzle, the flexible metallic mesh from the delivery unit; and depositing, via the nozzle, the flexible metallic mesh on the surface of the machine (receiving, via the elongate tube 26, the filler metal wire 22 from the pair rollers 32; and depositing, via the elongate tube 26, the wire onto the substrate surface 20, Jones (0028, 0029, see annotated FIG.1)).
Regarding claim 18, Jones in view of Fuwa teaches the method of claim 16, further comprising:
receiving the shielding gas from the shielding unit and the flexible metallic mesh within a duct (receiving shielding inert gas from shielding gas supply 28 and the filler wire 22 within the elongate tube 26, Jones (0028 – 0029 and see annotated FIG.1));
receiving the flexible metallic mesh from the duct between a pair of rollers (receiving the filler wire 22 between the pair of rollers 32, Jones (see annotated FIG.1));
rotating, via a power source, the pair of rollers opposite to each other in order to deposit the flexible metallic mesh on the surface of the machine (rotating, via a power source 30, the pair of rollers 32 in opposite direction to each other to draw the filler wire 22 from the feed reel 24 onto the substrate surface 20, Jones (0031 and see Jones’s annotated FIG.1)); and
spraying, via a spray nozzle, the shielding gas on the surface of the machine, wherein the spray nozzle is disposed in fluid communication with the duct (spraying, via elongate tube 26, the inert gas introduced from the shielding gas supply 28, as indicated by arrows 40 of FIG.4, onto the surface of the substrate surface 20, Jones (0053 and please see FIG.4)).
Regarding claim 19, Jones in view of Fuwa teaches the method of claim 18, further comprising: receiving, via a delivery nozzle, the flexible metallic mesh from the delivery unit; and depositing, via the delivery nozzle, the flexible metallic mesh on the surface of the machine (receiving, via the elongate tube 26, the filler metal wire 22 from the pair rollers 32; and depositing, via the elongate tube 26, the wire onto the substrate surface 20, Jones (0028, 0029, see annotated FIG.1)).
Regarding claim 20, Jones in view of Fuwa teaches the method of claim 14, further comprising: unwinding, via the delivery unit, a flexible metallic sheet from a reel (unwinding, via the rotating rollers 32, the filler wire 22 onto the substrate surface 20 from the filler wire reel 24, see Jones’s annotated FIG.1); and laser cutting the flexible metallic sheet to form the flexible metallic mesh (laser welding the filler wire 22 from the supply reel onto the substrate surface 20, *Note-laser welding the wire from the supply reel 24 onto the weld surface 20 naturally involves laser cutting the wire from the supply, Jones (see annotated FIG.1)).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Fuwa in further view of Matiash et al. (US 2005/0224485 A1) and hereinafter “Matiash”.
Regarding claim 6, Jones in view of Fuwa teaches the repair system of claim 5.
Jones in view of Fuwa do not explicitly teach that the delivery unit further comprises: a pair of clamping members, each of the pair of clamping members coupled to a corresponding roller from the pair of rollers; and one or more fasteners connecting the pair of clamping members to each other, wherein the one or more fasteners are configured to adjust a force applied by the pair of rollers on the flexible metallic mesh; wherein each of the duct and the spray nozzle is at least partially received within one of the pair of clamping members.
However, Matiash that relates to an apparatus for feeding welding wire to a laser welding systems (0001, 0004), also teaches the delivery unit (the drive assembly 56, FIGS. 16 and 17) further comprises:
a pair of clamping members (upper pressure arm 168 and lower bracket 161, see FIGS 15 – 17), each of the pair of clamping members coupled to a corresponding roller from the pair of rollers (both the upper pressure arm 168 and lower bracket 161 are connected to the upper and lower drive rollers 180 respectively, see FIGS 15 – 17); and
one or more fasteners connecting the pair of clamping members to each other, wherein the one or more fasteners are configured to adjust a force applied by the pair of rollers on the flexible metallic mesh (a fastening Knob 170 with a threaded stem 304, wherein when the knob 170 is threaded in to the upper pressure arm 168 pressure is applied to welding wire 54 by the respective rollers 180 via spring loading, (0122 – 0124 and see FIGS 15 – 17))
wherein each of the duct and the spray nozzle is at least partially received within one of the pair of clamping members (the wire guide 250 for moving the filler material is received within the upper pressure arm 168 and lower bracket 161, see FIGS 16 – 17).
Further, Matiash teaches such drive assembly 56 have the advantage of avoiding filler material nesting along a desired path of supply, facilitating continuous travel of the filler material to the welding site, (0019 – 0021).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the delivery unit of claim 5 taught by Jones in view of Fuwa to include a pair of clamping members, each of the pair of clamping members coupled to a corresponding roller from the pair of rollers; and one or more fasteners connecting the pair of clamping members to each other, wherein the one or more fasteners are configured to adjust a force applied by the pair of rollers on the flexible metallic mesh; wherein each of the duct and the spray nozzle is at least partially received within one of the pair of clamping members in order to avoiding filler material nesting along a desired path of supply ensuring continuous travel of the filler material to the welding site as taught in Matiash.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Fuwa in further view of Dommann et al. (US 2024/0297313 A1, priority date Jan 14 2021) and hereinafter “Dommann”.
Regarding claim 9, Jones in view of Fuwa teaches the repair system of claim 1.
Jones in view of Fuwa do not explicitly teach comprising a coating unit configured to coat the repair patch with one or more ceramic materials to form a thermal barrier repair patch.
However, Dommann that relates to a system and method of repairing components (e.g. gas turbine engines) using laser (0001 – 002 and 0008), also teaches a coating unit (feeding nozzles 6, see FIG.1) configured to coat the repair patch with one or more ceramic materials to form a thermal barrier repair patch (the feeding nozzles 6 are configured to feed ceramic powder 5 to form a thermal barrier 4 on the repair surface 3, (0079, 0093 – 0095 and see FIGS.1 – 2)).
This thermal barriers are added to components (e.g. gas turbine engines) that can be exposed to high heating and cooling temperatures to reduce occurrence of destructive thermal stresses to the components, (0002 – 0003).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio, to modify the repair system of claim 1 taught by Jones in view of Fuwa to include a coating unit configured to coat the repair patch (weld) with one or more ceramic materials to form a thermal barrier repair patch (weld) in order to reduce occurrence of destructive thermal stresses to the component repaired or welded as taught in Dommann.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DILNESSA B BELAY whose telephone number is (571)272-3136. The examiner can normally be reached M-F approx. 8:00 am - 5:30 pm EST.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. 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.
/DILNESSA B BELAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761