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 .
The status of the 08/04/2026 claims, is as follows: Claims 1, and 10 have been amended; Claims 25-28 have been added; Claims 4-5, 12, 16-20, and 23-24 have been canceled; and Claims 1-3, 6-11, 13-15, 21-22, 25-28 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 26: the phrase “a material” in line 2 should be read “the second material” as it is presumed to have antecedent basis in lines 6-7.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 9, 21, 26-27, 10-11, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (US 20100236067) in view of Hino (JP 2013068085, published on 04/18/2013), Arjakine (US 20140191017), Nishida (US 20220143759), and Ueda (US 20230025087)
Regarding Claim 1, Hu discloses a method of repairing a case (rotor blade 100, para. 0019; figs. 1 and 4), the method comprising:
machining a surface of the case (a surface of the rotor blade 100 to be repaired) to remove a damaged portion of the wall (para. 0020; step 406 fig. 4), the case including a metal alloy (nickel-based superalloy) (para. 0016),
electro-spark depositing an intermediate layer of a first material (droplets of repair material of step 408; fig. 4) to a base surface (surface that has been mechanically prepared in step 406) formed from the machining to form a first portion of a repaired wall (intermediate layer) (para. 0021); and
building up, via direct energy deposition (laser welding by depositing additional repair material), a remainder of the repaired wall with a second material (additional repair material of step 410; fig. 4) (para. 0022. It is noted the layer formed by laser welding is layered on top of the intermediate layer), and wherein the intermediate layer (droplets of repair material) is configured to prevent liquation cracking (“damage to the airfoils of the blade 100 or its cooling passage is minimized”, para. 0022) in the metal alloy of the case (nickel-based superalloy of the blade 100) during the building up via direct energy deposition (laser welding).
Hu does not disclose:
machining a wall of the case;
the case originally formed by casting;
the intermediate layer of the first material is formed by arc welding;
wherein the first material has a lower strength relative to the second material, and wherein a height ratio of the remainder of the repaired wall to the intermediate layer is between 20:1 and 3:1.
However, Hino discloses a method of repairing a case (method of repairing a rotor blade), the method comprising machining a wall of the case (removing a worn portion 12A of the squealer 12 formed at the tip end of the rotor blade 11, which is susceptible to oxidation, erosion, or the like due to contact with a high-temperature combustion gas) (para. 0012-0013).
PNG
media_image1.png
549
901
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, 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 Hu to machine the wall of the case (i.e. squealer 12 formed at the tip end of the rotor blade 11 of Hino) to remove the damaged portion of the wall as taught by Hino, because it is conventionally known that the wall of the case is susceptible to corrosion due to contact with high-temperature combustion gas and using the method to repair the wall of the case.
The modification does not disclose the case originally formed by casting.
However, Arjakine discloses the case (blade) originally formed by casting (para. 0049-0050).
Therefore, 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 case of Hu in view of Hino such that it is originally formed by casting as taught by Arjakine, because it is conventional known to produce the blade or vane made of Ni-based alloy that has very low tendency to form cracks during welding by the casting process (abstract of Arjakine).
The modification does not disclose:
the intermediate layer of the first material is formed by arc welding; and
wherein a height ratio of the remainder of the repaired wall to the intermediate layer is between 20:1 and 3:1.
However, Nishida discloses a method of repairing a case (method of repairing the rotor blade 44, para. 0038; fig. 2), wherein the intermediate layer of the first material (first weld layer 54 i.e. nickel-based alloys) is formed by arc welding (para. 0040-0041; figs. 3-4. It is noted Nishida is silent regarding the TIG welding is an arc welding, however provided as evidence, attached non-patent literature, published on 03/1995, “What is Tungsten Inert Gas (GTAW or TIG) Welding?”, https://www.twi-global.com/technical-knowledge/job-knowledge/tungsten-inert-gas-tig-or-gta-welding-006, discloses Tungsten Inert Gas (TIG) welding is also known as Gas Tungsten Arc Welding, is an arc welding process); and
wherein a height ratio of the remainder of the repaired wall to the intermediate layer is between 20:1 and 3:1 (para. 0043; fig. 5. It is noted the thickness of the first weld layer 54 is set at about 1/3 of the depth of the lost portion 50 or less, which implies that the thickness of layer 54 is 1/7 and the thickness of layer 58 is 6/7. Therefore, the height ratio of the layer 58 and layer 54 is 6:1, which is the between the claimed 20:1 and 3:1).
Therefore, 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 Hu in view of Hino and Arjakine to arc weld the intermediate layer of the first material as taught by Nishida, in order to apply known technique to a known device to arrive at predictable result, which is to form the intermediate layer of the first material (i.e. nickel-based alloy) using arc welding process, which is reliablely performed by setting the welding current low (para. 0002 and 0042 of Nishida).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the height ratio of the remainder of the repaired wall to the intermediate layer of Hu in view of Hino, Arjakine, and Nishida, to be between 20:1 and 3:1 as taught by Nishida, in order to prevent the occurrence of fracture or cracking of the repaired portion and a region around it during and after the repair (para. 0043 of Nishida).
The modification does not disclose the first material has a lower strength relative to the second material.
However, Ueda discloses the first material has a lower strength relative to the second material (“the second welding material 82 having high-temperature strength higher than the high-temperature strength of the first welding material 81”, para. 0117).
Therefore, 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 first material of Hu, Hino, Arjakine and Nishida to have the lower strength relative to the second material as taught by Ueda, in order to suppress the generation of crack during operation of the rotor blade (para. 0117 of Ueda).
Regarding Claim 2, Hino discloses the wall (squealer 12 that protrudes from the radial flange) extends axially from a radial flange of the case (annotated fig. 1) (para. 0002 and 0012).
PNG
media_image2.png
777
1203
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Nishida discloses the arc welding is gas tungsten arc welding ("GTAW") (based on the rejection to claim 1, the feature would be present because Nishida discloses the method of using the TIG welding to form the intermediate layer and it is known that the TIG welding is also known as GTAW welding).
Regarding Claim 6, the modification discloses a base material of the wall (base material of Hu) is the second material (“additional repair material may be the same material as the repair material of step 408 and/or the base material”, para. 0022 of Hu. It is noted the base material is the same as the second material), and wherein the second material (second welding material 82 of Ueda) is different from the first material (welding material 81 of Ueda) (para. 0096-0098 of Ueda. It is noted the second welded portion 66 is made of second welding material 82 i.e. MGA1400, MGA2400 and the first welding material 81 is Inconel 625).
Regarding Claim 9, the modification discloses the wall (squealer 12 of Hino) includes a radially outer surface, and the damaged portion of the wall includes a worn area in the radially outer surface (para. 0012-0013 of Hino).
PNG
media_image3.png
549
901
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 21, Hino discloses the method of repairing a case (method of repairing a rotor blade), wherein the machining the wall of the case (removing the worn portion 12A of the squealer 12) includes forming the base surface (flattened squealer 12, annotated fig. 3) (figs. 3-4) flush with a surface (annotated fig. 3) perpendicular to the direction of removal and defined by a radial flange (blade 11) extending from the wall (squealer 12) (para. 0002. It is noted the squealer 12 extends from the blade 11) (according to Webster definition, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/flush, “flush” is interpreted to mean directly abutting or immediately adjacent).
PNG
media_image4.png
145
756
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
548
835
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 26, the modification does not disclose the direct energy deposition uses a focused energy source to melt a material simultaneously deposited by a nozzle.
However, Nishida further discloses the direct energy deposition (fig. 5) uses a focused energy source (“a common laser, such as a carbon dioxide laser or a YAG laser, can be used, for example”, para. 0044) to melt a material (alloy powder 56) simultaneously deposited by a nozzle (para. 0048; annotated fig. 5).
PNG
media_image6.png
465
552
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, 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 Hu to incorporate known technique (i.e. using focused energy source to melt the material simultaneously deposited by the nozzle) to the known device (i.e. device for operating the direct energy deposition) to yield predictable result, which is to melt the material to form the remainder of the wall using laser beam.
Regarding Claim 27, the modification discloses the intermediate layer (first weld layer 54 of Nishida or droplets of repair material of step 408 of Hu) has a radial height (thickness of the layer 54 of Nishida) less than about one-third of a radial height of the repaired wall (“the thickness of the first weld layer 54 is preferably set at about ⅓ of the depth of the lost portion 50 or less”, para. 0043 of Nishida) and functions primarily as a transition layer (the droplets of repair material constitutes the transition layer because it is positioned therebetween) between the case (surface of the rotor blade 100 of Hu) and the remainder of the repaired wall (additional repair material of Hu), and wherein the intermediate layer (droplets of repair material of step 408 of Hu) is configured to predominantly isolate melting to the intermediate layer (droplets of repair material of step 408 of Hu) during direct energy deposition (“laser welding process re-melts the intermediate layer instead of the underlying original blade material, thereby forming a deposit where damage to the airfoils of the blade 100 or its cooling passages is minimized”, para. 0022 of Hu) (it is noted during direct energy deposition, the laser melts the intermediate layer, not the surface of the blade).
Regarding Claim 10, Hu discloses a method of repairing a surface of an aircraft component (surface of the rotor blade 100 to be repaired) (para. 0019; figs. 1 and 4), the method comprising:
removing a damaged surface from the aircraft component (para. 0020; step 406 fig. 4), the aircraft component including a metal alloy (nickel-based superalloy) (para. 0016),
electro-spark depositing an intermediate layer of a first material (droplets of repair material of step 408; fig. 4) to a base surface (surface that has been mechanically prepared in step 406) formed from the removing, the intermediate layer forming a portion of a repaired portion (intermediate layer) (para. 0021); and
building up, via direct energy deposition (laser welding by depositing additional repair material), a remainder of the repaired surface with a second material (additional repair material of step 410; fig. 4) (para. 0022. It is noted the layer formed by laser welding is layered on top of the intermediate layer) to form a remaining portion of the repaired portion, and wherein the intermediate layer (droplets of repair material) is configured to prevent liquation cracking (“damage to the airfoils of the blade 100 or its cooling passage is minimized”, para. 0022) in the metal alloy of the case (nickel-based superalloy of the blade) during the building up via direct energy deposition (laser welding by depositing additional repair material).
Hu does not disclose:
the surface is the flange of the aircraft component,
the aircraft component originally formed by casting;
the intermediate layer of the first material is formed by arc welding;
wherein the first material has a lower strength relative to the second material, and wherein a height ratio of the remainder of the repaired flange to the intermediate layer is between 20:1 and 5:1.
However, Hino discloses a method of repairing a flange of an aircraft component (method of repairing a squealer 12 of rotor blade), the method comprising removing a damaged flange from the aircraft component (removing a worn portion 12A of the squealer 12 formed at the tip end of the rotor blade 11, which is susceptible to oxidation, erosion, or the like due to contact with a high-temperature combustion gas) (para. 0012-0013, 0006).
PNG
media_image7.png
549
901
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, 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 Hu to repair the flange of the aircraft component, wherein the method comprising removing the damaged flange as taught by Hino, because it is conventionally known that the flange of the aircraft component is susceptible to corrosion due to contact with high-temperature combustion gas and using the method to repair the flange of the aircraft component.
The modification does not disclose the case originally formed by casting.
However, Arjakine discloses the case (blade) originally formed by casting (para. 0049-0050).
Therefore, 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 case of Hu in view of Hino such that it is originally formed by casting as taught by Arjakine, because it is conventional known to produce the blade or vane made of Ni-based alloy that has very low tendency to form cracks during welding by the casting process (abstract of Arjakine).
The modification does not disclose:
the intermediate layer of the first material is formed by arc welding; and
wherein a height ratio of the remainder of the repaired flange to the intermediate layer is between 20:1 and 5:1.
However, Nishida discloses a method of repairing a case (method of repairing the rotor blade 44, para. 0038; fig. 2), wherein the intermediate layer of the first material (first weld layer 54 i.e. nickel-based alloys) is formed by arc welding (para. 0040-0041; figs. 3-4. It is noted Nishida is silent regarding the TIG welding is an arc welding, however provided as evidence, attached non-patent literature, published on 03/1995, “What is Tungsten Inert Gas (GTAW or TIG) Welding?”, https://www.twi-global.com/technical-knowledge/job-knowledge/tungsten-inert-gas-tig-or-gta-welding-006, discloses Tungsten Inert Gas (TIG) welding is also known as Gas Tungsten Arc Welding, is an arc welding process); and
wherein a height ratio of the remainder of the repaired flange to the intermediate layer is between 20:1 and 5:1 (para. 0043; fig. 5. It is noted the thickness of the first weld layer 54 is set at about 1/3 of the depth of the lost portion 50 or less, which implies that the thickness of layer 54 is 1/7 and the thickness of layer 58 is 6/7. Therefore, the height ratio of the layer 58 and layer 54 is 6:1, which is the between the claimed 20:1 and 5:1).
Therefore, 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 Hu in view of Hino and Arjakine to arc weld the intermediate layer of the first material as taught by Nishida, in order to apply known technique to a known device to arrive at predictable result, which is to form the intermediate layer of the first material (i.e. nickel-based alloy) using arc welding process, which is reliablely performed by setting the welding current low (para. 0002 and 0042 of Nishida).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the height ratio of the remainder of the repaired flange to the intermediate layer of Hu in view of Hino, Arjakine, and Nishida, to be between 20:1 and 5:1 as taught by Nishida, in order to prevent the occurrence of fracture or cracking of the repaired portion and a region around it during and after the repair (para. 0043 of Nishida).
The modification does not disclose the first material has a lower strength relative to the second material.
However, Ueda discloses the first material has a lower strength relative to the second material (“the second welding material 82 having high-temperature strength higher than the high-temperature strength of the first welding material 81”, para. 0117).
Therefore, 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 first material of Hu, Hino, Arjakine and Nishida to have the lower strength relative to the second material as taught by Ueda, in order to suppress the generation of crack during operation of the rotor blade (para. 0117 of Ueda).
Regarding Claim 11, Nishida discloses the arc welding is gas tungsten arc welding ("GTAW") (based on the rejection to claim 10, the feature would be present because Nishida discloses the method of using the TIG welding to form the intermediate layer and it is known that the TIG welding is also known as GTAW welding).
Regarding Claim 22, Hino discloses the method, wherein the removing the damaged flange from the aircraft component (removing the worn portion 12A of the squealer 12 of the rotor blade) (para. 0013 of Hino) includes removing a damaged axial flange (removing the worn portion 12A of the squealer 12 of the rotor blade) and forming a base surface (flattened squealer) (figs. 3-4 of Hino) flush with a surface (annotated fig. 3) defined by a radial flange (blade 11) extending from the aircraft component (casing) (para. 0012-0013 and 0002, 0006 of Hino) (according to Webster definition, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/flush, “flush” is interpreted to mean directly abutting or immediately adjacent).
PNG
media_image4.png
145
756
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
548
835
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claims 7, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Hu (US 20100236067) in view of Hino (JP 2013068085, published on 04/18/2013), Arjakine (US 20140191017), Nishida (US 20220143759), and Ueda (US 20230025087) as applied to claim 6 above, further in view of Lin (US 20140017415)
Regarding Claim 7, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, except wherein the metal alloy comprises between 50% and 55% nickel, between 17% and 21% chromium, between 15% and 21% iron, between 4.75% and 5.5% niobium plus tantalum, between 2.8% and 3.3% molybdenum, between 0.65% and 1.15% titanium, between 0.2% and 0.8% aluminum, a maximum of 0.08% carbon, and nominal amounts (in weight percentage) of other elements.
However, Lin discloses a method of repairing a case (repairing of turbine component) (para. 0004), wherein the turbine component may be constructed of the same superalloy as the superalloy being deposited to repair the turbine component. The superalloy may be Inconel alloy 718 (“ESD process can deposit an amount of a superalloy onto the surface of a turbine component constructed of the same or a different superalloy”, para. 0018).
Therefore, 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 metal alloy of the case being repaired and the second material of Hu to be constructed of superalloy Inconel 718 as taught by Lin, in order to utilize the commercially available superalloys to repair the turbine components, which yields relatively high mechanical strength and creep resistance at high temperatures, good surface stability, and corrosion and oxidation resistance (para. 0018 of Lin).
The modification would result in the metal alloy (Inconel 718 of Lin) comprises:
between 50% and 55% nickel (50.0-55.5% nickel; Table A of Lin), between 17% and 21% chromium (17.0-21.0% chromium; Table A), between 15% and 21% iron (balance, what remains is iron between about 13.25-23% to constitute 100% in weight percentage) (“in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” See MPEP 2144.05 Section I) between 4.75% and 5.5% niobium plus tantalum (4.75-5.5% niobium plus tantalum; Table A), between 2.8% and 3.3% molybdenum (2.80-3.30% molybdenum; Table A), between 0.65% and 1.15% titanium (0.65-1.15% titanium; Table A), between 0.2% and 0.8% aluminum (0.2-0.8 aluminum; Table A), a maximum of 0.08% carbon (0.08% maximum of carbon; Table A), and nominal amounts (in weight percentage) of other elements (very small amount of silicon, Manganese, sulfur, copper, phosphorus, cobalt; Table A).
Regarding Claim 13, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, except wherein the metal alloy comprises between 50% and 55% nickel, between 17% and 21% chromium, between 15% and 21% iron, between 4.75% and 5.5% niobium plus tantalum, between 2.8% and 3.3% molybdenum, between 0.65% and 1.15% titanium, between 0.2% and 0.8% aluminum, a maximum of 0.08% carbon, and nominal amounts (in weight percentage) of other elements.
However, Lin discloses a method of repairing a case (repairing of turbine component) (para. 0004), wherein the turbine component may be constructed of the same superalloy as the superalloy being deposited to repair the turbine component. The superalloy may be Inconel alloy 718 (“ESD process can deposit an amount of a superalloy onto the surface of a turbine component constructed of the same or a different superalloy”, para. 0018).
Therefore, 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 metal alloy of the case being repaired and the second material of Hu to be constructed of superalloy Inconel 718 as taught by Lin, in order to utilize the commercially available superalloys to repair the turbine components, which yields relatively high mechanical strength and creep resistance at high temperatures, good surface stability, and corrosion and oxidation resistance (para. 0018 of Lin).
The modification would result in the metal alloy (Inconel 718 of Lin) comprises:
between 50% and 55% nickel (50.0-55.5% nickel; Table A of Lin), between 17% and 21% chromium (17.0-21.0% chromium; Table A), between 15% and 21% iron (balance, what remains is iron between about 13.25-23% to constitute 100% in weight percentage) (“in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” See MPEP 2144.05 Section I) between 4.75% and 5.5% niobium plus tantalum (4.75-5.5% niobium plus tantalum; Table A), between 2.8% and 3.3% molybdenum (2.80-3.30% molybdenum; Table A), between 0.65% and 1.15% titanium (0.65-1.15% titanium; Table A), between 0.2% and 0.8% aluminum (0.2-0.8 aluminum; Table A), a maximum of 0.08% carbon (0.08% maximum of carbon; Table A), and nominal amounts (in weight percentage) of other elements (very small amount of silicon, Manganese, sulfur, copper, phosphorus, cobalt; Table A).
Regarding Claim 15, the modification discloses the method, wherein the second material (second welding material 82 of Ueda) is different from the first material (welding material 81 of Ueda) (para. 0096-0098 of Ueda. It is noted the second welded portion 66 is made of second welding material 82 i.e. MGA1400, MGA2400 and the first welding material 81 is Inconel 625), and wherein the first material (repair material of step 408) is a same material as the metal alloy (base material) (“The repair material is preferably a material that is substantially similar to the blade base material”, para. 0021).
Claims 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Hu (US 20100236067) in view of Hino (JP 2013068085, published on 04/18/2013), Arjakine (US 20140191017), Nishida (US 20220143759), Ueda (US 20230025087), and Lin (US 20140017415) as applied to claims 7 and 13, further in view of non-patent literature to Special Metals (“Inconel 625”, published on 08/13/2013)
Regarding Claim 8, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above. Ueda discloses the first material is Inconel 625 (para. 0097).
The modification does not disclose the first material comprises a first metal alloy including a first nominal composition of nickel fifty-eight percent (58%), chromium 20% to 23%, iron up to 5%, molybdenum between 8% to 10%, niobium (plus tantalum) between 3.15% to 4.15.
However, non-patent literature to Special Metals discloses a metal alloy (Inconel nickel-chromium alloy 625) including a first nominal composition of nickel fifty-eight percent (58%) (nickel: 58.0% min; Table 1), chromium 20% to 23% (chromium: 20.0-23.0; Table 1), iron up to 5% (iron: 5.0 max; Table 1), molybdenum between 8% to 10% (molybdenum:8.0-10.0; Table 1), niobium (plus tantalum) between 3.15% to 4.15 (niobium plus tantalum: 3.15-4.15; Table 1).
Therefore, 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 first material of Hu with the metal alloy of Special Metals (i.e. Inconel nickel-chromium alloy 625) having the composition as set forth above, which is commercially available metal alloy that yields high strength, excellent fabricability, and outstanding corrosion resistance (col. 1, lines 1-12 of Special Metals).
Regarding Claim 14, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above. Ueda discloses the first material is Inconel 625 (para. 0097).
The modification does not disclose the first material comprises a first metal alloy including a first nominal composition of nickel fifty-eight percent (58%), chromium 20% to 23%, iron up to 5%, molybdenum between 8% to 10%, niobium (plus tantalum) between 3.15% to 4.15.
However, non-patent literature to Special Metals discloses a metal alloy (Inconel nickel-chromium alloy 625) including a first nominal composition of nickel fifty-eight percent (58%) (nickel: 58.0% min; Table 1), chromium 20% to 23% (chromium: 20.0-23.0; Table 1), iron up to 5% (iron: 5.0 max; Table 1), molybdenum between 8% to 10% (molybdenum:8.0-10.0; Table 1), niobium (plus tantalum) between 3.15% to 4.15 (niobium plus tantalum: 3.15-4.15; Table 1).
Therefore, 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 first material of Hu with the metal alloy of Special Metals (i.e. Inconel nickel-chromium alloy 625) having the composition as set forth above, which is commercially available metal alloy that yields high strength, excellent fabricability, and outstanding corrosion resistance (col. 1, lines 1-12 of Special Metals).
Claims 25 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Hu (US 20100236067) in view of Hino (JP 2013068085, published on 04/18/2013), Arjakine (US 20140191017), Nishida (US 20220143759), Ueda (US 20230025087), and Lin (US 20140017415) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Porter (US 20160201514)
Regarding Claim 25, the modification does not disclose the case is a mid-turbine frame inner case.
However, Porter discloses a mid-turbine frame inner case (mid-turbine frame 57) (para. 0022).
PNG
media_image9.png
744
620
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the case of Hu with the mid-turbine frame inner case as taught by Porter, in order to apply the method of repairing as set forth in claim 1 to repair the mid-turbine frame inner case, thereby saving material cost compared to replacement of the new part.
Regarding Claim 28, the modification does not disclose the aircraft component is a mid-turbine frame inner case.
However, Porter discloses a mid-turbine frame inner case (mid-turbine frame 57) (para. 0022).
PNG
media_image9.png
744
620
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the rotor blade of Hu with the mid-turbine frame inner case as taught by Porter, in order to apply the method of repairing as set forth in claim 1 to repair the mid-turbine frame inner case, thereby saving material cost compared to replacement of the new part.
Response to Amendment
With respect to 112b rejections: since amendment made to claim 10, therefore the 112b rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 08/04/2026 have been fully considered but are respectfully not persuasive because:
Applicant’s Argument: with respect to claim 1 on p. 7-8 of the Remarks “As paragraph [0003] of the present disclosure details, "[l]iquation cracking is defined as
cracking along grain boundaries in the heat affected zone (HAZ) during welding," as opposed to
during operation of the component. Hu discusses, at best, "thermal fatigue and erosion damage in the high temperature environment of turbine engine operation," but not preventing liquation cracking in a cast metal alloy component during direct energy deposition. Hino is directed specifically to "repairing the squealer 12 of the gas turbine rotor blade 11 with the squealer 12, after forming the built-up portion 14 made of a nickel-base superalloy having the same composition as the base material (squealer 12) as described above." Arjakine and Ueda are directed to welding, not "building up, via direct energy deposition, a remainder of the repaired wall" as presently claimed. Lin discusses, at best, "factors as high operating temperature, thermal cycling, and cyclic mechanical loading during normal operation,"3 but not preventing liquation cracking in a cast metal alloy component during direct energy deposition. Nishida discusses, at best, "surfaces and the like are sometimes cracked or damaged due to thermal stress generated by repetition of starting and stopping of the turbine and the like,"4 but not preventing liquation cracking in a cast metal alloy component during direct energy
deposition.
Therefore, none of the cited references is directed to or discloses "wherein the intermediate layer is configured to prevent liquation cracking in the metal alloy of the case during the building up via direct energy deposition."
Examiner’s Response:
The applicant’s arguments are respectfully not persuasive because regarding the limitation “wherein the intermediate layer is configured to prevent liquation cracking in the metal alloy of the case during the building up via direct energy deposition.", Hu discloses during the direct energy deposition the laser re-melts the intermediate layer instead of the underlying blade material, thereby forming a deposit where damage to the blade is minimized (para. 0022 and “method of repairing damaged thin-walled blades having an internal cooling circuit without causing further damage thereto”, para. 0005). During the laser welding, there is no cracking in the blade because the laser melts the intermediate layer, not the blade. Moreover, during the step of electro-spark deposition, the droplets are sized small enough such that when they contact the blade, heat from the droplets does not distort the blade wall shape (para. 0021). In other words, small amount of heat is transferred to the blade so there is no damage or crack to the blade.
Applicant’s Argument: with respect to claim 1 on p. 8-9 of the Remarks, “Additionally, the Office Action's proposed combination suffers from at least two independent
deficiencies under the MPEP.
First, Hu teaches away from the use of arc welding for the intermediate layer. Hu specifically
selected electro-spark deposition ("ESD") because it "is a low heat process that allows material to be deposited with negligible damage to the original blade and with little danger of affecting the cooling channels." Hu further explains that "laser welding in the thin wall airfoils may cause further damage thereto" and that "the repaired blade walls that make up the internal cooling channel may become misshapen." The Office Action's proposed modification of substituting Nishida's TIG (arc) welding for Hu' s ESD to form the intermediate layer would undermine the very purpose of Hu' s method by reintroducing the thermal damage Hu sought to avoid. Under MPEP § 2143.0l(VI), "[i]fthe proposed modification or combination of the prior art would change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified, then the teachings of the references are not sufficient to render the claims prima facie obvious." Hu's principle of operation depends fundamentally on using a low-heat ESD process for the intermediate layer; replacing ESD with arc welding would change this principle of operation.
Second, the Examiner's stated motivation for combining Nishida' s arc welding with Hu, "to apply [a] known technique to a known device to arrive at predictable result, which is to form the intermediate layer of the first material (i.e. nickel-based alloy) using arc welding process, which is reliablely [sic] performed by setting the welding current low," does not account for the fact that replacing Hu' s ESD with arc welding would reintroduce the thermal damage Hu sought to avoid, producing an unpredictable and undesirable result rather than a "predictable result."
Examiner’s Response:
The applicant’s arguments are respectfully not persuasive because there is no disclosure found in Hu that teaches away from using arc welding for the intermediate layer. Hu merely states the method of using electro-spark deposition to form the intermediate layer because it involves low heat that does not distort the blade. Hu does not discourage from arc welding (para. 0021).
Nishida discloses during the first weld layer formation, to prevent the possible fracture of the base material, the welding current is made small to generate sufficient heat to melt the electrode while preventing damage or fracture to the base material (para. 0042).
Hu and Nishida address the concern about possible crack in the base material or blade. Hu uses the electro-spark deposition and Nishida uses the arc welding to form the intermediate layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply known technique (i.e. arc welding taught by Nishida) to arrive at the same predictable result, which is to form the intermediate layer while preventing possible crack in the blade.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BONITA KHLOK whose telephone number is (571)270-7313. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00am-6pm.
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, IBRAHIME ABRAHAM can be reached on (571) 270-5569. 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.
/BONITA KHLOK/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/CHRIS Q LIU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights