DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in response to Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 11/24/2025 amending Claims 1, 9, and 16 and canceling Claims 4 and 13. Claims 1 – 3, 5, and 8 are examined. Claims 6, 7, 9 – 12, and 14 – 20 remain withdrawn.
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:
Claim 1, ll. 9 – 10 recites “receiving element configured to receive part of the remaining non-AM part of the combustor body”. MPEP2181(I) stated that ‘configured to’ was another linking word or phrase that was equivalent to ‘means’ or ‘means for’. MPEP2181(I)(A) stated that ‘element’ was among a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The term ‘receiving’ is a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning.
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.
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 § 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.
Claims 1 – 3, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiCintio et al. (10,865,992) in view of Melton et al. (9,383,104) in view of Emilianowica (6,904,676) in view of Srinivasan et al. (11,224,915).
Regarding Claim 1, DiCintio teaches, in Fig. 1 and Col. 3, l. 60 – Col. 4, l. 6, the invention as claimed, including a combustor (10 - Fig. 1) including a combustor body including a combustion liner (12) including a cylindrical portion and a tapered transition portion (Col. 3, ll. 60 – 65 “liner 12 may have a unified body (or “unibody”) construction, in which the cylindrical portion and the tapered portion are integrated with one another.”), and an aft frame (18 - Col. 9, ll. 43 - 46) coupled to an aft end (Col. 4, ll. 53 - 55) of the tapered transition portion (shown in Fig. 1).
DiCintio is silent on the combustor body being non-additively manufactured (non-AM) [Applicant’s Specification Para. [0003] disclosed “Additive manufacturing such as direct metal laser melting (DMLM) or selective laser melting (SLM) has emerged as a reliable manufacturing method for making combustor parts.” Specification Para. [0002] disclosed “The cylindrical portion and the tapered transition portion may be made of stamped metal, and the aft frame may be cast.” Specification Para. [0044] disclosed “Cylindrical portion 44 and flow sleeve 48 are typically made of sheet material rolled or stamped into cylindrical or frustoconical shapes and welded together”. Therefore a combustor body manufactured by means of casting, rolling or stamping sheet metal, or a combination of casting/rolling/stamping is interpreted as having non-additively manufactured (non-AM) parts because said combustor body was not additively manufactured using direct metal laser melting (DMLM), selective laser melting (SLM), or some other additively manufacturing process.].
Melton teaches, in Figs. 2 – 7 and Col. 6, ll. 50 - 65, a similar combustor body that was manufactured by casting as a singular component or from sheet metal rolled and/or bending, i.e., stamping, and then joined by welding or other mechanical means to form a continuous combustor body.
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify DiCintio with the non-additively manufactured manufacturing methods, taught by Melton, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the combustor body including a combustion liner including a cylindrical portion and a tapered transition portion, an aft frame, and non-additively manufacturing the combustor body using casting, rolling or stamping sheet metal, or a combination of casting/rolling/stamping, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the non-additively manufactured manufacturing methods (casting, rolling or stamping sheet metal, or a combination of casting/rolling/stamping), taught by Melton, for the non-disclosed manufacturing method of DiCintio, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., manufacturing the combustor body using manufacturing methods like casting, rolling or stamping sheet metal followed by welding, or a combination of casting/rolling/stamping would have resulted in a fully functional combustor body since they were the conventional manufacturing methods used to manufacture combustor bodies before additive manufacturing methods were invented. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
DiCintio, i.v., Melton, as discussed above, is silent on a method of repairing a combustor, the method comprising: removing a non-additively manufactured (non-AM) part of the combustor body, creating a removed non-AM part and a remaining non-AM part of the combustor body, wherein the removed non-AM part includes at least an aft section of the tapered transition portion and the aft frame of the combustor body, and coupling the replacement part to the remaining non-AM part of the combustor body.
Emilianowica teaches, in Figs. 1 – 4, Abstract, and Col. 1, l. 60 – Col. 2, l. 35, a method of repairing a combustor (Fig. 2), the method comprising: removing a non-additively manufactured (non-AM) part of the combustor body [As discussed above, Melton teaches that combustor bodies were conventional manufactured using non-additively manufactured (non-AM) such as casting, rolling or stamping sheet metal followed by welding, or a combination of casting/rolling/stamping. Emilianowica teaches, in Col. 1, l. 60 – Col. 2, l. 35, cutting the combustion liner and removing the non-additively manufactured (non-AM) part of the combustor body aft of the cut.], creating a removed non-AM part (cut-off portion of the combustor body aft of the cut) and a remaining non-AM part of the combustor body (remaining portion of the combustor body forward of the cut), wherein the removed non-AM part (portion of the combustor body aft of the cut) includes at least an aft section (portion of the combustor body aft of the cut) of the tapered transition portion (Fig. 2 showed that the aft section tapered. Emilianowica teaches, in Col. 2, ll. 15 – 35, cutting the combustion liner and removing a portion of the liner/deteriorated liner that included the aft frame/support flange located at the downstream end of the liner) and the aft frame (equivalent to Emilianowica’s “support flange”) of the combustor body, manufacturing a replacement part (Emilianowica teaches, in Col. 4, ll. 35 – 45, “The replacement liner includes a support flange 120, and is sized substantially identical to the deteriorated region of liner 42 being replaced, such that liner 42 is returned to substantially the original predefined dimensional requirements.) for the removed non-AM part (cut-off portion of the combustor body aft of the cut), the replacement part including a receiving element [As discussed in the ‘Claim Interpretation’ section above, ‘receiving element’ invokes 112(f) interpretation. Specification Para. [0062] disclosed, “It will be recognized that receiving element 212 can include a wide variety of alternative structures to receive end 214 of remaining non-AM part 202 such as but not limited to: a forked element, a radially inward extending indent or a simple butt joint interface”. Consequently, the broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘receiving element’ includes a simple butt joint interface. Emilianowica teaches, in Col. 4, ll. 35 – 50, a simple butt joint interface because the replacement part was sized substantially identical to the removed non-AM part and the upstream side of the replacement part was welded, i.e., a butt weld, to a downstream side of the remaining non-AM part.] configured to receive part of the remaining non-AM part of the combustor body, wherein the replacement part includes at least the aft section (portion of the combustor body aft of the cut) of the tapered transition portion (Fig. 2 showed that the aft section tapered.) and the aft frame (equivalent to Emilianowica’s “support flange”) of the combustor body, and coupling the replacement part (Emilianowica teaches, in Col. 4, ll. 40 – 50, “The replacement liner is then welded into combustor liner 42, such that the replacement liner is welded to an existing portion of liner 42. More specifically, an upstream side (not shown) of the replacement liner is welded to a downstream side of the existing portion of liner 40.”) to the remaining non-AM part (portion of the combustor body forward of the cut) of the combustor body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify DiCintio, i.v., Melton, with the method of repairing a combustor, taught by Emilianowica, because Emilianowica teaches, in Col. 4, ll. 59 – 67, that repairing only the damaged/deteriorated portion of the combustor body facilitated improved savings in comparison to removing and replacing entire combustor liner. Furthermore, because the replacement liners are formed to be substantially identical to originally installed liners, aerodynamic performance and combustor performance are not adversely impacted by the replacement liners.
DiCintio, i.v., Melton and Emilianowica, teach a method of repairing a combustor, i.e., base method, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. DiCintio, i.v., Melton and Emilianowica, as discussed above, is silent on said replacement part being a replacement additively manufactured (AM) part, additively manufacturing a replacement additively manufactured (AM) part for the removed non-AM part, the replacement AM part including a plurality of parallel, sintered metal layers, wherein the replacement AM part includes at least one cooling passage defined therein, and wherein the at least one cooling passage was not present in the removed non-AM part.
Srinivasan teaches, in Figs. 1 – 5, Abstract, and Col. 1, ll. 5 - 15, a method of repairing a gas turbine engine component using a replacement additively manufactured (AM) part (Srinivasan calls the part a ‘coupon’). Srinivasan teaches, in Fig. 5, method of repairing a gas turbine engine component (500) by creating a removed non-AM part (Step 504 – Col. 11, ll. 20 – 30, “replaced portion 308”, Col. 5, ll. 15 – 20 teaches that the original component 300 was formed by casting, i.e., non-AM) and a remaining non-AM part (Step 504 – Col. 11, ll. 20 – 30, “parent component 302”, Col. 5, ll. 15 – 20 teaches that the original component 300 was formed by casting, i.e., non-AM). Srinivasan teaches, in Fig. 5, additively manufacturing a replacement additively manufactured (AM) part (“replacement coupon 402” - Step 508 – Col. 11, ll. 30 – 35) for the removed non-AM part (308), the replacement AM part (402) including a plurality of parallel, sintered metal layers (Col. 7, ll. 45 – 60 teaches, “With reference to FIG. 4, in the exemplary embodiment, additive manufacturing system 400 is a Direct Metal Laser Sintering (DMLS) system. In alternative embodiments, additive manufacturing system 400 is any other suitable additive manufacturing system, including, without limitation, one of a Direct Metal Laser Melting (DMLM) system, a Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) system, a Direct Metal Laser Deposition (DMLD) system, a Direct Metal Laser Deposition (DMLD) system, and a LasergCusing system.” Applicant’s Specification disclosed, in Para. [0003], “Additive manufacturing such as direct metal laser melting (DMLM) or selective laser melting (SLM)…”. Srinivasan teaches, in Col. 8, l. 5 - Col. 9, l. 20, forming the replacement AM part from a plurality of parallel, sintered metal layers. Col. 1, ll. 40 - 50 “At least some known components are formed using an additive manufacturing process, in which the component is formed by successively depositing and fusing a series of thin layers of material to build the component layer by layer.”). Srinivasan further teaches, in Figs. 3 and 5, coupling (Step 516 – Col. 11, ll. 45 – 55) the replacement AM part (402) to the remaining non-AM part (302) via welding (320, 322 – Col. 5, ll. 50 - 60).
Emilianowica further teaches, in Col. 4, ll. 55 – 60, “In another embodiment, the replacement liner includes cooling upgrades, including, but not limited to relocations, resizing, and changes in the number of cooling features 88”, i.e., air cooling openings.
Thus, improving a particular method (of repairing a combustor), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Srinivasan and Emilianowica, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying these known improvement techniques in the same manner to the method of repairing a combustor, taught by DiCintio, i.v., Melton and Emilianowica, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that additively manufacturing a replacement additively manufactured (AM) part having a plurality of parallel, sintered metal layers for the removed non-AM part, wherein the replacement AM part includes at least one cooling passage defined therein, and wherein the at least one cooling passage was not present in the removed non-AM part, then coupling the replacement AM part to the remaining non-AM part of the combustor body, of DiCintio, i.v., Melton and Emilianowica, would have facilitated tailoring a microstructure of the additively manufactured component to produce a component having a near net shape and desired material properties, faster and at lower cost as compared to previously known methods, Srinivasan – Col. 13, ll. 20 - 50. Additionally, upgrading the cooling by including at least one cooling passage defined in the replacement AM part that was not present in the removed non-AM part, e.g., increasing the number of cooling features, would have facilitated providing both increased convective cooling of the replacement AM part and increased film-cooling, e.g., a thin protective boundary of air would have been formed between high temperature combustion gases and combustion liner inner surface, which would have increased the operating life of the combustion liner by keeping the operating temperature of the replacement AM part lower than the operating temperature of the removed non-AM part, Emilianowica - Col. 3, ll. 40 – 50. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Re Claim 2, DiCintio, i.v., Melton, Emilianowica, and Srinivasan, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the removed non-AM part includes at least one life-limiting structure selected from a group comprising: a weld, a hot spot, and a high stress geometry. As discussed in the Claim 1 rejection above, Melton teaches, in Col. 6, ll. 50 - 65, that the combustor body could be manufactured from sheet metal rolled and/or bending, i.e., stamping, and then joined by welding to form a continuous combustor body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the combination of DiCintio, i.v., Melton, Emilianowica, and Srinivasan, would have had the removed non-AM part includes at least one life-limiting structure selected from a group comprising: a weld, a hot spot, and a high stress geometry.
Re Claim 3, DiCintio, i.v., Melton, Emilianowica, and Srinivasan, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the coupling includes welding the replacement AM part to the remaining non-AM part of the combustor body where the remaining non-AM part meets the receiving element, refer to the Claim 1 rejection above.
Re Claim 5, DiCintio, i.v., Melton, Emilianowica, and Srinivasan, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the plurality of parallel, sintered metal layers in the replacement AM part extends into the aft section of the tapered transition portion and the aft frame. As discussed in the Claim 1 rejection above, Srinivasan taught, in Col. 1, ll. 40 – 50, “At least some known components are formed using an additive manufacturing process, in which the component is formed by successively depositing and fusing a series of thin layers of material to build the component layer by layer.” Srinivasan further taught, in Col. 8, l. 5 - Col. 9, l. 20, forming the replacement AM part from a plurality of parallel, sintered metal layers. Emilianowica teaches, in Col. 4, ll. 35 – 45, “The replacement liner includes a support flange 120, and is sized substantially identical to the deteriorated region of liner 42 being replaced, such that liner 42 is returned to substantially the original predefined dimensional requirements.
Thus, improving a particular method (of repairing a combustor), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Emilianowica and Srinivasan, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying this known improvement technique in the same manner to the method of repairing a combustor, taught by DiCintio, i.v., Melton, Emilianowica, and Srinivasan, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that extending the plurality of parallel, sintered metal layers in the replacement AM part into the aft section of the tapered transition portion and the aft frame would have facilitated utilizing the additive manufacturing process to manufacture the replacement additively manufactured (AM) part as a single monolithic piece including an aft section of the tapered transition portion and the aft frame of the combustor body which was sized substantially identical to the removed non-AM part so that the repaired combustion liner would be returned to substantially the original predefined dimensional requirements, Emilianowica - Col. 4, ll. 35 – 45. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Re Claim 8, DiCintio, i.v., Melton, Emilianowica, and Srinivasan, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein the removed non-AM part includes a first material, and the replacement AM part includes a second material different than the first material.
Emilianowica further teaches, in Col. 4, ll. 50 – 60, “In one embodiment, the replacement liner includes material upgrades to facilitate extending a useful life of combustor 30”. Srinivasan further teaches, in Col. 5, ll. 15 - 20, that the removed non-AM part (cast first material 304) includes a first material, and the replacement AM part (402) includes a second material (CoCrMo superalloy - Col. 6, ll. 20 - 35) different than the first material. Srinivasan further teaches, in Col. 3, ll. 35 - 40, that “…the replacement coupon is additively manufactured from a CoCrMo alloy having at least one of increased nickel content and increased iron content, that imparts improved mechanical properties to the replacement coupon and the repaired component…”.
Thus, improving a particular method (of repairing a combustor), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Emilianowica and Srinivasan, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying this known improvement technique in the same manner to the method of repairing a combustor, taught by DiCintio, i.v., Melton, Emilianowica, and Srinivasan, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that manufacturing the replacement AM part out of a second material different than the first material would have facilitated extending the useful life of the repaired combustor by selecting a second material that imparts improved mechanical properties compared to the non-additively manufactured (non-AM) part of the combustor body manufactured out of the first material. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiCintio et al. (10,865,992) in view of Melton et al. (9,383,104) in view of Emilianowica (6,904,676) in view of Srinivasan et al. (11,224,915) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Willis et al. (2014/0014792A1).
Re Claim 2, DiCintio, i.v., Melton, Emilianowica, and Srinivasan, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the removed non-AM part includes at least one life-limiting structure selected from a group comprising: a weld, a hot spot, and a high stress geometry. As discussed in the Claim 1 rejection above, Melton teaches, in Col. 6, ll. 50 - 65, that the combustor body could be manufactured from sheet metal rolled and/or bending, i.e., stamping, and then joined by welding to form a continuous combustor body.
Willis teaches, in Fig. 1 and Para. [0021], a similar combustor body including a combustion liner including a cylindrical portion (20) and a tapered transition portion (26), and an aft frame (32) coupled to an aft end (36) of the tapered transition portion (26). Willis teaches, in Fig. 1 and Para. [0021], at least one life-limiting structure selected from a group comprising: a weld between the forward face of the aft frame and the downstream end of the tapered transition portion. Willis teaches, in Para. [0021], “…the aft frame 32 may include a forward face 34 configured to be secured to the downstream end 36 of the transition duct 26, such as by welding the forward face 34 to the downstream end 36 of the transition duct 26.”
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify DiCintio, i.v., Melton, Emilianowica, and Srinivasan, with the life-limiting structure selected from a group comprising: a weld, taught by Willis, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the combustor body including a combustion liner including a cylindrical portion and a tapered transition portion, an aft frame, and welding the forward face of the aft frame and the downstream end of the tapered transition portion together, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted welding the forward face of the aft frame and the downstream end of the tapered transition portion, taught by Willis, for the non-disclosed method of fastening the aft frame to the downstream end of the tapered transition portion of DiCintio, i.v., Melton, Emilianowica, and Srinivasan, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., welding the forward face of the aft frame and the downstream end of the tapered transition portion together would have created a life-limiting structure in the removed removed non-AM part. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiCintio et al. (10,865,992) in view of Melton et al. (9,383,104) in view of Emilianowica (6,904,676) in view of Srinivasan et al. (11,224,915) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Glezer et al. (6,098,397).
Re Claim 8, DiCintio, i.v., Melton, Emilianowica, and Srinivasan, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein the removed non-AM part includes a first material, and the replacement AM part includes a second material different than the first material.
Emilianowica further teaches, in Col. 4, ll. 50 – 60, “In one embodiment, the replacement liner includes material upgrades to facilitate extending a useful life of combustor 30”. Srinivasan further teaches, in Col. 5, ll. 15 - 20, that the removed non-AM part (cast first material 304) includes a first material, and the replacement AM part (402) includes a second material (CoCrMo superalloy - Col. 6, ll. 20 - 35) different than the first material. Srinivasan further teaches, in Col. 3, ll. 35 - 40, that “…the replacement coupon is additively manufactured from a CoCrMo alloy having at least one of increased nickel content and increased iron content, that imparts improved mechanical properties to the replacement coupon and the repaired component…”. Glezer teaches, in Figs. 1 – 4 and Col. 3, ll. 45 – 50, a similar combustor body having a combustion liner (70) that was manufactured out of a nickel based alloy like Hastelloy or Inconel.
Thus, improving a particular method (of repairing a combustor), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Emilianowica, Srinivasan, and Glezer, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying this known improvement technique in the same manner to the method of repairing a combustor, taught by DiCintio, i.v., Melton, Emilianowica, and Srinivasan, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that manufacturing the replacement AM part out of a second material (in this case CoCrMo superalloy) different than the first material (in this case Hastelloy or Inconel) would have facilitated extending the useful life of the repaired combustor by selecting the second material (in this case CoCrMo superalloy) that imparts improved mechanical properties compared to the non-additively manufactured (non-AM) part of the combustor body manufactured out of the first material (in this case Hastelloy or Inconel). KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C). Examiner notes that Applicant’s Specification disclosed, in Para. [0061], “As noted herein, removed non-AM part 200 may be made of but is not limited to: HA282 or HA233, Inconel 625 or 718, Hastelloy X, or GTD 262. In contrast, replacement AM part 210 may be made of any non-reactive metal such as but not limited to: a cobalt chromium molybdenum (CoCrMo) alloy…” Therefore, the combination of DiCintio, i.v., Melton, Emilianowica, Srinivasan, and Glezer, teaches the disclosed different first and second materials.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pgs. 7 – 8 that Emilianowica teaches away from the amended limitation “at least one cooling passage defined therein, and wherein the at least one cooling passage was not present in the removed non-AM part” because Emilianowica teaches, in Col. 4, ll. 63 – 67, “Furthermore, because the replacement liners are formed to be substantially identical to originally installed liners 42, aerodynamic performance and combustor performance are not adversely impacted by the replacement liners”. This argument is not persuasive because Applicant has failed to cite where Emilianowica criticized, discredited, or otherwise discouraged the solution claimed. It has been held that “the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed….” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004); MPEP 2145(X)(D)(1).
Furthermore, Applicant’s arguments fails to consider Emilianowica in its entirety. It has been held that “A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention.” W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984); MPEP 2141.02(VI). Applicant’s arguments ignores Emilianowica teaches, in Col. 4, ll. 35 – 41, “The replacement liner includes a support flange 120, and is sized substantially identical to the deteriorated region of liner 42 being replaced, such that liner 42 is returned to substantially the original predefined dimensional requirements”. Therefore, the “substantially identical” in Col. 4, ll. 63 – 67 refers to substantially identical dimensions of the repaired combustor liner compared to the original combustor liner so that aerodynamic performance and combustor performance are not adversely impacted by the replacement liner. Applicant has not and cannot cite where Emilianowica explicitly taught that the replacement liner and the combination of the repaired combustor liner with the replacement liner were exactly the same as the original combustor liner. Instead, Emilianowica explicitly teaches upgrading the replacement part with better materials or with additional cooling features to facilitate extending the useful life of the repaired combustor liner. Emilianowica teaches, in Col. 4, ll. 53 – 58, “In one embodiment, the replacement liner includes material upgrades to facilitate extending a useful life of combustor 30. In another embodiment, the replacement liner includes cooling upgrades, including, but not limited to relocations, resizing, and changes in the number of cooling features 88.” Therefore, contrary to Applicant’s argument that Emilianowica teaches away from the amended limitation, Emilianowica actually explicitly teaches the amended limitation to facilitate extending a useful life of combustor. The rejections are maintained.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORNE E MEADE whose telephone number is (571)270-7570. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. 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.
/LORNE E MEADE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights