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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 1/26/24 and 1/21/26 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Language from the reference(s) is shown in quotations. Limitations from the claims are shown in quotations within parentheses. Examiner explanations are shown in italics.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6, 9-11, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kottilingam et al. (US 20180209283 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kottilingam teaches that “present embodiments are directed to a multi-piece hybrid fabrication of a part (e.g., a turbomachine part) via different processes (e.g., casting, molding, and additive manufacturing, etc.)” (which reads upon “a method”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0017]). Kottilingam teaches that “because the part is assembled via multiple pieces, each piece may be post processed separately (e.g., via heat treatments, surface treatments, surface coatings, etc.), machined separately (e.g., to make cooling holes among other features), inspected separately, and/or repaired or replaced separately” (which reads upon “of repairing, inspecting the aerospace part to identify a worn or defective repair region on a repair feature that requires repair”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0017]). Kottilingam teaches that “the disclosed multi-piece hybrid fabrication process may also be used to fabricate any suitable multi-piece parts (e.g., parts used in automobile industry, aeronautical industry” (which reads upon “an aerospace part, comprising”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0023]). Kottilingam teaches that “upon determining that pieces of the part are due for servicing, the pieces of the part may be disassembled (block 108), and one or more pieces may receive post-processing 104 (e.g., heat treating, machining, surface coating, and/or inspecting), in addition or alternative to the repairing described in block 110” (which reads upon “inspecting the aerospace part to identify a worn or defective repair region on a repair feature that requires repair”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0032]). Kottilingam teaches that “each piece of the stage one nozzle segment may be manufactured separately using different manufacturing methods and/or using different materials that are better suited for the respective pieces” (which reads upon “wherein the aerospace part is made from a base material”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [00]). Kottilingam teaches that “in certain embodiments, depending on issues encountered during manufacturing, the process 100 may include a disassembling (block 108) the pieces of the part, post-processing (block 104) or repairing (110) one or more pieces of the part, and then reassembling the piece of the part (block 106)” (paragraph [0024]). Kottilingam teaches that “upon determination that a piece of the part is damaged or defective, the individual pieces of the part may be disassembled to enable easy access for repair or replacement of the particular piece” (which reads upon “removing from the aerospace part an intervening feature that block line-of-sight from a directed energy deposition (DED) laser/powder head to the repair region on the repair feature, wherein after removal of the intervening feature there is line-of-sight from the DED laser/powder head to the repair region on the repair feature; performing”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0032]; to enable easy access reads on an intervening feature that block line-of-sight). Kottilingam teaches that “the fabrication process 122 may include a variety of additive manufacturing processes, such as material jetting, binder jetting or binderjet process, material extrusion, powder bed fusion, sheet lamination, directed energy deposition, three-dimensional (3D) printing, direct metal laser melting (DMLM), direct metal laser sintering (DMLS), electron beam melting process, among other additive manufacturing processes” (which reads upon “a directed energy deposition (DED) laser/powder head, using the DED laser/powder head”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0027]). Kottilingam teaches that “the illustrated process 100 for fabricating the multi-piece part may also include steps for repairing or remanufacturing a part, for example, that is damaged or worn during use or installation, or that is damaged during manufacturing” (which reads upon “a repair procedure on the repair region of the repair feature”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0032]). Kottilingam teaches that “upon completion of the post-processing 104 and/or repair 110, the pieces may be reassembled (e.g., the process 106) to form the part” (which reads upon “obtaining a replacement intervening feature; attaching the replacement intervening feature to the aerospace part to complete a desired repair”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0032]). Kottilingam teaches that “because the part is assembled via multiple pieces, each piece may be post processed separately (e.g., via heat treatments, surface treatments, surface coatings, etc.), machined separately (e.g., to make cooling holes among other features), inspected separately, and/or repaired or replaced separately” (which reads upon “obtaining a replacement intervening feature; attaching the replacement intervening feature to the aerospace part to complete a desired repair”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0017]; repaired or replaced separately reads on the claimed limitation). Kottilingam teaches that “the process 100 includes disassembling the pieces of the part 108, repairing (block 110) the pieces, followed by the re-assembly of the part (block 106)” (paragraph [0032]). Kottilingam teaches that “upon determination that a piece of the part is damaged or defective, the individual pieces of the part may be disassembled to enable easy access for repair or replacement of the particular piece, and that upon completion of the repair or replacement, the pieces may be reassembled (e.g., the process 106) to form the part” (which reads upon “returning the aerospace part to service after completion of the desired repair”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0032]).
Regarding claim 2, Kottilingam teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Kottilingam teaches “high-strength materials and/or dispersion strengthened materials, such as nickel and cobalt based superalloys” (paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 6, Kottilingam teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Kottilingam teaches that “the illustrated process 100 for fabricating the multi-piece part may also include steps for repairing or remanufacturing a part, for example, that is damaged or worn during use or installation” (paragraph [0032]).
Regarding claim 9, Kottilingam teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Kottilingam teaches that “because the part is assembled via multiple pieces, each piece may be post processed separately (e.g., via heat treatments, surface treatments, surface coatings, etc.), machined separately (e.g., to make cooling holes among other features), inspected separately, and/or repaired or replaced separately” (paragraph [0017]). Kottilingam teaches that “the multi-piece hybrid fabrication of a part via different processes (e.g., casting, molding, and additive manufacturing, among others) and/or using multiple materials (e.g., ceramics, metals, alloys, composites, etc.). It may be appreciated that the disclosed multi-piece hybrid fabrication process may be used to fabricate any suitable parts or segments of the gas turbine system” (paragraph [0023]). Kottilingam teaches that “any identified defects may be addressed or the piece of the part may be swapped for a non-defective piece, without affecting the other pieces of the part or affecting overall part yield” (paragraph [0030]).
Regarding claims 10-11, Kottilingam teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Kottilingam teaches that “the multi-piece hybrid fabrication of a part via different processes (e.g., casting, molding, and additive manufacturing, among others) and/or using multiple materials (e.g., ceramics, metals, alloys, composites, etc.). It may be appreciated that the disclosed multi-piece hybrid fabrication process may be used to fabricate any suitable parts or segments of the gas turbine system” (paragraph [0023]). Kottilingam teaches that “the fabrication process 122 may include a variety of additive manufacturing processes, such as material jetting, binder jetting or binderjet process, material extrusion, powder bed fusion, sheet lamination, directed energy deposition, three-dimensional (3D) printing, direct metal laser melting (DMLM), direct metal laser sintering (DMLS), electron beam melting process, among other additive manufacturing processes” (paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 15, Kottilingam teaches the method of claim 9 as stated above. Kottilingam teaches that “the assembly of block 106 may include one or more steps to removably couple (e.g., mechanically couple) and/or fixedly couple (e.g., weld or braze) together the pieces that form the part” (paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claim 16, Kottilingam teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Kottilingam teaches “a process for fabricating a multi-piece part of the gas turbine system of FIG. 1 via a multi-piece hybrid fabrication process” (paragraph [0010]).
Claims 1-2 and 6-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Henderkott et al. (US 20160251965 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Henderkott teaches “techniques for repairing dual walled metallic components using directed energy deposition material addition” (which reads upon “a method of repairing”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0002]). Henderkott teaches that the “dual walled component 28 may include a component of a gas turbine engine” (which reads upon “an aerospace part, comprising”, as recited in instant claim 1; which reads on claim 16; paragraph [0024]). Henderkott teaches that “the method may include removing a damaged portion of the coversheet from the dual walled component to expose a plurality of exposed pedestals and define a repair location and an adjacent coversheet portion” (which reads upon “inspecting the aerospace part to identify a worn or defective repair region on a repair feature that requires repair”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0004]). Henderkott teaches that “the alloys from which coversheet 42 and spar 44 are formed may include a Ni-based alloy, a Co-based alloy, a Ti-based alloy, or the like” (which reads upon “wherein the aerospace part is made from a base material”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0025]). FIGs. 4-5 of Henderkott show removing from the aerospace part an intervening feature that block line-of-sight from a directed energy deposition (DED) laser/powder head to the repair region on the repair feature, wherein after removal of the intervening feature there is line-of-sight from the DED laser/powder head to the repair region on the repair feature.
PNG
media_image1.png
595
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Henderkott teaches that “removing damaged portion 84 of dual walled component 72 (62) may define a repair location 94 (FIG. 5) and an adjacent coversheet portion, and may expose one or more exposed pedestals 98 that were underlying damaged portion 84 of coversheet 78” (which reads upon “removing from the aerospace part an intervening feature that block line-of-sight from a directed energy deposition (DED) laser/powder head to the repair region on the repair feature, wherein after removal of the intervening feature there is line-of-sight from the DED laser/powder head to the repair region on the repair feature”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0045]). Henderkott teaches “attaching a material to the at least one exposed pedestal 98 and adjacent coversheet portion using DED MA to form a repaired coversheet portion 102 (64)” (which reads upon “performing, using the DED laser/powder head, a repair procedure on the repair region of the repair feature; obtaining a replacement intervening feature; attaching the replacement intervening feature to the aerospace part to complete a desired repair”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0046]). Henderkott teaches that “FIG. 6 is a conceptual and schematic diagram illustrating dual walled component 72 including a repaired coversheet portion 102 that has been repaired using directed energy deposition material addition” (which reads upon “returning the aerospace part to service after completion of the desired repair”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0047]; one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the purpose of repairing the part is to be able to return the part of service after completion of the desired repair).
Regarding claim 2, Henderkott teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Henderkott teaches that “repaired coversheet portion 102 may include the same alloy as coversheet 78. For example, if coversheet 78 includes a Ni- or Co-based superalloy, repaired coversheet portion 102 may include the same Ni- or Co-based superalloy” (paragraph [0048]). Henderkott teaches that “the alloys from which coversheet 42 and spar 44 are formed may include a Ni-based alloy, a Co-based alloy, a Ti-based alloy, or the like” (paragraph [0025]).
Regarding claim 6, Henderkott teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Henderkott teaches “repairing a dual walled component using directed energy deposition material addition (DED MA)” (paragraph [0018]). Henderkott teaches that “coating 80 may be removed to uncover part of outer surface 96 of coversheet 78, and that this may facilitate repair of coversheet 78 (e.g., joining of material to coversheet 78) and subsequent working of the repaired portion (e.g., machining the repaired portion to smooth the interface between the repaired portion and coversheet 78)” (paragraph [0042]). Henderkott teaches that “material delivery device 30 may be used to introduce material to repair location 176 during the DED MA technique” (paragraph [0064]). Henderkott teaches that “computing device 26 may control energy delivery head 16 to aim focal spot 27 at the powder to join the powder to preformed replacement coversheet portion” (paragraph [0064]). Henderkott teaches that “energy source 22 may include, for example, a laser source, such as a CO laser, a CO2 laser, a Nd:YAG laser; an electron beam source, a plasma source; or the like, and that energy source 22 may be selected to provide energy with a predetermined wavelength or wavelength spectrum that may be absorbed by the material to be added to component 28 during DED MA repair of dual walled component” (paragraph [0029]). Henderkott teaches that “the material may be supplied by material delivery device 30 in powder form” (paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claims 7-8, Henderkott teaches the method of claim 6 as stated above. Henderkott teaches that “in some examples, the material to be delivered to material delivery device 30 may include a composition substantially the same as (e.g., the same or nearly the same as) the composition of the material from which the outer wall of dual walled component 28 is formed” (paragraph [0031]). Henderkott teaches that “in other examples, the material to be delivered to material delivery device 30 may include a composition different from the composition of the material from which the outer wall of dual walled component 28 is formed” (paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claims 9-11, Henderkott teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Henderkott teaches that “attaching a material to the at least one exposed pedestal 98 and adjacent coversheet portion using DED MA to form a repaired coversheet portion 102 (64)” (paragraph [0046]). Henderkott teaches that “FIG. 9 is a conceptual and schematic diagram illustrating an example dual walled component 122 after a damaged portion has been removed, spaces around pedestals 126 and 134 filled with stop material 138 and material 142 is introduced to repair location 136, and that in some examples, the material may be a powder, and may be spread or otherwise placed in repair location 136, as shown in FIG. 9” (paragraph [0057]). Henderkott teaches that “at least a portion of dual walled component 122 that includes repair location 136 may be submerged in a powder bed so that material 142 is located at repair location 136 as shown in FIG. 9” (which reads upon “powder bed fusion”, as recited in instant claim 11; which reads on claims 9-10; paragraph [0057]).
Regarding claim 12, Henderkott teaches the method of claim 9 as stated above. Henderkott teaches that “in some examples, the material to be delivered to material delivery device 30 may include a composition substantially the same as (e.g., the same or nearly the same as) the composition of the material from which the outer wall of dual walled component 28 is formed” (paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claim 13, Henderkott teaches the method of claim 9 as stated above. Henderkott teaches that “in other examples, the material to be delivered to material delivery device 30 may include a composition different from the composition of the material from which the outer wall of dual walled component 28 is formed” (paragraph [0031]). Henderkott teaches that “in some examples, repaired coversheet portion 102 may include the same alloy as coversheet 78” (paragraph [0048]). Henderkott teaches that “in other examples, repaired coversheet portion 102 may include an alloy having a different composition than coversheet 78” (paragraph [0048]).
Regarding claim 14, Henderkott teaches the method of claim 9 as stated above. Henderkott teaches that “computing device 26 may control energy delivery head 16, stage 14, or both to direct focal spot 27 adjacent to exposed pedestal 134 to join material 142 to exposed pedestal 134, then scan focal spot 27 in sequential rows to build up a plurality of layers of material 142 that are joined to previously formed layers and to coversheet 128” (paragraph [0058]). Henderkott teaches that “computing device 26 may control energy delivery head 16, stage 14, or both to direct focal spot 27 to join material 142 to previously formed layers and coversheet 128 until the joined material 142 is substantially continuous with the outer surface of coversheet 128” (paragraph [0058]). Henderkott teaches that “in this way, DED MA may be used to build up a repaired coversheet portion that fills the repair location 136” (paragraph [0058]; see also FIG. 7 and associated text).
Regarding claim 15, Henderkott teaches the method of claim 9 as stated above. Henderkott teaches that “attaching the material to the at least one exposed pedestal 98 and adjacent coversheet portion using DED MA to form repaired coversheet portion 102 (64) may include utilizing a preformed replacement coversheet portion” (paragraph [0060]). Henderkott teaches that “FIG. 10 is a flow diagram illustrating an example technique for repairing a dual walled component using directed energy deposition material addition and a preformed coversheet insert” (paragraph [0060] and FIG. 10).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Language from the reference(s) is shown in quotations. Limitations from the claims are shown in quotations within parentheses. Examiner explanations are shown in italics.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henderkott et al. (US 20160251965 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ozbaysal et al. (US 20220228239 A1).
Regarding claims 3-5, Henderkott teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Henderkott teaches that “in some examples, the material to be delivered to material delivery device 30 may include a composition substantially the same as (e.g., the same or nearly the same as) the composition of the material from which the outer wall of dual walled component 28 is formed” (paragraph [0031]). Henderkott teaches that “in other examples, the material to be delivered to material delivery device 30 may include a composition different from the composition of the material from which the outer wall of dual walled component 28 is formed” (paragraph [0031]). Henderkott teaches “repairing a dual walled component using directed energy deposition material addition (DED MA)” (paragraph [0018]). Henderkott teaches that “coating 80 may be removed to uncover part of outer surface 96 of coversheet 78, and that this may facilitate repair of coversheet 78 (e.g., joining of material to coversheet 78) and subsequent working of the repaired portion (e.g., machining the repaired portion to smooth the interface between the repaired portion and coversheet 78)” (paragraph [0042]). Henderkott teaches that “material delivery device 30 may be used to introduce material to repair location 176 during the DED MA technique” (paragraph [0064]). Henderkott teaches that “computing device 26 may control energy delivery head 16 to aim focal spot 27 at the powder to join the powder to preformed replacement coversheet portion” (paragraph [0064]). Henderkott teaches that “energy source 22 may include, for example, a laser source, such as a CO laser, a CO2 laser, a Nd:YAG laser; an electron beam source, a plasma source; or the like, and that energy source 22 may be selected to provide energy with a predetermined wavelength or wavelength spectrum that may be absorbed by the material to be added to component 28 during DED MA repair of dual walled component” (paragraph [0029]). Henderkott teaches that “the material may be supplied by material delivery device 30 in powder form” (paragraph [0031]).
Henderkott is silent regarding filling cracks.
Ozbaysal is similarly concerned with the field of additive manufacturing and welding, and more particularly, to additively manufacturing and/or welding components made of difficult-to-weld superalloys used in gas turbines and other high temperature applications (paragraph [0001]). Ozbaysal teaches that “the following examples illustrate a new process referred to herein as Liquid Assisted AM (LAAM), which enables the ability to carry out an AM process to manufacture and/or repair components made out of difficult-to-weld superalloys” (which reads upon “a method of repairing an aerospace part”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0113]). Ozbaysal teaches that “the additive system 100 may include laser powder deposition (LPD) or laser metal deposition (LMD) 3D printers, which are a type of directed energy deposition (DED) that use a nozzle, which emits a laser beam to melt powdered material blown out of the nozzle while moving along toolpaths to build up layers of a superalloy” (paragraph [0203]). Ozbaysal teaches that “the low melt superalloy powder may have a chemistry that prior to heat treating of the additive portion enables the low melt superalloy powder to fill solidification cracks in each deposited layer in order to reduce solidification cracks in the deposited layer” (which reads upon “filling cracks”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0066]). Ozbaysal teaches that “in aspects directed to a method, during successively depositing and fusing together layers of a superalloy powder mixture, the method may include the deposited superalloy filling cracks” (paragraph [0083]). Ozbaysal teaches that “FIG. 12 illustrates a perspective view of a turbine blade made out of a conventional superalloy, which includes an upper tip portion having several cracks” (paragraph [0103]). Ozbaysal teaches that “the substrate 112 may correspond to a previously deposited layer created from the superalloy powder mixture 102; however, it should also be appreciated that the substrate 112 may correspond to a different type of superalloy and/or a preexisting component made of the same or a different type of superalloy (or some other metal that is not a superalloy)” (paragraph [0188]). Ozbaysal teaches that “it should be appreciated that the high and low melt superalloy powders may have other chemistries that produce the same base alloy or alternative base alloys” (which reads upon instant claims 4-5; paragraph [0144]). Ozbaysal teaches that “the superalloy powder mixture may be deposited and fused together via a Directed Energy Deposition (DED) nozzle that both provides the superalloy powder mixture and emits an energy beam that melts the superalloy powder mixture to form the additive portion” (paragraph [0081]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Henderkott to fill any cracks in the repair region, as taught by Ozbaysal because filling cracks eliminates the need to remove the base material down past the beginning of the crack, while still performing the repair, thus saving time.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA JANSSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5434. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 10-7 and alternating Fri 10-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. The Examiner requests that interviews not be scheduled during the last week of each fiscal quarter or the last half of September, which is the end of the fiscal year. Q4: 9/21-9/30/26; Q1: 1/4-1/8/27.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (571)272-1401. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights