DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicant’s Response, dated 13 June 2025, which papers have been made of record.
Claims 1-14 are currently presented for examination, of which claims 5, 8, and 10-14 have been withdrawn from consideration.
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 (IDS) submitted on 8 September 2025 was filed after the mailing date of the Office Action on 13 February 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-4, 6-7, and 9
Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2020/0357200 to Wang et al. (hereinafter “Wang”) in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2022/0228239 to Ozbaysal et al. (hereinafter “Ozbaysal”) and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2020/0331099 to El-Wardany et al. (hereinafter “El-Wardany”).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches that it is routine to inspect aircraft to ensure that repairs can be made (see paragraph [0033]). Wang teaches that it is desirable to extend time between maintenance for as long as possible and to speed up turn around for inspections and repair to maximize aircraft availability (see paragraph [0033]). Following repair, parts that have been repair may be restored to the original aircraft and the aircraft may be returned to service (paragraph [0033]; parts may be installed or reinstalled after inspection and repair are complete and paragraph [0034]; durable parts may be placed back into service).
Wang does not explicitly disclose that its repair includes using a directed energy deposition procedure to replace the worn or defective part. However, it is convention in the aerospace arts to perform such repairs using directed energy deposition.
Ozbaysal teaches performing a repair technique see paragraph [0112] for aerospace components (gas turbine blades, guide vanes) may be performed via directed energy deposition techniques or other three-dimensional printing (see paragraph [0203]). Ozbaysal teaches that its repair material may be formed layer by layer (see paragraph [0114]). Ozbaysal teaches that the repaired material may be deposited in a manner intended to reduce damage or cracking following the application of the repair material (see paragraph [0116]).
El-Wardany teaches an existing damaged article (see paragraphs [0012] and [0043] which requires repair, the damaged article being of a base material (metal article; see paragraph [0012]). El-Wardany teaches performing a directed energy deposition procedure (see paragraph [0038] and [0039]) to deposit a first layer (see paragraph [0039]) of powder material (paragraph [0033]). The material is melted and consolidated (paragraph [0030]) to form a first layer having a residual stress state which is a function of laser power, tool speed, layer thickness (see paragraph [0032]), and auxiliary heating (see paragraph [0037]). El-Wardany teaches that repair materials may be formed using a powder (paragraph [0033]) and that it is within the level of ordinary skill in the art to select a suitable particle size and distribution (paragraph [0033]). Each repair layer may be deposited and consolidated (paragraph [0030] and [0034]; layers may be formed and cold worked) prior to the application of subsequent repair layers (paragraph [0034]). Each subsequent repair layer is treated to produce desired properties such as grain orientation (paragraph [0034]) and different layers having different properties (e.g. thickness) may be treated differently (see paragraph [0035]-[0036]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method taught by Wang to repair an aerospace component using a conventional repair technique, such as directed energy deposition, known and understood to be conventional by Ozbaysal. (See MPEP 2143(1)(A)). It further would be advantageous to perform the DED procedures taught by El-Wardany to produce desirable material properties of the repaired component in a predictable manner, while allowing for desired treatments of individual layers based on their formation and materials. (See MPEP 2143(1)(C)). The repair method taught by the combination would advantageously reduce service downtime for aircraft and aircraft components while producing repaired components having desirable characteristics and material properties.
Thus, the combination of Wang, Ozbaysal, and El-Wardany teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Wang, Ozbaysal, and El-Wardany teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Ozbaysal teaches that the base material comprises a titanium alloy, a superalloy material, or a specialty steel alloy (several superalloys disclosed; see paragraph [0112]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Wang, Ozbaysal, and El-Wardany teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Ozbaysal teaches that the repair procedure includes filling cracks in the repair region (see paragraph [0066]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Wang, Ozbaysal, and El-Wardany teaches the limitations of claim 3, and further Ozbaysal teaches that the DED powder material has a composition that is the same as the base material (damaged preexisting superalloy material may be repaired with the same or a different type of superalloy; see paragraph [0188]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Wang, Ozbaysal, and El-Wardany teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Ozbaysal teaches that the repair procedure includes reestablishing a worn surface contour in the repair region (see Figs. 12 and 13 and paragraphs [0189] and [0190]; repaired component may have the shape of the previously damaged component).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Wang, Ozbaysal, and El-Wardany teaches the limitations of claim 6, and further Ozbaysal teaches that the DED powder material has a composition that is the same as the base material (damaged preexisting superalloy material may be repaired with the same or a different type of superalloy; see paragraph [0188]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Wang, Ozbaysal, and El-Wardany teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Ozbaysal teaches that the aerospace part is a component of a gas turbine engine (see paragraph [0210]).
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant’s arguments, see Response, filed 13 June 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-4, 6-7, and 9 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the combination of Wang, Ozbaysal, and El-Wardany.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 9 were previously rejected as anticipated by Srinivasan. Applicant has amended claim 1 and asserts that a first repair layer having a pre-determined residual stress state for the first layer as the first repair layer is deposited using DED techniques and a desired plurality of repair layers, wherein each of the plurality of repair layers has a pre-determined residual stress state for each of the plurality of repair layers as each of the plurality of repair layers is deposited using DED techniques.
The examiner agrees. A new rejection is presented with respect to the combination of Wang, Ozbaysal, and El-Wardany.
Conclusion
Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRELL C. FORD whose telephone number is (313)446-6515. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM to 5:15 PM, Monday to Friday.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/DARRELL C FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights