DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ribic et al. (US2017/0246705A1) in view of Lin (US2016/0271731A1).
With respect to claim 1, Ribic teaches a method of repairing an aerospace part (gas turbine engine) (title; and paragraphs 20, 23-27, 39, 43, 46, 48, and 52), comprising: inspecting the aerospace part to identify a worn or defective repair region that requires repair (to perform a repair process on a defect the component intrinsically has to be inspected to locate the defect), wherein the aerospace part is made from a base material and includes a first section (left side) of the aerospace part separated from a second section (right side) of the aerospace part (figures 1A-E, 3, and 4A-6B); selecting a desired pre-determined residual stress state and microstructure for each repair layer or specific area of each repair layer to be deposited during the repair procedure (paragraphs 5-6, 19, 23, 25, 28-31, 33, 36, 39-40, and 42-48, and 53-55); performing, using a directed energy deposition (DED) energy/powder head, the repair procedure on the repair region, wherein the repair procedure includes: depositing, using the DED energy (14)/powder head (20), a first layer of DED powder material in the repair region (figure 1A; and paragraphs 31-33); melting and consolidating, using energy from the DED energy/powder head, the first layer of DED powder material to form a first repair layer having a pre-determined residual stress state and microstructure (figure 1A; and paragraphs 5-6, 28-31, 33, 35-37, 39-40, 44-48, and 53-55); repeating the depositing and melting and consolidating steps to create a desired plurality of repair layers, wherein the plurality of repair layers extend from a first section of the aerospace part to a second section of the aerospace part and each of the plurality of repair layers has a pre-determined residual stress state and microstructure for the repair layer or specific area of the repair layer (paragraphs 5-6, 23, 28-31, 33, 36, 39-40, 42-48, and 53-55); wherein the pre-determined residual stress state and microstructure of each of the plurality of repair layers is imparted using selected levels of: DED powder material feed to the repair region (paragraphs 23, 31, 33, 39, 42, and 43); intensity of energy directed from the DED energy/powder head to the repair region (paragraphs 30, 35, 37, 39, 47, and 53-55); rate at which the DED energy/powder head traverses (travel speed) the repair region (paragraphs 30, 47, and 53-55); and auxiliary heating and cooling provided to the repair region (paragraphs 18, 37, 38, 40, and 46-48, note that controlling the cooling rate would intrinsically require auxiliary cooling); and returning the aerospace part to service after completion of the desired repair procedure (the repaired component of Ribic is intrinsically returned to service after completion of the repair). Ribic explicitly teaches controlling all of the parameters necessary for forming a microstructure and generating residual stress as set forth in paragraph [0010] of the instant application. Consequently, the residual stress and microstructure is intrinsically controlled for each track/layer that is deposited using the process of Ribic. Furthermore, the selection and implementation of the processing parameters taught by Ribic intrinsically results in in a predetermined residual stress and microstructure.
With respect to claim 1, Ribic does not teach attaching a sacrificial backing material to the first section of the aerospace part and the second section of the aerospace part, wherein the sacrificial backing material serves as a platform for deposition of repair layers during a repair procedure; and removing the sacrificial backing plate from the aerospace part after completion of the desired repair procedure.
With respect to claim 1, Lin also teaches a process for repairing a gas turbine engine by attaching a sacrificial backing (P) material to the first section of the aerospace part and the second section of the aerospace part, wherein the sacrificial backing material serves as a platform for deposition of repair layers during a repair procedure (figure 8; and paragraphs 53-59); and removing the sacrificial backing plate from the aerospace part after completion of the desired repair procedure (paragraph 55).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the sacrificial backing of Lin in the repair process of Ribic in order to temporarily close a through hole during the deposition repair process.
With respect to claim 2, Ribic teaches wherein the base material comprises a titanium alloy, a superalloy material, or a specialty steel alloy (paragraph 22).
With respect to claim 3, Lin teaches wherein the repair procedure includes filling a through hole in the repair region (figure 8; and paragraph 55).
With respect to claim 4, Ribic teaches wherein the DED powder material has the same composition as the base material (paragraphs 22, 31, and 32).
With respect to claim 5, Ribic teaches wherein the DED powder material has a different composition than the base material (paragraphs 22, 31, and 32).
With respect to claim 6, Lin teaches wherein the repair procedure includes joining two sections (top and bottom of the repair) of the aerospace part at the repair region (figures).
With respect to claim 7, Ribic teaches wherein the DED powder material has the same composition as the base material (paragraphs 22, 31, and 32).
With respect to claim 8, Ribic teaches wherein the DED powder material has a different composition than the base material (paragraphs 22, 31, and 32).
With respect to claim 11, Lin teaches wherein the aerospace part is a component of a gas turbine engine (title).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Ribic and Lin as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Liu et al. (US2024/0139856A1) (hereafter Liu).
With respect to claim 9, Ribic and Lin do not teach wherein the sacrificial backing feature is formed from a material having the same composition as the base material.
However, Liu teaches wherein the backing plate is formed from a material having the same composition as the workpiece (paragraphs 41, 55, and 65).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a backing material having the same composition as the base material as taught by Liu in the collective process of Ribic and Lin in order to not contaminate the repair weld.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ribic and Lin as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Cheng et al. (CN-114559373A) (hereafter Cheng).
With respect to claim 10, Ribic and Lin do not teach wherein the sacrificial backing feature is formed from a material having a different than the base material.
However, Cheng teaches using a sacrificial backing feature that is formed from a material having a different than the base material (paragraph 36).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the glass cloth backing tape of Cheng in the collective process of Ribic and Lin in order to be able to easily remove the heat resistance sacrificial backing material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Ribic et al. and Lin do not teach or suggest "selecting a desired pre-determined residual stress state and microstructure for each repair layer or specific area of each repair layer to be deposited during the repair procedure" as recited in claims 1-8 and 11.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph [0010] of the instant application states that:
A pre-selected residual stress state and microstructure for each layer can be obtained by controlling the main parameters of the DED process, including DED powder feed rate to the repair region, the intensity of energy directed from the DED energy/powder heat to the repair region, the rate at which the DED energy/powder head traverses the repair region, and any auxiliary heating and cooling provided to the repair region (emphasis added by the examiner).
Thus, in the instant application the residual stress and the microstructure are created by controlling the following four parameters:
1 - DED powder feed rate to the repair region. Ribic teaches controlling the powder feed rate/material delivery in paragraphs 5-6, 31, 33, 36, 40, 44, and 46.
2 - the intensity of energy directed from the DED energy/powder heat to the repair region. Ribic teaches controlling the intensity of energy directed from the DED energy/powder heat to the repair region in paragraphs 5, 6, 28-30, 40, 44, and 47.
3 - the rate at which the DED energy/powder head traverses the repair region. Ribic teaches controlling the rate at which the DED energy/powder head traverses the repair region in paragraphs 30, 47, and 53-55.
4 - any auxiliary heating and cooling provided to the repair region. Ribic teaches controlling a heat treatment and/or cooling in paragraphs 18, 37-38, 40, and 45-48. While paragraph 18 of Ribic establishes that cooling influences residual stress.
While, Ribic also teaches forming multiple layer repairs (figure 1E; and paragraphs 39 and 43). Accordingly, Ribic explicitly teaches controlling all of the parameters necessary for forming residual stress in the layers of a repair. Consequently, the residual stress is intrinsically controlled for each track/layer that is deposited using the process of Ribic. Furthermore, the selection and implementation of the processing parameters taught by Ribic intrinsically results in in a predetermined residual stress and microstructure. It should also be noted that adjusting the parameters for each layer and/or forming a different residual stress and microstructure for each layer is not claimed.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KILEY SHAWN STONER whose telephone number is (571)272-1183. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday.
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, Keith Walker can be reached on 571-272-3458. 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.
/KILEY S STONER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights