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/or microstructure for each repair layer or specific area of each repair layer to be deposited during the repair procedure (paragraphs 19, 23, 25, 42, 43, and 46); 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/or microstructure (figure 1A; and paragraphs 30, 35, 37, 39, 47, 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/or microstructure for the repair layer or specific area of the repair layer (paragraphs 23, 42, and 43); wherein the pre-determined residual stress state and/or 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, 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/or 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).
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 with respect to claim(s) 1-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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