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, 1/30/24, and 11/24/25 have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: One of ordinary skill in the additive manufacturing arts would understand that the acronym PBF stands for “powder bed fusion.” Applicant has used PBF for “powder beam fusion” in paragraphs [0003], [0004], and [0022], as filed. Applicant has used PBF for “powder bed fusion” in paragraph [0008], as filed. Applicant has used PBF throughout the application without specifying if PBF refers to powder beam fusion or powder bed fusion.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8-9, and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 9, 11-12, and 15-16 of copending Application No. 18424230 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference application claims:
A method of weld repairing an original part, comprising: (method of repairing an aerospace part, comprising, claim 1)
inspecting the original part to identify a worn or defective feature requiring repair, wherein the original part is made from a base material; (inspecting the aerospace part to identify a worn or defective repair region on a repair feature that requires repair, wherein the aerospace part is made from a base material, claim 1);
removing from the original part the worn or defective feature requiring repair; (removing from the aerospace part an intervening feature, claim 1)
fabricating, using a powder beam fusion (PBF) technique, a replacement feature, wherein the replacement feature is made from the base material; (wherein the replacement intervening part is a newly fabricated part made with additive manufacturing (AM) techniques, claim 10; wherein the AM techniques include powder bed fusion (PBF) techniques or DED techniques, claim 11, wherein the replacement intervening part is made from the base material, claim 12).
joining, using a directed energy deposition (DED) joining technique, the replacement feature to the original part to complete a desired repair, wherein the DED joining technique uses the base material to join the replacement feature to the original part; (wherein the replacement intervening part is attached to the aerospace part using DED joining techniques, claim 15);
returning the original part to service after completion of the desired repair (returning the aerospace part to service after completion of the desired repair, claim 1).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a method of weld repairing an original part”. However, the claim fails to recite any welding steps. Rather, the claim recites “joining, using a directed energy deposition (DED) joining technique, the replacement feature to the original part to complete a desired repair.” One of ordinary skill in the art would not equate welding with DED. Accordingly, the scope of protection sought is unclear. Claims 2-7 are rejected due to their dependence on rejected claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “using a powder beam fusion (PBF) technique”. Claim 8 recites the limitation “using a powder beam fusion (PBF) technique”. The meaning of “powder beam” is unclear. One of ordinary skill in the additive manufacturing arts would understand that the acronym PBF stands for “powder bed fusion.” Applicant has used PBF for “powder beam fusion” in paragraphs [0003], [0004], and [0022], as filed. Applicant has used PBF for “powder bed fusion” in paragraph [0008], as filed. It is unclear if powder beam fusion is a typographical error, and powder bed fusion is intended, or if some specific, yet unclear, meaning of powder beam fusion is intended. Claims 2-7 are rejected due to their dependence on rejected claim 1. Claims 9-13 are rejected due to their dependence on rejected claim 8.
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.
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 1-6 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baughman et al. (US 20140259666 A1), in view of Henderkott et al. (US 20160251965 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Baughman teaches that “the present disclosure generally relates to gas turbine engines, and more particularly relates to improved methods of repairing components for use in gas turbine engines” (which reads upon “a method of weld repairing an original part, comprising, an original part repaired using a hybrid repair process, the original part comprising”, as recited in the instant claims; paragraph [0001]; claim 8 is a product claim and the limitation “using a hybrid repair process” is considered product by process). Baughman teaches “separating a damaged portion of the damaged metallic component from an undamaged portion of the damaged metallic component” (which reads upon “inspecting the original part to identify a worn or defective feature requiring repair (implicit), removing from the original part the worn or defective feature requiring repair ”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0007]). Baughman teaches “fabricating a replacement portion using additive manufacturing techniques in accordance with the determined dimensions of the removed damaged portion” (which reads upon “fabricating … a replacement feature”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0007]). Baughman teaches “evaluating a damaged gas turbine engine component to determine an extent of damage to the gas turbine engine component” (which reads upon “inspecting the original part to identify a worn or defective feature requiring repair”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0008]). Baughman teaches that “embodiments of the present disclosure utilize a manufacturing process that incorporates a low energy density laser beam, referred to as “direct metal laser fusion” (DMLF), or a low energy electron beam, referred to as “electron beam melting” (EBM), in a powder tank” (which reads upon “fabricating, using a powder beam fusion (PBF) technique, a replacement feature, a replacement feature made using a powder beam fusion (PBF) technique”, as recited in the instant claims; paragraph [0023]). Baughman teaches that “it will be appreciated that the alloy used as the build material may correspond to the material of which the damaged component was manufactured” (which reads upon “wherein the original part is made from a base material, wherein the replacement feature is made from the base material, the original part made from a base material; a replacement feature made … from the base material”, as recited in the instant claims; paragraph [0035]). Baughman teaches that “the pre-fabricated structure is joined to the existing (damaged) component via a diffusion bonding or a brazing process, for example, or any other suitable metal joining process” (which reads upon “joining, … the replacement feature to the original part to complete a desired repair, wherein the replacement feature is joined to the original part”, as recited in the instant claims; paragraph [0038]). Baughman teaches that “finishing operations and final inspections are performed before returning part into service” (which reads upon “returning the original part to service after completion of the desired repair”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0039]).
Baughman teaches that “the pre-fabricated structure is joined to the existing (damaged) component via a diffusion bonding or a brazing process, for example, or any other suitable metal joining process” (paragraph [0038]). Baughman is silent regarding using a directed energy deposition (DED) joining technique, wherein the DED joining technique uses the base material to join the replacement feature to the original part.
Henderkott is similarly concerned with repairing dual walled metallic components such as gas turbine engines (paragraphs [0002]-[0003]). Henderkott teaches “a method for repairing a dual walled component comprising a spar comprising a plurality of pedestals and a coversheet attached to the plurality of pedestals, and 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” (paragraph [0004]). Henderkott teaches “repairing a dual walled component using directed energy deposition material addition and a preformed coversheet insert” (which reads upon “joining, using a directed energy deposition (DED) joining technique, the replacement feature to the original part to complete a desired repair, using a directed energy deposition (DED) joining technique”, as recited in the instant claims; paragraph [0016]). Henderkott teaches that “the DED MA technique may include positioning a preformed replacement coversheet portion at the repair location, then using DED MA to attach the preformed replacement coversheet portion to the exposed pedestals” (paragraph [0021]). Henderkott teaches that “a powder also may be directed to an outer surface of the preformed replacement coversheet portion. DED MA may be used to join at least some of the powder to the outer surface of the preformed replacement coversheet portion, e.g., to fill depressions formed when the preformed replacement coversheet portion is attached to the exposed pedestals” (paragraph [0021]). Henderkott teaches that “the material may be supplied by material delivery device 30 in powder form or wire form, and 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” (which reads upon “wherein the DED joining technique uses the base material to join the replacement feature to the original part”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0031]). Henderkott teaches that “dual walled component 28 includes a plurality of parts (e.g., at least two), which are joined using e.g., brazing or diffusion bonding” (paragraph [0024]). Henderkott teaches that “dual walled component 28 including a coversheet 42 and a spar 44, which may be brazed or diffusion bonded together” (paragraph [0024]). Henderkott teaches that “the technique of FIG. 10 also may include directing energy to join preformed replacement coversheet portion 178 to at least one exposed pedestal 174 and coversheet 168 (154); for example, energy delivery head 16 may be used to direct and focus energy at selected locations of material preformed replacement coversheet portion 178 to melt or sinter the preformed replacement coversheet portion 178 at the selected locations and join preformed replacement coversheet portion 178 to exposed pedestal 174 and coversheet 168 adjacent to repair location 176” (paragraph [0063]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the diffusion bonding or brazing joining process of Baughman with DED, as taught by Henderkott because Henderkott teaches that DED is a suitable metal joining process for joining of turbine components. Baughman teaches that any suitable metal joining process may be used (paragraph [0038]). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Henderkott teaches that diffusion bonding, brazing, and DED are all suitable metal joining process for joining of turbine components. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP § 2144.06.
Regarding claims 2 and 9, modified Baughman teaches the method of claim 1 and the part of claim 8 as stated above. Baughman teaches that “suitable additive manufacturing techniques include, for example, direct metal laser sintering (DMLS—a form of direct metal laser fusion (DMLF)) with nickel base super-alloys, low density titanium, and aluminum alloys” (paragraph [0025]). Baughman teaches that “another technique includes electron beam melting (EBM) with titanium, titanium aluminide, and nickel base super-alloy materials” (paragraph [0025]). Baughman teaches that “the build material 370 may be formed by any suitable powder, including powdered metals, such as a stainless steel powder, and alloys and super alloy materials, such as nickel-based or cobalt superalloys” (paragraph [0035]). Baughman teaches that “the build material 370 is a high temperature nickel base super alloy such as IN718, and that in other embodiments, MAR-M-247, IN738, IN625, Hastalloy X, Haynes 188 and 230, MERL72, Coast Metal 64, titanium, aluminum, titanium-aluminide, or other suitable alloys may be employed” (paragraph [0035]).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, modified Baughman teaches the method of claim 1 and the part of claim 8 as stated above. Baughman teaches that “suitable additive manufacturing techniques include, for example, direct metal laser sintering (DMLS—a form of direct metal laser fusion (DMLF)) with nickel base super-alloys, low density titanium, and aluminum alloys” (paragraph [0025]). Baughman teaches that “another technique includes electron beam melting (EBM) with titanium, titanium aluminide, and nickel base super-alloy materials” (paragraph [0025]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Baughman teaches the method of claim 1. 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 28” (paragraph [0029]).
Regarding claims 5 and 11, modified Baughman teaches the method of claim 1 and the part of claim 8 as stated above. Baughman teaches “a method for repairing a damaged gas turbine engine component using additive manufacturing techniques” (paragraph [0008]).
Regarding claims 6 and 12, modified Baughman teaches the method of claim 5 and the part of claim 11 as stated above. Baughman teaches “methods for repairing gas turbine engine components, including static or rotating components, such as a turbine nozzle, a turbine vane segment, a heat exchanger, or a fuel control manifold” (paragraph [0017]; static turbine vane segment reads on stator vane).
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baughman et al. (US 20140259666 A1), and Henderkott et al. (US 20160251965 A1), as applied to claims 5 and 11 above, and further in view of Varney et al. (US 20170204744 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 13, modified Baughman teaches the method of claim 5 and the part of claim 11 as stated above. Baughman teaches “improved methods of repairing components for use in gas turbine engines” (paragraph [0001]). A patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art. See MPEP § 2164.01.
Baughman is silent regarding the specific geometry of the housing of the gas turbine engine. Specifically, Baughman is silent regarding wherein the original part is a gas turbine engine casing and the worn or defective part and the replacement feature are a boss for a gas turbine engine casing.
Varney is similarly concerned with gas turbine engines (paragraph [0001]). Varney teaches that “the turbine includes two sets of mount pins to locate the turbine shroud relative to the turbine case” (paragraph [0007]). Varney teaches “a gas turbine engine including a turbine section, the turbine section including a rotating wheel assembly, a turbine shroud arranged around the rotating wheel assembly, and a turbine case arranged around the turbine shroud” (which reads upon “wherein the original part is a gas turbine engine casing”, as recited in the instant claims; paragraph [0011]). Varney teaches that “the turbine case 12 is formed to include a plurality of bosses 24 as shown in FIG. 7. The bosses 24 are integrally formed with the turbine case 12 and extend radially outward away from the turbine shroud 14” (which reads upon “the worn or defective part and the replacement feature are a boss for a gas turbine engine casing”, as recited in the instant claims; paragraph [0032]). Varney teaches that “the outer keyways 28 extend through the bosses 24 and the outer insert pins 30 are arranged to extend through the bosses 24” (paragraph [0032]). Varney teaches that “the operator or the engine control system may direct additional cooling air to the annular runner 18, reduce a power of the engine 10, shut down the engine 10, schedule inspection and repair of the engine 10” (paragraph [0064]; repair of the engine is anticipated).
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/part of Baughman to include repairing the housing, including replacing worn or defective bosses, as taught by Varney when the bosses and / the mounting pins require maintenance, repair, or replacement.
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