FINAL REJECTION
This is in response to Applicant amendments filed on 04/28/26 amending Claims 1, 9, and 17; and cancelling Claims 8,16, and 20. Claims 1-7, 9-15, and 17-19 are examined.
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.
Claim 1-7, 9-15, and 17-19 is/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 regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 1, 9, and 19: Claim 1, 9, and 19 recite the limitation “reducing voids or pores in the brazing material”, it is not clear from which reference, level or compared to what the voids or pore are reduced, yielding indefiniteness. To further advance prosecution the above limitation is interpreted as “limiting voids or pores in the brazing material”.
Regarding Claims 6-7,10-15, and 18-19: Claims 6-7,10-15, and 18-19 are also rejected for being dependent on a rejected Claims.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-12, 14-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burke (US 2002/0148115) in view of Fraser (US 5,033,938).
Regarding Claim 1: Burke discloses a method (abstract) of joining a first component (3; Fig. 1) and a second component (1; Fig. 1), said method comprising: providing the first component including a first surface (see annotated figure ‘115); providing the second component including a second surface (see annotated figure ‘115); creating a joint ( see [0029, 0035] and annotated figure ‘115) between the first and second surfaces using a sinker electrical discharge machining (EDM) device (see [0029]), wherein the first component is used as an electrode (see [0041] wherein one of the 1st component is used as cathode and 2nd component is used as anode, or vice-versa) of the sinker EDM device and a voltage ([0041] different of potential between anode and cathode) is generated between the first and second components such that the braze joint is created by spark erosion ([0041] wherein electro discharge and spark are generated to machine) of at least one of the first component and the second component; and coupling with bounding material (wherein bonding material is placed between the 1st and 2nd surfaces i.e. in the joint, and melted) the first and second surfaces securely together along the joint ([0035] wherein bonding material is placed between the 1st and 2nd surfaces).
Burke is silent regarding coupling, with a brazing material, the first and second components surfaces securely together along the created joint while reducing voids or pores in the brazing material, and thus the joint being a braze joint.
However, Fraser teaches a method (see tittle) of repairing turbine blades (title) comprising coupling (figs 1-4), with a brazing material (Col. 2 L. 1-21), a first and second component surfaces (surfaces of 25 and 21; Fig. 4) securely together along a braze joint (joint between 25 and 21; Fig. 4) while reducing voids or pores in the brazing material (Col. 2 L. 1-21 wherein voids are to avoid).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Burke, to have coupling, with a brazing material, the first and second components surfaces securely together along the created braze joint while reducing voids or pores in the brazing material, and thus the joint being a braze joint, as taught by Fraser. Such a modification would enable to have secure the two components with a well-known, easy, cost-effective method.
PNG
media_image1.png
816
685
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2: Burke in view of Fraser teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Burke further discloses wherein coupling the first and second components securely together forms a repaired component (Abstract) used within a hot flow path (exhaust passing through blades and vanes of a turbine, Title) defined within a turbine engine (“turbine engine”, Title).
Regarding Claim 3: Burke in view of Fraser teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Burke further discloses wherein providing the first component comprises providing the first component fabricated from a superalloy including at least one of nickel, iron, and cobalt (see Table 1).
Regarding Claim 4: Burke in view of Fraser teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Burke further discloses wherein providing the first component comprises providing the first component including a worn region (“damaged portion”; abstract) defining the first surface and providing the second component used to repair the worn region (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6: Burke in view of Fraser teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and further Burke discloses wherein, prior to creating the joint, a rough joint is defined between the first surface and the second surface (see [0029] joint between small casting and cut-out performed by extraction machining), wherein a gap tolerance of the braze joint is smaller than a gap tolerance of the rough joint (see [0041, 68] wherein precise machining via EDM is performed , after extraction i.e. rough joint, on the 1st and 2nd surfaces to provide precise fit up, i.e. reducing gap tolerance ).
Regarding Claim 7: Burke in view of Fraser teaches all the limitations of Claim 6, as stated above, and further Burke discloses machining at least one of the first and second surfaces to create the rough joint (see [0029] wherein extraction machining is performed on the 1st surface) prior to creating the braze joint ([0068]).
Regarding Claim 9: Burke discloses a method of repairing (see title) a component (“turbine blades and vanes”, title ) for use in a turbine engine (“turbine engine”, Title), the turbine engine component including a first surface (see annotated figure ‘115), said method comprising: providing a filler component (1; Fig. 1) including a second surface (see annotated figure ‘115); creating a joint (see [0029, 0035] and annotated figure ‘115 wherein bonding material is placed between the 1st and 2nd surfaces) between the first surface and the second surface using a sinker electrical discharge machining (EDM) device (see [0029]), wherein one of the turbine engine component and the filler component is used as an electrode of the sinker EDM device (see [0041] wherein one of the engine component is used as cathode and the filler component is used as anode, or vice-versa) and a voltage is generated between the turbine engine component and the filler component ([0041] different of potential between anode and cathode) to create the braze joint by spark erosion ([0041] wherein electro-discharge and spark are generated to machine) of at least one of the turbine engine component and the filler component; and coupling with bounding material (wherein bonding material is placed between the 1st and 2nd surfaces i.e. in the joint, and melted) the turbine engine component and the filler component securely together along the joint ([0035] wherein bonding material is placed between the 1st and 2nd surfaces and melted).
Burke is silent regarding coupling, with a brazing material, the first and second components surfaces securely together along the created joint while reducing voids or pores in the brazing material, and thus the joint being a braze joint.
However, Fraser teaches a method (see tittle) of repairing turbine blades (title) comprising coupling (figs 1-4), with a brazing material (Col. 2 L. 1-21), a first and second component surfaces (surfaces of 25 and 21; Fig. 4) securely together along a braze joint (joint between 25 and 21; Fig. 4) while reducing voids or pores in the brazing material (Col. 2 L. 1-21 wherein voids are to avoid).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Burke, to have coupling, with a brazing material, the first and second components surfaces securely together along the created braze joint while reducing voids or pores in the brazing material, and thus the joint being a braze joint, as taught by Fraser. Such a modification would enable to have secure the two components with a well-known, easy, cost-effective method.
Regarding Claim 10: Burke in view of Fraser teaches all the limitations of Claim 9, as stated above, and Burke further discloses machining a worn region (“damaged portion”; abstract) of the turbine engine component to define the first surface (see [0029] wherein extraction machining is performed on the engine component to remove damaged pat and create 1st surface).
Regarding Claim 11: Burke in view of Fraser all the limitations of Claim 9, as stated above, and Burke further discloses the filler component is used as the electrode of the sinker EDM device (see [0041] wherein one of the engine components is used as cathode and the filler component is used as anode, or vice-versa).
Regarding Claim 12: Burke in view of Fraser all the limitations of Claim 9, as stated above, and Burke further discloses the turbine engine component is used as the electrode of the sinker EDM device (see [0041] wherein one of the engine components is used as cathode and the filler component is used as anode, or vice-versa).
Regarding claim 14: Burke in view of Fraser all the limitations of Claim 9, as stated above, and Burke further discloses wherein, prior to creating the joint, a rough joint is defined between the first surface and the second surface (see [0029] joint between small casting and cut-out performed by extraction machining), wherein a gap tolerance of the braze joint is smaller than a gap tolerance of the rough joint (see [0041, 68] wherein precise machining via EDM is performed , after extraction i.e. rough joint, on the 1st and 2nd surfaces to provide precise fit up, i.e. reducing gap tolerance ).
Regarding Claim 15: Burke in view of Fraser all the limitations of Claim 14, as stated above, and Burke further discloses machining at least one of the first and second surfaces to create the rough joint (see [0029] wherein extraction machining is performed on the 1st surface) prior to creating the braze joint ([0068]).
Regarding Claim 17: Burke discloses a method (abstract) of joining a first component (3; Fig. 1) and a second component (1; Fig. 1), said method comprising: machining (see [0029] wherein extraction machining is performed on the 1st surface) at least one of the first and second components to create a first joint (see [0029] and annotated figure ‘115; “machining extraction” generates the 1st joint) between a first surface (see annotated figure ‘115) of the first component and a second surface (see annotated figure ‘115) of the second component; after the machining, creating a second joint (see [0041, 68] wherein precise machining via EDM is performed) between the first and second surfaces, wherein the second joint has a smaller gap tolerance than the first joint (see [0041, 68] wherein precise machining via EDM is performed , after extraction i.e. 1st joint, on the 1st and 2nd surfaces to provide precise fit up, i.e. reducing gap tolerance), and wherein the second joint is created by spark eroding complementing surface profiles in the first and second surfaces using one of the first and second components as an electrical discharge machining (EDM) electrode ([0041] wherein electrodischarge and spark are generated to machine); and fixedly coupling the first and second components securely together along the second joint ([0035] wherein bonding material is placed between the 1st and 2nd surfaces and melted).
Burke is silent regarding coupling, with a brazing material, the first and second components surfaces of the respective first and second components together along the created joint while reducing voids or pores in the brazing material, and thus the joint being a braze joint.
However, Fraser teaches a method (see tittle) of repairing turbine blades (title) comprising coupling (figs 1-4), with a brazing material (Col. 2 L. 1-21), a first and second component surfaces (surfaces of 25 and 21; Fig. 4) securely together along a braze joint (joint between 25 and 21; Fig. 4) while reducing voids or pores in the brazing material (Col. 2 L. 1-21 wherein voids are to avoid).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Burke, to have coupling, with a brazing material, the first and second components surfaces of the respective first and second components together along the created joint while reducing voids or pores in the brazing material, and thus the joint being a braze joint, as taught by Fraser. Such a modification would enable to have secure the two components with a well-known, easy, cost-effective method.
Regarding Claim 18: Burke in view of Fraser teaches all the limitations of Claim 17, as stated above, and Burke further discloses wherein the spark eroding comprises generating voltage having a positive polarity between the EDM electrode and another one of the first component and the second component (component is used as anode, or vice-versa, a positive or negative polarity is generated).
Regarding Claim 19: Burke in view of Fraser teaches all the limitations of Claim 17, as stated above, and Burke further discloses the spark eroding comprises generating voltage having a negative polarity between the EDM electrode and another one of the first component and the second component (component is used as anode, or vice-versa, a positive or negative polarity is generated).
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burke (US 2002/0148115) in view of Burke (US 2002/0148115) and further in view of Chabane (US 2018/0010458).
Regarding Claim 5: Burke in view of Fraser teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Burke further discloses, wherein creating the braze joint comprises defining a gap (see annotated figure ‘115, and [0029] wherein a gap exists between matching profiles) between the first and second surfaces along the braze joint having a gap tolerance (a tolerance necessarily exists), but is silent regarding the tolerance being within +/- 5 micrometers.
However, Chabane teaches a method (Abstract) of joining a first component (172, Fig. 3) and a second component (170, Fig. 3) comprising providing a gap (gap between edges 202 and 200, Figs. 4-5) with a tolerance gap (“tolerance” [0006]), wherein adjusting the tolerance corresponds to adjusting optimal fitting between the first and second components ([0006]).
Therefore, the gap tolerance is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is how well the first and second components are fitting together (see [0006]).
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. a gap with a certain gap tolerance were disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the claimed values of the gap tolerance, in order to obtain optimum fitting. It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Further, the Examiner additionally notes that "[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding Claim 13: Burke in view of Fraser teaches all the limitations of Claim 9, as stated above, and Burke further discloses, wherein creating the braze joint comprises defining a gap (see annotated figure ‘115, and [0029] wherein a gap exists between matching profiles) between the first and second surfaces along the braze joint having a gap tolerance (a tolerance necessarily exists), but is silent regarding the tolerance being within +/- 5 micrometers.
However, Chabane teaches a method (Abstract) of joining a first component (172, Fig. 3) and a second component (170, Fig. 3) comprising providing a gap (gap between edges 202 and 200, Figs. 4-5) with a tolerance gap (“tolerance” [0006]), wherein adjusting the tolerance corresponds to adjusting optimal fitting between the first and second components ([0006]).
Therefore, the gap tolerance is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is how well the first and second components are fitting together (see [0006]).
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. a gap with a certain gap tolerance were disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the claimed values of the gap tolerance, in order to obtain optimum fitting. It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Further, the Examiner additionally notes that "[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 04/28/26 have been considered but are moot because the arguments to not applied to the current Prior Art.
Applicant’s representative asserts that Burke teaches away from using Brazing, as Burke recites some disadvantage of brazing. Although brazing may present some disadvantages, brazing also present numerous advantages such as provided a well-known, easy to perform and cost-efficient method for securing parts of a blade. Using brazing will not render the blade of Burke inoperable, thus Burke does not teach away from using brazing.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see notice of references cited. For example, see US 12,662,942; or US 2026/0166662 disclosing repairing airfoil without using electrical discharge machining.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODOLPHE ANDRE CHABREYRIE whose telephone number is (571)272-3482. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-18:30.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached on (571) 272-5095. 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.
/RODOLPHE ANDRE CHABREYRIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights