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 Objections
Claim 32 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 6 it appears that “cast cast” should read –cast--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 21, it is the examiner’s position that the limitation “wherein the rotating and translating of the non-consumable tool is performed along the surface of the already cast metal part to build up the added solid filler material along the defect and repair the defect of the already cast metal part, wherein the repaired, already cast metal part comprises asymmetrical structures formed by the added solid filler material” is not supported by the original disclosure and constitutes new matter.
Regarding asymmetric features the original disclosure states that:
[0038] FIG. 15D is a diagram showing the addition of asymmetrical features to a preformed structure by way of a joining process according to an embodiment of the invention.
[0114] In some aspects of the invention, the manufacturing process and system are used to perform both joining and 3D printing of the feature or structure to be added. First, the process and system are used to join a partially-formed feature made by other means, and then, the process and system are used to deposit a filler material on the partial feature into the final desired feature shape. This is particularly useful when asymmetric features need to be joined to cast parts or other parts, substrate or hollow structures like pipes. The reason for this is that the molding/casting process limits the manufacture of asymmetrical structures but can be successfully used for making an initial symmetric structure, which can be later joined by joining to a part or substrate. Then the system and process are used to deposit the filler material on the attached feature and build it into a desired asymmetrical shape.
[0115] In a particular embodiment, asymmetrical features are printed (built up) on cast parts that are hard or prohibited to be manufactured by casting or other conventional methods. The system and process are capable of fully building up the asymmetric feature. In another embodiment the system and process are capable of completing the asymmetric or symmetric feature from a feature made by other means (FIG. 15D). (emphasis added by the examiner).
Accordingly, the original disclosure describes an asymmetric feature can by joined to another part or fully partially/built up by printing. However, the original disclosure does not support the process of building up the added solid filler material along the defect and repairing the defect of the already cast metal part, wherein the repaired, already cast metal part comprises asymmetrical structures formed by the added solid filler material. In other words, there is not support for building up and repairing with added solid filler metal in the form of asymmetrical features. Nor is there any evidence in the original disclosure that building up and repairing constitute the same process. In fact, building up and repairing in the art have separate meanings. Thus, it is the examiner’s position that building up and repairing are distinct processes.
Furthermore, with respect to claim 31 it is the examiner’s position that the original disclosure does not support the claimed processes of using defect repairing (claim 21) and component joining (claim 31) operations in combination to form asymmetrical structures.
Regarding repairing the BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION of the original disclosure states that:
[0006] According to embodiments, the manufacturing system is capable of performing any one or more of the inventive processes, such as the coating process, the joining process, the surface functionalization process, the repair or fabrication of 3D- and 4D-structures processes, and is intrinsically different from any of the friction stir systems known in the art. The main difference from the known art is that the inventive system performs the process as a solid-state thermo-mechanical additive process by adding the material, known as a filler material, to the workpiece(s) to generate a joint, repair the defective spot, coat a part, or generate an additive 3D- or 4D-structure. The inventive process is a solid-state process that deposits the filler material on a workpiece or in a workpiece, mixes and homogenizes the materials (filler and workpiece material) with the aid of frictional heating which occurs due to the severe friction in the processed zone and generates chemical or physical bonding between the deposited material and the workpiece without the filler material melting (emphasis added by the examiner).
and
[0009] Additive friction stir techniques employ an additive process for joining materials. See, for example, U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,636,194; 8,632,850; 8,875,976; and 8,397,974, the contents of which are hereby incorporated by reference in their entireties. Additive friction stir processes use shear-induced interfacial heating and plastic deformation to deposit metallic coatings onto metal substrates. Coatings prepared using additive friction stir techniques have bond strengths superior to those of thermally sprayed coatings, and have the potential to enhance corrosion resistance, enhance wear resistance, repair damaged or worn surfaces, and/or act as an interfacial layer for bonding metal matrix composites. In this process, the coating material, such as a metal alloy, is forced through a rotating spindle to the substrate surface. Frictional heating occurs at the filler/substrate interface due to the rotational motion of the filler material, such as a rod, at an angular velocity and applied downward force. The mechanical shearing that occurs at the interface acts to disperse any oxides or boundary layers, resulting in a metallurgical bond between the substrate and coating. As the substrate moves relative to the tool, the coating is extruded under the rotating shoulder of the stirring tool (emphasis added by the examiner).
The examiner has thoroughly reviewed paragraphs 38, 107-115, and 118, which the applicant relied on for support, but was unable to conclude that the new limitations are indeed present in the original disclosure as alleged by the applicant. Consequently, it is the examiner’s position that the original disclosure does not support building up with added solid filler material in combination with repairing to form asymmetrical structures. Moreover, it is the examiner’s position that the original disclosure does not support building up with added solid filler material in combination with repairing and component joining to form asymmetrical structures.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 31-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 31, line 6 it is unclear if “the asymmetrical structures” that are formed by forming a joint between the metal part and the preformed feature are referring to (the same as) the “asymmetrical structures” of claim 21, line 13 that are formed by repairing a defect. Accordingly, the claim is ambiguous and unclear as to whether the claimed repairing of claim 21 and the joining of claim 31 are done simultaneously or in succession.
In claim 36, line 1 it is unclear if the “a preformed feature” is referring to “a feature” of claim 34 or the “a preformed feature” of claim 31.
Claim 37 recites the limitation "the preformed feature substrate" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 21-23, 26, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creehan et al. (US2012/0009339A1) (hereafter Creehan) in view of Ozbaysal et al. (WO 2020/032964A1) (hereafter Ozbaysal).
With respect to claim 21, Creehan teaches a method of repairing a defect in an already cast metal part (abstract; and paragraphs 36-37, 47, 51, and 60) (note that the Ni-Al bronze casting of Creehan is intrinsically and by definition an already cast metal part), the method comprising translating and rotating a non-consumable tool (stirring tool) along a surface of the already cast metal part while adding solid filler material (feedstock) from a throat (throat) of the non-consumable tool onto the surface of the already cast metal part (figures 1-4), wherein during adding of the solid filler material onto the surface of the already cast metal part the translating and rotating of the non-consumable tool is configured to deform the added solid filler material underneath a rotating shoulder of the non-consumable tool (figures 2B; and 4; and paragraphs 47-51), wherein the non-consumable tool comprises a geometry comprising projectile or profiled features capable of stirring the deformed (figures 3A-G; and paragraph 50), added solid filler material on the already cast metal part and provide a solid state bond between the added solid filler material and the already cast metal part, and wherein the rotating and translating of the non-consumable tool is performed along the surface of the already cast metal part to build up the added solid filler material along the defect and repair the already cast metal part (abstract; figures 1-4 and 13B; and paragraphs 36-37, 47-51, and 60).
With respect to claim 21, Creehan does not explicitly teach wherein the repaired, already cast metal part comprises asymmetric structures formed by the added solid filler material.
However, Ozbaysal teaches a method of repairing (paragraphs 25-41) a defect (broadest reasonable interpretation) in an already cast metal part (10) (paragraphs 2, 14, 34, and 41, and 44) by friction stir additive manufacturing (title) with asymmetrical structures (repairs 12) formed by added solid filler material (new material) along the defect (broadest reasonable interpretation) (figures 6-12; and paragraphs 12-19, 34, and 38-41).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the asymmetrical repair shapes of Ozbaysal with the repair process of Creehan in order to form a repairment of the desired configuration. Furthermore, it is the examiner’s position that the shape of a repair is merely an obvious design choice that an engineer would make after inspection of the defective/damaged area.
With respect to claim 22, Creehan teaches wherein the throat has a non-circular cross-sectional shape (figures 1-3; and paragraphs 12 and 64).
With respect to claim 23, Creehan teaches the solid filler material is continuously fed into the throat of the non-consumable tool to add the solid filler material to the already cast metal part (paragraphs 36, 48, and 60).
With respect to claim 26, Creehan teaches wherein the solid filler material builds up on the already cast metal part to repair the defect in the already cast metal part (abstract; figures 1-4 and 13B; and paragraphs 14, 36-37, 47-51, 60, and 63).
With respect to claim 29, Ozbaysal teaches wherein the slid filler material and the already cast metal part comprise different materials (paragraphs 36, 40, and 42).
Claim(s) 24-25 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creehan and Ozbaysal in view of Ji et al. (CN-106670642A) (hereafter Ji).
With respect to claims 24 and 28, Creehan and Ozbaysal do not teach wherein the solid filler material comprises magnesium; and the solid filler material and the already cast metal part comprise the same materials.
However, Ji teaches wherein the solid filler material comprises magnesium (note that the machine translation describes magnesium already cast metal parts and filling with the same material).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize magnesium as the filler material and part as taught by Ji in the collective process of Creehan and Ozbaysal in order to form an assembly/repair of the desired composition.
With respect to claim 25, Ji teaches machining (drilling) a feature into (broadest reasonable interpretation) the part (step 1 of the machine translation) and adding the solid filler material into the machined feature and along the surface of the defect to repair the part (steps 3-4 of the machine translation).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creehan and Ozbaysal as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2011/0048958A1) (hereafter Wang ‘958).
With respect to claim 27, Creehan does not teach wherein the defect is present in a tubular already cast metal part; however, Wang establishes that it is known to friction stir process a tubular already cast metal part (claims 1, 5, and 7).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the collective friction stir repair process of Creehan and Ozbaysal on the tubular already cast metal part of Wang ‘958 in order to perform a quality repair on an object of the desired shape.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creehan and Ozbaysal as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Kandasamy (US2016/0175981A1).
With respect to claim 30, Creehan and Ozbaysal do not teach wherein the already cast metal part is placed into a forming plate comprising one or more forming cavities.
However, Kadasamy teaches a part is placed into a forming plate comprising one or more forming cavities (figures 6A-6B).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the forming plate of Kandasamy in the collective process of Creehan and Ozbaysal in order to hold the already cast metal part of Creehan in the desired position during processing.
Claim(s) 21-23, 26, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creehan et al. (US2012/0009339A1) (hereafter Creehan) in view of Wang et al. (CN-103212778A) (hereafter Wang).
With respect to claim 21, Creehan teaches a method of repairing a defect in an already cast metal part (abstract; and paragraphs 36-37, 47, 51, and 60) (note that the Ni-Al bronze casting of Creehan is intrinsically and by definition an already cast metal part), the method comprising translating and rotating a non-consumable tool (stirring tool) along a surface of the already cast metal part while adding solid filler material (feedstock) from a throat (throat) of the non-consumable tool onto the surface of the already cast metal part (figures 1-4), wherein during adding of the solid filler material onto the surface of the already cast metal part the translating and rotating of the non-consumable tool is configured to deform the added solid filler material underneath a rotating shoulder of the non-consumable tool (figures 2B; and 4; and paragraphs 47-51), wherein the non-consumable tool comprises a geometry comprising projectile or profiled features capable of stirring the deformed (figures 3A-G; and paragraphs 14, 37, and 50-53), added solid filler material on the already cast metal part and provide a solid state bond between the added solid filler material and the already cast metal part, and wherein the rotating and translating of the non-consumable tool is performed along the surface of the already cast metal part to build up the added solid filler material along the defect and repair the already cast metal part (abstract; figures 1-4 and 13B; and paragraphs 14, 36-37, 47-53, and 60).
With respect to claim 21, Creehan does not explicitly teach wherein the repaired part comprises asymmetric structures formed by the added solid filler material.
However, Wang teaches a method of repairing a metal part (aluminum plate) by friction stir welding with asymmetrical structures (crack repair path) formed by friction stir welding along the defect (figures; and machine translation).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the friction stir additive deposition welding of Creehan for the friction stir welding of Wang in order to form a repair with superior bond strength, density, and/or lower oxide content (note paragraph 53 of Creehan for explicit support).
With respect to claim 22, Creehan teaches wherein the throat has a non-circular cross-sectional shape (figures 1-3; and paragraphs 12 and 64).
With respect to claim 23, Creehan teaches the solid filler material is continuously fed into the throat of the non-consumable tool to add the solid filler material to the already cast metal part (paragraphs 36, 48, and 60).
With respect to claim 26, Creehan teaches wherein the solid filler material builds up on the already cast metal part to repair the defect in the already cast metal part (abstract; figures 1-4 and 13B; and paragraphs 14, 36-37, 47-51, 60, and 63).
With respect to claim 29, Creehan teaches wherein the solid filler material and the already cast metal part comprise different materials (paragraphs 37, 87, and 90-95).
Claim(s) 24-25 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creehan and Wang as applied to claims 21-23, and further in view of Ji et al. (CN-106670642A) (hereafter Ji).
With respect to claims 24 and 28, Creehan and Wang do not teach wherein the solid filler material comprises magnesium; and the solid filler material and the already cast metal part comprise the same materials.
However, Ji teaches wherein the solid filler material comprises magnesium (note that the machine translation describes magnesium already cast metal parts and filling with the same material).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize magnesium as the filler material and part as taught by Ji in the collective process of Creehan and Wang in order to form an assembly/repair of the desired composition.
With respect to claim 25, Ji teaches machining (drilling) a feature into (broadest reasonable interpretation) the part (step 1 of the machine translation) and adding the solid filler material into the machined feature and along the surface of the defect to repair the part (steps 3-4 of the machine translation).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creehan and Wang as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2011/0048958A1) (hereafter Wang ‘958).
With respect to claim 27, Creehan does not teach wherein the defect is present in a tubular already cast metal part; however, Wang ‘958 establishes that it is known to friction stir process a tubular already cast metal part (claims 1, 5, and 7).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the collective friction stir repair process of Creehan and Wang ‘958 on the tubular already cast metal part of Wang ‘958 in order to perform a quality repair on an object of the desired shape.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creehan and Wang as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Kandasamy (US2016/0175981A1).
With respect to claim 30, Creehan and Wang do not teach wherein the already cast metal part is placed into a forming plate comprising one or more forming cavities.
However, Kadasamy teaches a part is placed into a forming plate comprising one or more forming cavities (figures 6A-6B).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the forming plate of Kandasamy in the collective process of Creehan and Wang in order to hold the already cast metal part of Creehan in the desired position during processing.
Claim(s) 21-23, 26, 29, 31-32, 34-37, and 39-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creehan et al. (US2012/0009339A1) (hereafter Creehan) in view of Hattori (JP-2000042781A).
With respect to claim 21, Creehan teaches a method of repairing a defect in an already cast metal part (abstract; and paragraphs 36-37, 47, 51, and 60) (note that the Ni-Al bronze casting of Creehan is intrinsically and by definition an already cast metal part), the method comprising translating and rotating a non-consumable tool (stirring tool) along a surface of the already cast metal part while adding solid filler material (feedstock) from a throat (throat) of the non-consumable tool onto the surface of the already cast metal part (figures 1-4), wherein during adding of the solid filler material onto the surface of the already cast metal part the translating and rotating of the non-consumable tool is configured to deform the added solid filler material underneath a rotating shoulder of the non-consumable tool (figures 2B; and 4; and paragraphs 47-51), wherein the non-consumable tool comprises a geometry comprising projectile or profiled features capable of stirring the deformed (figures 3A-G; and paragraphs 14, 37, and 50-53), added solid filler material on the already cast metal part and provide a solid state bond between the added solid filler material and the already cast metal part, and wherein the rotating and translating of the non-consumable tool is performed along the surface of the already cast metal part to build up the added solid filler material along the defect and repair the already cast metal part (abstract; figures 1-4 and 13B; and paragraphs 14, 36-37, 47-53, and 60).
With respect to claim 21, Creehan does not explicitly teach wherein the repaired part comprises asymmetric structures formed by the added solid filler material.
However, Hattori teaches a method of repairing a metal part (1) by friction stir welding with asymmetrical structures (10/70) formed by friction stir welding along the defect (3/6) (figures 2A-D and 3A-D; and machine translation).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the friction stir additive deposition welding of Creehan for the friction stir welding of Hattori in order to form a repair with superior bond strength, density, and/or lower oxide content (note paragraph 53 of Creehan for explicit support).
With respect to claim 22, Creehan teaches wherein the throat has a non-circular cross-sectional shape (figures 1-3; and paragraphs 12 and 64).
With respect to claim 23, Creehan teaches the solid filler material is continuously fed into the throat of the non-consumable tool to add the solid filler material to the already cast metal part (paragraphs 36, 48, and 60).
With respect to claim 26, Creehan teaches wherein the solid filler material builds up on the already cast metal part to repair the defect in the already cast metal part (abstract; figures 1-4 and 13B; and paragraphs 14, 36-37, 47-51, 60, and 63).
With respect to claim 29, Creehan teaches wherein the solid filler material and the already cast metal part comprise different materials (paragraphs 37, 87, and 90-95).
With respect to claim 31, Hattori teaches wherein a preformed feature (4/8) is placed in communication with the metal part (1/7), and friction stir welding an edge of the preformed feature to form a joint between the metal part and the preformed feature (figures 2A-D and 3A-D; and machine translation), but does not teach the joining is done with an added solid filler material.
However, Creehan teaches additive friction stir welding with solid filler material (abstract; figures 1-4 and 13B; and paragraphs 14, 36-37, 47-53, and 60).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the friction stir additive deposition welding of Creehan for the friction stir welding of Hattori in order to form a repair with superior bond strength, density, and/or lower oxide content (note paragraph 53 of Creehan for explicit support).
With respect to claim 32, the collective process of Creehan and Hattori will intrinsically force solid filler from the throat of the non-consumable tool of Creehan to provide a solid-state bond between the part and the preformed feature (see citations above). The welding, stirring, and repairing described by Creehan and Hattori intrinsically require plasticization of the components.
With respect to claim 34, Hattori teaches wherein the metal part (1) is machined to provide a feature (drilled hole 3) in the metal part (figures 2A-D; and the machine translation).
With respect to claim 35, Hattori teaches wherein the repair weld material (10) is added into the provided feature (3) in the metal part during to repair the defect in the metal part (figures 2A-D; and the machine translation). Note that in view of the teachings of Creehan it would have been obvious to add the solid filler material to the repair weld of Hattori for the reasons set forth above. In addition, the repair weld material containing the solid filler material would intrinsically be located in hole (3) in a manner shown by the figures of Hattori.
With respect to claims 36 and 39, Hattori teaches a screw (4) having a length slightly longer than the depth of the hole, which is reasonably be considered a boss in view of the broadest reasonable interpretation (note figures 2A-D; and machine translation).
With respect to claim 37, Hattori wherein the non-consumable tool is placed at the joint to contact both the provided feature (drilled hole 3) in the metal part (1) and the placed preformed feature (screw 4), and the non-consumable tool is translated and rotated along the joint to provide a solid state bond between the metal part and the placed preformed feature to join the preformed feature substrate to the metal part (figures 2A-D; and machine translation). The collective process of Creehan and Hattori will intrinsically force solid filler from the throat of the non-consumable tool of Creehan to provide a solid-state bond (joint) between the part and the preformed feature (see citations above). The welding, stirring, and repairing described by Creehan and Hattori intrinsically require plasticization of the components.
With respect to claim 40, Hattori teaches wherein the preformed feature structure (screw 4) comprises preformed ribs (the two separated halves of the screw head) (figures 2A-2B).
Claim(s) 24-25, 28, 33-34, and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creehan and Hattori in view of Ji et al. (CN-106670642A) (hereafter Ji).
With respect to claims 24, 28, 33, and 38, Creehan and Hattori do not teach wherein the solid filler material comprises magnesium; and the solid filler material and the already cast metal part comprise the same materials.
However, Ji teaches wherein the solid filler material comprises magnesium (note that the machine translation describes magnesium already cast metal parts and filling with the same material).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize magnesium as the filler material and part as taught by Ji in the collective process of Creehan and Hattori in order to form an assembly/repair of the desired composition.
With respect to claims 25 and 34, Ji teaches machining (drilling) a feature into (broadest reasonable interpretation) the part (step 1 of the machine translation) and adding the solid filler material into the machined feature and along the surface of the defect to repair the part (steps 3-4 of the machine translation).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creehan and Hattori as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2011/0048958A1) (hereafter Wang ‘958).
With respect to claim 27, Creehan and Hattori do not teach wherein the defect is present in a tubular already cast metal part; however, Wang ‘958 establishes that it is known to friction stir process a tubular already cast metal part (claims 1, 5, and 7).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the collective friction stir repair process of Creehan and Hattori on the tubular already cast metal part of Wang ‘958 in order to perform a quality repair on an object of the desired shape.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creehan and Hattori as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Kandasamy (US2016/0175981A1).
With respect to claim 30, Creehan and Hattori do not teach wherein the already cast metal part is placed into a forming plate comprising one or more forming cavities.
However, Kadasamy teaches a part is placed into a forming plate comprising one or more forming cavities (figures 6A-6B).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the forming plate of Kandasamy in the collective process of Creehan and Hattori in order to hold the already cast metal part of Creehan in the desired position during processing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 5/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant’s response simply states that the prior art does not teach the limitations of the claims and provides no meaningful arguments regarding the references and/or their teachings as set forth in the obviousness rejections above. Accordingly, the examiner maintains that a proper prima facie case of obviousness has been established.
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