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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/10/2026 has been entered.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-9 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kottilingam et al. (US 2020/0149403) (Kottilingam) in view of Engeli et al. (US 2016/0090848) (Engeli), with claims 3 and 7 further taken in view of evidence by Ozbaysal et al. (US 2022/0136395) (Ozbaysal).
In reference to claims 1, 7 and 12, Kottilingam teaches an airfoil for a blade or nozzle of a turbomachine, the airfoil comprising: an airfoil body including at least one first coolant passage, and an edge opening in a leading edge or a trailing edge of the airfoil body, the edge opening having an edge coupon retention member seat in or on an inner surface of the airfoil body ([0007]) (corresponding to a component, comprising a body). An edge coupon having a shape at least partially configured for coupling to the edge opening in the airfoil body, the edge coupon including: an edge coupon body, at least one second coolant passage in the edge coupon body configured for fluid communication with the at least one first coolant passage in the airfoil body ([0007]; [0048]-[0049]; [0052]) (corresponding to a metal coupon for repairing a component, the metal coupon comprising: a metal member having a conduit in an interior of the metal member; the conduit is hollow; opposite ends of the conduit are in fluid communication with a cooling passage with the component responsive to the metal coupon being coupled in a coupon opening in the component).
The edge coupon maybe manufactured by additive manufacturing and is a metal or metal alloy capable of withstanding the operational environment within the turbomachine, e.g., a superalloy ([0063]) (corresponding to a metal coupon; an additively manufactured (AM) metal member). A brazing material is provided for coupon edge coupon to the airfoil body ([0054]; [0060]) (corresponding to a braze material coupon the AM metal coupon in a coupon opening in the body).
Kottilingam does not explicitly teach a first porous region around the coolant passage of the edge coupon and the coolant passage of the edge coupon includes a braze infiltration barrier, as presently claimed. However, Kottilingam teaches the edge coupon is a gamma prime nickel-based alloy ([0063]).
Engeli teaches repairing a damaged turbine component with an article or at least part of such an article made of a gamma prime precipitation hardened nickel base superalloy ([0020]). The article gas a tailored porosity to optimize desired properties of the finalized article/part of the article ([0021]; [0037]). The article comprises an open-porous outer layer and a fully dense inner layer including cooling channels designed for guiding a cooling medium to the open porous outer layer ([0039]) (corresponding to a first porous region around the conduit; the conduit is hollow and defined within a braze material infiltration barrier; a porosity of the first porous region increases from near the conduit towards an exterior surface of the AM metal member/coupon).
In light of the motivation of Engeli, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the edge coupon of Kottilingam have a porosity changing from a dense inner layer around the coolant passage to an open-porous outer layer, in order optimize the desired properties of the finalized coupon and adjust mass related properties, preferable the eigenfrequency or to counterbalance the effect of additionally added material on the component (Engeli, [0029]).
Kottilingam in view of Engeli teaches the edge coupon includes the fully dense inner layer around the coolant passage and an open-porous outer layer. The braze material is along at least mating surfaces of the edge coupon and the airfoil body (Kottilingam, [0060]). As evidence by Ozbaysal capillary action is produced by the porosity in a skeleton having gaps or empty areas, thereby pulling the brazing material into the pores of the skeleton ([0050]). Given that the open pores of the open-porous outer layer of the coupon will be in contact with braze material, it is clear braze material will infiltrate into at least a portion of the open-porous outer layer while the dense inner layer around the coolant passage will prevent braze material infiltration (corresponding to the braze material infiltrated into the first porous region).
Alternatively, given that the edge coupon of Kottilingam in view of Engeli is substantially identical to the present claimed metal coupon in structure, it is clear that the edge coupon of Kottilingam in view of Engeli would intrinsically be capable of having the braze material infiltrated into the open-porous outer layer.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
In reference to claims 2-3, 8-9 and 13, Kottilingam in view of Engeli teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 7, as discussed above. Kottilingam in view of Engeli teaches the edge coupon comprises the open-porous outer layer and the fully dense inner layer including the coolant passage (Engeli, [0039]). The porosity is gradually changing in a radial direction of the article (Engeli, [0027]) (corresponding to the first porous region has a variable porosity with two or more porous sub-regions having different porosities; to the first porous region includes an outer porous subregion adjacent an exterior surface of the AM metal member/coupon that has a higher porosity than an inner porous sub-region near the conduit; a porosity of the first porous region increases in incremental steps from near the conduit towards an exterior surface of the AM metal member/coupon).
Given that the edge coupon of Kottilingam in view of Engeli is substantially identical to the present claimed metal coupon in structure, it is clear that the edge coupon of Kottilingam in view of Engeli would intrinsically be capable of having the open-porous outer layer include more braze material therein than the inner porous layer.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kottilingam in view of Engeli as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Draper (US 2010/0239412).
In reference to claims 4 and 10, Kottilingam in view of Engeli teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 7, as discussed above.
Kottilingam in view of Engeli does not explicitly teach a second porous region inside the fully dense inner layer, as presently claimed.
Draper teaches a turbine airfoil having an insert disposed in a film-cooling channel having a body ([0012]). The insert may include a metal foam configured to have a porous structure including an open cell foam network of interconnected pores ([0065]) (corresponding to a second porous region inside the braze material infiltration barrier). Film-cooling inserts are advantageous in that they may be used to provide one or more of an increase in the pressure drop across (i.e., along the length of) the film-cooling holes, an increase in the heat transfer coefficient associated with or attributable to the film-cooling holes, an increase of the surface area of the holes over which heat transfer occurs, an improvement of the film pattern and the film-cooling associated with the film-cooling hole, a reduction of the tendency of the film holes to plug with ash and other particulate constituents found in the hot combustion gas environment to which the airfoils are exposed, or provision of a film-cooling scheme that is self-healing in the event that the cooling passages associated with the insert become plugged ([0033]).
In light of the motivation of Draper, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to include a porous metal foam insert in coolant passage of Kottilingam in view of Engeli, in order to provide one or more of an increase in the pressure drop across (i.e., along the length of) the cooling holes, an increase in the heat transfer coefficient associated with or attributable to the cooling holes, an increase of the surface area of the holes over which heat transfer occurs, a reduction of the tendency of the holes to plug with ash and other particulate matter, or provision of a film-cooling scheme that is self-healing in the event that the cooling passages associated with the insert become plugged, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
Response to Ar-guments
In response to amended claims 1 and 7, which now require opposite ends of the conduit in fluid communication with a cooling passage with the component responsive to the metal coupon being coupled into a coupon opening in the component, it is noted that Ozbaysal et al. (US 2022/0136395) (Ozbaysal) and Sercombe et al. (US 2021/0114110) (Sercombe), either alone or in combination no longer meet the presently claimed limitations. Therefore, the previous 35 USC 103 rejections over Ozbaysal in view of Sercombe are withdrawn from record. However, the amendment necessitates a new set of rejections as set forth above.
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/10/2026 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 Mary I Omori whose telephone number is (571)270-1203. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272-0604. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARY I OMORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights