DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
In view of the amendments to claim 10, prior art rejections directed to claims 10-15 are withdrawn. New rejections directed to these claims are set forth below and were necessitated by these amendments.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Number 11,712,738 (Ozbaysal).
In regards to independent claim 1 and dependent claim 9, Ozbaysal is directed to a system and method for repairing and manufacturing high-temperature superalloy components. (1:7-11) A blade tip can include cracks oxidation damaged portions following the operation of a turbine blade. (9:44-48) In order to repair the blade, the damaged portion of the tip is first removed. (9:48-49) A closely fitting replacement tip is formed to fill the space created by the removal of the damaged portion and may also fill any spaces created during the removal of the cracks. (9:59-62) This corresponds to a metal coupon. The replacement tip can be formed using an additive manufacturing process. (9:65-10:2) Attachment structures such as pins can be used to enhance the mechanical connection between the replacement tip and the remainder of the blade to be repaired. (10:7-10) Other features, such as protrusions, apertures, bosses, etc. can be used as attachment structures. (10:10-12) The pins are received in corresponding apertures formed or otherwise existing in the remaining portion of the blade to be repaired. (10:12-15) These attachment structures corresponds to a first section of an anchor.
In the production of the part, the conditions are selected such that the porosity is twenty percent or less, preferably between five and twenty percent porosity. (5:55-58) This corresponds to the claimed porous region and overlaps the claimed range. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
As to claims 2-5, attachment structures such as pins can be used to enhance the mechanical connection between the replacement tip and the remainder of the blade to be repaired. (10:7-10) Other features, such as protrusions, apertures, bosses, etc. can be used as attachment structures. (10:10-12) The pins are received in corresponding apertures formed or otherwise existing in the remaining portion of the blade to be repaired. (10:12-15) As seen in Figure 10 and Figure 17 these structures correspond to the claimed shapes, with a protrusion being an elongated protrusion that extends at least partially along a side of the additive metal member and includes a plurality of elongated protrusions.
As to claims 6-8, as seen in figure 10 and 24, the structure can include the claimed elongated opening having a polygonal shape or a curved shape, and extends at least partially along a side of the additively manufactured metal member.
Claims 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Number 11,712,738 (Ozbaysal) in view of U.S. Patent Number 11,867,082 (Yadav)
In regards to independent claim 10 and dependent claims 11-14, Ozbaysal is directed to a system and method for repairing and manufacturing high-temperature superalloy components. (1:7-11) A blade tip can include cracks oxidation damaged portions following the operation of a turbine blade. (9:44-48) In order to repair the blade, the damaged portion of the tip is first removed. (9:48-49) A closely fitting replacement tipis formed to fill the space created by the removal of the damaged portion and may also fill any spaces crated during the removal of the cracks. (9:59-62) This corresponds to a metal coupon. The replacement tip can be formed using an additive manufacturing process. (9:65-10:2) Attachment structures such as pins can be used to enhance the mechanical connection between the replacement tip and the remainder of the blade to be repaired. (10:7-10) Other features, such as protrusions, apertures, bosses, etc. can be used as attachment structures. (10:10-12) The pins are received in corresponding apertures formed or otherwise existing in the remaining portion of the blade to be repaired. (10:12-15) These attachment structures corresponds to a first section of an anchor.
In the production of the part, the conditions are selected such that the porosity is twenty percent or less, preferably between five and twenty percent porosity. (5:55-58) This corresponds to the claimed porous region and overlaps the claimed range. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
A tip attachment PSP is formed from a material combination similar to that for the replacement tip and includes at least thirty percent raze material. (10:29-34) The replacement tip is placed on the blade and a braze joint is formed between them. (12:62-64) During the brazing process, the braze materials in the initial layers or layers of the replacement tip facilities the completion of the braze joint and the attachment of the replacement tip. (12:64-67) In another embodiment, the component is covered or partially covered with either a 100 percent braze material binder mixture or a base mixture powder, a braze material powder, and a binder mixture. (15:24-27) The sintered skeleton is ultimately infiltrated by the braze to obtain a near 100 percent dense component. (15:27-29) This corresponds to the braze material coupling the AM metal coupon in the coupon opening in the body as set forth in the instant claims.
Attachment structures such as pins can be used to enhance the mechanical connection between the replacement tip and the remainder of the blade to be repaired. (10:7-10) Other features, such as protrusions, apertures, bosses, etc. can be used as attachment structures. (10:10-12) The pins are received in corresponding apertures formed or otherwise existing in the remaining portion of the blade to be repaired. (10:12-15) The corresponding apertures or formations would correspond to the claimed second section. As seen in Figure 10 and Figure 17 these structures correspond to the claimed shapes, with a protrusion being an elongated protrusion that extends at least partially along a side of the additive metal member and includes a plurality of elongated protrusions.
This reference does not explicitly set forth the narrower and wider structure of the anchor as set forth in the instant claims.
In the same field of endeavor of gas turbine blades, Yadav is directed to a rotor blade for a gas turbine engine with a tip component that is removably connected to the blade body. (Abstract) The rotor blade includes a lock connected to the tip component and the blade body, the lock operably selected to selectively lock the tip component to the blade body. (1:39-42) The lock comprises a protrusion extending from the tip component and a slot within the blade body, wherein the slot is sized to receive the protrusion to selectively lock the tip component to the blade body. (1:49-53) Yadav explicitly sets forth that the protrusion extending from the tip component and the slot defined within the blade body have interlocking dovetail shapes. (9:38-40) This corresponds to the claimed shape of the anchor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized the anchor shape, viz. the dovetail shape, as set forth within Yadav within the anchor of Ozbaysal. Both of these references address the issue of securing attaching replaceable tubine-blade-tips. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the desire and expectaiton of combining prior art elements to yield predictable results, including providing a predictable mechanical interlock that restrains the replacement tip against movement while permitting removal and replacement.
As to claim 15, as shown in Figure 17-19, an anchor having a first and second section would be included in or on the additively manufactured metal coupon or body. and a second section in or on the other of the additively manufactured metal coupon or body. (See 150) This material includes recesses. A protrusion 145 would correspond to a locking element to engage the recess of the first section and the recess of the second section to cooperatively hold the additively manufactured metal coupon in the opening of the body, since the protrusion would extend through the brazing material recess and serve to hold the components together. Therefore, this structure meets the claimed limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to claims 1-9, Applicant asserts that the porous skeleton of Ozbaysal is not porous in the insert or replacement component. Applicant asserts that the insert and replacement component are solid, with less than !% porosity. Applicant asserts that the skeleton is infiltrated with a braze material to produce a completed insert and asserts that the porosity is not a retained functional feature of the final component.
This argument is not found to be persuasive.
Instant claim 1 is directed to a metal coupon having an additively manufactured metal member. This metal coupon is not attached to a particular body. Ozbaysal sets forth forming a replacement tip by using an additive manufacturing process. (9:65-10:2) Attachment structures such as pins can be used to enhance the mechanical connection between the replacement tip and the remainder of the blade to be repaired. (10:7-10) The conditions are selected that the porosity is twenty percent or less. (5:55-58)
As seen in figure 17, the replacement tip is a separate piece. This demonstrates that the material prior to the brazing is a separate component.
Ozbaysal teaches:
The next step is the placement of the green form component 70, 75 into a furnace or other heating device. The green form component 70, 75 is heated to burn or remove the binder 67. The remaining material defines a skeleton 85, 90 made up of the base material 66 and gaps or empty areas 68 formerly occupied by the binder material 67. In FIG. 6, the skeleton 85 is a cube-shape. In FIG. 10 the skeleton 90 defines an intermediate component that will ultimately become the leading edge insert 60 and further includes the gate 80. In preferred arrangements, the heating or sintering step does not melt the base material 66 and leaves at least eighty percent of the volume of the skeleton 85, 90 as base material 66, thereby leaving no more than twenty percent of the skeleton 85, 90 as empty space 68. This is referred to herein as twenty percent porosity or less. The amount of binder 67 used, and the sintering temperature are selected to arrive at less than twenty percent porosity and preferably between five percent and twenty percent porosity. (5:41-58, emphasis added)
This shows that the discussion in the rejection has a porosity as set forth within the instant claims and that this corresponds to open space as set forth in the instant claims. Therefore, this structure corresponds to the claimed product.
Further, related to the component set forth in instant claim 10, this claim sets forth the metal coupon having a porous region having a porosity with open space volume but then states that “a braze material coupling the AM metal coupon in the coupon opening in the body, the braze material infiltrated into the porous region based at least on a characteristic of the porosity.” In this claim construction, the open space volume of the AM metal coupon is infiltrated by a braze material. This again shows that the metal coupon of claim 1 is an intermediate product. Similar to the discussion in Ozbaysal, the instant applicant sets forth a coupon and then further using the coupon within a component. Construing these two teachings together, in either the prior art or the instant application, does not appear to be appropriate.
In regards to claims 10-15, Applicant points to the newly added dimensional limitations set froth within claim 10. However, as set forth above, in view of the amendments to claim 10 the rejection solely under Ozbaysal has been withdrawn and a new rejection directed under a combination of Ozbaysal in view of Yadav was presented. This combination sets forth the claimed product, including the newly added limitation.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Schleis whose telephone number is (571)270-5636. The examiner can normally be reached 10 AM to 4 PM Monday through Friday.
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.
Daniel J. Schleis
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/Daniel J. Schleis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights