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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-15, in the reply filed on 18 December 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the requirement imposes a burden on Applicant. Applicant further argues that any search for the recitations of claims 1 and 10 would yield relevant to claim 16. Applicant further states that they cannot see how the addition of a rejection to address the features belonging to Group II would impose a serious examination burden when features are shared with Group I. Applicant further alleges potential overlap of claim scope between elected and non-elected embodiments. This is not found persuasive.
Restriction for examination purposes is proper when the inventions listed are independent or distinct and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required. The burden on Applicant is not a factor in a determination as to whether restriction is proper.
The Groups may include common features, however they are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process. In the instant case the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process. Applicant has not set forth arguments rebutting this position. Therefore, the inventions are determined to be independent or distinct.
The second factor is whether a serious search and/or examination burden exists if restriction were not required. The Office set forth multiple rationale for such a finding.
The Office stated that the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification. In this case, the inventions each have different classifications. This supports the finding of a serious search and/or examination burden the separate status of the art. Applicant has not presented arguments as to this factor. Therefore, this factor still stands and the determination as to a serious search and/or examination burden was not rebutted.
Further, the Office stated that the inventions require a different field of search (for example searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries). The Applicant is correct that some limitations would overlap, however due to the divergent subject matter, it would be necessary to search within different classes/subclasses. Further, the queries would necessarily include different search queries due to the nature of the claims. For example, a search of the product would be focused on products having the claimed features irrespective of the particular method of producing. This would necessitate crafting different search queries and focusing in different classes/subclasses. This constitutes a serious search and/or examination burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 16-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 18 December 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 27 October 2023, 3 December 2024, 21 March 2025, 9 May 2025, 28 May 2025, 22 August 2025, 25 September 2025, 10 October 2025, 12 January 2026, and 11 February 2026 were considered by the examiner.
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 1-15 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.
In regards to independent claim 10, 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.
As to claims 11-14, 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.
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.
Conclusion
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