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
The restriction requirement filed on August 20, 2025 has been found to be improper thus the restriction requirement has been withdrawn. Claims 34-40 are no longer viewed as being withdrawn. Therefore, claims 21-40 are being examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed December 11, 2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. The Applicant did not provide copies of the foreign patent documents thus they have been crossed-out, but those references have been cited on the PTO-892 thus no action is required by the Applicant. The Applicant has not provided copies of the Non-Patent Literature Documents thus they have been crossed-out of the information disclosure statement. The Applicant is advised to file another information disclosure statement with the Non-Patent Literature Documents and file copies of the documents.
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 21-27, 29, 30, 32, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozbaysal et al. (WO 2020/032964 A1) in view of Fenske et al. (DE 102019201085 A1; see provided machine translation).
Regarding claim 21, Ozbaysal et al. discloses a component of a mechanical apparatus, the component comprising:
a body (90, 95) having an initial structure (blade root 90 and platform 95 manufactured using any desired technique; see Paragraph 0042), and
at least one feature (at least one feature equated to the airfoil portion above the platform 95, see Figs. 1-2 and Paragraphs 0027-0029, 0033, and 0042) deposited on the body using a solid state additive manufacturing process (see Paragraphs 0027-0029, 0033, and 0042 and Figs. 5-6) in which a melting temperature of a material of the at least one feature is not reached (see Paragraph 0028), wherein:
the body has an outer surface (see Figures 1 and 2); and
the body and the at least one feature deposited thereon form a complete structure of the component (see Figures 7 and 10).
Ozbaysal et al. does not disclose that the body has a groove in the outer surface, the groove has a surface area, and at least a portion of the at least one feature is coupled to the surface area of the groove.
Fenske et al. teaches a body that has a groove (14a-14c, 16a-16c) in an outer surface (see Figure 3), the groove has a surface area (the area of 14a-14c and 16a-16c), and at least a portion of at least one feature (8, 10) is coupled to the surface area of the groove.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modify the body of Ozbaysal et al. to have a groove in the outer surface, to have the groove have a surface area, and to have at least a portion of the at least one feature be coupled to the surface area of the groove, as taught by Fenske et al., for the purpose of providing a structure that provides a strong connection between the body and the at least one feature.
Ozbaysal et al. does not disclose that the body is a cast body formed by a mold.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the body may be made by any known method of manufacture which achieves the desired operational characteristics.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of making the body and make the body as a cast body formed by a mold, the body may be made by any known manufacturing method which is suitable to the desired operational characteristics of the part being made. Further, the patentability of the device does not depend on its method of manufacture.
Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps.
Regarding claim 22, Ozbaysal et al. in view of Fenske et al. discloses that the cast body has an inner surface (the inner surface of 14b; Fenske et al.); and
the cast body has a channel (the opening in the channel that connects each 14b; Fenske et al.) defining at least one passage extending from an opening (the opening of each 14b; Fenske et al.) in the cast body to an internal cavity within the cast body defined by the inner surface.
Regarding claim 23, Ozbaysal et al. discloses that the at least one feature is machined (see Paragraph 0042) following its deposition to the cast body to form the complete structure of the component.
Regarding claim 24, Ozbaysal et al. discloses that the groove is **[configured to improve adhesion of the at least one feature to the cast body]**.
Regarding claim 25, Ozbaysal et al. in view of Fenske et al. discloses all of the claim limitations, see above, but does not disclose that the groove is machined in the cast body following the formation of the cast body.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the groove may be made by any known method of manufacture which achieves the desired operational characteristics.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of making the groove and have the groove be machined in the cast body following the formation of the cast body, the groove may be made by any known manufacturing method which is suitable to the desired operational characteristics of the part being made. Further, the patentability of the device does not depend on its method of manufacture.
Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps.
Regarding claim 26, Ozbaysal et al. in view of Fenske et al. discloses all of the claim limitations, see above, but does not disclose that the groove is formed by the mold.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the groove may be made by any known method of manufacture which achieves the desired operational characteristics.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of making the groove and have the groove be formed by the mold, the groove may be made by any known manufacturing method which is suitable to the desired operational characteristics of the part being made. Further, the patentability of the device does not depend on its method of manufacture.
Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps.
Regarding claim 27, Ozbaysal et al. in view of Fenske et al. discloses that the material of the at least one feature is **[configured to reduce or eliminate galvanic corrosion between the component and a separate structure on which the component is mounted]**.
Regarding claim 29, Ozbaysal et al. discloses that the cast body includes one or more of an aluminum alloy, a titanium alloy (see Paragraph 0036), a steel alloy, and a magnesium alloy.
Regarding claim 30, Ozbaysal et al. discloses that the at least one feature is coupled to the outer surface of the cast body (see Figures 7 and 10).
Regarding claim 32, Ozbaysal et al. discloses that the cast body and the at least one feature are the same material (see Paragraph 0028).
Regarding claim 33, Ozbaysal et al. discloses that the cast body and the at least one feature are different materials (see Paragraphs 0036 and 0042).
**The above statements in brackets are instances of intended use and functional language. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does, see MPEP 2114. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations.
Claims 34-36 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozbaysal et al. (WO 2020/032964 A1) in view of Schirra et al. (US 2002/0005233 A1) and in view of Fenske et al. (DE 102019201085 A1; see provided machine translation).
Regarding claim 34, Ozbaysal et al. discloses a method of preparing a component of a mechanical apparatus, the method comprising:
preparing a body (90, 95) having an initial structure (blade root 90 and platform 95 manufactured using any desired technique; see Paragraph 0042), and
depositing at least one feature (at least one feature equated to the airfoil portion above the platform 95, see Figs. 1-2 and Paragraphs 0027-0029, 0033, and 0042) on the body using a solid state additive manufacturing process (see Paragraphs 0027-0029, 0033, and 0042 and Figs. 5-6) in which a melting temperature of a material of the at least one feature is not reached (see Paragraph 0028), wherein:
the body has an outer surface (see Figures 1 and 2); and
the body and the at least one feature deposited thereon form a complete structure of the component (see Figures 7 and 10).
Ozbaysal et al. does not disclose that the body is a cast body formed by a mold.
Schirra et al. teaches preparing, using a mold (die 36, see Fig. 8; see Paragraph 0066) with a geometry configured to prepare an initial structure (see Paragraph 0067), a die cast turbine blade having the initial structure (see Figs. 1, 8, and 9; See Paragraphs 0065-0067).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ozbaysal et al. to include, preparing, using a mold with a geometry configured to prepare an initial structure, a cast body having the initial structure, as taught by Schirra et al., because it is known to die cast turbine blades. Though Schirra et al. shows die casting the entire blade, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that the die of Schirra et al. could be modified to only produce the root and platform portion to use as a starting point for the method of Ozbaysal.
Ozbaysal et al. does not disclose that the body has a groove in the outer surface, the groove has a surface area, and at least a portion of the at least one feature is coupled to the surface area of the groove.
Fenske et al. teaches a body that has a groove (14a-14c, 16a-16c) in an outer surface (see Figure 3), the groove has a surface area (the area of 14a-14c and 16a-16c), and at least a portion of at least one feature (8, 10) is coupled to the surface area of the groove.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modify the body of Ozbaysal et al. to have a groove in the outer surface, to have the groove have a surface area, and to have at least a portion of the at least one feature be coupled to the surface area of the groove, as taught by Fenske et al., for the purpose of providing a structure that provides a strong connection between the body and the at least one feature.
Regarding claim 35, Ozbaysal et al. discloses that the cast body has an inner surface (the inner surface of 14b; Fenske et al.); and
the cast body has a channel (the opening in the channel that connects each 14b; Fenske et al.) defining at least one passage (the opening of each 14b; Fenske et al.) extending from an opening in the cast body to an internal cavity (see Figure 2 of Fenske et al.) within the cast body defined by the inner surface.
Regarding claim 36, Ozbaysal et al. in view of Schirra et al. discloses that the at least one feature is machined following its deposition to the cast body to form the complete structure of the component (see Paragraph 0042 of Ozbaysal et al.).
Regarding claim 38, Ozbaysal et al. in view of Schirra et al. and in view of Fenske et al. discloses that the groove is formed by the mold (see the eighth paragraph on Page 2 of the machine translation of Fenske et al.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 28, 31, 37, 39, and 40 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Patry et al. (US 11,878,343 B2) discloses a similar invention to the structure in the current application, but does not qualify as a 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) reference in light of the 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) exception because the PGPUB of Patry et al. is within the one year grace period and is viewed as an inventor-originated disclosure in light of the similarity of Applicant and Inventors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D ROGERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 6AM-2:00PM EST.
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, John Olszewski can be reached at (571)272-2706. 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.
/ADAM D ROGERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617