DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-18 are currently pending in the application.
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated (in the Specification, pg. 12, ln. 5-6, Fig. 1 is described as “a laser metal deposition process according to the state of the art”) . See MPEP § 608.02(g).
Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 6, 9, 11, 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 2, “the component” should be revised to: -- a [[the]] component--;
In claim 1, line 3, “a surface of a component” should be revised to:
--a surface of the [[a]] component--;
In claim 1, line 7, “the grain fraction” should be revised to:
-- a [[the]] grain fraction --;
In claim 1, line 11, “the boiling temperature (S)” should be revised as follows for sake of clarity:
-- [[the]] a boiling temperature (S) of the particles--;
Claim 3, line 5-6, “the non-illuminated powder jet” should be revised to:
-- a [[the]] non-illuminated powder jet--.
Claim 6, line 4, the first instance of “µm” should be revised to:
-- micrometer (µm) --, for sake of clarity;
Claim 9, line 5, the first instance of “mm” should be revised to:
-- millimeter (mm)--for sake of clarity;
Claim 11, the recitation “1 g/l” should be revised to:
-- 1 gram/liter (g/l) --, for sake of clarity;
Claim 13, line 4, the first instance of “m/min” should be revised to:
-- meters/minute (m/min) --, for sake of clarity;
In claim 17, line 9, “the grain fraction” should be revised to:
-- a [[the]] grain fraction --;
In claim 17, line 14, “the boiling temperature (S)” should be revised as follows for sake of clarity:
-- [[the]] a boiling temperature (S) of the particles--;
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1, line 11, recites “the laser radiation”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 3-6, 8-9, 13, 15 uses the language “preferably”, “particularly preferably”, “even more preferably”, “especially preferably”, and/or “very particularly preferably” in describing various preferred ranges or values after reciting a broader range in the same claim. This renders the claim indefinite, as descriptions of preferences should be properly set forth in the specification rather than in the claims. “If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim”, see MPEP 2173.05(d). It is unclear whether the limitations following “preferably” or the variants thereof as listed above are actually part of the claimed invention. Furthermore, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 3-6, 8-10, 13 each recites broad recitations related to some claimed parameter, and the claim also recites narrower ranges that are “preferable” which are the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims (particularly when the claim states some of the narrower ranges are “particularly preferable”, “even more preferable”, “especially preferable”, or “very particularly preferable”).
Claim 3 recites “that the increase in particle velocity is so great that a constriction of the powder jet in the direction of the surface of the component is effected between 2% and 10%, preferably between 3% and 6%, particularly preferably between 4% and 5%, compared to a width of the non-illuminated powder jet”. This renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear whether the claim is stating the constriction of the powder jet as a result of the particle velocity increase is 2%-10% smaller than the width of the non-illuminated powder jet, or is 2%-10% of the width of the non-illuminated powder jet. The instant Specification does not appear to clarify the intended meaning and merely restates the claim language almost verbatim.
Claim 8 recites “the density of the powder jet can be adjusted and the laser power and caustic curve of the laser beam dimensioned and aligned with the powder jet…”. This renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear from the language “can be adjusted” if adjustment of the “density of the powder jet” is a step that is actually required by the process, or if the powder jet density need only be capable of being adjusted.
Claim 9, line 4, recites “a focal area whose average distance (A) from the surface of the component…”. This renders the claim indefinite, as claim 1 already recites a “distance (A)” describing a “beam-particle interaction zone at a distance (A) from the surface of the component”. It is unclear if the “average distance (A)” of the focal area in claim 9 is meant to be the same “distance (A)” as the “beam-particle interaction zone” in claim 1, or if they are meant to be different limitations.
Claim 10 recites “preferably coaxially”. This renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear whether the limitation “coaxially” following “preferably” is required by the claim or if the term is merely describing a preference. “If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim”, see MPEP 2173.05(d).
Claim 15 recites “the process parameters are selected so that, using these process parameters with an inactive powder jet and the laser beam with 35% laser power, preferably 50% laser power, particularly preferably 85% laser power, according to the process parameters, no melting of the surface of the component occurs in the area of the incident laser beam”. This renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear whether the claim is requiring a step of using the laser beam at the “35% laser power” and “inactive powder jet,” or if the description is merely a hypothetical situation. It is unclear what the claim is attempting to encompass.
Claim 16, line 4, recites “the process parameters (P) to be set for this”. This renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear what “this” is meant to be referring to.
Claim 16, line 6-7 & line 8, recites “preferably to the focal area of the laser beam”. This renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear whether the limitation after “preferably” is meant to be required by the claim of if it is merely describing a preference. “If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim”, see MPEP 2173.05(d).
Claim 17, line 15, recites “the laser radiation”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2, 7, 11, 12, 14, 18 are rejected by virtue of dependence on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 7, 12-14, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Whitney (US 5,043,548 A).
Regarding independent claim 1, Whitney discloses a laser metal deposition process for carrying out laser metal deposition (Abstract), whereby the component 114 (a substrate) is metallurgically bonded to partially molten filler material (“a feed of finely divided material” fed by a carrier gas tube 136, Col. 4, ln. 39-40) by means of a laser beam 102 directed onto a surface of a component (Fig. 2), whereby the filler material is delivered into the laser beam as a powder jet of particles (as a “fluidized powder”, Col. 5, ln. 23-33), whereby the particles absorb optical energy from the laser beam 102 in a beam-particle interaction zone (Fig. 2, within the conical housing 124 in an interaction zone 150 where the laser beam is focused, Col. 6, ln. 4-13) at a distance (A) from the surface of the component (Fig. 2, Col. 5, ln. 47-53) as a function of process parameters (P) of the laser metal deposition process (see the various examples 1-10 in Col. 7-9 describing various laser metal deposition processes with varying “process parameters”; Col. 6, ln. 4-34) and of the grain fraction and material properties of the particles (Col. 6, ln. 4-34) and are applied to the surface of the component (Col. 7-9 examples, discussing powder size and material selection), characterized in that
the process parameters (P) are adjusted in such a way that at least a proportion of the particles reach the boiling temperature (S) along their trajectory through the laser radiation (Col. 6, ln . 4-34, “The power density of the beam 146 is greatest at the focal point 150. If the power density is sufficiently great at this location, the interaction between the axial gas, the carrier gas, the powder, and the energy of the laser beam results in the formation of a plasma 152. The plasma is a highly ionized cloud of ions and electrons that reaches an extremely high temperature within a limited volume. In this interaction volume, a portion of the atoms of the feed material in the powder are vaporized”; particles being vaporized implies they have reached their “boiling temperature” in order to evaporate) and, due to a resulting vapor pressure (which would be implicit due to the vaporization of the powder feed material), there is an increase in velocity of at least the proportion of the particles in the direction of the surface of the component (Col. 6, ln. 35-66, the vaporized particles forming a plasma 152 is confined to move and expand in only one direction towards the substrate 114; by virtue of vaporization and confinement of expansion in a single direction due to the shape of the confinement chamber 128, the velocity of the particles would increase in the direction towards the substrate/component).
Regarding claim 6, Whitney discloses the laser metal deposition process according to claim 1, characterized in that the particles have a mean particle size of ≥1 μm (Col. 7, ln. 55-56, “Hastelloy X of powder size -200/+400 mesh”, which indicates a range of particle size of 74-38 micrometers (μm) based on standard powder size/mesh conversion charts, which implies average particle size greater than 1 μm), preferably ≥10 μm, particularly preferably ≥30 μm and/or ≤100 μm, preferably ≤70 μm, particularly preferably ≤50 μm (see 112(b) rejection above, these preferential values are interpreted as being optional and not required by the claim).
Regarding claim 7, Whitney discloses the laser metal deposition process according to claim 1, characterized in that the surface of the component 114 in an area on which the laser metal deposition is performed is itself heated by the transmitting laser beam 102 to a temperature below its melting temperature (Col. 6, ln. 51-Col. 7, ln. 15, the energy of the laser and the energy of the resultant plasma is not sufficient to melt the surface of the substrate 114/component), whereby at least at the point of impact of the particles on the surface of the component, the molten particles with a particle temperature (PT) greater than the melting temperature of the component at its surface induce a temperature above the solidus temperature in the surface of the component to produce the metallurgical bond (Id. “The heating of the substrate is influenced by the plasma, with a plasma entirely contained within the apparatus 10 heating the substrate only by the relative small amount of radiation through the opening 116. The substrate is also heated by the energy released as the deposited atoms solidify and by the energy of the laser beam that is transmitted through the plasma and reaches the substrate in a defocussed state. These contributions to heating are relatively small, and it is found that deposition on the substrate is accomplished without melting the substrate or altering its metallurgical structure, for substrates having moderately high melting points.”; Col. 6, ln. 4-35, “A portion of the finely divided feed material is melted in the plasma, and other portions may intentionally or unintentionally remain unmelted. The continuing flow of plasma-forming gas through the region of the plasma formation and toward the substrate carries the melted and unmelted feed material to be ejected from the nozzle 108 through the opening 116, forming the spray 110 that deposits on the substrate 114 as the layer 112. The layer 112 therefore contains feed material that has been melted in the plasma and resolidified when it strikes the substrate, and possibly feed material that never was melted in the plasma”).
Regarding claim 12, Whitney discloses the laser metal deposition process according to claim 1, characterized in that the powder jet is delivered to the laser beam by means of a coaxial nozzle as a conical powder jet (Fig. 2, the feed material is fed to the laser beam focal region 150 via a conical surfaces 120, 124 that are coaxial to the laser beam, thus forming a conical powder jet, Col. 4, ln. 62-Col. 5, ln. 4), by means of a multi-jet nozzle 136 (Fig. 2, Col. 5, ln. 23-33, two to 4 tubes 136 arranged symmetrically feed the feed material into the coaxial nozzle to the laser beam focal region), or by means of a rectangular nozzle.
Regarding claim 13, Whitney discloses the laser metal deposition process according to claim 1, characterized in that the filler material is applied to the surface of the component at a feed rate along the surface of the component of between 5 m/min and 1000 m/min (Col. 7, example 1, ln. 63-64, “The substrate was traversed past the nozzle at a rate of 640 inches per minute”, which equates to 16.256 m/min which is within the claimed range), preferably greater than 10 m/min, more preferably greater than 21 m/min, still more preferably greater than 50 m/min, particularly preferably greater than 100 m/min, very particularly preferably greater than 130 m/min, extremely preferably greater than 150 m/min (see 112(b) rejection above, these preferential values are interpreted as being optional and not required by the claim).
Regarding claim 14, Whitney discloses the laser metal deposition process according to claim 1, characterized in that the filler material comprises or consists of a nickel-based alloy, a cobalt-based alloy, an iron-based alloy, a titanium-based alloy, a copper-based alloy, an aluminum-based alloy, an iron-based material (Col. 7, ln. 27-33, “Such materials include titanium alloys such as Ti-6Al-4V, tungsten, cobalt alloys, nickel alloys such as Inconels and Hastelloy X, ceramics such as oxides of aluminum, chromium, and zirconium, and plastics”), and/or ceramics (Col. 6, ln. 31-34, “the feed material may include finely divided ceramic powder”) or a mixture of the above alloys (Col. 7, ln. 33-36, “A variety of metallic and nonmetallic feed materials, and mixtures thereof, may be deposited, including ceramics, ceramic mixtures, and metal/ceramic mixtures”).
Regarding claim 16, Whitney discloses the laser metal deposition process according to claim 1, characterized in that the process parameters (P) to be set for this (interpreted as for the “laser metal deposition process”) include one or more elements from the group laser power of the laser beam, beam guidance of the laser beam, size of the focal area, relative position of a powder jet focus to the laser beam, preferably to the focal area of the laser beam, density of the particles in the powder jet, velocity of the particles in the powder jet before reaching the laser beam, preferably the focal area of the laser beam, distance between laser focus and surface of the component, overlap and feed rate (Col. 1, ln. 64-Col. 2, ln. 5, “The apparatus is controllable over a wide range of deposition rates, extent of heating of the substrate, and feedstocks. The size (width and thickness) of the deposited layer is controllable by adjusting such laser and operating parameters as nozzle height, powder feed rate, part traverse rate, gas flow rate, and nozzle configuration”; Col. 4, ln. 54-58, “the nozzle 108 includes an outer housing 118 which is threadably engaged to the end of the optical system 104, permitting the outer housing 118 to be adjustably moved toward and away from the laser 102”; Col. 5, ln. 59-52, “That feed material cone has a focal point which may be adjusted, i.e., the feed material focal point may be moved toward or away from the throat 134”).
Regarding independent claim 17, Whitney discloses a laser metal deposition apparatus 100 (Fig. 1 & 2) for producing a metallurgical bond between an at least partially molten filler material (“a feed of finely divided material” fed by a carrier gas tube 136, Col. 4, ln. 39-40) and a surface of a component 114 (“substrate”), having at least one laser 102, from which a laser beam directed onto the surface of the component is emitted (Fig. 2), and having at least one powder nozzle 136 (“carrier gas tube”) for generating a powder jet from the filler material (Col. 5, ln. 25-28), whereby the laser beam and powder nozzle are designed and arranged in such a way that the powder jet of particles is delivered into the laser beam (Fig. 2) and the particles absorb optical energy from the laser beam in a beam-particle interaction zone (Fig. 2, within the conical housing 124 in an interaction zone 150 where the laser beam is focused, Col. 6, ln. 4-13), at a distance (A) from the surface of the component (Fig. 2, Col. 5, ln. 47-53) as a function of process parameters (P) in the laser metal deposition process (see the various examples 1-10 in Col. 7-9 describing various laser metal deposition processes with varying “process parameters”; Col. 6, ln. 4-34) and of the grain fraction and material properties of the particles (Col. 6, ln. 4-34), in order to be applied to the surface of the component (Col. 7-9 examples, discussing powder size and material selection) characterized in that,
the process parameters (P) of the laser metal deposition apparatus are adjusted in such a way that at least a proportion of the particles reach the boiling temperature (S) along their trajectory through the laser radiation [functional language] (Col. 6, ln. 4-34, “The power density of the beam 146 is greatest at the focal point 150. If the power density is sufficiently great at this location, the interaction between the axial gas, the carrier gas, the powder, and the energy of the laser beam results in the formation of a plasma 152. The plasma is a highly ionized cloud of ions and electrons that reaches an extremely high temperature within a limited volume. In this interaction volume, a portion of the atoms of the feed material in the powder are vaporized”; particles being vaporized implies they have reached their “boiling temperature” in order to evaporate) and, due to a resulting vapor pressure, there is an increase in velocity of at least the proportion of the particles in the direction of the surface of the component [desired result of operating the apparatus] (Col. 6, ln. 35-66, the vaporized particles forming a plasma 152 is confined to expand in only one direction towards the substrate 114; by virtue of vaporization and confinement of expansion in a single direction due to the shape of the confinement chamber 128, the velocity of the particles would increase in the direction towards the substrate/component).
Regarding the functional language, it has been held that “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.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP 2114. In this case, the apparatus of Whitney is capable of operating in the manner described in the claim.
Regarding claim 18, Whitney discloses a component 114 with a surface onto which a filler material is metallurgically applied using a laser metal deposition process according to claim 1 (Fig. 2, Col. 4, ln. 35-53, “The melted feed material is ejected as a spray 110 to form a deposit layer 112 on a substrate 114”).
Additionally, it has been held in re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972). “[I]t is the patentability of the product claimed (in this case the conduit, distributor, swirler, venturi, and centerbody) and not of the recited process steps (in this case the rapid manufacturing or laser sintering process) which must be established. We are therefore of the opinion that when the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith.” (see MPEP 2113). In this case, the component/substrate 114 of Whitney reads on the claimed component, as it is not apparent that there is any noticeable difference between the prior art component and the claimed component, particularly when the Whitney teaches a process that reads on the laser metal deposition process of claim 1.
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 2-5, 8-11, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitney.
Regarding claim 2, Whitney discloses the laser metal deposition process according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose that the velocity increase of the proportion of particles that have reached boiling temperature (S) is greater than 2%.
Whitney does discuss the vaporized proportion of particles are allowed to expand and move only towards the direction of the component surface via the vaporization and plasma formation occurring at a throat 134, and such an confined expansion and flow direction, along with vapor pressure occurring due of the vaporization of the feed material particles, would inherently cause a velocity increase of the vaporized particles (i.e. the particles that have reached their boiling temperature and vaporized) and plasma in the direction from the throat towards the ejection opening 116 and the component (Col. 6, ln. 35-66).
Additionally, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP § 2144.05, II, A. In this case, the velocity increase of the proportion of particles is a direct result of their reaching their boiling temperature and vaporization when heated by the laser beam. Along with the constriction/throat and expansion section present in the disclosure of Whitney, the general conditions of the claim are disclosed (i.e. from the vaporization of a proportion of particles in the powder jet, those particles would experience a velocity increase).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the process of Whitney to achieve a desired velocity increase of the proportion of particles reaching the boiling temperature being greater than 2%, such as by adjusting the process parameters of the laser beam or powder jet, as an obvious optimization of workable ranges known in the prior art, in order to optimize the deposition of material onto the component/substrate surface. Based on the disclosure of Whitney, it also seems more likely than not that the velocity increase resulting from the particle vaporization, plasma formation, and expansion in the confinement region 128 would be “greater than 2%” compared to the particles prior to vaporization.
Regarding claim 3, Whitney discloses the laser metal deposition process according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose that the increase in particle velocity is so great that a constriction of the powder jet in the direction of the surface of the component is effected between 2% and 10%, preferably between 3% and 6%, particularly preferably between 4% and 5% (see 112(b) rejection above, these preferential values are interpreted as being optional and not required by the claim), compared to a width of the non-illuminated powder jet.
However, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP § 2144.05, II, A. The constriction of the powder jet appears to be a direct result of the proportion of particles reaching their boiling temperature and vaporization when heated by the laser beam and experiencing a velocity increase in the direction towards the component. Whitney teaches the resulting mixture of vaporized particles, non-vaporized particles, and plasma directed out of the interaction zone (i.e. the throat 134) is a “narrow and highly unidirectional” spray 110 (Col. 4, ln. 51-53) constricted in a “confinement chamber 128” along the direction towards the component, forming an “inverted cone” as it exits the throat 134 (Col. 5, ln. 47-Col. 6, ln. 3). As implied by the instant application’s Specification, the vaporized particles having increased velocity under effect of the laser beam would naturally form a tighter constriction/cone width as compared to a powder jet that is not energized and experiences no proportion of particle vaporization (the claim is not describing any additional step of achieving the constriction of the powder jet, and seems to suggest it would inherently occur as a result of the velocity increase).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the process of Whitney in order to achieve a desired constriction of the powder jet in the direction of surface of the component (such as 2% and 10% compared to a width of the non-illuminated powder jet), resulting from the velocity increase imparted to a proportion of the particles in the powder jet that reach their boiling point, in order to control the size of the “inverted cone” of plasma, vaporized particles, and non-vaporized particles that deposit onto the surface of the component, and consequently the size of the deposition area onto the component (Whitney Col. 5, ln. 47-Col. 6, ln. 34).
Regarding claim 4, Whitney discloses the laser metal deposition process according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose that the proportion of particles which have reached the boiling temperature (S) is greater than 5%, preferably greater than 30%, even more preferably greater than 50%, particularly preferably greater than 80% of the particles which are heated by the laser radiation along their trajectory (see 112(b) rejection above, the preferential values are interpreted as being optional and not required by the claim).
Whitney does teach that in the interaction zone between the powder jet and laser beam, a portion of the feed material is melted and another portion remains unmelted by the laser beam and plasma (Col. 6, ln. 4-34, “a portion of the atoms of the feed material in the powder are vaporized... A portion of the finely divided feed material is melted in the plasma, and other portions may intentionally or unintentionally remain unmelted”), wherein the proportion of melted and unmelted particles in the resulting spray has an effect on the resulting wear resistance of the coating deposited on the surface of the component (Id. “The layer 112 therefore contains feed material that has been melted in the plasma and resolidified when it strikes the substrate, and possibly feed material that never was melted in the plasma. In some uses, such as the application of wear-resistant coatings, it may be desirable that a portion of the feed material remains unmelted. For example, the feed material may include finely divided ceramic powder, which, when deposited as particles on the surface of the substrate, increases wear resistance of the substrate”). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the proportion of particles reaching boiling temperature is recognized is a result-effective variable, since such a proportion affects the plasma generation, and consequently the amount of melted and unmelted feed material in the spray depositing onto the surface of the component, affecting the material properties of the deposit.
It has been held that optimizing a result effective variable was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). Furthermore, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP § 2144.05, II, A.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the process of Whitney to optimize the proportion of particles reaching boiling temperature (i.e. having atoms thereon vaporizing), such as greater than 5% of the heated particles, in order to control the proportion of melted and unmelted feed material in the spray being deposited onto the surface of the component, to control the material properties (e.g. wear resistance) of the resultant coating (Whitney Col. 6, ln. 3-34).
Regarding claim 5, Whitney discloses the laser metal deposition process according to claim 1, characterized in that at least 20%, preferably at least 30%, and particularly preferably at least 40% of a surface of the particles are heated to at least their boiling temperature (S) (see 112(b) rejection above, the preferential values are interpreted as being optional and not required by the claim).
Whitney does discuss that in the interaction of the laser beam with the powder jet, “a portion of atoms of the feed material in the powder are vaporized”, and the vaporized atoms have electrons stripped therefrom by the energy of the laser beam to create a self-sustaining plasma towards the component/substrate 114 (Col. 6, ln. 3-34). Naturally, the atoms on the surface of each particle would be directly exposed to the laser beam, and any vaporization of atoms of the feed material would be atoms on the surface of the particles. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the percentage of a surface of the particles reaching boiling temperature is recognized is a result-effective variable, since such a proportion affects the plasma generation, and consequently the amount of melted and unmelted feed material in the spray depositing onto the surface of the component, affecting the material properties of the deposit (Id. “The plasma, once initiated or "lit", becomes self sustaining if the flow of gas and the laser beam are maintained. A portion of the finely divided feed material is melted in the plasma, and other portions may intentionally or unintentionally remain unmelted”).
It has been held that optimizing a result effective variable was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). Furthermore, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP § 2144.05, II, A.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the process of Whitney such that a percentage such as greater than 20% of a surface of the particles reaches boiling temperature, in order to control the amount of atoms being vaporized by the laser beam, contributing to the formation of plasma that melts a proportion of the feed material particles in the spray being deposited onto the surface of the component, to control the material properties (e.g. wear resistance) of the resultant coating (Whitney Col. 6, ln. 3-34).
Regarding claim 8, Whitney discloses the laser metal deposition process according to claim 1, characterized in that the density of the particles in the powder jet can be adjusted (Col. 1, ln. 64-Col. 2, ln. 5, “The apparatus is controllable over a wide range of deposition rates, extent of heating of the substrate, and feedstocks. The size (width and thickness) of the deposited layer is controllable by adjusting such laser and operating parameters as nozzle height, powder feed rate, part traverse rate, gas flow rate, and nozzle configuration.”; the powder density is thus capable of being adjusted, note the claim does not specify if this is an actual step) and the laser power and caustic curve of the laser beam dimensioned and aligned with the powder jet (Fig. 2, the laser is dimensioned and aligned with the focal point of the powder jet in the region 150) in such a way that the laser power impinging on the surface of the component is not sufficient to melt of affect the surface of the component (Col. 3, ln. 29-33, “The substrate is not heated directly by the laser, except incidentally to the extent that some laser energy passes through, and is not absorbed by, the plasma, and therefore reaches the substrate in a greatly defocussed state having a low beam energy density”; Col. 6, ln. 51-Col. 7, ln.40, the laser and resulting plasma is not sufficient to significantly melt/alter the surface of the substrate, as the laser focus point is spaced away from the substrate)
Whitney fails to explicitly disclose the laser power impinging on the surface of the component is less than 85%, preferably less than 50%, particularly preferably less than 30%, especially preferably less than 10%, especially preferably less than 5% (see 112(b) rejection above, these preferential values are interpreted as being optional and not required by the claim) of the laser power before contact of the laser beam with the particles of the powder jet.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the laser power reaching the surface of the component is recognized is a result-effective variable, since such a value would affect the heating of the component surface and consequently affect the material. Whitney discusses that the surface of the substrate 114 is “not heated directly by the laser, except incidentally” since most of the laser power is absorbed by the plasma (Col. 6, ln. 51-Col. 7, ln.40). Consequently, a majority of the laser power has been absorbed by the plasma, preventing the surface of the substrate from being melted/heated by the laser.
It has been held that optimizing a result effective variable was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). Furthermore, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP § 2144.05, II, A.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have optimized the particle density and laser power parameters (e.g. laser power and caustic curve dimensioned and aligned with the powder jet) such that the laser power impinging on the surface of the component is less than 85% of the laser power before contacting the particles of the powder jet, in order to ensure the majority of the laser power is absorbed by the fluid particle stream and ensuing plasma, such that any remaining laser power not absorbed does not materially affect the surface of the substrate while contributing to the formation of the plasma facilitating the material deposition onto the substrate, as discussed by Whitney (Col. 3, ln. 29-33; Col. 6, ln. 51-Col. 7, ln. 40).
Regarding claim 9, Whitney discloses the laser metal deposition process according to claim 1, but fails to disclose that the laser beam comprises a focal area whose average distance (A) from the surface of the component is between 0.25 mm and 20.0 mm, preferably between 0.25 mm and 10.0 mm, more preferably between 0.25 mm and 5.0 mm, particularly preferably between 0.8 mm and 1.2 mm (see 112(b) rejection above, the preferential values are interpreted as being optional and not required by the claim).
Whitney does discuss “The focal point of the laser in the laser plasma spray apparatus is ordinarily maintained at a distance of at least 1-6 inches from the substrate, reducing the heating of the substrate and completely avoiding melting of the substrate” (Col. 2, ln. 37-41; Col. 4, ln. 13-25, ln. 49-50). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the distance between the focal point of the laser and the surface of the component is recognized is a result-effective variable, since such a distance affects whether or not the surface of the component is melted by the laser or plasma.
It has been held that optimizing a result effective variable was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). Furthermore, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP § 2144.05, II, A.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have discovered an optimal average distance between the focal area of the laser beam from the surface of the component in the process of Whitney, such as 0.25-20.00mm, in order to ensure the heating of the surface of the component is not sufficient to melt the surface, preventing alteration of its metallurgical structure, such that the filler material spray is deposited onto a solid surface of the component (Col. 2, ln. 37-41; Col. 4, ln. 13-25, ln. 49-50; Col. 7, ln. 2-10).
Regarding claim 10, Whitney discloses the laser metal deposition process according to claim 9, characterized in that the powder jet is delivered to the focal area 150 of the laser beam, preferably coaxially (Fig. 2, the powder jet is delivered to the focal point 150 of the laser via conical surfaces 120, 124 that surround the focal point, hence being “coaxial” to the laser; Col. 5, ln. 23-46; see 112(b) rejection above, the preference for “coaxially” is interpreted as being optional and not required by the claim; nonetheless Whitney teaches coaxial introduction of the powder jet into the focal area).
Regarding claim 11, Whitney discloses the laser metal deposition process according to claim 1, but fails to disclose that the powder jet has a powder mass which is greater than 1 g/l per conveyed total volume comprising the conveyed gas volume and particle volume.
Whitney does discuss examples of “total fluidizing and axial gas flow” in terms of cubic feet per hour in relation to “powder flow rate” in grams per minute for various laser power values, powder sizes and compositions, and flow rates, to affect deposition layer width and height and bonding strength (Col. 7-9, examples 1-10). Powder feed rate and gas flow rate are discussed as adjustable parameters for affecting the size (width and thickness) of the deposited layer (Col. 1, ln. 64-Col. 2, ln. 5). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that parameters describing the amount of powder within the fluidizing gas flow forming the powder jet, such as powder flow rates in relation to volume of the fluidizing gas (e.g. powder mass flow rates and powder mass in relation to the fluidizing gas volume), are result effective variables, since they would have direct effect on the deposition layer formed on the component.
It has been held that optimizing a result effective variable was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). Furthermore, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP § 2144.05, II, A.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the process of Whitney, discovering an optimal mass to volume relationship between the powder/filler material and the fluidizing/conveying gas, such as 1 gram/liter per conveyed total volume of conveyed gas and particle volume, in order to achieve a desired deposition effectiveness and size. Whitney already teaches the general conditions of the process, and one skilled in the art would know to adjust the powder jet powder mass in relation to the conveying gas volume to optimize the material deposition onto the surface of the component to achieve a desired width and thickness.
Regarding claim 15, Whitney discloses the laser metal deposition process according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose that the process parameters (P) are selected so that, using these process parameters (P) with an inactive powder jet and the laser beam with 35% laser power, preferably 50% laser power, particularly preferably 85% laser power, according to the process parameters (P), no melting of the surface of the component occurs in the area of the incident laser beam (the 35% laser power being interpreted as a hypothetical situation and not a required step, see 112(b) rejection above; see 112(b) rejection above, the preferential values are also interpreted as being optional and not required by the claim).
Whitney discusses that the laser power for the laser metal deposition process is selected to be sufficient to form a plasma and melt a portion of the powder jet, while having the incident beam that reaches the surface of the component be insufficient to melt the surface (Col. 4, ln. 35-49; Col. 6, ln. 4-34; Col. 7, ln. 2-10, “The substrate is also heated by the energy released as the deposited atoms solidify and by the energy of the laser beam that is transmitted through the plasma and reaches the substrate in a defocussed state. These contributions to heating are relatively small, and it is found that deposition on the substrate is accomplished without melting the substrate or altering its metallurgical structure, for substrates having moderately high melting points”). The power level of the laser beam during regular use of the apparatus 100 is insufficient to melt the surface of the component while the powder jet is active.
It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP § 2144.05, II, A. In this case, the process of Whitney is disclosed as using process parameters that cause the any incident laser power reaching the surface of the component during regular use of the apparatus to not sufficiently heat the surface to a melting state. The laser beam focal area 150 is spaced apart from the surface such that the laser power reaches the surface in a defocused state.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have optimized the process parameters of Whitney such that the laser beam power at 35% power results in no melting of the surface of the component in the area of the laser beam when the powder jet is inactive, in order to ensure the laser power of the process does not melt the surface of the component during regular usage (Col. 4, ln. 35-49; Col. 6, ln. 4-34; Col. 7, ln. 2-10). One skilled in the art would know to select a laser power level that would ensure that no melting of the surface of the component occurs during operation of the laser metal deposition apparatus, and a lower percentage of said power, such as 35%, would also not result in melting of the surface, especially with the laser defocused on the surface.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rizoiu (US 2004/0092925 A1) teaches a plasma cutting tool that creates a plasma jet by vaporizing a feed material/fluid particle, with discussions on particle velocity and vapor pressure.
Scheidt (US 4,958,058 A), Thaler (US 5,814,152 A), Funkhouser (US 5,449,536 A) teaches a laser spray nozzle for material deposition, including using a laser to melt a portion of particles in a powder jet, the focal area of the laser spaced from the surface of a component.
Rothe (DE 4415783 A1) teaches a laser material deposition process including using a laser to melt a filler material at a focal point spaced from the surface of the component.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAIN CHAU whose telephone number is (571)272-9444. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-6pm PST.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached on 571 272 7118. 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.
/ALAIN CHAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights