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 1-11 in the reply filed on 15 May 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would not have been a burden to search both inventions because both of the searches would have to include the common features of both inventions. This is not found persuasive because apparently applicant envisions a much less thorough search than is envisioned by the examiner. The search terms would each be searched, however the method claims would require searching additive manufacturing methods, whereas the apparatus claims would require searching additive manufacturing arts, build-up welding, machining, and other arts. The carrier additionally requires searching computer arts. The additional search of the arts for a system that matches represents a much greater burden than what applicant describes. Additionally, applicant has not argued that the inventions include a special technical feature. Therefor applicant has not attempted to rebut the finding that the claims lack unity.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 12-15are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 3 November 2023. These drawings are accepted.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 10-2017210909 A1 (machine translation provided; hereinafter “Geisen”).
Regarding claim 1, Geisen teaches the method of making a component for a gas turbine (See abstract or [0002]). Geisen teaches that the method includes additive manufacturing such as selective laser sintering ([0003]-[0005]).
Geisen describes the manufacture at [0029]-[0040] and in Figs 1-4. Geisen teaches manufacturing a component with a cavity therein, having two walls and a floor (Fig. 1-4), wherein an auxiliary structure 20 is placed, which is connecting the two walls surrounding the cavity (Fig 3). Geisen teaches making the component, then removing powder from the cavity (see fig 1-2). Geisen teaches that the auxiliary supports the material while the component is made (claim 1, [0011]), thus it is a “support.” Geisen clearly describes that the additive process may be a sintering process (see [0003], [0011] or claim 1). Geisen teaches that the auxiliary is covered over with powder and a thin layer is manufactured (Figs 3-4). Geisen teaches that the component is built over the cavity (See [0032]-[0040] for example). Geisen teaches that the cavity is a channel ([0032] and Fig 4), thus envisioning a “groove.” Geisen teaches that the auxiliary material is removed from the component in order to leave the cavity with the overhang exposed (see [0040]). Geisen teaches that the auxiliary (support) protects the dimensional stability of the part during the processing ([0011]). Figure 1 defines a “model” of the article. Figure 2 thru 4 define adapting the model in conjunction with the addition of the support. Alternatively, the generation of the model is inherent in the additive manufacturing process as described (Fig 5). Geisen teaches that the design of the auxiliary is such that it is dimensionally stable, and that the process is carried out by additive manufacturing directly onto the auxiliary ([0011]-[0015] and Figs 1-4). These steps require the model to be developed thereby.
Regarding claim 2, Geisen teaches that the auxiliary is above the gap (Figs 1-4).
Regarding claim 2, Geisen teaches that the auxiliary covers a majority of the gap (Figs 1-4).
Regarding claim 3, Geisen teaches that ethe flange protects the material from heat (see [0037]). Thus the material having “substantially different” thermal expansion properties is met. Geisen teaches that the flange is connected with a welding or cohesive or metallurgical bond by the process (See [0035]), thus clearly envisioning a metal material in one embodiment.
Regarding claim 5, Geisen teaches that auxiliary is specifically dimensioned to cover the overhang ([0033]).
Regarding claim 6, Geisen teaches that the cavity (groove) faces up (Figs 1-4).
Regarding claim 7, Geisen teaches that the auxiliary is above the gap (Figs 1-4).
Regarding claim 8, Geisen teaches that the auxiliary covers the one side wall of the cavity (Figs 1-4), thus matching the entire surface thereupon.
Regarding claim 11, Geisen teaches that the auxiliary supports the material while the component is made (claim 1, [0011]), thus it is a “support.” Geisen clearly describes that the additive process may be a sintering process (see [0003], [0011] or claim 1). Geisen teaches that the auxiliary is covered over with powder and a thin layer is manufactured (Figs 3-4).
Regarding claim 9, Geisen is applied to the claim as stated above. The structure of Geisen reads on a bearing chamber (See Figs 1-4).
Regarding claims 10-12, Geisen is applied to the claim as stated above.
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.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geisen.
Regarding claim 9, Geisen does not describe multiple supports. Geisen describes just the one support. The duplication of multiple supports, for example, to fit an annular shape or to provide ease of manufacture, or to cover areas which have different geometries, would have been an obvious variant of the process. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2144.04 V and VI.
Regarding claim 10, Geisen is applied to the claims as stated above. Geisen does not teach wherein the thickness of the support is between 10-50% of a width of the groove. Geisen teaches that the auxiliary is a support ([0011], claim 1).
The relative thickness of the support is not considered to distinguish over the prior art. The prior art recognizes the importance of this auxiliary, and teaches the same exact structures. The arbitrary distinction of a relative dimension, with no other context or limits, would have been an obvious variant over the prior art process. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2144.04 IV A. Alternatively, the skilled artisan would have been fully capable of optimizing the auxiliary with a thickness suited to provide the required functions. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Geisen does not teach wherein the thin layer is 20 microns thick. Geisen teaches in general that a suitable “thin layer” is used for the process, and envisions a powder thickness prior to melting of 40 micron ([0029]).
The change in the thickness of the deposited layer would have been an obvious variant of the process of Geisen. Geisen teaches that it is important for the first layer (claimed “thin layer”) to bond to the structure ([0035]) and discloses means already known in the art to control the thickness of the layer of a slider or squeegee ([0029]). It would have been an obvious matter to a skilled artisan to have optimized the ”first layer” of Greisen in order to obtain a suitable welding or a connection ([0035]).
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160332259 A1 (hereinafter “Jones”), in view of B Lynn Ferguson and Randall German, “Powder Shaping and Consolidation Technologies,” ASM Handbook, vol. 7 (1998), pp. 313-320 (hereinafter “Ferguson”).
Jones teaches a method of additive manufacturing (see STATEMENT OF THE INVENTION). Jones teaches that the method includes defining a geometry of the component ([0005]). The definition of the geometry reads on obtaining a model of the component. Jones teaches a method of making an object which has a weakness including adding a second geometry to the object, then making a support for the weakness (see claims 1-6 and Figs 4-12). Jones teaches that the weak spot is a groove (see claim 7). Jones teaches that a second geometry is made incorporating a first geometry of that component, to include a sacrificial feature (STATEMENT), reading on altering the model. Jones teaches that the second geometry sacrificial feature for example extends from the sides of a geometric feature (See [0042] and Figs 5A and 5B). Jones teaches that the sacrificial feature protects the part from cracking during a heat treatment (See [0003] and STATEMENT). Jones teaches that unprocessed loose powders removed from the component prior to heat treatment ([0011]). Jones teaches that the sacrificial feature is removed such as by machining ([0013]).
Jones does not teach that the heat treatment is a sintering. Jones does envision a hot isostatic pressing may be incorporated (See [0048]).
Ferguson teaches methods of shaping and consolidation known in the art of powder metallurgy (see p. 313). Ferguson describes the basic metes and bounds of hot isostatic pressing (See p. 316). Ferguson teaches that HIP yields a near net shape and a full density (p 316-317). Ferguson teaches that during the HIP process, the material is densified by bulk deformation ,sintering, and creep (pp. 316-317). Thus Ferguson describes that the HIP includes sintering phenomena.
It would have been an obvious matter top the skilled artisan at time of invention to have practiced the method of Jones, and to have selected a hot isostatic pressing suggested at [0048]), because Ferguson teaches that this process can yield a full density (pp. 316-317).
Regarding claim 2, Jones teaches that the sacrificial feature may be above the component feature (See [0042] and Figs 5A and 5B or [0049]-[0056] and Figs 13A to 13D).
Regarding claim 3, Jones teaches that the sacrificial feature may substantially cover the component feature (See [0042] and Figs 5A and 5B or [0049]-[0056] and Figs 13A to 13D).
Regarding claim 4, Jones teaches that the sacrificial feature may be porous (See STATEMENT or claim 9).
Regarding claim 5, Jones teaches that a second geometry is made incorporating a first geometry of that component, to include a sacrificial feature (STATEMENT).
Regarding claims 6-7, Jones does not teach wherein the groove faces upward. However, Jones described embodiments in which the sacrificial feature may be above the component feature (See [0042] and Figs 5A and 5B or [0049]-[0056] and Figs 13A to 13D). Thus the skilled artisan following the teachings of Jones would have envisioned wherein the sacrificial feature is above and atop the groove.
Regarding claim 8, Jones envisions that the sacrificial feature may substantially cover the component feature (See [0042] and Figs 5A and 5B or [0049]-[0056] and Figs 13A to 13D).
Regarding claim 9, Jones envisions where the sacrificial feature connects the walls of the component feature (See Figs 5A to 5B).
Regarding claim 10, Jones in view of Ferguson is applied to the claims as stated above. Jones does not teach wherein the thickness of the support is between 10-50% of a width of the groove.
The relative thickness of the support is not considered to distinguish over the prior art. The prior art recognizes the importance of this sacrificial geometry. The arbitrary distinction of a relative dimension, with no other context or limits, would have been an obvious variant over the prior art process. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2144.04 IV A. Alternatively, the skilled artisan would have been fully capable of optimizing the auxiliary with a thickness suited to provide the required functions. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 11, Jones teaches that the sacrificial feature protects the part from cracking during a heat treatment (See STATEMENT).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20200040739 A1 teaches to make a support structure for turbomachinery vanes. US 10010936 B2 teaches support structures that do not contact the overhanging geometrical features. US 20170095887 A1 teaches to create supports for intricate parts such as grooves.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6510. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
CHRISTOPHER S. KESSLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights