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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-14 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The cited prior art alone or in combination does not teach or suggest the inclusion of:
determining a first experimental law by:
supplying reference specimens, each reference specimen having a primary axis and being produced by additive manufacturing, each reference specimen comprising a bottom surface facing the manufacturing platen of the manufacturing device forming a first angle with the primary axis and a top surface opposite to said bottom surface and forming a second angle with the primary axis;
for each reference specimen, measuring the roughness of the top surface and the roughness of the bottom surface; and
obtaining said first experimental law by interpolating the roughness of the top surface and of the bottom surface according to the first angles and the second angles.
The combination of structural limitations of each reference specimen represents significantly more because each is not well-known, conventional, or routinely provided specimens from which to derive an experimental law, which in combination with claim 1 as a whole, results in an optimized part having target surface roughness.
Claim 15 is conditionally allowed based upon remedying the 35 USC 101 rejection:
Claim 15:
comparing the target roughness to the total maximum roughness; and
if the total maximum roughness is greater than the target roughness of said inclined portion, machining said inclined portion to obtain the target roughness, after producing the turbomachine part by additive manufacturing, claim 15 (Examiner suggestions: e.g. the limitation “if” represents a conditional limitation such that the responsive limitations of machining are not accorded weight. Examiner suggests reciting “responsive to the total maximum roughness being greater…” or equivalents to provide an affirmative response that is inevitable performed opposed to conditionally or never occurring. Accordingly, a practical application would be realized); see also mental processing comprising:
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim Objections
Claims 10-18 are objected to because of the following informalities: the language “method for additive manufacturing…” should recite “A method for additive manufacturing.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 10 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to n without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea directed to a mental processing comprising:
Claim 10:
determining a maximum roughness of the outer surface of said inclined portion according to the mechanical weakening of said inclined portion;
determining a total maximum roughness according to the maximum roughness of the outer surface of each inclined portion,
determining, according to the total maximum roughness, an orientation of the primary axis of the turbomachine part with respect to a plane of a manufacturing platen of an additive manufacturing device, claim 10
Claim 15:
comparing the target roughness to the total maximum roughness; and
if the total maximum roughness is greater than the target roughness of said inclined portion, machining said inclined portion to obtain the target roughness, after producing the turbomachine part by additive manufacturing, claim 15 (Examiner suggestions: e.g. the limitation “if” represents a conditional limitation such that the responsive limitations of machining are not accorded weight. Examiner suggests reciting “responsive to the total maximum roughness being greater…” or equivalents to provide an affirmative response that is inevitable performed opposed to conditionally or never occurring. Accordingly, a practical application would be realized); see also mental processing comprising:
Claim 17:
comparing the target roughness to the total maximum roughness; and
if the total maximum roughness is greater than the target roughness of said inclined portion, modifying a dimensioning of the inclined portion by adding a thickness thereto prior to producing the turbomachine part by additive manufacturing, claim 17
But for the inclusion of general components, the mental process described above is not meaningfully limited, see Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations described below do not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because the combinations represent insignificant extra-solution activity:
Claim 10:
providing a target roughness of an outer surface of said inclined portion (e.g. see tangential gathering of MPEP 2106.05(g);
providing a mechanical weakening of said inclined portion and producing the turbomachine part by additive manufacturing ((e.g. see tangential gathering of MPEP 2106.05(g))
Claim 16:
polishing the inclined portion and milling the inclined portion, claim 16, MPEP 2106.05(g) (e.g. see polishing as generally insignificant extra-solution activity via AM manufacturing, MPEP 2106.05(g)
Claims 10 and 18
The following combination of limitations tangentially link the abstract idea to the field of machining, MPEP 2106.05(h).
wherein the turbomachine part is one of: a bearing structure of a turbomachine: a turbine blade of a turbomachine; and a compressor blade of a turbomachine, claim 18, MPEP 2106.05(h) (e.g. each of the components are generally recited), see also the general components of claim 1 comprising the additive manufacturing, turbomachine, and primary axis. .
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the insignificant extra solution activity is well-understood, convention, or routine, MPEP 2106.05(d), infra cited prior art machining, see also manufacturing a modelled part, 11028707, 10722996, 9039917 (AM turbomachine components having polished surfaced); see also tangential data collection via the “providing” limitations of claim 10, MPEP 2106.05(d).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Claim 10.
The following combination of prior art appears relevant to following claim mapping:
Method for additive manufacturing of a turbomachine part, said turbomachine part having a primary axis and at least one inclined portion extending in a secondary direction forming a non-zero angle with the primary axis (20130316084, ABSTRACT, 0006-0007, 0019, 0025, Figure 1 e.g. see AM roughened areas of inclined portions having non-zero angle, see also the stator vane, PG/PUB 20160377092, see also the application of roughened areas to weakened areas, 7484589 -Figure 1 see also AM roughened regions, 20200164585) the method comprising the steps of:
for each inclined portion of the at least one inclined portion: providing a target roughness of an outer surface of said inclined portion (e.g. see general determinations of surface roughness additive manufacturing, 20130316084, ABSTRACT, 0006-0007, 0019, 0025, Figure 1 e.g. see AM roughened areas of inclined portions having non-zero angle, see also the stator vane, PG/PUB 20160377092, see also the application of roughened areas to weakened areas, 7484589 -Figure 1 see also AM roughened regions, 20200164585)
providing a mechanical weakening of said inclined portion (20220274178- ABSTRACT, 0024-25 e.g. see mechanically weakened areas requiring additional support, see also 20230347576 e.g. see porosity as a mechanically weakened area, see also the application of 7484589, Figure 1-16 for providing roughened areas in light of mechanical fatigue due to loads, see also mechanically weakening, 7440874)
determining a maximum roughness of the outer surface of said inclined portion according to the mechanical weakening of said inclined portion (see general determination of required or necessary roughened areas to provide protection while minimize roughness/maximum required, 20130316084, ABSTRACT, 0006-0007, 0019, 0025, Figure 1 e.g. see AM roughened areas of inclined portions having non-zero angle, see also the stator vane, PG/PUB 20160377092, see also the application of roughened areas to weakened areas, 7484589 -Figure 1 see also AM roughened regions, 20200164585
determining a total maximum roughness according to the maximum roughness of the outer surface of each inclined portion (20130316084, ABSTRACT, 0006-0007, 0019, 0025, Figure 1 e.g. see AM roughened areas of inclined portions having non-zero angle, see also the stator vane, PG/PUB 20160377092, see also the application of roughened areas to weakened areas, 7484589 -Figure 1 see also AM roughened regions, 20200164585)
determining, according to the total maximum roughness, an orientation of the primary axis of the turbomachine part with respect to a plane of a manufacturing platen of an additive manufacturing device (e.g. see determining rotational axis of AM machining relative to axis of inclined part for providing target roughness, 20190255771 -0004, 0125 e.g. see choosing z-axis for impacting build quality such as surface roughness)
producing the turbomachine part by additive manufacturing (20190255771 ABSTRACT, see also 20190210111)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRIN D DUNN whose telephone number is (571)270-1645. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sat (10-8) 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, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. 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.
/DARRIN D DUNN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights