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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 4 April 2024. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: There is no description in the specification of the subject matter of claim 12, wherein a scan speed is about 42-43 m/s. while a speed of 42.5 mm/s is clearly envisioned, there is no description for the range in claim 12.
Claim Objections
Claims 12 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 12 recites that the scan speed is between about 42 and 43 m/s. However the instant specification describes that the scan speed is delivered in units of mm/s. Claim 14 similarly describes a scan speed on the order of m/s. It is believed that the inconsistency is a result of a typographical error.
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 1-15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “refractory alloy” in claims 1-15 renders the claim indefinite. Applicant describes that an alloy similar to the commercially-available Tribaloy 400 alloy is an example of “refractory alloy” in claims 4-5. The specification does not clearly redefine the term. The skilled artisan would not recognize the commercially-available Tribaloy 400 used by applicant as a “refractory alloy” by the plainly understood definition of that term.
See for example, the article “Refractory Metals and Alloys” from ASM Handbook, which describes refractory metals and refractory alloys as including elements (Nb, Ta, W, Mo, Re) with the highest melting points, and makes no mention of these cobalt alloys or any cobalt alloys as being “refractory.” See also the article “Cobalt and Cobalt Alloys” from ASM Handbook, which describes high temperature cobalt alloys, but makes no description of these alloys (including similar Tribaloy 800) as being “refractory” alloys. Due to the use of the term “refractory alloy” used to refer to a cobalt alloy, the intended scope of claims is not clear. Was applicant’s term considered as a statement of intended use (i.e., a part used in a high-temperature application)? Was this intended to denote an actual compositional limitation as by inclusion of some amount of refractory metal elements? Does it refer in general to a class of cobalt alloys? Does it mean something else altogether? The point of infringement of claim 1 cannot be determined, and the claim is indefinite. Each of claims 2-15 depends from claim 1 and is also indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8-11, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 10639721 B2 (hereinafter “Das”).
Regarding claim 1, it is noted that the claim is indefinite (see rejections under 35 USC 112 above).
Das teaches a system and a method for additive manufacturing and repair of graded turbine components (see title). Das teaches that the method includes additive manufacturing such as selective laser sintering and scanning laser epitaxy (see FIELD OF THE INVENTION and SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION).
Das teaches that a deposit (coating) is formed on a substrate (SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION). See also Figs 31-37. Das teaches that the method includes a powder bed and a laser to repair a component (See SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION or Figs 8-9 and col 17-19). Das teaches that the process includes scanning for cracks, to determine problem areas (see cols 37-38, Crack and Pore Tracking). Das teaches that the method both creates and repairs components (col 11-12). Das teaches that the material is melted selectively at problem areas (see claim 10 and col. 19).
Das teaches that the method is applied to turbine blades which include nickel or cobalt super alloys (col. 16). Das teaches that the se alloys are inclusive of tungsten, tantalum, molybdenum, and rhenium commonly (col 16). Das teaches that some examples include MARM 247 (MAR-M247). Thus Das envisions the use of a “refractory alloy” such as is claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Das envisions that the bed may be preheated or not preheated (col 22, col. 18).
Regarding claim 3, Das teaches that the cobalt superalloys for turbines are used (see col 16).
Regarding claim 4, Das teaches that the alloy may include a MAR M247 (col. 16).
Regarding claim 6, Das teaches that the nickel superalloys for turbines are used (see col 16).
Regarding claim 8, Das teaches that the process includes building up the component in a layer by layer manner (SUMMARY).
Regarding claim 9, Das teaches that the method includes additive manufacturing such as selective laser sintering and scanning laser epitaxy (see FIELD OF THE INVENTION and SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION).
Regarding claim 10, Das teaches that a scan speed is adjusted as needed in the process in order to generate a desired melt pool (claim 5, claim 14, cols 20-21). Therefore Das clearly envisions using difference scan speeds in the different layers.
Regarding claim 11, Das teaches that the process includes scanning for cracks, to determine problem areas (see cols 37-38, Crack and Pore Tracking). Das teaches that the method both creates and repairs components (col 11-12). Das teaches that the material is melted selectively at problem areas (see claim 10 and col. 19). Das does not teach that the original composition is changed.
Regarding claim 15, Das envisions thicknesses as claimed (see col 54).
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) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das.
Das is applied as stated in the rejections under 35 USC 102.
Regarding claim 12, Das does not teach a scan speed as claimed. Das teaches that the scan speed and the laser power are each variables which will affect the melt pool and the finish of the part being made (see col 11-12 and col 20-21). Das teaches that in some instances the scan speed may be about 0.1-10.0 inches/s (see col. 24-25). The scan speed taught by Das overlaps the range as claimed, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness for that range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of filing to have selected a speed in the range as claimed because Das teaches the same utility over an overlapping range. Applicant is further directed to MPEP 2144.05.
Alternatively, the scan speed is established as a results effective variable by the teachings of Das as cited. It would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan to have optimized the scan speed through a routine investigation of the invention of Das. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2144.05.
The laser power is established as a results effective variable by the teachings of Das as cited. It would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan to have optimized the scan speed through a routine investigation of the invention of Das. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 13, Das does not teach wherein the laser power is about 730 W. It would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan to have optimized the power through a routine investigation of the invention of Das. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 14, Das does not teach wherein the scan speed is about 42.5 mm/s. It would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan to have optimized the scan speed through a routine investigation of the invention of Das. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das as applied to the claims 1-4 above, and further in view of US 4474861 A (hereinafter “Ecer”) .
Regarding claim 5, Das does not teach a cobalt alloy as claimed.
Ecer teaches a method of providing a hard wear resistant surface on a metal substrate (see col. 2). Ecer teaches that a powder layer of a facing composition is provided on a metal substrate, which is then selectively fused with a laser (cols 2-3). Ecer teaches that the composition may include the Tribaloy 400 alloy (see col 4-5).
It would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan to have practiced the method of Das, and to have further applied a Tribaloy T400 coating as taught by Ecer, because Ecer teaches that this imparts wear resistance to the part (See cols 2-3).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das as applied to the claims 1-4 and 6 above, and further in view of US 20130140279 A1 (hereinafter “Bruck”).
Das is applied to the claim as stated above. Das does not teach a nickel alloy as claimed.
Bruck teaches methods of re-melt repair of superalloy components (see title, [0002]). Bruck teaches that the SLM process can be used to deposit superalloy layers onto a substrate (See [0013]). Bruck teaches that it is known that typical superalloy materials include 282 alloy, and are difficult to weld ([0008]-[0009]).
It would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan practicing the invention of Das to have used a 282 alloy as taught by Bruck, because Bruck teaches that these materials are typical in the art. The simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results would have been prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20150147185 A1 teaches to use Tribaloy to coat turbine buckets. US 20170107603 A1teaches to apply CoCrMoSi alloys to nickel components for wear resistance. US 20170189960 A1 teaches to perform additive manufacturing with high temperature cobalt alloys and other alloys.
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