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 0/2024. These drawings are accepted.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-18 are as originally filed.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: in Claim 12, it is unclear what is meant by “milling such” in line 2. The specification in [0046] appears to refer to examples of milling. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 10-2019-118072 A1, based on the machine translation.
DE 102019118072 A1 (DE ‘072) teaches forging rotor blades. A further part of the blades, which are radially attached to the outer parts of the blades facing the annulus, is produced using additive manufacturing (AM) as represented below in the annotated drawing:
PNG
media_image1.png
552
352
media_image1.png
Greyscale
An interface is formed between the forged part (first portion) of the blades and the AM parts (second portion) of the blades [0009]. The hybrid material is taught by the combination of 10B and 10A. Either areas or the entire rotor is heat-treated to reduce residual stresses in the blade area [0019]. DE ‘072 anticipates the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 2, the component (rotor blade) comprises a contour as represented by 15A, and the combination of 10B and 10A are beyond 15A.
Regarding Claim 3, the protruding section is taught by the blade 10, which comprises the second portion.
Regarding Claim 4, the component represents a boss as represented below in the annotated drawing:
PNG
media_image2.png
394
402
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The first boss material is taught by 10A and the second boss material is taught by 10B.
Regarding Claim 7, optional intermediate machining of the entire geometry of the blades 10, only the AM parts 10B, or only forged parts 10A [0054].
Regarding Claim 11, the component is a rotor.
Regarding Claim 12, milling is used [0028].
Regarding Claim 13, the entire geometry of the blades is machined [0054].
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vargas et al (US 2024/0399452 A1).
Vargas et al teaches an aircraft component made of a cast nickel-based alloy with a hybrid additive manufacturing repair method [0001] or may be forged [0051]. The aircraft component is a case that has a damaged portion. The damaged portion is removed, which teaches a first portion [0010]. An additive manufacturing process is used [0035] to build up sections [0046] as represented by FIG. 5:
PNG
media_image3.png
194
838
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Once formed, the component may be machine and heat treated [0041]. An intermediate layer is welded to the base surface [0058]. Vargas et al anticipates the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 2, the component includes an axial flange 230 of an inner case 200 for a gas turbine engine 120 [0056] represented in FIG 3B that teaches a contour. FIG. 5 teaches the repaired material exceeds the contour.
Regarding Claim 3, the protruding portion is taught by the flange 510 [0057].
Regarding Claim 5, the case is made of a nickel alloy [0006].
Regarding Claim 6, the added material has the same material such as a nickel alloy [0045].
Regarding Claim 7, machining is applied to the first part before additive manufacturing [0057].
Regarding Claim 11, the component may be a case or vane [0040].
Regarding Claim 13, Once formed, the component may be machine and heat treated [0041].
Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vargas et al.
Vargas et al teaches repairing an aircraft component made of a cast nickel-based alloy with a hybrid additive manufacturing repair method [0001]. The aircraft component is a case that has a damaged portion. The damaged portion is removed, which teaches a first portion [0010]. An additive manufacturing process is used [0035] to build up sections [0046] as represented by FIG. 5:
PNG
media_image3.png
194
838
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Once formed, the component may be machine and heat treated [0041]. An intermediate layer is welded to the base surface [0058]. Vargas et al anticipates the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 15, the damaged portion is removed [0010].
Regarding Claim 16, the additive manufactured section is added to the removed section [0046].
Regarding Claim 17, the component to be repaired includes an axial flange 230 of an inner case 200 for a gas turbine engine 120 [0056] represented in FIG 3B that teaches a contour. FIG. 5 teaches the repaired material exceeds the contour.
Regarding Claim 18, the protruding portion is taught by the flange 510 [0057].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE ‘072 as applied to claim 1 above.
DE ‘072 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, DE ‘072 does not teach the first portion is at least 75% by volume as claimed. DE ‘072 exemplifies in Fig. 4 the portion of the component that comprises the first part (rotor 6C) and the second part (blade 10B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that DE ‘072 suggests the claimed volume percentage, since a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 II B. In this case, Fig. 4 represents an overlap of at least 75-95% by volume of the component comprising the rotor.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vargas et al as applied to claim 1 above.
Vargas et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Vargas et al does not teach specifically the volume percent as claimed but teaches a ration between the remainder portion and the repaired flange is between 20:1 and 2:1 based on the height or length [0060]. The claimed percentages are within the claimed range of at least 75%, since 20:1 reads on 95% and 2:1 reads on 67%. The length is proportionate to the volume. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the prior art discloses the utility of the composition over the entire disclosed range. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE ‘072 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schreiber et al (US 8,242,406 B2).
DE ‘072 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, DE ‘072 does not teach the blade material as claimed. Schreiber et al teaches a method for the manufacture of a blisk with blades made of titanium aluminide (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for either the rotor or the blade of DE ‘072 to be made of the titanium aluminide as taught by Schreiber et al, since blades made of titanium aluminide are light in weight, the centrifugal forces acting upon the joint on the blisk and the mechanical load in that area will be comparatively low, ensuring a long service life of the blisk with relatively low work and material input (column 2, lines 6-13).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tima M. McGuthry-Banks whose telephone number is (571)272-2744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 am to 4:00 pm.
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, Keith D. Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
Tima M. McGuthry-Banks
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/Tima M. McGuthry-Banks/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights