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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui et al. (US 2021/0205910A1) (hereafter Cui) in view of Lau (US 7,648,341B2).
With respect to claim 1, Cui teaches a method for repairing a turbine part (40) having a cooling hole (46), comprising inserting at least one superalloy wire or pin (broadest reasonable interpretation) (plug 50) into the cooling hole, which cooling hole has a top opening and a bottom opening, and at least one wall (42) forming the cooling hole, providing a braze filler alloy (52, 59) at the top opening of the cooling hole, diffusion brazing the turbine part, wherein the braze filler alloy melts and flows into the cooling hole and around the at least one superalloy wire or pin such that any voids between the at least one wall of the cooling hole and the at least one superalloy wire or pin are filled with the braze filler alloy, cooling the turbine part, wherein the melted braze filler alloy solidifies, and forms a unitary part with both the turbine part and the at least one superalloy wire or pin (figures 5-11 and 15-16; and paragraphs 4, 27-34, 48, and 52-54); and blending or smoothing the surface of the turbine part in the vicinity of the top opening of the cooling hole to remove any excess braze filler alloy and/or superalloy wire or pin extending past the surface of the turbine part (figure 16; and paragraph 54).
With respect to claim 1, Cui does not explicitly teach diffusion brazing; and forming a new cooling hole that is offset from the cooling hole that was present on the turbine part, such that part of the at least one superalloy wire or pin forms a part of the at least one wall of the newly formed cooling hole, or that is offset from the cooling hole that was present on the turbine part, such that no part of the at least one superalloy wire or pin or braze material is removed,
However, Lau teaches diffusion brazing (column 3, lines 30-42); and forming a new cooling hole (re-drill) that is offset from the cooling hole that was present on the turbine part, such that part of the at least one superalloy wire or pin forms a part of the at least one wall of the newly formed cooling hole, or that is offset from the cooling hole that was present on the turbine part, such that no part of the at least one superalloy wire or pin or braze material is removed (column 4, lines 33-37). Note that re-drilling any new cooling hole scheme would intrinsically require forming a new cooling hole that is offset from the cooling hole that was present on the turbine part, such that part of the at least one superalloy wire or pin forms a part of the at least one wall of the newly formed cooling hole, or that is offset from the cooling hole that was present on the turbine part, such that no part of the at least one superalloy wire or pin or braze material is removed.
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to re-drill as taught by Lau the repaired cooling hole of Cui in order to form a repaired turbine with the desired cooling hole scheme.
With respect to claims 2-3, Lau teaches for repairing a turbine part having a cooling hole, wherein a new cooling hole is formed that is offset from the cooling hole that was present on the turbine part (column 4, lines 33-37), and for repairing a turbine part having a cooling hole, wherein a new cooling hole is formed that is offset from the cooling hole that was present on the turbine part (column 4, lines 33-37). In addition, Lau specifically states that “braze is also included so that the existing cooling hole (that runs horizontally inside the shank) can be plugged (via plug) and re-drilled to accommodate the existing cooling hole scheme and any new cooling schemes that the OEM has incorporated into a revised casting” (emphasis added by the examiner).
Accordingly, it is the examiner’s position that any re-drilling scheme, including those of claims 2-3 (such that part of the at least one superalloy wire or pin forms a part of the at least one wall of the newly formed cooling hole and such that no part of the at least one superalloy wire or pin or braze material is removed), is merely an obvious design choice. The artisan would have been motivated to implement the re-drilling schemes of claims 2-3 in order to accommodate any new cooling schemes that the OEM has incorporated into a revised casting as explicitly taught by Lau.
With respect to claim 4, Cui teaches for repairing a turbine part having a cooling hole, wherein the cooling hole is cylindrical (figures 5-11 and 15-16; and paragraphs 30, 33-34, and 48).
With respect to claim 5, Cui teaches for repairing a turbine part having a cooling hole, wherein one superalloy wire (plug 50) is inserted into the cooling hole (figures 5-11 and 15-16; and paragraphs 30, 33-34, and 48).
With respect to claims 6-7, Lau specifically states that “braze is also included so that the existing cooling hole (that runs horizontally inside the shank) can be plugged (via plug) and re-drilled to accommodate the existing cooling hole scheme and any new cooling schemes that the OEM has incorporated into a revised casting” (emphasis added by the examiner).
Accordingly, it is the examiner’s position that any re-drilling scheme, including those of claims 6-7 (wherein part of the at least one superalloy wire or pin forms 10 to 50% of the at least one wall of the newly formed cooling hole and wherein part of the at least one superalloy wire or pin forms 30 to 60% of the at least one wall of the newly formed cooling hole), is merely an obvious design choice. The artisan would have been motivated to implement the re-drilling schemes of claims 6-7 in order to accommodate any new cooling schemes that the OEM has incorporated into a revised casting as explicitly taught by Lau.
With respect to claim 8, Cui teaches for repairing a turbine part having a cooling hole, wherein the blending or smoothing the surface of the turbine part in the vicinity of the top opening of the cooling hole to remove any excess braze filler alloy (52, 59) and/or superalloy wire or pin (plug 50) extending past the surface of the turbine part leads to a smooth surface around the cooling hole, which surface in part is formed from the superalloy wire (figure 16; and paragraph 54).
With respect to claim 9, Lau teaches for repairing a turbine part having a cooling hole, wherein the forming of the new cooling hole is achieved by a drill (column 4, lines 33-37).
With respect to claim 10, Cui teaches for repairing a turbine part having a cooling hole, wherein the at least one superalloy wire or pin (plug) is made of a material that is different than the material forming the turbine part (paragraph 33).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KILEY SHAWN STONER whose telephone number is (571)272-1183. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday.
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 Walker can be reached on 571-272-3458. 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.
/KILEY S STONER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735