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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/19/25 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szela et al. (US 2006/0248718, hereafter “Szela”) in view of Philip (US 6726086).
Regarding claim 1, Szela discloses a repair method [0001, 0007] comprising: positioning a constraining member 100 (comb backing element) relative to a component 22 (blade/airfoil- [0024]) to create a zone between the component and the constraining member (fig. 4, [0030]); positioning a first material composition (first alloy powder within paste 120) in the zone between the component and the constraining member (fig. 5, [0031]); positioning a second material composition (second alloy powder within paste 120) in the zone between the component and the constraining member, the second material composition positioned contacting the first material composition (mixed powders in the paste- [0036]), wherein the first material composition is not heated until after positioning of the second material composition;
heat treating the component, the constraining member, the first material composition, and the second material composition (bonding- [0032]); and removing the constraining member 100 [0033- removed by leaching] and at least some of the material composition from the component (machining the exterior patch paste) to restore the exterior contour of the blade/airfoil [0033].
Szela discloses diffusion brazing using the first material composition being mixed with the second material composition [0008], but is silent whether they diffuse to form a third material composition during heating. However, such technique is known in the art of brazing repair. Philip teaches that braze repair of superalloy components has been known in prior art using diffusion brazing or liquid phase diffusion sintering, wherein the powder includes a first material particles of higher melting point along with second material particles having a lower melting temperature and subjected to brazing heat treatment, during which the lower melting particles become liquid and form a third composition by diffusion. A further post-braze heat treatment drives melting point depressant away from the braze to more fully develop desired material properties (see Background- col. 1, line 45 thru col. 2, lines 7). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to perform a brazing heat treatment so that the second material composition diffuses/flows into the first material composition to form a third material composition by diffusion in the repair method of Szela with a motivation of forming desired material properties at the braze joint site and moreover, such diffusion technique is conventional, as evidenced by Philip.
As to claim 2, Szela discloses restoring the exterior surface of the airfoil component by removing at least some of the material composition from component (machining- [0033]) forming a near net shape of the component.
As to claim 3, Szela shows that the constraining member 100 (comb) includes at least one of a planar element or an element shaped to a contour of the airfoil component (fig. 4).
As to claim 5, Szela discloses that the first material composition 120 (paste) includes a binder [0031].
As to claim 10, both Szela and Philip discloses that heat treating includes a braze thermal cycle.
As to claim 11, Szela discloses that positioning the constraining member 100 (comb) relative to the component 22/24 to create the zone includes mechanically attaching the constraining member to the component (fig. 5).
As to claim 12, Szela discloses that removing at least some of the material composition in the zone to form a near net shape of the component includes leaching the constraining member from the component [0033].
As to claims 13-15, Szela discloses that component includes a turbomachine component (turbine blade- fig. 1), wherein the constraining member and the component include materials compatible with each other [0001, 0003, 0027-0028]. Given that Szela teaches nickel-based or cobalt-based superalloy materials are known in the art [0001, 0003], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any suitable superalloy for the turbine repair method in Szela in order to ensure metallurgical compatibility.
As to claims 16-17, Szela shows blocking at least one feature (cracked region 96/98) of the component with a blocking element 104 of the member 100 prior to positioning the first and second materials (fig. 4) and subsequently removing the blocking element after brazing [0033]..
As to claim 18, Szela discloses that the zone includes areas 96/98 of damage on the component 22 (fig. 4).
Claims 4, 6-9 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szela in view of Philip as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pietruska et al. (US 6503349, “Pietruska”) & Puidokas et al. (EP 3441180, “Puidokas”).
As to claims 4 and 6-8, Szela teaches that the paste repair material comprises a powder mix of alloys disclosed by Pietruska- US patent no. 6503349 [0036]. Pietruska teaches repairing superalloy article/component by using a blend of two nickel-based alloys- low-melt nickel alloy and other high-melt nickel alloys. Similarly, Puidokas (also directed to repairing superalloy components for turbines- [0001-0002]) teaches a brazing paste comprising a mixture of low-melt nickel alloy and high-melt nickel alloy- exemplary alloys being Amdry788, D15 (low melt) and MARM 247 (high-melt) [0018], which have the melting temperature(s) falling within the recited range. Examiner also notes that braze alloys Amdry, D15 and MARM247 are same alloys disclosed in applicant’s specification [0049, 0054-0055]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select any suitable mixture of conventional low-melt nickel alloy & high-melt nickel alloy for the paste in the repair method of Szela, as evidenced by the teachings of Pietruska & Puidokas.
Regarding claim 19, Szela discloses a repair method [0001, 0007] comprising: positioning a constraining member 100 (comb backing element) relative to a turbine component 22 (blade/airfoil- [0024]) to create a zone between the turbine component and the constraining member (fig. 4, [0030]); positioning a first material composition (first alloy powder & binder within paste 120) in the zone between the component and the constraining member (fig. 5, [0031]); positioning a second material composition (second alloy powder within paste 120) in the zone between the component and the constraining member, the second material composition positioned contacting the first material composition (mixed powders in the paste- [0036]), wherein the first material composition is not heated until after positioning of the second material composition;
heat treating the turbine component, the constraining member, the first material composition, and the second material composition (bonding- [0032]); and removing the constraining member 100 [0033- removed by leaching] and at least some of the material composition from the component (machining the exterior patch paste) to restore the exterior contour of the blade/airfoil [0033].
Szela discloses diffusion brazing using the first material composition being mixed with the second material composition [0008], but is silent whether they diffuse to form a third material composition during heating. However, such technique is known in the art of brazing repair. Philip teaches that braze repair of superalloy components has been known in prior art using diffusion brazing or liquid phase diffusion sintering, wherein the powder includes a first material particles of higher melting point along with second material particles having a lower melting temperature and subjected to brazing heat treatment, during which the lower melting particles become liquid and form a third composition by diffusion. A further post-braze heat treatment drives melting point depressant away from the braze to more fully develop desired material properties (see Background- col. 1, line 45 thru col. 2, lines 7). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to perform a brazing heat treatment so that the second material composition diffuses/flows into the first material composition to form a third material composition by diffusion in the repair method of Szela with a motivation of forming desired material properties at the braze joint site and moreover, such diffusion technique is conventional, as evidenced by Philip.
Szela is silent concerning melting temperature of alloy powders, however, Szela teaches that the paste repair material comprises a powder mix of alloys disclosed by Pietruska- US patent no. 6503349 [0036]. Pietruska teaches repairing superalloy article/component by using a blend of two nickel-based alloys- low-melt nickel alloy and other high-melt nickel alloys. Similarly, Puidokas (also directed to repairing superalloy components for turbines- [0001-0002]) teaches a brazing paste comprising a mixture of low-melt nickel alloy and high-melt nickel alloy- exemplary alloys being Amdry788, D15 (low melt) and MARM 247 (high-melt) [0018], which have the melting temperature(s) falling within the recited range. Examiner also notes that braze alloys Amdry, D15 and MARM247 are same alloys disclosed in applicant’s specification [0049, 0054-0055]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select any suitable mixture of conventional low-melt nickel alloy & high-melt nickel alloy for the paste in the repair method of Szela, as evidenced by the teachings of Pietruska & Puidokas.
As to claims 9 and 20, Pietruska teaches that in the mixed powder blend, the first nickel-based low-melt alloy is present in a range of 49-51 wt% and similarly, the second nickel-based high-melt alloy is also in range of 49-51%, which encompasses the low-melt alloy being in greater amount than the high-melt alloy (col. 3, lines 36-42). Accordingly, the claims are rendered obvious in the combination of Szela, Philip, Pietruska & Puidokas.
Claims 16-17 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szela in view of Philip as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Demo et al. (US 5511721, hereafter “Demo”).
As to claim 16, Szela discloses providing a blocking element prior to positioning the first material and positioning the second material. Similarly, Demo (also drawn to brazed or soldered repair of turbine articles-abstract) teaches providing a blocking element in the form of a preform or flexible insert which is accurately and specifically sized to fit a particular void in the surface of the article and can prevent flow of molten material into the void (col. 2, lines 24-28, 36-40). For example, elastomeric insert 14 enables flexibility and use of slight interference fit within the cooling hole 12 of vane component 10 (fig. 2; col. 4, lines 15-20, 35-40, 50-54). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a flexible blocking element in the repair zone of the turbine component in Szela because doing so would prevent flow of molten material into the cavity during subsequent heat treating & brazing operation.
As to claim 17, Demo teaches that the flexible insert is formulated so as to be readily removed after the joining operation; the polymeric solid completely and cleanly burns off at the elevated temperatures required for brazing operation (col. 3, lines 15-18). Accordingly, Szela as modified by Demo above discloses positioning a flexible blocking element in the component and removing the flexible blocking element by clean burn-off, as suggested by Demo.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim(s) filed 12/19/25 have been considered but are moot in light new grounds of rejection set forth above. Current 103 rejection(s) relies upon new reference of Szela which addresses the matter specifically challenged in the arguments. References of Pietruska & Puidokas teach the claimed low-melt and high-melt powder melting temperatures.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVANG R PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3636. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, EST.
To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/interview-practice. Communications via Internet email are at the discretion of Applicant. If Applicant wishes to communicate via email, a written authorization form must be filed by Applicant: Form PTO/SB/439, available at www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The form may be filed via the Patent Center and can be found using the document description Internet Communications, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms. In limited circumstances, the Applicant may make an oral authorization for Internet communication. See MPEP § 502.03.
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 Center. For more information, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. For questions, technical issues or troubleshooting, please contact the Patent Electronic Business Center at ebc@uspto.gov or 1-866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DEVANG R PATEL/
Primary Examiner, AU 1735
Prosecution Insights