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 § 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 4, 6-9 and 19-20 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.
With respect to claims 4, 6-9 and 19, the terms “low melt powder” and “high melt powder” are relatives term which renders the claim indefinite. The “low melt” or “high melt“ temperature range(s) are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purpose of examination and in accordance with broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the claims are taken to mean: the first and the second material composition includes a powder.
Appropriate corrections are requested.
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 1-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szela et al. (US 2007/0044306, hereafter “Szela”) in view of Philip (US 6726086).
Regarding claim 1, Szela discloses a repair method comprising: positioning a constraining member 52 (insert) relative to a component 22 (gas turbine element) to create a zone between the component and the constraining member (fig. 3, [0028]); positioning a first material composition 82 (metal paste) in the zone between the component and the constraining member (fig. 3, [0029]); positioning a second material composition 90 in the zone between the component and the constraining member, the second material composition positioned contacting the first material composition (fig. 6, [0030]); heat treating the component, the constraining member, the first material composition, and the second material composition (fig. 6- diffusion brazing- [0034]); and, removing the constraining member 52 and at least some of the material composition from the component (fig. 7, [0030]).
Szela does not specifically mention that the second material composition flows or diffuses into the first material composition 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 with the 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 component by removing ( leaching or machining) at least some of the material composition from component forming a near net shape of the component (fig. 7, [0030])
As to claim 3, Szela shows that the constraining member 52 (insert) includes at least one of a planar element or an element shaped to a contour of the component (fig. 3).
As to claim 5, Szela discloses that the first material composition 82 (paste) includes a binder [0029].
As to claims 4 and 6-9, examiner notes these claims are indefinite in scope for reasons explained above. As best understood, Szela discloses that the first and second material composition includes at least one powder [0010].
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 52 (insert) relative to the component 22 to create the zone includes brazing the constraining member to the component, or mechanically attaching the constraining member to the component (fig. 4).
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 at least one of removing by machining, or leaching the constraining member from the component (fig. 7, [0030]).
As to claims 13-14, Szela discloses that the constraining member and the component include superalloy materials, compatible with each other ([0034-0035], claims 28-29).
As to claim 15, Szela discloses that the component includes a turbomachine component (turbine blade) (fig. 1, [0001].
As to claim 18, Szela discloses that the zone includes areas of damage on the component (fig. 2, [0027]).
Regarding claim 19, Szela discloses a repair method comprising: positioning a constraining member 52 (insert) relative to a turbomachine component 22 to create a zone between the turbomachine component and the constraining member (fig. 3, [0028]); positioning a first material composition 82 (metal paste) in the zone between the turbomachine component and the constraining member, the first material composition including a braze paste that includes a binder and a powder [0029]; positioning a second material composition 90 in the zone between the turbomachine component and the constraining member, the second material composition including a powder, the second material composition being positioned on the first material composition (fig. 6, [0030]); heat treating the turbomachine component, the constraining member, the first material composition, and the second material composition (fig. 6- diffusion brazing- [0034]); and, removing the constraining member 52 and at least some of the material composition from the turbomachine component (fig. 7, [0030]). Examiner notes that relative limitations of “low melt powder” and “high melt powder” are indefinite in scope.
Szela does not specifically mention that the second material composition flows or diffuses into the first material composition 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 with the 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 20, Szela discloses that the second material composition includes powder(s) made of superalloy materials, to be compatible with the component [0034].
Claims 16-17 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 Demo et al. (US 5511721, hereafter “Demo”).
As to claim 16, Szela or Philip is silent in terms of providing a blocking element prior to positioning the first material and positioning the second material. However, 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 cavity 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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/16/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for following reasons.
112 Rejection(s)
Applicant argues:
Paragraph [0049] of Applicant's specification states that "first material composition 170 can include, but is not limited to, MARM247, which has a "high" melting point temperature in a range of about 1220°C to about 1270°C. Thus, first material composition 170 may be considered to be a high melt braze material composition including a high melt powder as discussed herein." Consequently, Applicant submits that the specification provides sufficient support for the use of "high melt powder" in the claims.
Since both "high melt powder" and "low melt powder" have sufficient support in Applicant's specification, Applicant submits that the use of these terms in the claims does not render claims 4, 6-9, 19, and 20 indefinite. Therefore, Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejection.
In response, examiner agrees that powders have sufficient support and examples, however, MARM 247 is merely one example of “high” melt powder. It is still unclear what other powder may or may not be encompassed by “high” melting temperature. As acknowledged by Applicant, the specification clearly states “not limited to” and thus, “high melt powder” is not limited to temperature of 1220-1270 °C. Therefore, examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains that the relative terms “high melt powder” and “low melt powder” are indefinite in scope.
103 Rejection(s)
Concerning claim 1, Applicant argues:
While Szela teaches putting two material compositions in a similar location, it is done sequentially and to different ends. In Szela, the first material 82 fills gaps around insert 52, and Szela regards the combination of insert 52 and first material 82 as the blocking member (Szela, paragraph [0029], "Together, the insert 52 and bead 82 may form the blocking/backing element.") Szela then applies the repair compound 90 and heat treats. Philip does not overcome this difference since it is directed to a single added composition (metal powder) that blends with the material of the component during heat treatment. Demo does not teach anything that saves Szela and Philip from their deficiencies. Thus, the proposed combinations of references fail to teach or suggest all elements of Applicant's claims.
In response, examiner notes that first material and second material are also applied sequentially in recited claim 1 (steps 2 and 3). Examiner contends that Szela teaches putting first and second material compositions to same zone location (top area between insert 52 and material 82), not different ends as argued above. Although Szela teaches heating to at least partially melt the first material 82, the recited claim does not preclude any heating or melting prior to applying a second material. Examiner suggests to consider amending the claim to recite that second material composition is positioned contacting the first material composition, which is not heated or altered. This appears to distinguish the claim from Szela, wherein first material 82 is heated.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/3/25 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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