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) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creehan et al. (US2012/0279441A1) (hereafter Creehan) in view of Zhan et al. (CN-115122042A) (hereafter Zhan).
With respect to claim 16, Creehan teaches a system to repair a part (abstract; figures 3-5; and paragraphs 4, 25, and 80), the system comprising: an inspection system (gauge) configured to identify a region of interest of the part having damage (paragraphs 4, 25, 78, and 80); and a repair system having a deposition system, wherein the deposition system is configured to position a rod of consumable metallic deposition material (filler metal rod) within a rotatable hollow shaft of the deposition system (throat of tool) (figures 3-5; and paragraphs 79 and 85); exert pressure at an upper end of the rod to move the metallic deposition material into a deposition zone of the region of interest of the part (figures 3-5; and paragraphs 30, 79, and 85); rotate the rotatable hollow shaft so as to rotate the rod while the pressure is being exerted to generate frictional heat when the rod contacts a surface of the part in the region of interest (figures 3-5; and paragraphs 30, 50, 79, and 85); and deposit a plurality of layers of the metallic deposition material at a thickness for each layer of the plurality of layers using the deposition system (paragraphs 60 and 83-84), wherein the deposition system rotates the rotatable shaft at a rotational speed and moves the part in a direction of a feed speed based on a function of the thickness of each layer of the plurality of layers (paragraphs 45, 76, and 78).
With respect to claim 16, Creehan does not teach that the deposition system is configured to pre-heat the region of interest using a pre-heat system. However, Zhan teaches wherein the deposition system is configured to pre-heat (laser preheating device 9) the region of interest (laser pre-heating area of the substrate being repaired) (figure 1; and machine translation).
At the time of filing the claimed process it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the laser preheater of Zhan in the apparatus of Creehan in order to improve the production efficiency of solid-phase additive repairing, and ensure additive quality and prolonged service life of the apparatus.
With respect to claim 17, Zhan teaches wherein the deposition system includes a heating element (laser preheating device 9) configured to heat the region of interest in the deposition zone (figure 1; and machine translation).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creehan and Zhan as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2009/0200275A1) (hereafter Chen).
With respect to claim 18, Creehan and Zhan do not teach the inspection system includes a scanner configured to scan the part.
However, Chen teaches using an inspection system (laser scanner 5) configured to identify a region of interest of the part having damage for a repair process (paragraphs 3, 21-22, and 26-46).
At the time of filing the claimed process it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the laser scanner of Chen on the collective apparatus of Creehan and Zhan in order to accurately identify the defects requiring repair.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creehan and Zhan as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Twelves, JR. et al. (US 2009/0200275A1) (hereafter Twelves).
With respect to claim 19, Creehan and Zhan do not teach wherein the deposition system includes cam shaped followers comprising rollers having an outer diameter surface configured to contact the metallic deposition material in the deposition zone.
However, Twelves teaches wherein the deposition system includes cam shaped followers (42) comprising rollers having an outer diameter surface configured to contact the metallic deposition material in the deposition zone (figures 1-2; paragraphs 11 and 17; and claims 13 and 21).
At the time of filing the claimed process it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the cam followers of Twelves on the collective apparatus of Creehan and Zhan in order to confine the deposited material.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creehan and Zhan as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Goncharov et al. (US2016/0167172A1) (hereafter Goncharov).
With respect to claim 20, Creehan and Zhan do not teach wherein the metallic deposition material includes a MAR-M-247 alloy.
However, Goncharov teaches using MAR-M-247 alloy as a filler material (paragraphs 25, 65, 70, and 135).
At the time of filing the claimed process it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the MAR-M-247 alloy of Goncharov in the collective apparatus Creehan and Zhan in order to form a repair of the desired composition which exhibits superior oxidation resistance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/3/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
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
Prosecution Insights