Ex Parte Cui et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 25, 2016

13083181 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/083,181 04/08/2011 Yan Cui
52082 7590 10/27/2016
General Electric Company
GE Global Patent Operation
901 Main Avenue
3rd Floor
Norwalk, CT 06851
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
248315-1 7596
EXAMINER
SAAD, ERIN BARRY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1735
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/27/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
gpo.mail@ge.com
marie.gerrie@ge.com
lori.E.rooney@ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YAN CUI, DANIEL JAMES DORRIETY,
SRIKANTH CHANDRUDU KOTTILINGAM,
DECHAO LIN, HAI BUU SAM, and BRIAN LEE TOLLISON
Appeal2015-006353
Application 13/083, 181
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, A VEL YN M. ROSS, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
ROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 In our decision below, we refer to the Specification filed April 8, 2011 as
amended February 18, 2014 (Spec.), the Final Office Action appealed from,
mailed September 24, 2014 (Final Act.); the Appeal Brief filed December
23, 2014 (Appeal Br.); the Examiner's Answer mailed April 13, 2015
(Ans.); and the Reply Brief filed May 20, 2015 (Reply Br.).
2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as General Electric Company.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2015-006353
Application 13/083,181
STATEMENT OF CASE
The claims are directed to a method of establishing filler metal
chemistry for a filler rod for joining components. Claims Appendix at
Appeal Br. 10. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A method of establishing filler metal composition for
joining components, the method comprising:
determining an initial desired filler metal chemistry,
wherein the initial filler metal chemistry establishes a weld metal
adjacent to fusion boundary (WMATFB) below a threshold line
between a weldable material range and a non-weldable material
range;
adjoining a first filler rod having a first portion of the
desired filler metal chemistry and a second filler rod having a
second portion of the desired filler metal chemistry to form a test
filler rod;
joining a first component formed from a first nickel alloy
material to a second component formed from a second nickel
alloy material at a weld joint with the test filler rod providing a
filler metal portion of the weld joint; and
testing the weld joint for desired mechanical, chemical,
and weldability properties to establish a desired filler metal
composition.
Claims Appendix at Appeal Br. 10.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
A. Claims 1-3, 8-12, and 17-20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sampath3 in
3 K. Sampath, Transverse-Weld Tensile Properties of a New Al-4Cu-2Si
Alloy as Filler Metal, Vol. 18(9) JOURNAL OF MATERIALS ENGINEERING AND
PERFORMANCE 1218-1225 (Dec. 2009) (hereinafter "Sampath").
2
Appeal2015-006353
Application 13/083,181
view of Special Metals, 4 Welding Research Bulletin, 5 and
Schaeffer. 6 Final Act. 2.
B. Claims 4--7 and 13-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sampath, Special
Metals, Welding Research Bulletin, Schaeffer, and further
in view ofYang. 7 Id. at 7.
Appellants seek our review of Rejections A and B. Appellants present
argument directed to independent claim 1 and provide no additional
argument as to claims 2-20 separate from what is argued for claim 1.
Appeal Br. 6-8. Therefore, we focus our discussion below on claim 1
(Rejection A) to resolve all issues on appeal.
OPINION
The Examiner rejects claim 1 (among others) as being unpatentable
over Sampath, Special Metals, Welding Research Bulletin, and Schaeffer.
Final Act. 2. The Examiner finds that Sampath teaches a method of
establishing a filler metal composition that generally includes the method
steps of claim 1. Id. 2-3. The Examiner acknowledges that Sampath does
not teach "that the initial filler metal chemistry establishes a weld metal
4 Special Metals Welding Products Company, Nickel Alloy Welding Product
Catalogue (hereinafter "Special Metals").
5 M. Prager & C. S. Shira, Welding of Precipitation-Hardening Nickel-Base
Alloys, WELDING RESEARCH COUNCIL BULLETIN (Feb. 1968) (hereinafter
"Welding Research Bulletin").
6 Schaeffer et al., US 2008/0023531 Al, published January 31, 2008
(hereinafter "Schaeffer").
7 Y. K. Yang & S. Kou, Fusion-Boundary Macrosegregation in Dissimilar-
Filler Metal Al-Cu Welds, 86 THE WELDING JOURNAL 33 l-s-339-s (Nov.
2007) (hereinafter "Yang").
3
Appeal2015-006353
Application 13/083,181
adjacent to fusion boundary below a threshold line between a weldable
material range and a non-weldable material range" or "that the components
are nickel." Id. at 3. But, the Examiner finds that "Special Metals discloses
a chart for welders to use to determine the filler metal composition required
for nickel alloys based on the welding process and the property requirements
(see chart)" and the "Welding Research Council Bulletin shows that it is
known in the art [to] use a chart to determine whether or not a material is
weldable (figure 1 ). " Id. And, the Examiner finds that "Schaeffer discloses
welding two nickel superalloy materials together by using a filler wire
(abstract)." Id. at 4. The Examiner concludes that one skilled in the art at
the time would have found it obvious
to determine the filler metal composition/chemistry based on a
known chart or graph to ensure that the weld has the
desired/required properties needed for a strong joint. By looking
[at] a chart to determine the filler composition required the user
would not have to perform any unnecessary experiments to
determine the desired composition.
Id. at 3. The Examiner also finds that "[ o ]ne skilled in the art at the time of
the invention would look to the method of Sampath for determining the filler
metal composition for other workpieces besides aluminum." Id. at 4.
Appellants begin by arguing that Sampath appears to select test rods
randomly rather than "to first establish chemistry and then choose rods that,
when joined have a chemical composition that establishes the desired
chemistry." Appeal Br. 6. Appellants explain that "[a]t best, a composition
of the candidate rod was established ex post facto[,] [m]eaning once formed,
the composition was noted." Id.
Appellants do not convince us of reversible error. As the Examiner
explains,
4
Appeal2015-006353
Application 13/083,181
By selecting two rods from a selection of off-the-shelf filler rods,
the user essentially determined the filler rod chemistry. One
skilled in the art selects the filler rods based on the welding
parameters and workpieces. Therefore, by selecting the rods to
be twisted and used for welding, one has determined the initial
desired filler rod chemistry.
Ans. 9. Moreover, and as the Examiner finds (Final Act. 2), Sampath
expressly teaches a four-step process beginning with "identifying
prospective chemical compositions" for the filler material. Sampath at 1220
(emphasis added). Sampath further explains that "[a] mass balance equation
that use[ s] the size and nominal chemical composition of the individual
COTS [, i.e., commercial off-the-shelf,] wire electrodes or filler rods was
employed to estimate the chemical composition of the twisted wire rods."
Id. at 1221 (emphasis added). Thus, and contrary to Appellants' assertion
that Sampath amounts to an ex post facto determination (Appeal Br. 6), there
is an effort in Sampath "to first establish chemistry and then choose rods
that; when joined have a chemical composition that establishes the desired
chemistry." Id.
Next Appellants argue that the prior art does not teach that "the initial
filler metal chemistry establishes a weld metal adjacent to fusion boundary
(WMATFB) below a threshold line between a weldable material and non-
weldable material range" as required by claim 1. Appeal Br. 6-7.
According to Appellants, "[ w ]hether a material is or is not weldable does not
equate to the WMATFB" because "metals that may be joined may still
experience strain age cracking (SAC)." Id. at 7. Appellants also argue that
because Sampath relates to aluminum filler metals and Special Metals
concerns nickel alloys, "one of ordinary skill in the art would not find it
5
Appeal2015-006353
Application 13/083,181
obvious to tum to a bulletin that aids a user in choosing a nickel based filler
rod to determine a filler metal chemistry for aluminum rods." Id.
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of reversible error.
Appellants' argument that Sampath and Special Metals do not "recognize the
existence of the WMATFB" (Appeal Br. 7) misses the point. The Examiner
relies upon Welding Research Bulletin-not Sampath or Special Metals-to
"show[] that it is known in the art [to] use a chart to determine whether or
not a material is weldable (figure 1 )." Final Act. 3. And, Appellants'
contention that "[ t ]here is no mention of the WMATFB in the Welding
Research Bulletin" (Appeal Br. 7) is unavailing given that Appellants
supplied the Welding Research Bulletin to the Examiner as evidence "that
the Weld Metal Adjacent Fusion Boundary (WMAFB) and threshold lines
were concepts well known in the art." See Reply to Non-Final Action, filed
February 18, 2014, at 8; Ans. 11. Notably, in reply, Appellants do not
dispute or refute this admission. Reply Br. 2-3. Thus, as the Examiner
appropriately finds (Ans. 11 ), Welding Research Bulletin teaches WMATFB.
Appellants' argument that because Sampath is concerned with
aluminum filler materials and Special Metals relates to nickel filler
materials, one skilled in the art "would not find it obvious to tum to a
bulletin that aids a user in choosing a nickel based filler rod to determine a
filler metal chemistry for aluminum rods" (Appeal Br. 7), does not address
the rejection as presented by the Examiner. The rejection is based on a
combination of four references where Special Metals (relating to Ni filler
alloys), as used by the Examiner, is limited to illustrating charts that may be
consulted to determine the filler metal chemistry based on information
supplied by manufacturers. Ans. 10. Welding Research Bulletin (relating to
6
Appeal2015-006353
Application 13/083,181
Al/Ti filler materials), instead, is relied upon by the Examiner to teach
WMATFB and to assist the skilled artisan in "determin[ing] the filler metal
composition/chemistry based on a known chart or graph to ensure that the
weld has the desired/required properties needed for a strong joint. By
looking [to] a chart to determine the filler composition required the user
would not have to perform any unnecessary experiments to determine the
desired composition." Ans. 11.
Accordingly, Appellants' arguments do not reveal reversible error in
the findings and conclusions made by the Examiner, and we sustain the
Examiner's rejection.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not reversibly err in rejecting claims 1-20 as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l).
AFFIRMED
7