Ex Parte Kamel et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 24, 201814167094 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/167,094 01/29/2014 28524 7590 09/26/2018 SIEMENS CORPORATION INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230 Orlando, FL 32817 UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Ahmed Kamel 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. 2013P24564US 1374 EXAMINER CALVETTI, FREDERICK F ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3742 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/26/2018 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): ipdadmin.us@siemens.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte AHMED KAMEL, GERALD J. BRUCK, and DRAPER JOUINI Appeal2018-002153 Application 14/167 ,094 Technology Center 3700 Before JOHN C. KERINS, STEVEN D.A. MCCARTHY, and BRETT C. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judges. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2018-002153 Application 14/167 ,094 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. THE INVENTION Appellants' claims are directed generally "to the field of materials technologies, and more particularly to material additive processes." Spec. 1, 11. 18-19. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising: simultaneously melting powdered alloy material and powdered flux material on a surface of an original superalloy material to form a melt pool comprising a layer of slag covering an additive superalloy material; cooling and solidifying the melt pool; and removing the layer of slag to reveal a surface of the additive superalloy material; wherein the steps of melting and cooling and solidifying are performed such that the additive superalloy material has a property that is different from a counterpart property of the original superalloy material. App. Br. 13 (Claims Appendix). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Forber Jones Chen ITO Gureev US 2002/0113151 Al US 2011/0226390 Al US 2012/0000890 Al RU 2 217 266 C2 2 Aug. 22, 2002 Sept. 22, 2011 Jan. 5,2012 Dec. 30, 1999 Appeal2018-002153 Application 14/167 ,094 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claim 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ito, Gureev, and Forber-Jones. Ans. 2. Claims 1, 9, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ito, Gureev, Forber-Jones, and Chen. Ans. 12. ANALYSIS Appellants first argue that the Examiner's rejection is improper for failing to teach that the alloy powder has "a property that is different from a counterpart property of the original superalloy material." Reply Br. 3 ( emphasis removed). Appellants point out that Ito specifically states that the second build-up material has the same property, namely oxidation resistance, as the original material and therefore does not meet the claim language requiring a different property. Reply Br. 4. Although this may be true, the claims require the additive material at issue to be the one added to the original surface, which, in the case of Ito, is the first build-up material. In the passages noted by Appellants, Ito teaches that the first build-up material, which is in contact with the original alloy, has an "Al content [that] is smaller than that of the Ni-base superalloy forming the gas turbine blade 1 0." Ito ,r 71. Although the Examiner does not address this head-on in a clear manner, the Examiner does point out that Appellants' arguments focus on the second build-up material rather than the first and highlights Ito's teaching that the first build-up portion has excellent weldability, which is 3 Appeal2018-002153 Application 14/167 ,094 due to its smaller Al content, noted above. Ans. 19. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's rejection as to this teaching. We are, however, persuaded that the Examiner has failed to properly support the teaching of removing slag as claimed. The Examiner specifically states that Ito teaches forming "a melt pool comprising a layer of slag covering an additive." Ans. 2. Nowhere in Ito, however, does the term slag ever appear. This teaching is relied upon in both rejections. As Appellants correctly point out, all Ito teaches is the removal of strain, which is not the same as slag, as well as removal of excess build-up material. We also disagree with the Examiner's conclusion that it would have been obvious to use flux at all in the method taught by Ito. Ito teaches only building up of metal in multiple layers in a manner similar to 3-D printing, where the powder is essentially scanned and then the device moves back to deposit a new layer directly on the previously scanned layer. While introducing flux into some weld processes may have advantages, the Examiner does not explain how the scanning process would deal with either the introduction of flux or the necessary step of removing slag before performing the next scan for the next layer of build-up. We see no basis for the introduction of flux in a method that already satisfactorily creates suitable weld layers without it and where such introduction would create a more complicated process. None of the secondary references cures these defects in the Examiner's proposed combinations. As such, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20. 4 Appeal2018-002153 Application 14/167 ,094 DECISION For the above reasons, we REVERSE the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation