Ex Parte Mironets et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 30, 2018

14320727 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/320,727 07/01/2014
12208 7590
Kinney & Lange, P.A.
312 South Third Street
Minneapolis, MN 55415
11/01/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sergey Mironets
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.
PA0026812U-Ul 73.12-212KL 7786
EXAMINER
KIM,SANGK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2018 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):
USPatDocket@kinney.com
amkoenck@kinney.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SERGEY MIRONETS, ALEXANDER STAROSELSKY,
THOMAS J. MARTIN, and THOMAS N. SLAVENS
Appeal 2018-003 698 1
Application 14/320,7272
Technology Center 3700
Before ANTON W. PETTING, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1, 4--7, 9--13, and 15-20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our Decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed June 26,
2017) and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Nov. 3, 2017), Advisory
Action ("Adv. Act.," mailed Mar. 9, 2017), and Final Office Action ("Final
Act.," mailed Dec. 28, 2016).
2 Appellants identify United Technologies Corp. as the real party in interest.
Br. 2.
Appeal2018-003698
Application 14/320,727
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention "relates to turbine engine components."
Spec. ,r 1.
Claims 1 and 12 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A monolithic composite turbine component comprising:
at least one airfoil composed of ceramic material;
at least one platform composed of a metal material; and
at least one functionally graded transition region of the
ceramic material and the metal material between the at least one
airfoil and the at least one platform that connects the at least
one airfoil to the at least one platform.
REJECTION3
Claims 1, 4--7, 9--13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Darkins (US 2012/0163978 Al, pub. June 28, 2012) and
Subramanian (US 2014/0099476 Al, pub. Apr. 10, 2014). Ans. 2.
ANALYSIS
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because Darkins
and Subramanian do not teach or suggest "at least one functionally graded
transition region of the ceramic material and the metal material between the
at least one airfoil and the at least one platform that connects the at least one
airfoil to the at least one platform," as recited in claim 1, and similarly
recited in claim 12. Instead, we agree with, and adopt, the Examiner's
findings and response to these arguments as set forth at pages 2---6 of the
Answer. We add the following comments for emphasis.
3 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection under 112(b). Adv. Act. 2.
2
Appeal2018-003698
Application 14/320,727
In rejecting claims 1 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
finds that Darkins teaches substantially all of the claim limitations, including
a functionally graded transition region 7 5 between ceramic airfoil 44 and
metal 46. Ans. 5 ("Darkins does teach an interface layer 70 having a
functionally graded transition region 74."); see also id. at 3 (citing Darkins,
Fig. 15); Final Act. 5 (finding Darkins teaches "forming at least one graded
transition region on the at least one platform (layer 70 having a graded
layer 74; figure 15)"). The Examiner acknowledges, however, that
functionally graded transition region 7 4 is a material transition between
metal and glass, not ceramic and metal, as required by claims 1 and 12. Ans.
3 (citing Darkins ,r 45, Fig. 15), 5. To cure the deficiency, the Examiner
turns to Subramanian for teaching a graded transitional layer that is an
interface layer between a ceramic and metallic subcomponent. Id. at 4
( citing Subramanian ,r 27).
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious "to modify
Darkins' manufacturing method (i.e., applying a coating between the
ceramic airfoil and metal platform wherein the coating comprises a graded
transition region) to incorporate Subramanian's selective laser melting
technique to create [a] graded material region between the metal material
and the ceramic material." Id. The Examiner contends that the combination
would have been obvious, in part, to more fully join the different materials.
Final Act. 4 ( citing Subramanian ,r 3 5).
Appellants argue that the Examiner proposes "to replace the case
mechanical joint ofDarkins, Jr. et al. with a graded metal-ceramic joint" to
"reduce the cost of making turbine blades while more fully join the different
material latyers." Br. 6. The Appellants contend that "there is absolutely no
3
Appeal2018-003698
Application 14/320,727
evidence or reason to conclude that a graded material transition joint would
have greater joint strength than the mechanical dovetail/nub joint." Id. at 7.
Yet, the Examiner does "not propose to replace the cast mechanical joint of
Darkins with a graded metal-ceramic joint." Ans. 4. Instead, as explained
above, the Examiner proposes "replac[ing] Darkins' coating layer 70 having
a graded transition layer of metal and glass with Subramanian' s graded
material having a material composition that varies from metal to ceramic
gradually." Id.
Appellants argue that Darkins needs the reaction barrier layer 72 of
glass to prevent adverse chemical reactions between metal and CMC
material, and that the graded transition layer 7 4 is needed only because of
the glass reaction barrier layer 72. Br. 8. Appellants do not point to any
support in Darkins for this assertion. The Examiner rebuts the assertion,
pointing out that Darkins discloses in paragraph 45 that coating system 70
(shown in Figure 15 as comprising barrier layer 72 and graded transition
layer 74) could be formed of one layer. Ans. 5. The Examiner interprets
this disclosure as teaching that coating system 70 can comprise graded
transition layer 74 without barrier layer 72. Id. As further support for this
finding, the Examiner also points out that Darkins at paragraph 45 describes
coating system 70 as enhancing thermal compliance and graded transition
layer 74, in particular, as providing thermal compliance. Id. at 5-6.
Appellants do not file a Reply Brief or otherwise demonstrate error in the
Examier' s findings or rationale for combining.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) of independent claims 1 and 12, and their dependent claims.
4
Appeal2018-003698
Application 14/320,727
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4--7, 9--13, and 15-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5