Ex Parte Zhao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 24, 2017

13630874 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 24, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/630,874 09/28/2012 Qi Zhao 258818-1 5832
6147 7590 07/26/2017
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
GPO/GLOBAL RESEARCH
901 Main Avenue
3rd Floor
Norwalk, CT 06851
EXAMINER
WIECZOREK, MICHAEL P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1712
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/26/2017 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):
haeckl@ge.com
gpo.mail@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 QI ZHAO, ROBERT JOHN ZABALA, LAURENT
CRETEGNY, JEFFREY JON SCHOONOVER, MARK
KEVEN MEYER, KEITH ANTHONY LAURIA, and
WILLIAM R. CATLIN
Appeal 2017-000257
Application 13/630, 874
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN,
and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek relief under 35U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1—3, 5, 6, 8—10, 12, and 23—34 as obvious2 over the
1 General Electric Company is the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
2 The Examiner entered a Final Rejection of claims 1—13 and 23—34 on
July 31, 2015, and an Advisory Action on October 8, 2015. Appellants filed
an Appeal Brief on January 1,2016, and a corrected copy of appealed claims
on May 6, 2016. Although the corrected copy of appealed claims identifies
claims 1—13 and 23—24 as the subject of this appeal, the Appeal Brief does
not address the final rejection of claims 4, 7, 11, or 13 as obvious, which we
summarily affirm. App. Br. 5—9; Final Office Action 8—11. Nor does the
Appeal Brief address the final rejection of claims 26 and 34 as indefinite,
which we also summarily affirm. Id.', Final Office Action 2.
Appeal 2017-000257
Application 13/630,874
disclosures of Smeggil3, Fujita4, and Smith5. App. Br. 5—9. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to a method for joining a filler material to a
substrate material. Appellants describe a need for a method of repairing
worn components made from high-temperature performance alloys, such as
nickel- or cobalt-based super alloys used in hot gas paths of gas turbine
engines. When filler material is welded to the original substrate,
impingement of radiant heat may cause a variety of problematic changes in
the mechanical properties of the substrate, including reduced strength and
toughness. Spec. 1—2. Appellants disclose a method of obviating those
changes by melting filler material within a chamber of a crucible. The
molten filler material is held within the crucible by electromagnetic
levitation. The molten filler material is released via an outlet in the crucible
to contact a target site on the substrate. Id. 3, 5, 15; Fig. 5.
The claimed method requires a crucible comprising an outlet nozzle
having three segments—an entrance segment, a segment following the
entrance segment that tapers radially inward, and an outlet segment
following the tapered segment. Claims 1, 23; Spec. 134 (describing the
three segments of the nozzle), Fig. 1 (depicting the crucible, molten filler
3 US 2007/0231589 Al, published Oct. 4, 2007.
4 US 5,889,813, issued Mar. 30, 1999.
5 US 4,433,715, issued Feb. 28, 1984.
2
Appeal 2017-000257
Application 13/630,874
material, and nozzle), Fig. 2 (depicting first nozzle segment 66, second
nozzle segment 68, and third nozzle segment 70). Appellants claim to have
invented a method that allows for the repair of components that previously
would have required replacement, because no prior repair techniques were
available to restore such components adequately. Spec. 116.
A copy of representative claim 1 appears below.
1. A method for joining a filler material to a substrate material,
the method comprising melting the filler material within a melting
chamber of a crucible such that the filler material is molten, the
crucible comprising an outlet system including a nozzle fluidly
connected to the melting chamber, the nozzle having an entrance
segment having a first length and fluidly connected to an opening in
the crucible, a tapered segment following the entrance segment and
having a second length and tapering radially inward relative to a
central longitudinal axis of the crucible, and an outlet segment having
a third length following the tapered segment;
holding the filler material within the melting chamber of the
crucible by electromagnetically levitating the filler material within the
melting chamber; and
releasing the filler material from the melting chamber of the
crucible to deliver the filler material to a target site of the substrate
material.
OPINION
We sustain the rejections for reasons stated below and those presented
by the Examiner.
Appellants argue the non-obviousness of claims 1—3, 5, 6, 8—10, 12,
and 23—34 as a group. App. Br. 5—9. We select claim 1 as representative of
the group. Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8—10, 12, and 23—34 stand or fall with claim 1.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
3
Appeal 2017-000257
Application 13/630,874
Smeggil melts filler material in a crucible and releases the molten
filler material (comprising a bond coating) to join to a substrate. Smeggil 2
27—30; Figs. 1, 2A—2C; Final Office Action 3^4. Smeggil, however, does
not disclose the use of electromagnetic levitation for holding molten filler
material in the crucible.
Fujita discloses a levitation melting furnace that uses electromagnetic
force to float conductive material within the furnace. Fujita, 1:5—10. Fujita
discloses the use of induction coils 2 and 3, which wrap around crucible 1.
Fujita, 4:60—5:14. Fujita levitates molten material to hold it within the
crucible when tapping (i.e., removing molten conductive material from the
crucible) is not desired. Fujita, 5:44^45; 1:50-2:19; Final Office Action 4.
Smith discloses a crucible for heating a metal into a molten state and,
further, describes a crucible nozzle that is fluidly connected to the heating
chamber. Smith’s nozzle includes an entrance segment having a first length,
a tapered segment following that entrance segment, and an outlet segment
having a third length following the tapered segment. The second segment of
Smith’s nozzle tapers radially inward relative to a central longitudinal axis
of the crucible. Smith, Abstract, Fig. 3, 5:26—31.
In the Examiner’s view, it would have been obvious for one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the tapered
segment of Smith’s nozzle in Fujita’s tapping conduit because both were
known structures for releasing molten metal from a crucible and, therefore,
the modification would have produced predictable results. Final Office
Action 4—5; Advisory Action 2—3. We agree with the Examiner that the
“tapping conduit” of Fujita and the nozzle of Smith both were known outlet
4
Appeal 2017-000257
Application 13/630,874
systems for crucibles used to heat metals into a molten state. Fujita, Title,
Fig. 1, 5:5—9; Smith, Abstract, Fig. 3, 5:26—31; Final Office Action 4—5.
A central question in analyzing obviousness is “whether the
improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according
to their established functions.” KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
416 (2007). Even if, as Appellants argue, the expanding structure of Fujita’s
tapping conduit enhances the levitational effect on the molten material in the
crucible (App. Br. 6, 8; Reply 3), the ultimate function of the “tapping
conduit” in Fujita is “tapping” (that is, releasing) molten material from the
crucible—the very same purpose as Smith’s tapered nozzle. Ans. 3; Fujita,
5:5—9; Smith, 5:26—31. Evaluating the combined disclosures of these
references, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that a person of ordinary skill
in the art would have recognized Smith’s nozzle as a structure suitable for
use in removing molten material from Fujita’s crucible.
The Examiner responds adequately to Appellants’ arguments that the
expanding diameter of Fujita’s “tapping conduit” structure enhances the
levitational force and, further, that incorporating Smith’s nozzle would
reverse that structure. App. Br. 6 (citing Fujita 5:44-48), 9. Specifically,
the Examiner provides reasoning with a rational underpinning to explain
why the inward tapering section of Smith’s nozzle would have been placed
at a second length downstream from the hole that connects the nozzle to the
crucible. Ans. 3. The Examiner reasonably concludes that incorporating
Smith’s tapered nozzle “would not interfere with the diameter expansion” of
Fujita’s tapping conduit. Id.
We find unpersuasive Appellants’ opposing view that the proposed
modification would require “reversing the expanding structure” of Fujita’s
5
Appeal 2017-000257
Application 13/630,874
tapping conduit. App. Br. 9. As the Examiner observes, the inward tapering
second length of the nozzle of Smith would not affect any requirement that
expansion occur in the first length of the nozzle. Ans. 4. Significantly,
Appellants direct us to no claim language that precludes diameter expansion
within the first segment of the specified nozzle. See claim 1.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejections of claims 1—13 and 23—34.
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision 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)(1).
AFFIRMED
6