GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 9, 2022

2021001655 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 9, 2022)

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. 15/450,726 03/06/2017 Cui YAN 280705-US-1/22113-0364 4352 13152 7590 02/09/2022 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC 100 Pine Street P.O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166 EXAMINER LEE, DOUGLAS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1714 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/09/2022 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): patents@mcneeslaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD __________ Ex parte CUI YAN, SRIKANTH CHANDRUDU KOTTILINGAM, BRIAN LEE TOLLISON, and CEM MURAT EMINOGLU __________ Appeal 2021-001655 Application 15/450,726 Technology Center 1700 ___________ Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges. HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant1 filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from an Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1-5 and 7-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real parties in interest as Yan Cui, Srikanth Chandrudu Kottilingam, Brian Lee Tollison, Cem Murat Eminoglu, and GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY. Appeal Brief dated August 31, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”), at 1. Appeal 2021-001655 Application 15/450,726 2 We AFFIRM. Representative claim 1 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief. 1. A process for treating gaps within a component, the process comprising the steps of: capturing a digital image of a gap in a portion of the component, the gap including a gap width between opposing surfaces of between about 0.005 and about 0.080 inches; then measuring one or more features of the gap, the one or more features being selected from a length of the gap, an inner width of the gap, an outer width of the gap, and a depth of the gap to determine gap dimensions; then determining a water jet cleaning path; selecting a water jet cleaning edge; and selecting a water jet cleaning path angle; then directing a water jet toward the gap, oriented with respect to the selected cleaning edge and cleaning path angle; activating the water jet and passing the water jet along the cleaning path, removing at least one of contaminants and oxidation materials from within the gap; and, processing the gap to join the gap edges and seal at least a portion of the gap in the component, wherein the water jet is a cutting tool. Appeal Br. 11. The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection on appeal: Appeal 2021-001655 Application 15/450,726 3 (1) claims 1, 3-5, 7-14, and 16-182 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Woods3 in view of Miller 014,4 Miller 894,5 and Ozbaysal;6 (2) claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Woods in view of Miller 014, Miller 894, and Ozbaysal, further in view of Rathi;7 (3) claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Woods in view of Miller 014, Miller 894, and Ozbaysal, further in view of Sangeeta;8 and (4) claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Woods in view of Miller 014, Miller 894, Ozbaysal, Rathi, and Sangeeta. B. DISCUSSION The Examiner finds Woods discloses using a pressure washer (corresponding to the claimed “water jet”) to clean the surface of a turbine component prior to treating cracks in the component. Final Act. 3 (citing Woods ¶ 19); Ans. 39 (citing Woods ¶ 19). The Appellant argues that “Woods discloses nothing more than using conventional cleaning techniques” and does not disclose or suggest removing at least one of contaminants and oxidation materials from within a gap or crack 2 The Examiner omitted claim 17 from the statement of the rejection in the Final Office Action but addressed claim 17 in the body of the rejection. See Final Office Action dated April 2, 2020 (“Final Act.”), at 8. Therefore, the Examiner’s error is harmless. The statement of the rejection has been corrected to include claim 17. 3 US 2013/0180107 A1, published July 18, 2013 (“Woods”). 4 US 2009/0270014 A1, published October 29, 2009 (“Miller 014”). 5 US 2010/0003894 A1, published January 7, 2010 (“Miller 894”). 6 US 8,640,942 B1, issued February 4, 2014 (“Ozbaysal”). 7 US 4,998,005, issued March 5, 1991 (“Rathi”). 8 US 5,685,917, issued November 11, 1997 (“Sangeeta”). 9 Examiner’s Answer dated October 19, 2020. Appeal 2021-001655 Application 15/450,726 4 having a width between about 0.005 and about 0.080 inches as claimed. Appeal Br. 5. In response, the Examiner finds that cleaning as described in Woods removes “any loose corrosion or other debris adhering to the component,” which, according to the Examiner, is understood to include loose corrosion or other debris contained in cracks located in the surface of the component. Ans. 3-4 (citing Woods ¶ 19); see also Woods Fig. 2 (illustrating striations or cracks 28 in the surface of a component); Woods ¶ 22. Moreover, “[e]ven if one were to accept Appellant’s arguments that Woods does not explicitly disclose cleaning a crack of the component with a water jet,” the Examiner explains that the combined teachings of Woods, Miller 014, Miller 894, and Ozbaysal teach the use of a water jet as claimed. Ans. 4. More specifically, Woods and Ozbaysal both teach cleaning a surface prior to brazing.10 Woods ¶ 26; Ozbaysal, col. 3, ll. 13-16. Miller 014 discloses that a nozzle assembly, including a delivery nozzle for directing a jet of high pressure water therefrom, is useful for removing foreign matter from holes in a substrate, such as a turbine component.11 Miller 014, at ¶ 16. Based on those teachings, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a water jet, as disclosed in Miller 014, to thoroughly remove loose corrosion or other debris from Wood’s turbine component prior to brazing. Ans. 5. 10 Appellant’s claim 16, which depends from claim 1, recites that processing of the gap, which occurs after contaminants and/or oxidation materials are removed, includes brazing. Appeal Br. 13. 11 The Examiner relies on Miller 894 to show that the water jet assembly disclosed in Miller 014 “reads on the instantly claimed water jet cutting tool.” Final Act. 3- 4; see also Ans. 4. The Appellant does not direct us to any evidence to the contrary. Appeal 2021-001655 Application 15/450,726 5 As for the size of the cracks, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Woods’ modified cleaning process to clean cracks of different sizes, including cracks having a size as claimed. Final Act. 4; Ans. 5-6. In that regard, the inventions disclosed in Woods, Miller 014, Miller 894, and Ozbaysal, as well as the Appellant’s invention, relate to cleaning turbine components. See Appeal Br. 13 (reciting, in claim 18, that the component is a turbine component). Thus, it is reasonable to expect that the sizes of the cracks in at least the components of Woods and Ozbaysal12 are similar in size to the cracks cleaned by the Appellant’s process. As for a reasonable expectation of successfully cleaning the cracks in Woods’ component using the water jet disclosed in Miller 014, the Examiner finds that pressure cleaners, as disclosed in Woods, have pressures ranging from 1,300 psi to 4,000 psi. Ans. 6. The water jet disclosed in Miller 014 has a pressure in the range of 5,000 psi to 55,000 psi. Miller 014, at ¶ 29; see also Spec. ¶ 31 (disclosing that the water jet pressure may be from about 5 psi up to about 40,000 psi). Therefore, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected Miller 014’s water jet to be capable of cleaning the cracks in Woods’ component. Finally, the Appellant argues that substituting Miller 014’s water jet for Woods’ pressure washer would have been expected to damage Woods’ substrate in the absence of “backfilling” as disclosed in Miller 014. Appeal Br. 8. The Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error. The portion of Miller 014 referred to by the Appellant is directed to a turbine blade that includes a cavity formed by interior walls, wherein one of the walls is a back wall 12 Miller 014 discloses holes that permit the discharge of a cooling gas from an interior cavity within the component. Miller 014, at ¶ 26. Appeal 2021-001655 Application 15/450,726 6 located directly beneath one or more of the holes cleaned or stripped by the water jet in Miller 014’s process. Miller 014, at ¶ 40; see also Miller 014, Fig. 1 (illustrating cavity 46 in blade 14). Miller 014 discloses that “there is a risk that the high pressure jet 34 passing inwardly through the holes 16 during stripping may have sufficient force to actually damage the back wall of the cavity formed within the turbine blade directly beneath the hole being stripped.” Miller 014, at ¶ 40 (emphasis added). However, Miller 014 discloses that this problem can be ameliorated by utilizing the water supplied through the manifold 48 and hoses 50 to fill the cavity with water, and this water filled cavity 46 will form a barrier between the opening of the hole and back wall of the cavity during the hole clearing operation and thereby reduce the force of the jet 34 after it has passed through the hole 16 and protect the back wall from any penetration or damage by the jet 34. Miller 014, at ¶ 40. There is no evidence on this record that there is a cavity behind the cracks in Woods’ turbine component. Thus, any risk of damaging the component with the water jet disclosed in Miller 014 would have been expected to be minimal. We also find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to adjust the water jet pressure to minimize damage to the turbine component while, at the same time, effectively removing corrosion and debris. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”). To that end, Miller 014 discloses that water is delivered from the nozzle across a broad range of pressures. Miller 014, at ¶ 29. In sum, a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the process of claim 1 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the combination of Woods, Miller 014, Miller 894, and Ozbaysal. The Appellant does not present arguments in support of the separate patentability Appeal 2021-001655 Application 15/450,726 7 of any of claims 2-5 and 7-19. Appeal Br. 9. Therefore, the obviousness rejections on appeal are sustained. C. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision is affirmed. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3-5, 7-14, 16-18 103 Woods, Miller 014, Miller 894, Ozbaysal 1, 3-5, 7-14, 16-18 2 103 Woods, Miller 014, Miller 894, Ozbaysal, Rathi 2 15 103 Woods, Miller 014, Miller 894, Ozbaysal, Sangeeta 15 19 103 Woods, Miller 014, Miller 894, Ozbaysal, Rathi, Sangeeta 19 Overall Outcome 1-5, 7-19 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 35 U.S.C. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED