Ex Parte Iordache et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 16, 2017

13038682 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 16, 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.
13/038,682 03/02/2011 Lucian Iordache 2009P16653US 9322
28524 7590 08/18/2017
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
EXAMINER
HOANG, MICHAEL G
Orlando, EL 32817 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/18/2017 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):
ipdadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LUCIAN IORDACHE, OVIDIU TIMOTIN,
CHRIS E. SCHUMACHER1, PATRICK SCHUMACHER2,
and GERALD J. BRUCK
Appeal 2015-005725
Application 13/038,682
Technology Center 3700
Before: MICHAEL L. HOELTER, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1—8, 10-16, and 19-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Deceased. Declar. for Patent Appl. 3.
2 Legal representative of the deceased. Id.
Appeal 2015-005725
Application 13/038,682
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method of welding superalloys. Claims 1
and 16 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method of applying a weld between components formed
from superalloys in a gas turbine engine using a gas tungsten arc
welding procedure comprising:
placing a first component formed from a first superalloy
in close proximity to a second component formed from a second
superalloy to define a welding location between a first section of
the first component and a second section of the second
component, wherein the welding location includes a front side
and a backside;
providing a filler element to the welding location, the filler
element comprising at least a first material and a second material,
the first material for use during formation of a weld between the
first section of the first component and the second section of the
second component, the first material comprising a third
superalloy, the second material capable of producing a slag upon
melting thereof;
providing an electrical current to a non-consumable
tungsten electrode in close proximity to the welding location to
create a welding arc that provides heat that melts portions of the
first and second components and the filler element proximate to
the welding location;
wherein, upon melting of the filler element:
the first material liquefies and forms a weld pool
with the melted portions of the first and second
components wherein the weld pool includes a first outer
surface adjacent the front side and a second outer surface
adjacent the backside; and
the second material forms a slag having first and
second portions which form on the first and second outer
surfaces, respectively, of the weld pool and shield the first
and second outer surfaces of the weld pool from exposure
to reactive elements in the atmosphere;
2
Appeal 2015-005725
Application 13/038,682
wherein the welding arc does not melt the non­
consumable tungsten electrode;
cooling the weld pool such that the weld pool solidifies to
form a weld between the first section of the first component and
the second section of the second component; and
after the weld pool solidifies, removing the first portion of
the slag located adjacent to the front side of the welding location
wherein the second portion of the slag located adjacent to the
backside of the welding location is not removed.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Paton (“Paton ’802”) US 3,980,802 Sept. 14, 1976
Rotilio US 4,524,260 June 18, 1985
Paton (“Paton ’479”) US 4,999,479 Mar. 12, 1991
Kihara US 6,852,952 B1 Feb. 8, 2005
Trewiler US 2005/0224487 A1 Oct. 13, 2005
Hall US 2006/0157460 A1 July 20, 2006
Obana US 2006/0201915 A1 Sept. 14, 2006
Kiser US 2008/0121629 A1 May 29, 2008
Amata US 2008/0272100 A1 Nov. 6, 2008
Nowak US 2011/0042361 A1 Feb. 24, 2011
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Trewiler, Paton ’479, and Amata.3
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Trewiler, Paton ’479, Amata, and Nowak.
3 The listing of cancelled claim 17 in the rejection appears to be a
typographical error. Final Act. 2.
3
Appeal 2015-005725
Application 13/038,682
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Trewiler, Paton ’479, Amata, Kiser and Hall.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Trewiler, Paton ’479, Amata, Kiser, Hall, and Rotilio.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Trewiler, Paton ’479, Amata, Kiser, Hall, Rotilio, and Paton ’802.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Trewiler, Paton ’479, Amata, Kiser, Hall, Rotilio, and Kihara.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Trewiler, Paton ’479, and Amata, and Obana.
OPINION
Claims 1, 8, and 16
Appellants argue that the combination of cited references does not
disclose: ‘“after the weld pool solidifies, removing the first portion of the
slag located adjacent to the front side of the welding location wherein the
second portion of the slag located adjacent to the backside of the welding
location is not removed’ as recited in [independent] claim 1,” as well as the
similar limitation of independent claim 16. Appeal Br. 8—9.
Concerning this feature of claim 1, the Examiner finds that “Amata
discloses optionally removing slag from a welding location (i.e. ‘the slag
may be chipped away and removed . . .’).” Final Act. 5 (quoting Amata 1
26). The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to modify
Trewiler and Paton with the teachings of Amata to arrive at the Appellants’
claimed invention “in order to save time and reduce labor costs . . . and in
situations where only slag from the front side of the welding locations needs
4
Appeal 2015-005725
Application 13/038,682
to be removed or can be removed.” Id. The Examiner also determines that
this modification “would have been an obvious matter of design choice . . .
based on a desired application during welding . . . since the applicant does
not disclose that not removing the slag on the backside of the welding
location yields any unpredictable, or critical results.” Id.
Appellants argue that “Amata teaches removal of the entire slag.”
Appeal Br. 9. This is because, according to Appellants, “Amata indicates
that only the primary weld is left after the slag is chipped away and
removed” and because it discusses “enabl[ing] easier slag removal.” Id. at
9-10 (brackets in original). This is further because, according to Appellants,
Amata teaches that slag “plays an important role in removing impurities
from the weld.” Id. at 10.
Appellants’ arguments identify certain benefits from removing slag.
However, as found by the Examiner Amata explicitly teaches that slag
removal is optional. Final Act. 5 (“slag may be chipped away and removed”
quoting Amata 126). Thus, Appellants’ arguments do not identify error in
this finding of the Examiner.
Appellants also argue that Trewiler teaches away from removing only
a part of “flux (which forms a large component of slag).” Appeal Br. 10.
Appellants argue that Trewiler “specifically states that the presence of any
residual flux yields ‘undesirable results.’” Id. “For example,... the
presence of residual flux during subsequent operations creates a weaker
weld joint.” Id.
However, this teaching from Trewiler is related to a specific
procedure that does not appear to be relevant here. As noted by Appellants
the “undesirable results” only occur “during subsequent operations.” Appeal
5
Appeal 2015-005725
Application 13/038,682
Br. 10. In particular, Trewiler teaches that a weaker weld joint can occur if a
cosmetic weld is placed over a prior weld where the flux has not been
removed. Trewiler H 24—26. In the situation where there is no access to the
backside of a weld, such that flux or slag cannot be removed, it is unclear
how a cosmetic weld would be placed over the prior weld to which there is
no access. For this reason we are not informed of error in the Examiner’s
rejection.
Appellants also state that “claim 16 recites the additional feature that
‘access to a backside of a welding location between first and second
components to be joined is unavailable or difficult, such that use of a
backing material at the backside of the welding location is unavailable’ for
which Trewiler is cited.” Appeal Br. 10. Claim 8 includes a similar
limitation. Id. at 12. Appellants then argue that though “Trewiler . . .
teaches that the pertinent portion of the flange 18/118 is not accessible for
use of a particular type of welding—EB welding—[it] does not disclose that
‘access to the backside of the welding location for use of a backing material
to shield the weld pool from oxidation and nitridation is unavailable.’” Id. at
11. Appellants then discuss Trewiler’s GTAW welding process stating that
in this welding process “‘substantially all’ of the flux is still able to be
removed from the weld.” Id.
Presumably, though not stated, it is Appellants position that removal
of “‘substantially all’ of the flux” means that there is “access to the backside
of the welding location for use of a backing material to shield the weld pool
from oxidation and nitridation,” contrary to the requirement of claims 8 and
16. Id. at 11.
6
Appeal 2015-005725
Application 13/038,682
Trewiler’s GTAW welding process discussed by Appellants involves
a first relatively small weld on only one side of a joint to apply “a uniform
coating 128” of penetration-enhancing flux and then a root weldment 124 is
applied around the joint which “does not utilize a penetration-enhancing
flux.” Trewiler || 23—24. For this reason, Appellants’ presumed position
that removal of‘“substantially all’ of the flux” from an operation occurring
on one side means that the type of access not allowed by the claims (i.e.,
access to both sides) is present does not necessarily follow. See Appeal
Br.ll.
Further, the fact that one embodiment may have access, does not take
away from another embodiment that the Examiner found does not have
access — consistent with the requirements of the claims. For these reasons
we are not informed of error in the Examiner’s rejection.
Dependent Claims 2—4, 7, 10—15, 19 and 20
Appellants argue that claims 2-4, 7, 10-15, 19 and 20 are patentable
based on their dependence from claims 1 and 16. Appeal Br. 11, 13.
Appellants further state that these claims include patentable features, but do
not identify these features. Thus, these claims fall with claims 1 and 16. See
37C.F.R. §41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Dependent Claims 5 and 6
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and adds “wherein the first, second,
and third superalloys comprise different superalloys.” Claim 6 depends
from claim 1 and adds “wherein the first and second superalloys comprise
7
Appeal 2015-005725
Application 13/038,682
the same superalloy and the third superalloy comprises a different superalloy
than the first and second superalloys.”
The Examiner finds that these features are taught by Nowak. Final
Act. 12. Appellants acknowledge “that paragraphs [0023] and [0025] of
Nowak provide a list of various superalloy materials that may comprise first
and second components and a filler material (shim) used in a laser beam
welding method.” Appeal Br. 14.
At the same time, Appellants argue that one of ordinary skill in the art
would not have combined the arc welding processes of Trewiler, Paton ’479,
and Amata with the laser beam welding method of Nowak. Id. This is
because “Nowak specifically states that ‘ [t]he welding together of superalloy
materials has been a relatively difficult process requiring very particular
welding conditions.’” Id. (quoting Nowak14).
The Examiner responds:
although Nowak teaches a low heat laser beam welding process
which may require its own particular welding conditions that
are different from Trewiler’s welding process, one of ordinary
skill would recognize that certain teachings of one welding
process could easily be utilized in another welding process. In
other words, particular welding conditions of Trewiler’s
process of welding the superalloys together could still be
preserved despite any teachings relied on from a different
welding process having different welding conditions particular
to that process.
Ans. 9.
We agree with the Examiner that “one of ordinary skill would
recognize that certain teachings of one welding process could easily be
utilized in another welding process.” Id. Appellants’ argument does not
apprise us of any reason why the material selection in Nowak is not such a
8
Appeal 2015-005725
Application 13/038,682
teaching. The fact that welding superalloy materials together “has been a
relatively difficult process” does not inform us as to what aspects are
difficult or what teachings of Nowak would only be applicable to particular
welding processes. See Appeal Br. 14. Thus, we are not informed of error
in the Examiner’s rejection.
Dependent Claims 21 and 22
Claims 21 and 22 appear to be identical, except that claim 21 depends
from claim 1 and claim 22 depends from claim 16. They both include:
further comprising, after the weld pool solidifies:
providing a second filler element to the welding location,
the second filler element comprising a first material but no slag­
forming material, the first material capable of cooperating with
portions of the first and second components and the weld to form
a built-up weld between the first section of the first component
and the second section of the second component;
providing an electrical current to the non-consumable
tungsten electrode in close proximity to the welding location to
create a welding arc that provides heat that melts respective
portions of the first and second components, the weld, and the
second filler element;
wherein, upon melting of the second filler element, the
first material thereof liquefies and forms a second weld pool with
the melted portions of the first and second components and the
melted portion of the weld; and
cooling the second weld pool such that the second weld
pool solidifies to form a built-up weld between the first section
of the first component and the second section of the second
component.
The Examiner finds that the features of claims 21 and 22 are taught by
Obana. Final Act. 17.
Appellants argue that “Obana teaches a welding process specifically
for welding together austenitic stainless steel pipes” and “does not disclose a
9
Appeal 2015-005725
Application 13/038,682
welding process for use with superalloys, and, as previously discussed,
welding of superalloys requires a very specific process [as taught by
Nowak].” Appeal Br. 14—15. Thus, Appellants argue “one of ordinary skill
in the art would not have combined the teachings of Trewiler, Paton ’479,
and Amata with Obana as suggested.” Id. at 14.
Similar to the discussion above, the Examiner responds that “one of
ordinary skill would recognize that certain teachings of one welding process
. . . could easily be utilized in another welding process . . ., and at the same
time, any specific/particular welding conditions of the process of welding
the superalloys together could be preserved.” Ans. 10.
Appellants’ argument does not apprise us of any reason why the
process in Obana is not a teaching one of ordinary skill would recognize
could easily be utilized in another welding process. Thus, we are not
informed of error in the Examiner’s rejection.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—8, 10—16, and 19—22 are
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
10