GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 30, 2022

2021001604 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 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. 15/200,492 07/01/2016 John Alan MANTEIGA 283710-US-1/GE3D-161 7965 159486 7590 03/30/2022 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP 255 East Fifth Street, Suite 1900 Cincinnati, OH 45202 EXAMINER SMITH, CATHERINE P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1735 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/30/2022 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): CincyPAIR@dinsmore.com OC.Prosecution@ge.com brian.tent@dinsmore.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JOHN ALAN MANTEIGA, GREGG HUNT WILSON, and STEPHEN JOSEPH WAYMEYER ____________ Appeal 2021-001604 Application 15/200,492 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before TERRY J. OWENS, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 1 In our Decision, we refer to the Specification (“Spec.”) of Application No. 15/200,492 filed July 1, 2016; the Final Office Action dated Jan. 8, 2020 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed July 10, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer dated Oct. 30, 2020 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed Dec. 30, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2021-001604 Application 15/200,492 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-7, 9-11, 21, and 22 of Application 15/200,492, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE. The subject matter of the invention relates to methods of additively manufacturing objects with multi-walled features. Spec. ¶ 1. The application provides for powder removal features that facilitate removal of powder from space between the walls of such multi-walled features. Id. Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, represents the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for fabricating an object, comprising: (a) irradiating a layer of powder in a powder bed with an energy beam in a series of scan lines to form a fused region; (b) providing a subsequent layer of powder over the powder bed by passing a recoater arm over the powder bed from a first side of the powder bed to a second side of the powder bed; and (c) repeating steps (a) and (b) until the object is formed in the powder bed, wherein the object comprises an annular component that includes an annular multi-walled structure, the annular multi- walled structure comprising a plurality of arc-shaped segments disposed annularly about the annular multi-walled structure, respective ones of the arc-shaped segments being 2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies General Electric Company as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2021-001604 Application 15/200,492 3 circumferentially adjacent to one another, wherein respective ones of the plurality of arc-shaped segments comprise: a first semi-annular wall having a first surface facing radially inward, a second semi-annular wall disposed radially inward from the first semi-annular wall, the second semi- annular wall having a second surface facing radially outward, the second surface facing the first surface, and the first surface and the second surface defining a passage therebetween, the passage having a width between the first surface and the second surface in a first direction, and an enlarged powder removal feature connecting the first semi-annular wall and the second semi-annular wall, the enlarged powder removal feature having an inner dimension greater than the width in the first direction and at least one open end in a direction transverse to the width in the first direction; and wherein the enlarged powder removal feature comprises a hollow column defined by a third semi- annular wall, the hollow column being in fluid communication with the passage. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103: Name Reference Date Steffier US 2003/0175453 A1 Sept. 18, 2003 Carter et al. (“Carter”) US 2015/0001093 A1 Jan. 1, 2015 Slavens et al. (“Slavens”) US 2016/0121389 A1 May 5, 2016 Appeal 2021-001604 Application 15/200,492 4 REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1-7, 9-11, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Slavens in view of Carter and Steffier. Final Act. 3-10. DISCUSSION We limit our discussion to claim 1, the sole independent claim. The Examiner finds that Slavens teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 except does not teach wherein the object is annular. Final Act. 3-6. The Examiner relies on Carter or Steffier for teaching an annular component. Id. at 6. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have used an annular object profile as a matter of design choice for making a gas turbine fuel nozzle or turbine blade and to have spaced the arc-shaped segments circumferentially around the annular object as a means to effectively cool the object and increase heat exchange. Id. at 7. The Examiner provides Image 2 reproduced below, an annotated version of Slavens Figure 7, to illustrate the findings regarding Slavens. Id. at 6. The Examiner finds that Slavens teaches “a multi-walled structure (Fig. 7, core 76) comprising a plurality of arc-shaped segments disposed about the multi-walled structure (Fig. 7, columns 98A, 93A, 93B, 93C, and 98C comprise a plurality of segments, interior channels 91A and 91B, of which the segments, interior channels 91A, are arc-shaped.” Id. at 3-4. Appeal 2021-001604 Application 15/200,492 5 Slavens’ Figure 7 illustrates a cross-sectional view of a casting article according to an embodiment of Slavens. Slavens ¶¶ 27-28. Exemplary casting core 76 may be additively manufactured to include a core geometry 92 that defines a dimensional negative of a desired internal circuitry of a cast gas turbine engine part. Id. ¶ 59. Core geometry 92 may include one or more circuit forming portions (98A, 98B, and 98C). Id. During a casting process, circuit forming portions 98A, 98B, and 98C form the various passages and features of the cast gas turbine engine part. Id. The Examiner finds that the interior channel 91A of Figure 7 is arc- shaped and may be in each column, and that in such case, “a plurality of segments are in arcuate alignment . . . , respective ones of the arc-shaped segments being circumferentially adjacent to one another . . . because the columns are circumferentially adjacent to one another.” Final Act. 4. Appellant argues, inter alia, that Slavens’ circuit forming portions (98A, 93A, 93B, 93C, and 98C) are not arc-shaped and that interior channel Appeal 2021-001604 Application 15/200,492 6 91A does not disclose the claimed enlarged powder removal feature comprising a hollow column, the first semi-annular wall, or the second semi- annular wall. Appeal Br. 10-11. Appellant also argues that the rejection fails to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected the specified components in combination in the manner claimed, that the rejection lacks the requisite “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” Id. at 13-14. Appellant’s arguments are persuasive of reversible error in the rejection. The Examiner fails to adequately show that Slavens discloses the claimed first semi-annular wall, second semi-annular wall, or hollow column defined by a third semi-annular wall. Further, the rejection fails to provide adequate motivation to combine the disclosures of Slavens, Carter, and Steffier. As Appellant points out, the Examiner finds that the skilled artisan would have been motivated to have arc-shaped segments spaced circumferentially around an annular object as a mean to effectively cool the object and increase the effectiveness of heat exchange. Id. at 14 (citing Final Act. 7). However, again as Appellant points out, Slavens discloses that core 76 is to be removed by leaching, thus there would have been no need to effectively cool the core. We do not sustain the rejection of the claims as obvious over Slavens in view of Carter and Steffier. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Appeal 2021-001604 Application 15/200,492 7 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-7, 9-11, 21, 22 103 Slavens, Carter, Steffier 1-7, 9-11, 21, 22 REVERSED