United Technologies Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 21, 2021

2020005252 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 21, 2021)

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. 15/335,761 10/27/2016 Mark T. Ucasz 95391US01; 67097-3497PUS1 6192 54549 7590 04/21/2021 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 EXAMINER ZAMORA ALVAREZ, ERIC J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/21/2021 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): ptodocket@cgolaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MARK T. UCASZ Appeal 2020-005252 Application 15/335,761 Technology Center 3700 Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges. WOOD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s September 3, 2019 Final Action rejecting claims 1, 4–14, and 20–23. See Final Act. 1. Claims 2, 3, and 15–19 have been canceled. Id. at 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm in part. 1 “Appellant” refers to the applicant as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Raytheon Technologies Corp., formerly United Technologies Corp. Appeal Br. 1; Update to Real Party in Interest (Apr. 23, 2020), 1. Appeal 2020-005252 Application 15/335,761 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to an additively manufactured component for a gas powered turbine. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A flowpath component comprising: a body including at least one internal cooling passage; the at least one internal cooling passage being defined by a surface layer comprising a first material, and an interior layer comprising a second material distinct from the first material; the at least one internal cooling passage including at least one altered cooling region, wherein the surface layer at the altered cooling region comprises a third material distinct from the first material and the second material; and wherein the surface layer and the internal layer are additively manufactured as a single unitary structure. REFERENCES Name Reference Date Subramanian US 2014/0099476 A1 Apr. 10, 2014 Morris US 2015/0144496 A1 May 28, 2015 REJECTIONS Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 22 112(a) Written Description 4 112(d) Improper Dependent Form 1, 4–8, 11–14, 20–23 102(a)(1) Subramanian 9, 10 103 Subramanian, Morris OPINION Claim 22: Rejected as Inadequately Described Claim 22 depends from claim 1 via claim 5, and additionally recites “wherein the surface layer at the at least one altered cooling region has a first thickness distinct from a remainder of the surface layer” (claim 5), and Appeal 2020-005252 Application 15/335,761 3 “wherein a transition from a thickness of the remainder of the surface layer to the first thickness is a discrete step” (claim 22). Appeal Br. 7, 8 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds: From the specification, there is no written description regarding as to the transition comprising a discrete step. Instead, in the specification, in [0047] line 4 “a discrete change” is stated. This written description of the specification fails to specifically recite of a step and such transition is not shown in the drawings provided. Therein, there is a lack of written description suggesting to one of ordinary skill in the art of a transition comprising of a step. For examination purposes, the discrete change is interpreted as a significant/noticeable change in thickness. Final Act. 4. Appellant responds that “the written description requirement does not require the exact words of the claim to be included in the written description.” Appeal Br. 3. Appellant asserts that the Specification “describes a discrete layer change, and specifically differentiates this change from a gradual increase or decrease,” which sufficiently describes the claimed “discrete step.” Id. at 4. The Examiner disputes that “discrete change” discussed in paragraph 47 of the Specification corresponds to the claimed “discrete step.” Ans. 4. According to the Examiner, “[a] step is a specific type of a discrete change,” and “[t]here are many examples of discrete changes and therein the genus (i.e., a discrete change in this situation) does not necessarily anticipate the species (i.e., the discrete step). Id. Paragraph 47 of the Specification reads in relevant part: In some examples, the transition of the thickness of the surface layer 232 into, and out of, the altered cooling zone 240 can be Appeal 2020-005252 Application 15/335,761 4 achieved using a gradient, where the thickness gradual [sic] increases or decreases along the expected direction of flow through the cooling passage 230. In alternative examples, the thickness of the surface layer 232 can be a discrete change from the thickness of the surface layer 232 at the altered cooling zone 240 to the thickness of the surface layer 232 at the remainder of the passage 230. Spec. ¶ 47. The Examiner has not persuaded us that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate any meaningful distinction between “discrete change” and “discrete step.” The Specification does not suggest “discrete change” refers to any particular types of change (other than changes that are not gradual). Further, the Examiner has not established that “discrete change” and “discrete step” have a particular meaning in the relevant art, much less that the former term is significantly broader than the latter term. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Specification’s disclosure of a “discrete change” in surface-layer thickness inadequately describes the claimed “discrete step” in surface-layer thickness, and decline to sustain this rejection. Claim 4: Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) Appellant does not respond to the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d). Accordingly, it is summarily affirmed. See In re Berger, 279 F.3d 975, 984–85 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (Board did not err in sustaining a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 when the Examiner refused to enter an Amendment filed with Appeal Brief and applicant failed to contest the rejection as to the non-amended claims on appeal); Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1205.02 (9th ed., Rev. 10, June 2020) (“If a ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the appellant’s brief, appellant has waived any challenge to that ground of rejection and the Appeal 2020-005252 Application 15/335,761 5 Board may summarily sustain it, unless the examiner subsequently withdrew the rejection in the examiner’s answer.”). Claims 1, 4–8, 11–14, and 20–23: Rejected as Anticipated by Subramanian In finding that Subramanian anticipates claim 1, the Examiner specifically finds that turbine airfoil 20 depicted in Figure 1 of Subramanian corresponds to the claimed flowpath component; cooling channels 32 correspond to the claimed at least one internal cooling passage; metal airfoil substrate 30/first layer 48 corresponds to the claimed surface layer comprising a first material; bond coat 45/second layer 50 corresponds to the claimed interior layer comprising a second material distinct from the first material; and film cooling exit holes 38 correspond to the claimed at least one altered cooling region. Final Act. 5 (citing Subramanian ¶ 18, Fig. 1); see also Subramanian, Fig. 2. For the limitation requiring the surface layer at the altered cooling region to comprise a third material, the Examiner relies on thermal barrier coat 44/third layer 52. Id. at 6 (citing Subramanian ¶ 18, Fig. 1); see also Subramanian, Fig. 2. Appellant responds that “[l]ayer 52 and layer 48 of the reference cannot both be the ‘surface layer.’” Appellant also takes issue with the Examiner’s interpretation of “surface layer.” Appeal Br. 4. The Examiner construes claim 1 such that “the surface layer compris[es] a first material, an interior layer, and a third material, which are all part of the surface layer.” Nov. 18, 2019 Advisory Action, 2; see Ans. 6 (“the claim recites that the surface layer comprises . . . a first material and an interior layer”). Appellant contends, however, that claim 1 recites “at least one internal cooling passage being defined by a surface layer and being defined by an interior layer distinct [from] the surface layer.” Appeal Br. 4. Appeal 2020-005252 Application 15/335,761 6 We agree with the Appellant that the Examiner has misconstrued this aspect of claim 1. Claim 1 recites in relevant part: “the at least one internal cooling passage being defined by a surface layer comprising a first material, and an interior layer comprising a second material distinct from the first material.” We agree with Appellant that “being defined by” applies to both the surface layer and interior layer. Conversely, we disagree with the Examiner that claim 1 requires the interior layer to be a component of the surface layer. The comma between “a first material” and “an interior layer” in claim 1 strongly indicates that the “comprising” transition word following “a surface layer” applies only to “a first material” as a surface layer and not to “an interior layer” as a component of the surface layer. This interpretation is also suggested by the parallel form of the terms “a surface layer comprising a first material” and “an interior layer comprising a second material”: The “comprising” following “surface layer” applies to the first material, and the “comprising” following “interior layer” applies to the second material. In sum, we construe claim 1 such that: the at least one internal cooling passage is “defined by” a surface layer and an interior layer; the surface layer comprises a first material and, at the at least one altered cooling region, a third material distinct from the first material and the second material; and the interior layer comprises a second material distinct from the first material and third material. Because the Examiner’s rejection is based on an incorrect construction of claim 1, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, as well as its dependent claims 4–8, 11–14, and 20–23, as anticipated by Subramanian. Appeal 2020-005252 Application 15/335,761 7 Claims 9 and 10: Rejected as Unpatentable over Subramanian and Morris The Examiner’s rejection of claims 9 and 10 as unpatentable over Subramanian and Morris is premised on an incorrect construction of independent claim 1, as discussed above. Final Act. 9–10. Accordingly, this rejection is not sustained. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are decided as follows: DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 22 112(a) Written Description 22 4 112(d) Improper Dependent Form 4 1, 4–8, 11– 14, 20–23 102(a)(1) Subramanian 1, 4–8, 11– 14, 20–23 9, 10 103 Subramanian, Morris 9, 10 Overall Outcome 4 1, 5–14, 20–23 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED IN PART