Jump to content

Patent Application 17371323 - METHOD FOR MODIFYING THE DIMENSIONS OF A CAST - Rejection

From WikiPatents

Patent Application 17371323 - METHOD FOR MODIFYING THE DIMENSIONS OF A CAST

Title: METHOD FOR MODIFYING THE DIMENSIONS OF A CAST IRON PUMP PART

Application Information

  • Invention Title: METHOD FOR MODIFYING THE DIMENSIONS OF A CAST IRON PUMP PART
  • Application Number: 17371323
  • Submission Date: 2025-05-22T00:00:00.000Z
  • Effective Filing Date: 2021-07-09T00:00:00.000Z
  • Filing Date: 2021-07-09T00:00:00.000Z
  • National Class: 419
  • National Sub-Class: 009000
  • Examiner Employee Number: 93110
  • Art Unit: 1733
  • Tech Center: 1700

Rejection Summary

  • 102 Rejections: 0
  • 103 Rejections: 3

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

Office Action Text


    DETAILED ACTION

Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection.  Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.  Applicant's submission filed on 4/30/2024 has been entered.
 
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 4/30/2024 has been entered.  Claims 21, 41-51, and 55-65 remain pending in the application.  Claim(s) 1-20, 22-40, 52-54, and 66-71 have been canceled

Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive.  A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.  The title refers to a method, while the claims are to a product.  

Claim Interpretation
The claims are considered product by process claims.  The determination of patentability is based upon the product structure itself.  The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation, be it powder bed fusion or thermal spray, or any other method of production.  If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.  Accordingly, only the final product is claimed.  The intermediate product limitations, such as “cast iron pump component/part that include a casing having a volute portion with a volute gap portion or a pump impeller, including a broken blade of the pump impeller or a leading edge of the pump impeller”, are interpreted in their final form, that is, a volute without a gap, or a repaired impeller.  Additionally, it is noted that the limitation “to modify the dimension of the portion of the cast iron pump component/part” is no different than “to modify the dimension of the cast iron pump component/part.”  The end product is a repaired cast iron pump component/part.  

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 
Language from the reference(s) is shown in quotations.  Limitations from the claims are shown in quotations within parentheses.  Examiner explanations are shown in italics.
Claims 21, 51, and 55-65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dumm et al. (US 2006/0165973 A1), previously cited, in view of Buller (US 20170304894 A1), previously cited.  
Regarding claims 21, 51, 55, 57-60, and 63, Dumm teaches “process equipment having a wear surface having extended resistance to one or more of abrasion, erosion, or corrosion associated with filled materials processed by said process equipment, wherein the equipment wear surface bears a metal matrix composite filled with abrasive particles” (which reads upon “component/part made or manufactured using the steps in”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0007]).  Dumm teaches “a method for producing process equipment having a wear surface having extended resistance to one or more of abrasion, erosion, or corrosion, associated with fillers or solids processed by said process equipment includes applying to said process equipment wear surface a metal matrix coating filled with superabrasive particles” (which reads upon “a method for modifying a dimension of a cast iron pump part, comprising steps for”, as recited in the instant claim; abstract).  Dumm teaches “a rotor assembly, 96, as shown in FIG. 9 for a self-priming, centrifugal pump is made of cast iron” (which reads upon “a cast iron pump component/part”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0156]).  Dumm teaches that “inspection of the cast iron rotor after this time normally reveals that from several millimeters to centimeters of the rotor blades have been worn away from the original profile, and that the change in the dimension and profile of the blades is what changes the hydrodynamics of the pump resulting in loss of pressure and flow” (paragraph [0157]).  Dumm teaches that “the superabrasive coating was applied to a thickness of 0.200 mm or 200 microns” (which reads upon “depositing the metal on the cast iron pump component/part to modify the dimension of a portion of the cast iron pump component/part, based upon the metal deposition procedure selected”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0158]; ).  Dumm teaches that “the coating also comprises one or more of nickel, nickel alloys” (which reads upon “made of a deposited combination of one or more Nickel Alloys or Nickel metals, and made of the deposited combination of the one or more Nickel Alloys or Nickel metals”, as recited in instant claim 21; which reads upon “depositing a metal having a combination of one or more Nickel Alloys or Nickel powders on the cast iron pump component/part”, as recited in instant claims 21 and 58-59; Dumm claim 62).  Dumm teaches that “surface treatments used for hard-facing components include: chrome plating, nickel plating, thermal flame spraying” (which reads upon “placing a cast iron pump component/part on a base plate of a directed energy deposition (DED) machine; selecting a metal deposition procedure”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0069]; thermal spray is a DED procedure; placing the part on the DED machine and removing the part from the DED machine as in instant claim 55 are implied; thermal flame spraying involves melting of the powder, a laser beam is not required as claim 21 is a product by process claims, see below).  Dumm teaches that that pump part includes an impeller (which reads upon “impeller”, as recited in instant claims 57, 60, and 63; Dumm claim 62).  
Dumm is silent regarding having a skip pattern for depositing individual clusters of a metal separated by a distance (D1), a honeycomb structure, or wherein the skip pattern selected comprises using multiple passes that include: a first pass for depositing individual clusters of the metal separated by a first distance D1 along a first axis on the cast iron pump part, and depositing the individual clusters of the metal separated by a second distance D2 along a second axis on the cast iron pump part, the first axis being orthogonal to the second axis; and one or more skip passes for depositing one or more skip individual clusters of the metal separated by a corresponding first distance D1 along the first axis on the cast iron pump part, and depositing the one or more skip individual clusters of the metal separated by the second distance D2 along the second axis on the cast iron pump part.  
Buller is similarly concerned with 3D printing processes include selective laser melting (SLM), selective laser sintering (SLS), direct metal laser sintering (DMLS) or fused deposition modeling (FDM) (paragraph [0005]).  Buller teaches that “the 3D objects can be distributed in a space filling pattern, e.g., honeycomb pattern” (which reads upon “honeycomb”, as recited in instant claim 51; paragraph [0031]).  Buller teaches that “the objects can be scaffolds in a lattice pattern” (paragraph [0030]).  Buller teaches “a lattice pattern, and that the lattice can be a diamond, tetragonal lattice, or cubic lattice” (which reads upon “having a skip pattern for depositing individual clusters of a metal separated by a distance (D1)”, as recited in instant claim 21; paragraph [0031]; it is the final pattern that forms the structure of the cast iron pump component/part which is given patentable weight; the method of applying the pattern is not given patentable weight unless the claimed method provides an identifiable structural difference compared to other methods of applying the same structure; here, the claimed structure is a skip pattern, i.e., a honeycomb pattern; the art teaches the claimed pattern, thus the art reads on the claims).  Buller teaches that “a small-scaffold includes individual cavities that are spaced apart by a first distance (e.g., first pitch distance) along a first dimension (e.g., x-axis), spaced apart by a second distance (e.g., second pitch distance) along a second dimension (e.g., y-axis), spaced apart by a third distance (e.g., third pitch distance) along a third dimension (e.g., z-axis), or any combination thereof” (which reads upon “a first pass for depositing individual clusters of the metal separated by a first distance D1 along a first axis on the cast iron pump part, and depositing the individual clusters of the metal separated by a second distance D2 along a second axis on the cast iron pump part, the first axis being orthogonal to the second axis; and one or more skip passes for depositing one or more skip individual clusters of the metal separated by a corresponding first distance D1 along the first axis on the cast iron pump part, and depositing the one or more skip individual clusters of the metal separated by the second distance D2 along the second axis on the cast iron pump part”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0076]).  Buller teaches that “the iron-based alloy may include cast iron or pig iron” (paragraph [0094]).  Buller teaches that “the material may comprise a titanium alloy, aluminum alloy or nickel alloy” (paragraph [0088]).  Buller teaches that “small lattice structures, such as nanostructures microstructures and mesostructures, can increase the strength to weight ratio of an object” (paragraph [0006]).  
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a portion of the cast iron part of Dumm with a skip, honeycomb, or lattice pattern, as taught by Buller to increase the strength to weight ratio of the part while maintaining structural integrity.  
Additionally, the Examiner notes that the claims are considered product-by-process claims.  The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed product. The determination of patentability is based upon the product structure itself.  The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation, be it powder bed fusion or thermal spray, or any other method of production.  If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).  Further, the Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion.  Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing a nonobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product.  See MPEP § 2113 II. 
Regarding claim 56, modified Dumm teaches the part of claim 21 as stated above.  Dumm teaches heat treatment by placing the coated part into furnace and heating to 300 to 350° C. for 1 to 2 hours in air atmosphere (paragraph [0129]).  
Regarding claims 61-62 and 64-65, modified Dumm teaches the parts of claims 51 and 54 as stated above.  Dumm teaches that “the coating also comprises one or more of nickel, nickel alloys” (claim 62).  

Claims 41-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dumm et al. (US 2006/0165973 A1), in view of Buller (US 20170304894 A1), as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (US 20040009089 A1).
Regarding claims 41-45, modified Dumm teaches the part of claim 21 as stated above.  Dumm teaches that “the coating also comprises one or more of nickel, nickel alloys” (claim 62).  Dumm is silent regarding specific nickel alloys or the percentage of nickel to nickel alloy.  Regarding the subject limitation, in order to carry out the invention of Dumm, it would have been necessary and obvious to look to the prior art for exemplary types and ratios of nickel and nickel alloy powders used in powder metallurgy.  Liu provides this teaching.  Liu is similarly concerned with the field of powder metallurgy (paragraph [0003]).  Liu teaches an A-B powder mixture is made by mixing a minor volume fraction of a relatively fine metal powder A, which has a melting or solidus temperature that effectively exceeds the sintering temperature at which the powder mixture containing that powder is sintered, with a complementary major volume fraction of a relatively coarse prealloyed metal powder B, which is an alloy amenable to supersolidus liquid phase sintering (paragraph [0022]).  Liu teaches that A-B powder mixtures were prepared using commercially pure nickel powder (carbonyl-derived nickel powder) as the relatively fine metal powder A and a nickel alloy (vendor grade designation, Superbond 625) as the relatively coarse prealloyed metal powder B (paragraph [0075]).  Liu teaches that the volume fraction of powder A is 30% and the volume fraction of powder B is 70% (paragraph [0023]).  It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the coating of the prior art combination, and adjusting and varying the types and ratios of nickel and nickel alloy powders, such as within the claimed ranges, as taught by Liu, motivated to form a conventional nickel coating using known and tested types and ratios of nickel and nickel alloy powders predictably suitable for powder metallurgy applications.  

Claims 46-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dumm et al. (US 2006/0165973 A1), in view of Buller (US 20170304894 A1), as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Chung et al. (US 20180080514 A1).
Regarding claims 46-47, modified Dumm teaches the part of claim 21 as stated above.  
Dumm is silent regarding a grey cast iron.  Dumm teaches a nickel alloy as stated above.  
Chung is similarly concerned with cast iron parts (paragraph [0017]).  Chung teaches that “the friction part 200 may be formed of gray cast iron (flake graphite cast iron), which has heat-resistance and wear-resistance and has the same coefficient of thermal expansion as spheroidal graphite cast iron” (which reads upon “gray cast iron”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0037]).  
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the cast iron of Dumm with grey cast iron, as taught by Chung to improve heat resistance and wear resistance.  

Regarding claims 48-50, modified Dumm teaches the part of claim 21 as stated above.  Chung teaches that “the part 100 may be pre-heated before the inserting step, and that the preheat temperature may be 450±50° C” (paragraph [0075]).  Additionally, the Examiner notes that the claims are considered product-by-process claims.  The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed product. The determination of patentability is based upon the product structure itself.  The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation.  If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).

Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/30/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.  Applicant argues that the combination includes primary and secondary references that do not recognize any problems related to the cracking of cast iron pump components/parts, e.g., including any problems related to any such cast iron pump components/parts made or manufactured without having any such modified portion with any such deposited individual clusters of metal separated by any such first distance (D1) along such a first axis any such second distance (D1) along such a second axis as a result of such a skip pattern and made of any such deposited combination of one or more Nickel Alloys or Nickel metals (remarks, page 11).  Applicant argues that nothing else on the record, including the various other cited prior art references, discloses or suggests anything about any problems in the art associated with the cracking of any such cast iron pump component/part, or discloses or suggests anything about minimizing or eliminating any such problems in the art associated with the cracking of any such cast iron pump component/part (remarks, pages 11-12).  In response to applicant's argument that nothing else on the record, including the various other cited prior art references, discloses or suggests anything about any problems in the art associated with the cracking of any such cast iron pump component/part, or discloses or suggests anything about minimizing or eliminating any such problems in the art associated with the cracking of any such cast iron pump component/part, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).  Additionally, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., cracking issues) are not recited in the rejected claim(s).  Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.  See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that the combination does not disclose, teach or suggest a cast iron pump part/component that is made or manufactured having a modified portion with deposited individual clusters of metal separated by a first distance (D1) along a first axis and a second distance (D2) along a second axis as a result of a skip pattern and made of a deposited combination of one or more Nickel Alloys or Nickel metals, as claimed (remarks, page 12).  Applicant argues that Buller's paragraph [0031] describes that the 3D objects are merely "distributed" in the space filing pattern (remarks, page 17).  Applicant further argues that Buller's paragraph [0031] does not describe, teach or suggest that any of its 3D objects are made, manufacturer or formed using a skip pattern for depositing individual clusters of metal separated by a first distance (D1) along a first axis and a second distance (D2) along a second axis as a result of the skip pattern, as claimed (remarks, page 17).  This is not found convincing because Buller teaches that “a small-scaffold includes individual cavities that are spaced apart by a first distance (e.g., first pitch distance) along a first dimension (e.g., x-axis), spaced apart by a second distance (e.g., second pitch distance) along a second dimension (e.g., y-axis), spaced apart by a third distance (e.g., third pitch distance) along a third dimension (e.g., z-axis), or any combination thereof” (paragraph [0076]).  It is the final pattern that forms the structure of the cast iron pump component/part which is given patentable weight.  The method of applying the pattern is not given patentable weight unless the claimed method provides an identifiable structural difference compared to other methods of applying the same structure.  Here, the claimed structure is a skip pattern, i.e., individual cavities that are spaced apart by a first distance (e.g., first pitch distance) along a first dimension (e.g., x-axis), spaced apart by a second distance (e.g., second pitch distance) along a second dimension (e.g., y-axis), spaced apart by a third distance (e.g., third pitch distance) along a third dimension (e.g., z-axis), or any combination thereof.  The art teaches the claimed pattern, thus the art reads on the claims.  
Applicant argues that the combination does not disclose, teach or suggest a cast iron pump part/component that is made or manufactured having a modified portion with deposited individual clusters of metal separated by a first distance (D1) along a first axis and a second distance (D2) along a second axis as a result of a skip pattern and made of a deposited combination of one or more Nickel Alloys or Nickel metals, as claimed (remarks, page 18).  This is not found convincing because Dumm teaches that “the coating also comprises one or more of nickel, nickel alloys” (Dumm claim 62).  

Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA JANSSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5434.  The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 10-7 and alternating Fri 10-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.  The Examiner requests that interviews not be scheduled during the last week of each fiscal quarter or the last biweek of September, which is the end of the fiscal year.  Q3: 6/9-6/13/25; Q4: 9/15-9/30/25.  
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (571)272-1401.  The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system.  Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.  Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.  For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.


/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733


Retrieved from "https://wikipatents.org/index.php?title=Patent_Application_17371323_-_METHOD_FOR_MODIFYING_THE_DIMENSIONS_OF_A_CAST_-_Rejection&oldid=615952"
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.