DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed July 21, 2025 has been entered. Applicant' s amendments to the
Claim has overcome each and every objection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4 – 6, and 8 - 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, limitation “wherein the radial cutting depth is equal to or less than a thickness of the coating on the interior, radially facing surface of the combustion component”, does not appear in the specification and is thus treated as new matter. This examiner’s best understanding of this limitation is applicant’s reliance on [0007], [0011], [0065] and Fig. 3,for the limitation as claimed that appears to provide support for “radial cutting depth less than a thickness of the coating on the interior”, however there isn’t any support of “radial cutting depth is equal to the coating on the interior”. The examiner recommends amending claim 1, to read with what is supported by applicant in the specification, of “wherein the tool holder includes a depth limiter that ensures the radial cutting depth, prevents contact of the grinding/polishing attachment of the rotary device”.
Claims 4 – 6, and 8 - 11 depend from claim 1, and are therefore rejected accordingly under 35 USC 112(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4 - 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter et al (US 20190368382 A1) in view of Rookstool (US 20130064658 A1 ), in view of Mighton (US 3613320 A), and in further view of Dimmick, III (US 20140341735 A1).
In re claim 1, Carter et al discloses a tooling system (assembly, Fig. 1: 14 for a repair for machining (eg grinding) the inner surface of the casing, see [0025]), comprising:
a combustion component of a gas turbine system (a compressor casing, 12 of a gas turbine engine, see [0006]);
a rotary device (a carrier, Fig. 7: 30), including:
a housing (base mount, 46) coupled to the rotary device (carrier, 30) and extending in an axial direction within the combustion component (see annotated Fig. 3, below),
PNG
media_image1.png
380
505
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 – illustrates housing extending axially in component, casing, 12
a rotatable spindle (machining device, 32 that comprises the grinder, 101 can be rotated, see [0061] and see annotated Fig. 8, below) extending through and out of the housing of the rotary device; and
PNG
media_image2.png
599
659
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 8 – illustrates rotatable spindle extending through and out of the housing
a collet (component that is in between spindle and grinder, see annotated Fig. 8, above) coupled to a distal end of the rotatable spindle of the rotary device;
a grinding attachment (machining device, 32; includes grinder, 101) attached to the rotatable spindle of the rotary device (shaft, 88, attached see Fig. 8);
the grinding attachment (machining device, 32; includes grinder, 101) including:
a shaft (shaft and axial direction, see annotated, Fig. 8, above),
wherein the shaft of the grinding attachment is releasably coupled to the rotatable spindle of the rotary device by the collet (component that is in between spindle and grinder, see annotated Fig. 8, above of the rotary device; the bit, 103 of the grinder is configured to be changed out, see [0062]);
a tool holder (combination of base, 98, clamp, 90, and feed table, 80) configured to:
set an axial position of the housing of the rotary device and the grinding attachment (set an axial position, up and down, in the workpiece, see Fig. 3, as it holds the grinding tool in this position relative to the workpiece and allows for axial position of machining device, 32, see [0059]) coupled to the rotatable spindle of the rotary device in the axial direction over the surface on the interior, radially facing surface of the component (inward surface perpendicular to the center of RR, R line; coupled to machining device, see Fig. 3); and
set a radial position of the housing of the rotary device and the grinding attachment (set a radial position, left to right, in the workpiece, see Fig. 3, as it holds the grinding tool in this position relative to the workpiece and allows for a radial direction toward or away from the inner surface, 18; see [0056]) coupled to the rotatable spindle of the rotary device (coupled to machining device, see Fig. 3),
the radial position defining a radial cutting depth of the grinding attachment into the surface on the interior radially facing surface of the combustion component (radial adjustment mechanism, 70, adjusts position of the machining device, 32 in a radial direction toward or away from the inner surface, Fig. 3: 18, see [0056]),
wherein the tool holder (combination of base, 98, clamp, 90, and feed table, 80) includes a base (base, 78), a collet assembly (combination of feed table, 80 and base, 98) coupled to the base (coupled, see Fig. 8) for securing the housing of the rotary device (secure base, 46 and feed table, 80), and at least one biasing member (spring and damper assembly, Fig. 11: 150A) for mounting and biasing a lower section of the collet assembly toward the base (spring and damper assembly, 150A in addition to radial adjustment mechanism, 70, bias the radial position of the machining device, 32 outward against the casing, 12, see [0070] and towards base of the lower section of base, 78, see Fig. 11),
wherein the at least one biasing member (spring and damper assembly, 150A) is configured to spring load the collet assembly and the housing of the rotary device toward the base (bias the radial position of the machining device, 32 outward and towards base of the lower section of base, 78, see Fig. 11); and
a wheel assembly (guide wheels, Fig. 11: 154A) coupled to the tool holder for guiding the tool holder about an interior perimeter of the combustion component (coupled and configured to roll along the inner surface of compressor casing, 12, see [0070]).
Carter et al does not disclose:
a coating on an interior
a handle that is coaxial with the housing, the rotatable spindle, and a shaft of the grinding attachment
a motor disposed within the handle;
the rotatable spindle driven by the motor;
wherein the tool holder includes a depth limiter that ensures the radial cutting depth is equal to or less than a thickness of the surface on the interior, radially facing surface of the combustion component.
Carter et al does not explicitly state the compressor casing has a coating, one will realize that there is a coating on a compressor casing. Furthermore, Rookstool does teach to include a coating (compressor case lining having an interior, Fig. 4: 52 with a lining, 60 of a thin layer, see [0036]) because per MPEP 2143(I)(A) the combination of old elements is held to be obvious over the prior art. Where in the instant case to include a coating, in the system of Carter et al and Rookstool, the element and its function are known in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references. The only difference in the claimed invention and the prior art is that it is not explicitly stated, the coating on the interior of the compressor casing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined coating and the compressor casing as taught by the Rookstool because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, the elements including a coating on the interior of the compressor casing. In the combination of the coating on the interior of the compressor casing would have performed the same function, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results gave the predictable result of the function of having a coating to avoid corrosion, foulant deposition and improve efficiency.
Mighton, further teaches a pipe machining method having,
a handle that is coaxial with the housing, the rotatable spindle, and a shaft of the grinding attachment (outer housing of power source or motor, 82, allows user to hold the tool, and is coaxial with the housing, rotatable spindle, and shaft of grinding attachment, see annotated Fig. 1, below)
PNG
media_image3.png
370
587
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig 1 – illustrates the coaxial location of the handle with the housing, rotatable spindle, and shaft of the grinding tool
a motor disposed within the handle (motor, 82 in handle, see annotated Fig. 1, above);
a rotatable spindle driven by the motor (motor, 82 provides with any grinding tool or machine tool in order to provide the desired machining operation, see Col 5: lines 28 – 35; such as rotation of the grinding tool, see Col. 2: lines 60 - 65).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify Carter et al. with the teachings of a handle that is coaxial with the housing, the rotatable spindle, and a shaft of the grinding attachment; a motor in a handle and a rotatable spindle driven by the motor as taught by Mighton because the handle allows the user to hold the tool with a coaxial arrangement that allows for grinding on larger surface areas that are hard to reach, that also provides the motor in the handle for compact operation of the tool and a range of rpm to drive the grinding operation.
Lastly, Dimmick, III teaches a repair tool for a turbine rotor wheel, wherein the tool holder includes a depth limiter that ensures the radial cutting depth is equal to or less than a thickness of the surface on the interior, radially facing surface of the combustion component (a stop mechanism, Fig. 3: 308 preventing the cutting from being beyond, in a less than, the predetermined depth, a guide mechanism, 310 for directing the cutting along the substantially linear direction at the repair angle, other suitable features for permitting repeated and precise cutting without complex tools or substantial training of technicians, and combinations thereof, see [0027]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify Carter et al. with the teachings of the tool holder includes a depth limiter that ensures the radial cutting depth is equal to or less than a thickness of the surface on the interior, radially facing surface of the combustion component as taught by Dimmick, III because increases the life capability of the component by reducing the controlling the cutting depth process and therefore not introducing undesired high stress concentrations, see (Dimmick, III, [0005] – [0009]).
In re claim 4, Carter et al as modified teaches the tooling system according to claim 1,
wherein the collet assembly (Carter et al: base, 98) further comprises:
an upper section (Carter et al: upper section, see annotate Fig.8, below);
the lower section (Carter et al: lower section, see annotate Fig.8, below); and
a handwheel (Carter et al: a knob, 92) coupled to a threaded shaft (Carter et al: fastener, see [0057]) for selectively displacing the upper section of the collet assembly toward or away from the lower section of the collet assembly (Carter et al: adjusts a position of the machining device, 32 in a radial direction toward or away from the inner surface, 18; see [0056]) to secure the housing of the rotary device therebetween.
PNG
media_image4.png
455
612
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 8 – illustrates upper and lower section of collet assembly
In re claim 5, Carter et al as modified teaches the tooling system according to claim 1,
wherein the collet assembly (Carter et al: base 98) further comprises:
a handwheel (Carter et al: a knob, 92), coupled to a threaded shaft (Carter et al: fastener, see [0057]), for selectively displacing the collet assembly (Carter et al: base, 98) and the housing of the rotary device toward or away from the base to set the cutting depth of the grinding attachment into the coating on the interior radially facing surface of the combustion component (Carter et al: adjusts a position of the machining device, 32 in a radial direction toward or away from the inner surface, 18; see [0056]),
wherein the threaded shaft (Carter et al: fastener, see [0057]) extends through the collet assembly (Carter et al: base, 98) to the base; and
a depth limiter (Carter et al: lock lever, 85) for setting a maximum cutting depth of the grinding attachment into the coating on the interior radially facing surface of the combustion component (Carter et al: can be selectively actuated to lock a radial position of the machining device, 32, see [0055]).
In re claim 6, Carter et al as modified teaches the tooling system of claim 1,
wherein the axial position of an initial cut defines a maximum axial distance into the combustion component (Carter et al: the axial position can be adjusted to achieve the desired axial position and can therefore achieve the maximum axial distance with the initial cut, see [0059]).
In re claim 8, Carter et al as modified teaches the tooling system according to claim 1,
wherein the combustion component includes a unibody component (Carter et al: claims are directed towards a tool and not a workpiece/component the prior art tool is capable of working on a unibody component or a liner, as the prior art provides the claimed structure of the tool. The desired workpiece does not limit the structure of the claimed tool).
In re claim 9, Carter et al as modified teaches the tooling system according to claim 1,
wherein the combustion component includes a flange extending about the interior perimeter of the combustion component (Carter et al: claims are directed towards a tool and not a workpiece/component the prior art tool is capable of working on a combustion component that includes a flange extending about the interior perimeter, as the prior art provides the claimed structure of the tool. The desired workpiece does not limit the structure of the claimed tool), and
wherein the wheel assembly (Carter et al: guide wheels, Fig. 11: 154A) coupled to the tool holder is configured to guide the tool holder along the flange (Carter et al: coupled and configured to roll along the inner surface and capable of rolling along the flange, see [0070]).
In re claim 11, Carter et al as modified teaches the tooling system of claim 1,
wherein the coating comprises a thermal barrier coating (TBC) (Carter et al: claims are directed towards a tool and not a workpiece/component the prior art tool is capable of working on a coating that comprises a thermal barrier coating, as the prior art provides the claimed structure of the tool. The desired workpiece does not limit the structure of the claimed tool).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter et al (US 20190368382 A1) in view of Rookstool (US 20130064658 A1 ), in view of Mighton (US 3613320 A), in view of Dimmick, III (US 20140341735 A1), and in further view of Bird (US 7029371 B1).
In re claim 10, Carter et al as modified teaches the tooling system according to claim 9,
wherein the wheel assembly (Carter et al: guide wheels, Fig. 11: 154A) further comprises: at least one first wheel rotatably mounted to the tool holder (Carter et al: combination of base, 98, clamp, 90, and feed table, 80) for engaging the interior radially facing surface of the combustion component (Carter et al: guide wheels, roll along the inner surface, perpendicular to the center of RR,R line, see [0070]);
Carter et al as modified does not teach the wheel assembly further comprises:
at least one second wheel rotatably mounted to the tool holder for engaging an outside edge of the flange; and
at least one pair of third wheels rotatably mounted to the tool holder for engaging opposing sides of the flange.
However, Bird teaches a Jig for Guiding a Grinder, the wheel assembly (a plurality of bottom rollers, Fig. 2: 34; front rollers, Fig. 1: 40 and back rollers, Fig.1: 46) further comprises:
at least one second wheel rotatably mounted to the tool holder for engaging an outside edge of the flange (front rollers, 40 engage a vertical surface, see Col 3: Lines 49 - 50; capable of engaging outside edge of a component); and
at least one pair of third wheels (bottom rollers, 34) rotatably mounted to the tool holder for engaging opposing sides of the flange (bottom rollers, 34 engage a horizontal surface, see Fig. 4; capable of engaging opposing sides of a component).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify Carter et al as modified having at least one second wheel rotatably mounted to the tool holder for engaging an outside edge of the flange and a least one pair of third wheels rotatably mounted to the tool holder for engaging opposing sides of the flange as taught by Bird because it will allow the rollers in conjunction with one another to properly locate the tool while resisting lateral movement of the tool during grinding (Bird: Col 1: Lines 54 - 62).
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 112a rejections for claims 1, 4 – 6 and 8 – 11, this rejection has been maintained. The claim language does not represent what one of ordinary skill would deem to meet a depth limiter’s function in totality. As applicant does provide in [0007], [0011], [0065] and Fig. 3, not to damage the metal surface of the rotary device by having a “radial cutting depth less than a thickness of the coating on the interior”, however there isn’t any support of “radial cutting depth is equal to the coating on the interior”. This examiner recommends amending claim 1, to read with what is supported by the specification, of “wherein the tool holder includes a depth limiter that ensures the radial cutting depth, prevents contact of the grinding/polishing attachment of the rotary device”.
Regarding the 112b rejections for Claims 4 – 6, and 8 – 11, applicant’s amendments have overcome the rejection and the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed July 21, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 4-9, and 11 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered. In this case, regarding 35 USC 103 rejection applicant has amended claim 1 and argues that the combination of references applied to applicant’s independent claim 1 fails to establish a prima facie case; in that while Carter states “can be selectively actuated to contact the base mount, 46 to lock a radial position of the machining device, 32 when a desired radial position is achieved”; the combination of Carter and Mighton fails to teach or suggest the amended claim 1 limitation of, "a depth limiter, that would prevent setting the cutting depth deeper than the thickness of the coating”. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in further view of Dimmick, III (US 20140341735 A1) that provides “a stop mechanism, Fig. 3: 308 preventing the cutting from being beyond, in a less than, the predetermined depth, see [0027])”; see rejection of the same above.
Therefore, claim 1 as set forth is rejected and therefore regarding the dependent claims 4 – 6, and 8 - 11 are not allowable over the art of record.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARONDA TIYILLE FELTON whose telephone number is (571)270-0379. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Monica Carter can be reached on (571) 272-4475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHARONDA T FELTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights