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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. 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examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 09/30/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to Claim 10 are supported by at least ¶0049 of the specification.
New Claim 18 was reviewed alongside the specification and drawings, yet no support was found.
New Claim 19 is supported at least by ¶0053 of the specification alongside what one of ordinary skill would understand when reading said excerpt, since the language added to the claim is not presented in the same form in the specification.
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.
Claim 18 is 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 18 has been newly added and recites “…positions of through holes in the first machine and the second machine…”. Applicant points to ¶0049 as the support for the amendments to the claims in the remarks dated 09/30/2025. ¶0049 of the specification does not discuss through holes in the first machine and the second machine. Applicant designates the first machine is Item 84 and the second machine is item 86. These items appear in Applicant’s Figures 5 and 11 without specifically calling out through holes in the machines. The specification discusses Items 84 or 86 in ¶0047-0050 and ¶0053. There was no mention of through holes in the machines found during the review of these portions of the specification.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 18 recites “through holes”. Claim 10, from which Claim 18 depends, also recites “through-holes”. It is unclear if these are referring to the same through holes or not.
Claim 19 recites “to drill the through-holes in the first machine”. It is unclear whether the through-holes are being drilled in the first machine itself, or if the through-holes are being drilled while the ceramic airfoil is placed in the first machine.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
Claims 10-12 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed (US20130206739A1) Cao (CN-112008262-A), further in view of Koski (US20220234142A1), Kostar (US20050170762A1), Hu (US20170320163A1) and Gallier (US20170328217A1).
Claim 10
Reed teaches a method of machining cooling holes, the method comprising: providing an airfoil in which cooling holes are to be formed (Figure 2A teaches an airfoil (22) that has multiple cooling holes (60) formed in the surface. Figure 28A teaches one example of the forming of hole. ¶0150 teaches that a number of techniques are covered by the method, including combinations of laser machining, mechanical machining, and combinations thereof.), wherein the cooling holes once formed each define distinct first and second sections (Figures 4-5 show a cooling hole formed via the invention where there is a first section (metering section, 112) and a second section (diffusing section, 114) that are distinct from one another. Wall (100) is interpreted as an airfoil workpiece.), in the first machine, using a laser to drill through-holes in the ceramic airfoil, each of the through-holes being spatially common to the first and second sections of a respective one of the cooling holes using a machining method to expand a portion of each of the through-holes to form the second section. (¶0193 teaches a combined manufacturing method for the hole where a laser is used to drill the metering section (interpreted as a through hole passing through the workpiece) and then a mechanical machining method is used to form the diffusing section. The paragraph states that the laser beam forms the metering section by passing through the wall from either side of the wall, then the diffusing section is done via machining the lobes.)
Reed does not explicitly disclose generating a solid form model of the cooling hole from a difference between a first computerized 3-dimensional model of the workpiece with the cooling hole and a second computerized 3-dimensional model of the workpiece without the cooling hole; partitioning the solid form model into cross-sections.
However, Cao teaches generating a solid form model of the cooling hole from a difference between a first computerized 3-dimensional model of the workpiece with the cooling hole and a second computerized 3-dimensional model of the workpiece without the cooling hole; partitioning the solid form model into cross-sections. (Lines 66-71 and 179-190 along with Figure 4 teach the reverse building of a solid model for a hole, where a drawing of a workpiece with the holes and a body model of the real workpiece are used. Lines 73-78 and 192-207 along with Figure 5-6 teach the slicing of the three dimensional model in a direction perpendicular of the punching (interpreted as drilling/laser boring) axis.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known modeling and slicing technique of Cao to the hole formation method of Reed in order to increase the processing accuracy and manufacturing quality of the shaped hole. See Cao Lines 48-49. Using a CAD model to control the cutting device enables greater precision. (General engineering rationale)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known modeling and slicing technique of Cao to the hole formation method of Reed because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method, ready for improvement, to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143 (I)(D).
Reed does not explicitly disclose scanning the laser across the workpiece along a toolpath in each of the cross-sections to cause removal of material of the workpiece layer-by-layer.
However Koski teaches the use of the laser includes scanning the laser across the workpiece in accordance with the second computerized 3-dimensional model to cause removal of material of the workpiece layer-by-layer. (Figures 4-13 teach the laser machining of a hole (210) in a turbine component (200) that is done layer by layer (SL1-SL6) with intermediate steps to true up the sidewalls (See Figure 5 and ¶0049-0050). ¶0063 teaches the system can have the data that is a model. This is interpreted as the laser drilling being done in accordance with a model.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known layer by layer removal technique of Koski to the laser removal method of Reed in order to allow removal of excess sidewall material during each slice and form the sidewalls to specification. (See Koski ¶0050)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known layer by layer removal technique of Koski to the laser removal method of Reed because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method, ready for improvement, to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143 (I)(D).
Reed does not explicitly disclose using ultrasonic machining to expand a portion of each of the through-holes to form the second section; and draining an abrasive slurry through each of the through-holes during the ultrasonic machining. Reed does disclose that mechanical machining is used to form the second section of the hole. (See ¶0193 and Figure 28A) Reed also discloses the use of “superabrasive” machining (¶0191).
However, Kostar teaches using ultrasonic machining on a turbine blade workpiece and draining an abrasive slurry at the site of the machining. (Figure 2 teaches a tool assembly (50) that is for machining a blade (10) (¶0015) that has a tool (52) and an ultrasonic vibration unit (56). There is also an abrasive particle guide (60) that is in fluid communication with a supply of abrasive particles (¶0017) that are in a slurry.) The use of the ultrasonic machining tool of Kostar to perform the mechanical machining in Reed is interpreted as enlarging the diffusing section, which already has a hole (metering section) running through the workpiece, so the slurry that is used during the machining method of Kostar is interpreted as draining through this existing metering section hole.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to substitute the known ultrasonic machining method of Kostar for the mechanical machining method in Reed in order to use a machining method that is cost-effective and highly reliable for machining of a turbine engine blade. (See Kostar ¶0025)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to substitute the known ultrasonic machining method of Kostar for the mechanical machining method in Reed because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to substitute one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143 (I)(B).
Reed does not disclose the airfoil being secured in a fixture that is mounted in a first machine; after drilling the through-holes, reducing error of a position of the ceramic airfoil relative to the fixture by, after drilling the through holes, removing the fixture with the airfoil secured therein from the first machine and, without removing the ceramic airfoil form the fixture, mounting the fixture in a second chuck of a second machine, the first chuck and the second chuck being of common type such that the fixture is securable into both the first check and the second chuck.
However, Hu teaches the workpiece being secured in a fixture that is mounted in a first chuck of a first machine (Figure 1 and ¶0022 teaches each machine (110, 120) has a chuck (132, 142) configured to receive the adapter (160). The adapter (160) is a fixture. ¶0022 teaches the chucks have a common mounting device for the adapter.); reducing error of a position of the ceramic airfoil relative to the fixture by, after drilling the through-holes, removing the fixture with the workpiece secured therein from the first machine (Applicant describes this reduction of error in ¶0049 as pertaining to the workpiece being mounted on a fixture that fits on a type chuck that is common to both machines, allowing for the workpiece to be moved to each machine without having to remove the workpiece from the fixture. In Hu, the machining system has two machines (110, 120) that have chucks (132, 142) that are configured to receive the same adapter (160). ¶0022 teaches the chucks have a common mounting device for the adapter. Therefore, Hu teaches the same reduction of error during moving of the workpiece from one machine station to another.) and without removing the ceramic airfoil from the fixture, mounting the fixture in a second chuck of a second machine; (Figure 1 teaches a combined system for machining a common workpiece (102) that has a laser device (110) and another machining tool (EDM device, 120). The workpiece is mounted to a fixture (160) that fits onto chucks (132, 142) on each machine. ¶0022 teaches the fixture moves with the workpiece throughout the processes.) the first chuck and the second chuck being of common type such that the fixture is securable into both the first chuck and the second chuck (¶0022 teaches that each of the chucks provide a common mounting device for the adapter.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the known dual machine positioning technique (including chucks, adapter, and position control systems) of Hu to the dual machining process method of Reed in order to machine features on the same workpiece with a high level of control of their relative position through the use of the common design data, adapter, and chucks to provide a consistent reference for positioning both tools. (See Hu ¶0022)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known dual machine positioning technique (including chucks, adapter, and position control systems) of Hu to the dual machining process method of Reed because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method, ready for improvement, to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143 (I)(D).
Reed does not explicitly disclose the use of a ceramic material for the airfoil.
However, Gallier teaches a ceramic (CMC) turbine airfoil that has cooling holes formed in it. (¶0030 teaches making a turbine component out of CMC. Figure 4 shows an airfoil with cooling passages (100).)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to substitute the known ceramic material of Gallier for the workpiece material of Reed in order to use a material that has a high temperature capability. (See Gallier ¶0030) The laser and ultrasonic machining methods of Reed in view of Kostar and Hu are interpreted as functioning as intended with a ceramic component.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to substitute the known ceramic material of Gallier for the workpiece material of Reed because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to substitute one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143 (I)(B).
Claim 11
Reed in view of Cao, Koski, Kostar, Hu and Gallier teaches the method as recited in claim 10, wherein each of the through-holes is of constant cross-section along a longitudinal central axis of the through-hole. (Reed, Figure 4 teaches the through hole (metering section, 112) has a constant cross section along the axis (118). It is interpreted that the second, diffusing, section causes the rest of the hole to have a differing cross section.)
Claim 12
Reed in view of Cao, Koski, Kostar, Hu and Gallier teaches the method as recited in claim 11, wherein the second section is of non-uniform cross- section along the longitudinal central axis. (Reed, Figures 4-5 teach the second section (114) has a non-uniform cross section, as it is tapered.)
Claim 16
Reed in view of Cao, Koski, Kostar, Hu and Gallier teaches the method as recited in claim 10, including determining compensated linear and rotational positions of the through-holes and using the compensated linear and rotational positions in the ultrasonic machining. (Hu, ¶0022 (end) teaches that the two machines communicate with one another using position control systems (134, 144) and common design data. The workpiece is probed by the position control system and a coordinate shift is calculated and recorded to the common design data to be communicated to the other machine. This communication is interpreted as communicating the design data from the through-hole to the other machining process, which in the combination of Reed and Kostar, is ultrasonic machining.)
Claim 17
Reed in view of Cao, Koski, Kostar, Hu and Gallier teaches the method as recited in claim 10, wherein the laser is a water-jet guided laser. (Reed, ¶0193 teaches the combined method where a laser is used to form the metering section. ¶0015 teaches that the first technique (to form the metering hole) can be fluid jet guided laser machining.)
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed (US20130206739A1) Cao (CN-112008262-A), Koski (US20220234142A1), Kostar (US20050170762A1), Hu (US20170320163A1) and Gallier (US20170328217A1), as applied in Claim 10, further in view of Sumiya (JPH10249676A) (text citations are from the machine translation).
Claim 18
Reed in view of Cao, Koski, Kostar, Hu and Gallier teaches the method as recited in claim 10, wherein the machining system uses first and second machines, corresponding chucks, and a fixture. (Hu, Figure 1 teaches two machines (112, 122) with chucks (132, 142) and a fixture (160) for carrying the workpiece.)
Reed in view of Cao, Koski, Kostar, Hu and Gallier does not explicitly disclose positions of through holes in the first machine and the second machine are references to a coordinate system of the fixture.
However, Sumiya teaches positions of through holes in the first machine and the second machine are references to a coordinate system of the fixture. (Figures 2 and 3 teach first (C) and second (M) machines that a fixture (2) is transferred between during the process (See ¶0013-0014). The through holes (See ¶0009 stating that the holes can be through holes) in the first machine (See items 13 and 14) and in the second machine (see items 24 and 25) are measured by a coordinate measuring system (¶0009) to determine their distance from the work (¶0013).)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known through holes in the chuck and measuring technique of Sumiya to the system of Reed in view of Cao, Koski, Kostar, Hu and Gallier in order to improve the accuracy and operation of the machining centers by performing position measurement of the workpiece in relation to a known location on the machines. (Rationale based on the general disclosure of Sumiya)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known through holes in the chuck and measuring technique of Sumiya to the system of Reed in view of Cao, Koski, Kostar, Hu and Gallier because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method, ready for improvement, to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143 (I)(D).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed (US20130206739A1) Cao (CN-112008262-A), Koski (US20220234142A1), Kostar (US20050170762A1), Hu (US20170320163A1) and Gallier (US20170328217A1), as applied in Claim 10, further in view of Szuba (US6094793A).
Claim 19
Reed in view of Cao, Koski, Kostar, Hu and Gallier teaches the method as recited in claim 10, wherein the system uses a laser to drill through holes while the workpiece is in a first machine (Hu, Figure 1, Item 112), then the workpiece is moved to a second machine (Hu ¶0022). The system of Hu also has position control systems. (134, 144)
Reed in view of Cao, Koski, Kostar, Hu and Gallier does not explicitly disclose after the using of the laser to drill the through-holes in the first machine, determining a setup error and a compensated tool position from the setup error, the using of the ultrasonic machining in the second machine conducted based upon the compensated tool position.
However, Szuba teaches after a first procedure using a first machine (Figure 12 teaches a part (62) that is clamped to a fixture (63). The operation of moving and of clamping the part to the fixture is a first procedure.), determining a setup error and a compensated tool position from the setup error (Figure 12 teaches a part sensing system (64) that develops signals representative of the exact position and angular orientation of the part (See Col. 5 Lines 53-57) and sends said information to a controller. The controller then compares this coordinate data to the desired and determines deviations (setup errors) (See Col. 5, Lines 60-63). These calculated errors are used for offsetting the control programs of the machining stations (See Col. 6, Lines 5-10).), and a second machine conducted based upon the compensated tool position. (Col. 6, Lines 1-7 teach that the recorded errors are used to offset the machine control program at machining stations.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known positional scanning and machine control program offsets technique of Szuba to the machining method of Reed in view of Cao, Koski, Kostar, Hu and Gallier in order to machine the part in accordance with the real position of the part rather than the intended position of the part. (See Szuba Col. 6, Lines 1-8)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known positional scanning and machine control program offsets technique of Szuba to the machining method of Reed in view of Cao, Koski, Kostar, Hu and Gallier because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method, ready for improvement, to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143 (I)(D).
The predictable result is that the system of Reed in view of Cao, Koski, Kostar, Hu and Gallier, which uses position control systems (See Hu, Figure 1, Items 134 and 144) associated with the two machining centers, and machines a workpiece while it is located on a fixture at each workstation (See Hu ¶0022), will have a position scanning step for determining intended versus actual coordinates of portions of the workpiece, and use any deviations found to correct the machining program at the machine centers based on the teachings of Szuba.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks filed 05/22/2023, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-17 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Reed in view of Cao, Koski, Kostar, Hu and Gallier does not teach the newly added limitations in Claim 10. However, the rejection above has been updated with additional discussion regarding the Hu reference to meet the limitations added to Claim 10.
Applicant does not argue Claims 18-19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found on the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited Form.
US6483076B1: Figure 2 teaches a method of determining positional data regarding the workpiece, comparing this data to a predetermined criteria, then moving the workpiece based on this information.
US20160245092A1: Figure 11 teaches a method that includes workpiece inspection/scanning, modifying the data set based on the information gained, then determining a new machining path based on the new data.
US20100228384A1: ¶0024-¶0027 teaches a method of scanning a workpiece to determine the current clamping situation, detecting deviations from target, and changing the control data based on these deviations.
US4370721A: The abstract teaches a method that includes modifying coordinate data in a machining program in response to measurements of a workpiece.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL WAYNE HOTCHKISS whose telephone number is (571)272-3854. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY from 0800-1600.
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, DAVID BRYANT can be reached on 571-272-4526. 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.
/MICHAEL W HOTCHKISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726