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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 2/26/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/20/2025, with respect to the 103 rejections with regard to prior art reference Jiang et al. (CN 103014276) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejections have been withdrawn.
The rejections below, under 35 U.S.C. 103, are the same as those set forth in the office action mailed on 6/21/2024. The following is a response to the arguments and declaration filed on 9/18/2024, which were filed in response to the office action mailed on 6/21/2024.
Applicant's arguments and declaration filed on 9/18/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the declaration filed 9/18/2024, Applicant argues that shot peening produces non-flat surfaces, while laser shock peening produces flat surfaces. Applicant states that the non-flat surfaces produced with shot peening in Schaffer advantageously provides a frictional benefit. The declaration describes wherein Applicant performed tests including shot peening of a surface as well as laser shock processing of a surface, and Applicant found that the shot peening test resulted in a non-flat surface, while the laser shock peening test resulted in a flat surface.
In response to Applicant’s argument, it is noted that while laser shock peening can result in a flat surface, this is not always the case. In other words, depending on the laser parameters, laser shock peening can result in a flat or non-flat surface. For example, US 2017/0291256 discloses a method and apparatus for laser shock peening ballistic armor, and states, “Laser peening can also be used to peen form the shape of the ballistic armor. The compressive stress pattern, location and depth can be controlled to generate specific shapes of armor. These shapes can be used to create ballistic resistant shapes that provide greater protection than non-laser peen formed armor” [0008]. US 2011/0278271 is directed to a system and method for laser shock peening, and states, “A laser pulse may be used in place of a hammer blow or blast of shot to provide the peening impact on the metal surface. In a typical layer shot peening system, an opaque coating such as black tape or paint is applied to metal surface to form an ablative coating. A translucent layer, usually in the form of a flow of water, on top of the ablative coating acts as a tamp. Short laser pulses focused on the target surface explode the ablative coating, and the translucent layer directs the resulting shock wave into the surface of the target material. The laser beam may then be repositioned and the process repeated to create an array of slight indents of compression and depth in the surface of the target material” [0003]. US 2005/0182478 is directed to laser shock peening of medical devices, and describes wherein an “indent” is formed due to laser shock peening: “FIG. 2 is a diagrammatic view showing the formation of a single compressive residual stress region 32 within the workpiece of FIG. 1. As indicated by the semi-circular dashed line 34 in FIG. 2, the compressive residual stress region 32 may extend from an indent 36 formed on the target surface 16 of the workpiece 18 to a location deep within the interior of the workpiece 18” [0038]; with regard to Fig. 3, “As the pressure shock wave travels through the workpiece 48, first and second indents 54,56 are formed on the target surface 46 of the workpiece 48” [0042].
Therefore, Applicant’s argument that laser shock peening will necessarily produce a flat surface is not persuasive.
In the remarks filed on 9/18/2024, Applicant argues that differences between Applicant’s invention, Schaffer’s invention, and Tengalia’s invention indicate that these inventions are not in the same field of endeavor.
However, these three inventions are all directed to strengthening the surface of an object by a peening process ([0011] of Schaffer, [0002] of Tengalia, [0002] of Applicant's filed specification). Accordingly, both Schaffer and Tengalia are in the same field of endeavor as Applicant’s invention, and are considered analogous art.
Applicant also argues that modifying Schaffer to substitute shot peening with laser shock peening would render Schaffer unsatisfactory for its intended purpose and would change the principle of operation of Schaffer, due to Applicant’s allegation that Tengalia’s laser shock peening would necessarily result in a flat surface, rather than the non-flat surface that is advantageous to Schaffer’s invention.
However, as described above, laser shock peening does not necessarily result in a flat surface. Furthermore, there is nothing in Tengalia that indicates that a flat surface is formed by the laser shock peening performed in Tengalia. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument regarding the combination of Schaffer and Tengalia is not persuasive.
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 (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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3,6-8,10-14,20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaffer et al (US 2020/0214197) in view of Tengalia et al. (U.S 2005/0045607).
Schaffer discloses except where emphasized for claim 1: 1. (Original) A method for making a part, comprising: laser shock peening (¶¶5, 22,29,62,64,fig 2-5)at least part of a harvester component(¶3).
PNG
media_image1.png
648
471
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
695
433
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In ¶5, Schaffer teaches “compressive stress formed regions (which may be referred to as a non-flat region) can be applied to the top or bottom surface of the sickle bar or both top and bottom surfaces.”(fig 3,4,6,7,29 showing apertures 119,120 and edge between first and second bar surfaces 114,116 being flat).
PNG
media_image3.png
721
590
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Tengalia disclose in paragraphs 5-7 that laser shock peening causes much deeper treatment of an article than shot peening.
The advantage is to increase the depth of the mechanical stresses into material to more effectively prevent embrittlement and for improved fatigue limits.
Schaffer and Tengalia are in the same field of endeavor of improving fatigue strength and reasonably pertinent to the problem of the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schaffer’s having fastener projecting through one of the bar apertures 120 and one of the mounting apertures 119 of the sickle cutting section 104 by treating joints having fastening holes/apertures for sickle bar assemblies used in harvesters by substituting laser shock peening for shot peening to induce compressive residual stresses as taught by Tengalia to increase the depth of the mechanical stresses into material to more effectively prevent embrittlement and for improved fatigue limits.
2. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the harvester component comprises opposed flat sides (fig 3-7,¶¶ 19,20,22,74,58)and fastener holes 120 through opposed flat sides114,116. Sides are flat prior to peening.
3. (Original) The method of claim 2, comprising applying the laser shock peening symmetrically on the opposed flat sides(114,122,124,116,¶60), thereby minimizing distortion of the opposed flat sides ¶60. (Surface 114 of 102 includes non-flat region 122 with indentations 124 and same region is formed on surface 116). Schaffer teaches treating flat sides. Shot peening is not used for interlocking unlike knurling. The combination of references teach using laser shock peening for shot peening for deeper penetration and improvement in fatigue strength. Schaffer teaches treating symmetrically opposed flat sides thereby minimizing distortion ¶5,fig 8,9).
6. (Original) The method of claim 2, wherein the harvester component is elongated including a line of the fastener holes to include a first set proximate a mounting end and a second set distal from the mounting end, wherein the method comprises selectively applying the laser shock peening a treated region of the harvester component having the first set of the fastener holes, and avoiding shock peening outside of the treated region to provide an untreated region of the harvester component having the second set of the fastener holes.( ¶73 A first bar surface 314 has formed therein a non-flat surface region 322 forming a pattern 334 extends from a first bar end 310 only a partial distance 376 towards second bar end 326 to form a first drive region 378 along first bar surface 314. A bar first side flat region 380 extends from the second end 326 to the first drive region 378, fig 8,9:
PNG
media_image4.png
763
522
media_image4.png
Greyscale
)
7. (Original) The method of claim 2, further comprising applying the laser shock peening along a treated region proximate the fastening holes and avoiding the shock peening of an untreated region distal from the fastening holes.(¶83 For example, the diamond pattern could be applied only proximate the bar apertures 620 or alternatively, for example may be proximate the first bar end 610.)
PNG
media_image5.png
776
224
media_image5.png
Greyscale
8. (Original) The method of claim 7, wherein the harvester component is an elongated knifeback including a line of the fastener holes including pairs of fastening holes at sickle mounting locations, wherein the laser shock peening is applied to areas between fastening holes of select pairs of the fastening holes, and wherein regions are untreated of laser shock peening between adjacent select pairs.(¶78-79 -502 has a non-flat surface region 522 formed in a first bar surface 514 that is a plurality of non-flat surface regions 522 evenly spaced from a first bar end 510 to a second bar end 526 with a one of a plurality of bar first side flat regions 580 between adjacent ones of the plurality of non-flat surface regions 522.- each one of the plurality of non-flat surface regions 522 surrounds a respective one of a plurality of bar apertures 520 as these locations may experience greater stress relative to the remainder of the sickle bar 502 because of the mounting thereto of the sickle cutting sections ,fig 12-13)
PNG
media_image6.png
765
473
media_image6.png
Greyscale
10. (Original) The method of claim 2, comprising applying the laser shock peening around select fastener holes to at least cover a peened region of 0.4 centimeters surrounding each of select fastener holes, and wherein the laser shock peening is not applied to an untreated surface region outside of the peened region(¶¶88 Typically the sickle cutting sections 104 have a first lateral dimension (width) of between 6 and 9 centimeters, a second later dimension (length) of between 6 and 9 centimeters, 83 “the diamond pattern could be applied only proximate the bar apertures 620 or alternatively, for example may be proximate the first bar end 610.”,”at least” includes all of region around fastener hole and would have been optimization of peened region range).
11. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the laser shock peening is applied to substantially all of the harvester component(¶5).
12. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the laser shock peening is applied to less than 50% of the surface area of the harvester component (¶5 the entire top and/or bottom surface may be compress stress formed or select areas subject to greater loading during use.;¶83 For example, the diamond pattern could be applied only proximate the bar apertures 620 or alternatively, for example may be proximate the first bar end 610., fig 15).
13. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the harvester component is a knifeback comprising a single continuous elongated knifeback(fig 5 ,¶¶56,59,fig 1,2,¶2 “knifebacks[sickle bar], knife heads[108], and knife sections[ sickle cutting sections 104]¶3 ), or an assembly of elongated knifeback sections. Knifeback is a single continuous bar or multiple bar segments (¶3 applicant’s spec) and taught as a sickle bar 102 in Shaffer of a sickle assembly 100.
14. (Original) The method of claim 13, wherein the knifeback 102 has a length of greater than 4 meters, and wherein laser shock peening is applied only along a drive end of the knifeback within the first two meters from the drive end, wherein a distal portion beyond the first two meters is untreated, being free of laser shock peening(¶¶59 “between 0.3 and 15.3 meters…length will be at least 4 meters”,73,fig 8,9 show half portions).
20. (Original) The method of claim 1, further comprising configuring planar metal stock material into a harvester component part, the flat metal stock material chosen from: steel sheet, steel plate, steel bar or flattened coil steel; wherein the planar metal stock material has a thickness between opposed planar sides of between 0.08 and 2.0 centimeters (¶¶56 steel or alloy steel.,58,59 thickness 118 of between 4.7 and 20 mm.) .
21. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the harvester component is for an agricultural wear application and comprises: a knifeback, a knifehead, a straw chopper, a sickle section, stalk chopper, a bedknife, a sod cutter knife, a net wrap knife or a combine concave component (¶56the sickle cutting sections 104 and the knife head 108) .
22. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the laser shock peening is accomplished by applying an ablative layer to a base workpiece for the harvester component, applying a transparent overlay, and applying a laser beam pulse through the transparent overlay and to the ablative layer to create a shockwave into the workpiece.
The claim further differs in applying an ablative layer… transparent overlay, and applying a laser beam pulse through the transparent overlay and to the ablative layer to create a shockwave into the workpiece.
Tenaglia teaches applying an ablative liquid energy-absorbing, transparent overlay and laser energy (LSP)to create a shockwave in the abstract(¶ 7, fig 1)for resistance to erosion, dissolution and drying.
The advantage is resistance to erosion, dissolution and drying.
The references are in the same field of endeavor of improving fatigue strength and reasonably pertinent to the problem of the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schaffer by applying an ablative layer… transparent overlay, and applying a laser beam pulse through the transparent overlay and to the ablative layer to create a shockwave into the workpiece as taught by Tengalia for resistance to erosion, dissolution and drying.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaffer et al (US 2020/0214197) in view of Tengalia et al. (U.S 2005/0045607) as applied to claim 3 above further in view of McCoy et al (US 9227268).
4. (Original) The method of claim 3, wherein the laser shock peening is simultaneously applied to the opposed flat sides. (Schaffer teaches treating symmetrically opposed flat sides distortion ¶5,fig 8,9).
The claim differs in laser shock peening being simultaneously applied to the opposed flat sides.
McCoy teaches LSP applied simultaneously on opposed flat sides in c 7 l 15-20; c 8 l 40-50.
The advantage is imparting fatigue strength and diverting cracks that propagate.
The references are in the same field of endeavor of improving fatigue strength and reasonably pertinent to the problem of the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schaffer- Tengalia by applying laser shock peening simultaneously to opposed flat sides as taught by McCoy to impart fatigue strength and divert cracks that propagate.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaffer et al (US 2020/0214197) - Tengalia et al. (U.S 2005/0045607) as applied to claim 3 above further in view of Hand (EP 1103725).
5. (Original) The method of claim 3, wherein the harvester component includes opposed edge surfaces extending perpendicular between the opposed flat sides, further comprising applying the laser shock peening symmetrically on the opposed edge surfaces.
(¶ 5 For example, compressive stress formed regions (which may be referred to as a non-flat region) can be applied to the top or bottom surface of the sickle bar or both top and bottom surfaces. Further, the entire top and/or bottom surface may be compress stress formed or select areas subject to greater loading during use.¶¶12,57 Furthermore, third area 201 is designed or induced in such a way that both, the first region 101 and the second region 111 overlap with the third area 201 when the butt-joint configuration is established.) Schaffer teaches shot peening penetrating thickness and the combination of references teaches improvement of that penetration by the laser shock peening so that alone or in combination edge surfaces are treated(¶5, fig 8,9).
The claim differs in applying the laser shock peening symmetrically on the opposed edge surfaces.
Hand teaches in ¶18 applying LSP over entire area or constricted to regions at which fatigue cracking is likely to occur and can use LSP on some surfaces or shot peening on other regions. Laser shock peening process is applied to opposite sides 20 of each bar 16 rendering them less susceptible to fatigue failure(abstract, ¶9).
The advantage is rendering surfaces less susceptible to fatigue failure.
Schaffer- Tengalia- Hand are in the same field of endeavor of improving fatigue strength and reasonably pertinent to the problem of the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schaffer- Tengalia by applying LSP symmetrically on the opposed edge surfaces as taught by Hand for rendering surfaces less susceptible to fatigue failure.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaffer et al (US 2020/0214197) in view of Tengalia et al. (U.S 2005/0045607) as applied to claim 2 above further in view of Sugihashi et al (US 8354613).
9. (Original) The method of claim 2, comprising applying the laser shock peening along an internal hole surface extending between the opposed flat sides.
(¶5 the entire top and/or bottom surface may be compress stress formed or select areas subject to greater loading during use.). Schaffer teaches shot peening penetrating thickness and the combination of references teaches improvement of that penetration by the laser shock peening so that alone or in combination edge/hole surfaces are treated.
The claim differs in that laser shock peening is applied along an internal hole surface extending between the opposed flat sides.
Sugihashi teaches LSP inner surfaces of holes in c 3 l 60-c4 l 5.
The advantage is imparting fatigue strength and diverting cracks that propagate.
The references are in the same field of endeavor of improving fatigue strength and reasonably pertinent to the problem of the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schaffer- Tengalia by applying laser shock peening along an internal hole surface extending between the opposed flat sides as taught by Sugihashi for imparting fatigue strength and diverting cracks that propagate.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaffer et al (US 2020/0214197) - Tengalia et al. (U.S 2005/0045607) as applied to claim 13 above further in view of Stoffel (US 20100050587)
15. (Original) The method of claim 13, wherein the knifeback is the assembly of elongated knifeback sections, and where only a first drive end section of the elongated knifeback sections is laser shock peened at least around the fastening holes in the first drive end section(¶¶59,73,fig 8,9).
The claim differs in that the knifeback is the assembly of elongated knifeback sections.
Stoffel teaches modular sickle cutting sections 1 and 2 affixed to both upper modular bar 4 and lower modular bar 5 thereby joining the sickle sections 1 and 2 to the bars 4 and 5 to create a knifeback assembly.
The advantage is utilizing modular sickle bars to ease handling and shipment of replacement sickles, and improved structural integrity of the knifeback assembly because such system locks the modules together in planes parallel and perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the knifeback portion of the sickle bar.
Schaffer and Tengalia and Stoffel are in the same field of endeavor of improving fatigue strength and reasonably pertinent to the problem of the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schaffer’s sickle bar by making it modular assembly of elongated knifeback sections as taught by Stoffel to ease handling and shipment of replacement sickles, and improved structural integrity. Stoffel is disclosed in applicant’s ¶3 as known in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH KERR whose telephone number is (571)272-3073. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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.
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights