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, 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/25/2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “height of the machining area” of claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-4 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 1 recites the limitation "the rotation center of the A-axis rotary assembly" in lines 15-16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the process" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the cutter" in lines 16-17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Please be advised that Applicant previously set forth “a tool” in line 7 of claim 1 not “a cutter”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the workpiece" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Please be advised that Applicant previously set forth “a blisk” in line 5 of claim 1 not “a workpiece”.
Lines 16-17 of claim 1 state, “the A-axis rotary assembly does not rotate during the process of the cutter machining the workpiece.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to what the claimed process encompasses. Does the claimed process only include the time when the cutter is machining the workpiece? For example, the workpiece is indexed/rotated by the A-axis rotary assembly from one angular position to another. Does this indexing/rotating of the workpiece from one angular position to another such that a different portion of the workpiece is accessible for machining not count toward to the process? If it does count, then clearly the A-axis rotary assembly does indeed rotate during the process of the cutter machining the workpiece. If it does not count, is this say that the claimed process starts and stops, for example, with each time the cutter is brought into and out of contact with the workpiece?
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 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.
Lines 15-16 of claim 1 state, “wherein the height of the machining area is the same as that of the rotation center of the A-axis rotary assembly.” This limitation fails to comply with the written description requirement.
First, with respect to the specification filed on 7/22/2022, at no point therein is a height of the machining area ever mentioned. Likewise, with respect to the specification filed on 7/22/2022, at no point therein is a height of a rotation center of the A-axis rotary assembly ever mentioned. Note that Applicant never actually discusses “a rotation center of the A-axis rotary assembly,” (emphasis added) but instead discloses that “a central axis of the A-axis turntable is the rotation axis of the blisk” (emphasis added) in paragraph [0006] of the specification. It is believed that the claimed rotation center of the A-axis rotary assembly corresponds to the disclosed central axis of the A-axis turntable. Having said that, it does not change the fact that at no point within the specification filed on 7/22/2022 is height of the rotation center/central axis of the A-axis turntable ever mentioned. Please note that while Applicant discloses, for example, that “the machining area is near the rotation center of the C-axis turntable” (please see paragraphs [0015] and [0019]), Applicant never delves into either a height of the machining area or into a height of the rotation center/central axis of the A-axis turntable. Based on the foregoing, the specification does not provide disclosure for, “wherein the height of the machining area is the same as that of the rotation center of the A-axis rotary assembly.”
Next, with respect to the drawings filed on 7/22/2022 and on 10/14/2025, the machining area is never specifically pointed to. Moreover, dimensions of the machining area including a height thereof are never shown in any of Figures 1-4. As such, it is not possible to tell from Figures 1-4 of the drawings as to whether or not, “the height of the machining area is the same as that of the rotation center of the A-axis rotary assembly.”
Based on the foregoing, neither the drawings nor the specification demonstrate that the Applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liechti (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2005/0271488 A1) in view of Johnson (U.S. Patent No. 3,359,861 A).
Liechti and Johnson were each cited on the PTO-892 that was mailed on 8/29/2024.
Claim 1: Figure 10 of Liechti shows a blisk machining center. Noting this, Figure 10 of Liechti
has been annotated and provided below.
PNG
media_image1.png
787
926
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As can be seen above in annotated Figure 10, the blisk machining center comprises each of an A-axis rotary assembly (11), a C-axis rotary assembly (8), and an attachment head (6).
Regarding the A-axis rotary assembly (11), it drives a workpiece (1), e.g. a provided blisk, to rotate. Please be advised that Liechti advises that the A-axis rotary assembly (11) (which is referred to in the specification as a “housing”) includes a supporting component, a carrying part, as well as the bearings required for rotationally supporting a chucking device, and advises how said housing/A-axis rotary assembly (11) also accommodates the driving device for rotationally driving the chucking device [paragraph 0025]. Please note that it is by means of this chucking device that the workpiece (1), e.g. the provided blisk, is retained. Also, please note that Figures 2-9 show a variety of the possible embodiments of the A-axis rotary assembly (11).
Regarding the C-axis rotary assembly (8), it is a revolving turntable (8) [paragraph 0033] that drives the A-axis rotary assembly (11) to rotate about, for example, a vertical rotation axis.
With regards to the attachment head (6), it drives a mounted tool (9) to rotate so as to machine the workpiece (1), e.g. the provided blisk.
Liechti; however, doesn’t provide disclosure upon the blisk machining center further comprising a “B-axis rotary assembly,” wherein “the B-axis rotary assembly drives [the] attachment head to rotate.” Thus, Liechti also doesn’t disclose a tip point of the tool (9) being “on the rotation axis of the B-axis rotary assembly; wherein a rotation axis of the attachment head forms an angle with the rotation axis of the B-axis rotary assembly, where the angle is 45°.” Please note that Figure 10 shows the tool (9) being oriented such that a longitudinal center axis thereof extends horizontally.
Figures 1-3 of Johnson though, show an assembly comprising an attachment head (20) and a B-axis rotary assembly (18) to which the attachment head (20) is mounted. With regards to the attachment head (20), it drives a tool (24) via a cutting tool driving means (22) to machine a workpiece [column 1, line 70 – column 2, line 1]. As to the B-axis rotary assembly (18), it is rotatable upon a rotation axis which is perpendicular to a plane of movement of a corresponding vertical slide (12) [column 1, lines 54-56]. That is to say that the rotation axis of the B-axis rotary assembly (18) is parallel to a horizontal plane. Note that Johnson advises that the rotation axis of the B-axis rotary assembly (18) is “normal to the Z-Z axis and parallel to the Y-Y axis” [column 1, lines 56-58], and Figure 1 shows the Y-Y axis as extending in the horizontal plane.
Next, since the attachment head (20) is mounted to the B-axis rotary assembly (18) (see Figures 1-3), said B-axis rotary assembly (18) functions to drive the attachment head (20) about the (horizontal) rotation axis which is perpendicular to the (vertical) plane of movement of the vertical slide (12). Be advised that a tip point of the tool (24) is on the rotation axis of the B-axis rotary assembly (18) [column 2, lines 4-8], where a rotation axis of the attachment head (20) forms an angle with the rotation axis of the B-axis rotary assembly (18), the angle being 45° [column 1, lines 65-69]. Also, be advised that Figures 1-3 of Johnson show the movements possible so as to orient the tool (24). Like in Liechti, for example, the tool (24) of Johnson is able to be oriented such that a longitudinal center axis thereof extends horizontally (see Figures 2 and 3). The tool (24) though, can additionally be oriented such that the longitudinal center axis thereof extends at a downward angle or instead at an upward angle (see Figures 1 and 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the attachment head (6) of Liechti with the assembly of Johnson said assembly comprising the attachment head (20) and the B-axis rotary assembly (18) of Johnson, so as to provide the blisk machining center of Liechti with the advantage of being able to orient the tool (24) that is received by the attachment head (20) into a variety of different orientations with respect to the workpiece (1) that is retained by the A-axis rotary assembly (11) of Liechti. In making this modification, it is noted that the B-axis rotary assembly (18) of the assembly of Johnson is located where the attachment head (6) of Liechti was located prior to being replaced. This is because, the (now-replaced) attachment head (6) of Liechti provided for rotation about a horizontal axis, and because the B-axis rotary assembly (18) of Johnson is itself rotatable about a horizontal rotation axis.
As such, in the modified blisk machining center of Liechti, the B-axis rotary assembly (18) drives the attachment head (20) to rotate about the (horizontal) rotation axis which is parallel to a horizontal plane of Liechti, and the attachment head (20) drives the tool (24) to rotate to machine the workpiece (1), e.g. the provided blisk.
Also, in the modified blisk machining center of Liechti, as it pertains to the B-axis rotary assembly (18) thereof, an intersection of the rotation axis of the B-axis rotary assembly (18) and the rotation axis of the C-axis rotary assembly (8) is “a center of a machining area” at which the workpiece (1), e.g. the provided blisk, undergoes machining. This is because this intersection between the (horizontal) rotation axis of the B-axis rotary assembly and the (vertical) rotation axis of the C-axis rotary assembly (8) occurs at the center of the revolving turntable (8) of said C-axis rotary assembly (8), and this revolving turntable (8) helps to define the machining area at which the provided workpiece (1), e.g. the provided blisk, undergoes machining.
Next, in the modified blisk machining center of Liechti, the tip point of the tool (24) is on the rotation axis of the B-axis rotary assembly (18) [Johnson, column 2, lines 4-8], wherein the rotation axis of the attachment head (20) forms an angle with the rotation axis of the B-axis rotary assembly (18), the angle being 45° [Johnson, column 1, lines 65-69].
As it pertains to the A-axis rotary assembly (11), it is capable of being operated so as to only index the workpiece (1), e.g. the provided blisk, in-between processes of machining said workpiece (1). That is to say that the A-axis rotary assembly (11) is capable of being operated such that it does not rotate during a process of the tool/cutter (24) machining the workpiece (1), e.g. the provided blisk. For example, during a given process in which the tool/cutter (24) is in physical contact with the workpiece (1) so as to machine the workpiece (1), the A-axis rotary assembly (11) does not rotate during this time. Based on the foregoing, “the A-axis rotary assembly does not rotate during the process of the cutter machining the workpiece.”
Lastly, a height of the machining area is the same as a height of a rotation center of the A-axis rotary assembly (11). This will now be explained.
In the modified blisk machining center of Liechti, the height of the machining area thereof corresponds to, for example, a height of the assembly of Johnson with respect to the vertical Y-axis direction (this is because the tool/cutter (24) that performs machining is mounted to the assembly of Johnson), said assembly comprising the attachment head (20) and the B-axis rotary assembly (18) of Johnson. In order to better explain this point, Examiner directs attention to Figure 1 of Liechti. As can be seen in Figure 1, a height of attachment head (6) of Liechti is able to be made equal to a height of the rotation center of the A-axis rotary assembly (11), since the attachment head (6) of Liechti is translatable in the vertical Y-axis direction.
Next, noting again that in the modified blisk machining center of Liechti that the attachment head (6) of Liechti was replaced with the assembly of Johnson in the aforedescribed modification, and further noting again that the height of the machining area in the modified blisk machining center corresponds to a height of the assembly of Johnson with respect to the vertical Y-axis direction, please be advised that when the assembly of Johnson is vertically translated so as to be brought to a height (with respect to the vertical Y-axis direction) that is equal to the height of the rotation center of the A-axis rotary assembly (11), the result is “the height of the machining area is the same as a height of a rotation center of the A-axis rotary assembly [11].”
Claim 2: The C-axis rotary assembly (8) of Liechti is a C-axis revolving turntable (8). It is noted that the vertical rotation axis corresponding to the C-axis revolving turntable (8) is perpendicular to the horizontal plane.
As to the A-axis rotary assembly (11) of Liechti, Figures 2-9 show a variety of embodiments thereof. When, for example, the A-axis rotary assembly (11) is embodied as is shown in Figure 8 of Liechti, the A-axis rotary assembly (11) is an A-axis turntable (11) comprising the chucking device (2) and driving device (3) for driving the workpiece (1), e.g. the provided blisk, to rotate about a horizonal axis. It is noted that the vertical rotation axis corresponding to the C-axis revolving turntable (8) is perpendicular to the horizontal rotation axis of the workpiece (1), e.g. the provided blisk, on the A-axis rotary assembly (11).
Also, as broadly claimed, the A-axis turntable (11) and the C-axis turntable (8) of Liechti are “detachably connected.” In order to satisfy this limitation, all that is required is for the A-axis turntable (11) and the C-axis turntable (8), which are shown as being connected to one another in Figure 10 of Liechti, to be detachable from one another in some manner. Note that dependent claim 2 does not set forth, for example, any particular structure for detachably connecting the claimed A-axis turntable and the claim C-axis turntable to one another. With respect to Liechti, when the A-axis turntable (11) is embodied as it (11) is shown in Figure 8 of Liechti, for example, said A-axis turntable (11) is formed from a series of different parts (2, 3, 4, 5, 10) (notice the varying hatching lines, for example), that are connected to the C-axis turntable (8) of Liechti. Since this series of different parts (2, 3, 4, 5, 10) is not integral/monolithic, they (2, 3, 4, 5, 10) are capable of being disassembled from one another and can therefore be detached from the C-axis revolving turntable (8) with tools selected by an operator. For example, any bolts holding the series of different parts (2, 3, 4, 5, 10) together can be removed with a wrench, thereby dissembling said different parts (2, 3, 4, 5, 10) from one another and from the C-axis revolving turntable (8). (Please note that these are but one example that Examiner could have presented for disassembly). With this disassembly, the A-axis turntable (11) and the C-axis turntable (8) are detached from one another, and are therefore “detachably connected”.
Regarding the B-axis rotary assembly (18) of the modified blisk machining center of Liechti, attention is directed to annotated Figures 1-3 of Johnson. Be advised that the B-axis rotary assembly (18) includes the attachment head (20) on which the tool (24) is fixed, because the attachment head (20) is carried by the B-axis rotary assembly (18) [see Johnson, column 1, lines 61-63]. Also, as can be seen in Figures 1 and 3 of Johnson, the B-axis rotary assembly (18) is itself embodied as a B-axis turntable that drives the attachment head (20) to rotate about the (horizontal) rotation axis of the B-axis rotation assembly (18).
Claim 3: As can be seen in Figure 10 of Liechti , the A-axis turntable (11) is fixed to top surface of the C-axis turntable (8). Next, note that Figures 2-9 of Liechti show a variety of embodiments of the A-axis turntable (11). When, for example, the A-axis turntable (11) is embodied as is shown in Figure 8 of Liechti, a central axis of the A-axis turntable (11) (wherein the central axis is shown in dashed lines as extending through the chucking device (2)), is the rotation axis of the workpiece (1), e.g. the provided blisk.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liechti (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2005/0271488 A1) in view of in view of Johnson (U.S. Patent No. 3,359,861 A), and further in view of Kraft et al. (U.S. PG Publication No. 2014/0342889 A1).
Kraft was previously cited on the PTO-892 that was mailed on 4/2/2025.
Claim 4: Liechti doesn’t disclose the blisk machining center as “further comprising a tool magazine for changing the tool, wherein the tool magazine comprises a cutter head and a tool holder, the cutter head is rotatably connected to the tool holder, a rotation axis of the cutter head is parallel to the horizontal plane, and the tool is snap connected to a side edge of the cutter head.”
Figure 4 of Kraft et al. though, shows therein a tool magazine (10) for the changing of tools (2), wherein the tool magazine (10) comprises a cutter head in the form of an annular wheel, and a plurality of tool openings (11) that are disposed about a side edge of the of the cutter head/ annular wheel. The tool magazine (10) of Kraft et al. further comprises a tool holder (14, 16), and the cutter head/annular wheel is rotatably connected to the tool holder (14, 16), a rotation axis of the cutter head/annular wheel being parallel to a horizontal plane. Lastly, with regards to the plurality of tool openings (11), the tools (2) are locked in the plurality of tool openings (11), and an active lock is carried out in this connection by a snap-on connection to the tools (2) where said tools (2) are automatically locked in a positive engagement [Kraft et al., paragraph 0075]. Thus, tools (2) are snap connected to the side edge of the cutter head/annular wheel. Please be advised that Figure 4 of Kraft et al. shows a tool changer device (30) for the changing of a tool (2) between the tool magazine and an attachment head (41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the blisk machining center of Liechti with the tool magazine and the tool changer device (30) of Kraft et al., so as to provide the blisk machining center of Liechti with the advantage of being able to perform tool exchange.
In making this modification, when the tool (24) of the modified blisk machining center of Liechti is worn or broken, for example, a new tool from the newly-provided tool magazine can be indexed into a tool changing position by rotating the cutter head/annular wheel of the tool magazine of Kraft et al. about the rotation axis, and removing the new tool from the corresponding one of the plurality of tool openings (11) (to which the new tool was snap connected) and then inserting the new tool into the attachment head (20) in place of said worn or broken tool (24) with the tool changer device (30).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1 and Liechti/Johnson, Applicant argues the following:
The claimed machining center recites at least a distinguishing technical feature - the intersection point of the rotation axis of the B-axis rotary assembly and the rotation axis of the C-axis rotary assembly is the center of the machining area of the blisk (8); the machining area is at the same height as the rotation center of the A-axis rotary assembly; and the A-axis rotary assembly does not rotate during the process of the cutter machining the workpiece.
In Liechti, the spindle is a conventional horizontal spindle, and the machining axis system is a five-axis system consisting of three linear coordinates XYZ, a rotary axis of the turntable and a rotary axis of the blisk. For blisk-type workpieces, machining can only be achieved through the simultaneous movement of the five axes including the two rotary axes. Therefore, during the machining process, the attitude of the blades must be adjusted by the rotation of the blisk to realize machining, meaning the blisk is in constant rotation. As the blisk rotates, the height and position of the machining area in Liechti also change continuously. This point is also explicitly recognized in the Office Action, which states that the machining in Liechti is achieved through the simultaneous rotation of the blisk axis and the turntable axis. In the processing state where the blisk axis is in continuous coordinated rotation, the machining position of the workpiece changes continuously in the circumferential direction of the blisk, and the rotation error will be amplified, which is detrimental to the stability of the surface profile accuracy of the workpiece. This structure also dictates that when the blisk axis rotates, the linear axes require an extremely high dynamic response speed for coordination, thus imposing extremely high requirements on the movement speed and acceleration range of each axis, which is also unfavorable for maintaining the stability of machining accuracy. Please refer to the annotated drawings below of Liechti.
PNG
media_image2.png
287
482
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s argument has been considered, but is not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that, “For blisk-type workpieces, machining can only be achieved through the simultaneous movement of the five axes including the two rotary axes,” it is unclear to Examiner if Applicant is arguing that as it pertains to Liechti that for blisk-type workpieces that “machining can only be achieved through the simultaneous movement of the five axes including the two rotary axes,” or if instead, Applicant is arguing in general that when it comes to blisk-type workpieces that “machining can only be achieved through the simultaneous movement of the five axes including the two rotary axes.” If it is the latter, Examiner would like to note that in Applicant’s invention that a blisk-type workpiece is being machined. Furthermore, it is noted that Applicant claims at the very end of claim 1 that, “the A-axis rotary assembly does not rotate during the process of the cutting machining the workpiece.” Thus, on one hand, Applicant is arguing that machining “can only be achieved” (emphasis added) “through the simultaneous movement of the five axes including the two rotary axes,” but then on the other hand, Applicant is setting forth in claim 1 that, “the A-axis rotary assembly does not rotate during the process of the cutting machining the workpiece.” Based on the foregoing, it would appear that blisk-type workpieces can actually be machined without, for example, “the simultaneous movement of the five axes including the two rotary axes.” However, if it was the former and Applicant was arguing that as it pertains to Liechti that for blisk-type workpieces that “machining can only be achieved through the simultaneous movement of the five axes including the two rotary axes,” Examiner notes that upon review of Liechti, that there is no indication therein that, “machining can only be achieved through the simultaneous movement of the five axes including the two rotary axes.” That is say that there isn’t any indication in Liechti that in order for machining of the workpiece (1) to be achieved that said blisk-type workpiece (1) must incur movement about two rotary axes simultaneous to a corresponding tool incurring movement in three linear axes. As such, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Next, with respect to Applicant’s argument that, “during the machining process, the attitude [sic] of the blades must be adjusted by the rotation of the blisk to realize machining, meaning the blisk is in constant rotation. As the blisk rotates, the height and position of the machining area in Liechti also change continuously,” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, please be advised that claim 1 is directed to an apparatus and not to a process or to a method. Having said that, as it pertains to the A-axis rotary assembly (11) of Liechti, said A-axis rotary assembly (11) is capable of being operated so as to only index/rotate the workpiece (1), e.g. a provided blisk, in-between processes of machining said workpiece (1). That is to say that the A-axis rotary assembly (11) of Liechti is capable of being operated such that it does not rotate during a process of the tool/cutter (24) machining the workpiece (1), e.g. the provided blisk. For example, during a given process in which the tool/cutter (24) is in physical contact with the workpiece (1) so as to machine the workpiece (1), the A-axis rotary assembly (11) does not rotate during this time. Based on the foregoing, in at least this instance, the provided blisk is not in constant rotation like Applicant argues, and Liechti reads on, “the A-axis rotary assembly does not rotate during the process of the cutter machining the workpiece.”
Next, as it pertains to Applicant’s argument that, “As the blisk rotates, the height and position of the machining area in Liechti also change continuously,” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please be advised that Applicant never set forth the machining area as extending in any particular way in claim 1, and what’s more is that Applicant never even discussed a height of the machining area within the specification filed on 7/22/2022. Noting this, the only mention of the height of the machining area in claim 1 is toward the end of claim 1 with, “wherein the height of the machining area is the same as that of the rotation center of the A-axis rotary assembly.” Please note that the manner in which this limitation is set forth does not preclude Examiner from the below interpretation of the prior art. That is to say that this limitation in claim 1 does not tie the height of the machining area to the rotation of the blisk like Applicant argues.
In the modified blisk machining center of Liechti, a height of the machining area thereof is the same as a height of a rotation center of the A-axis rotary assembly (11) thereof. This will now be explained.
In the modified blisk machining center of Liechti, the height of the machining area thereof corresponds to, for example, a height of the assembly of Johnson with respect to the vertical Y-axis direction (this is because the tool/cutter (24) that performs machining is mounted to the assembly of Johnson), said assembly comprising the attachment head (20) and the B-axis rotary assembly (18) of Johnson. In order to better explain this point, Examiner directs attention to Figure 1 of Liechti. As can be seen in Figure 1, a height of attachment head (6) of Liechti is able to be made equal to a height of the rotation center of the A-axis rotary assembly (11), since the attachment head (6) of Liechti is translatable in the vertical Y-axis direction.
Next, noting again that in the modified blisk machining center of Liechti that the attachment head (6) of Liechti was replaced with the assembly of Johnson in the aforedescribed modification, and further noting again that the height of the machining area in the modified blisk machining center corresponds to a height of the assembly of Johnson with respect to the vertical Y-axis direction, please be advised that when the assembly of Johnson is vertically translated so as to be brought to a height (with respect to the vertical Y-axis direction) that is equal to the height of the rotation center of the A-axis rotary assembly (11), the result is “the height of the machining area is the same as a height of a rotation center of the A-axis rotary assembly [11].”
Next, with respect to Applicant’s argument that, “This point is also explicitly recognized in the Office Action, which states that the machining in Liechti is achieved through the simultaneous rotation of the blisk axis and the turntable axis,” Examiner is unsure as to where Applicant saw this in the office action. Examiner could not find this statement in either the previous office action or in this office action.
Lastly, with respect to Applicant’s arguments that, “In the processing state where the blisk axis is in continuous coordinated rotation, the machining position of the workpiece changes continuously in the circumferential direction of the blisk, and the rotation error will be amplified, which is detrimental to the stability of the surface profile accuracy of the workpiece. This structure also dictates that when the blisk axis rotates, the linear axes require an extremely high dynamic response speed for coordination, thus imposing extremely high requirements on the movement speed and acceleration range of each axis, which is also unfavorable for maintaining the stability of machining accuracy. Please refer to the annotated drawings below of Liechti,” Examiner again respectfully disagrees. There is because there is no indication within Liechti that, “the blisk axis is in continuous coordinated rotation.” If the blisk axis was indeed in “continuous coordinated rotation” like Applicant argues, how would a given tool not be damaged when disposed within the interior of a workpiece (1) like in Figure 10 of Liechti? In other words, if the blisk axis was indeed in “continuous coordinated rotation” like Applicant argues, does the tool of Figure 1 of Liechti have to constantly move in and out of the interior of the workpiece (1) so as to not get stuck within the workpiece (1) during machining? Again though, there isn’t any indication in Liechti that during machining of the workpiece (1) that said workpiece (1) is in constant rotation due to the blisk axis corresponding thereto being in “continuous coordinated rotation.” As such, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1 and Liechti/Johnson, Applicant also argues the following:
In this application, the coordinated five axes of the present application are the three linear axes XYZ, the turntable C-axis and the ram B-axis. The A-axis rotary assembly is not involved in the five-axis coordinated machining and only performs index rotation: it adjusts the blade to be machined to the machining area through rotation, and then achieves five-axis machining of the blisk edge by the rotational cooperation of the B-axis and the C-axis. During the machining process, the A-axis remains fixed and the center of the machining area is kept at the intersection of the B-axis and the C-axis, which reduces the position error of the cutter tip point caused by the rotation angle errors of the two rotary axes and is conducive to controlling the surface profile accuracy of the workpiece. It also minimizes the RTCP motion of the linear axes in the five-axis machining movement, lowers the requirements for the speed and acceleration of the linear axes, and is favorable for improving the surface profile accuracy of the workpiece. Please refer to the two annotated drawings below of this application.
PNG
media_image3.png
452
520
media_image3.png
Greyscale
First, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “In this application, the coordinated five axes of the present application are the three linear axes XYZ, the turntable C-axis and the ram B-axis. The A-axis rotary assembly is not involved in the five-axis coordinated machining”) 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). Please be advised that Applicant never sets forth the three linear axes XYZ in claim 1 or in any of the dependent claims. Likewise, Applicant never sets forth five-axis coordinated machining in the claim set, noting that Applicant only sets forth the A-axis rotary assembly, the B-axis rotary assembly, and the C-axis rotary assembly.
Furthermore, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “During the machining process, the A-axis remains fixed” and “It also minimizes the RTCP motion of the linear axes in the five-axis machining movement, lowers the requirements for the speed and acceleration of the linear axes, and is favorable for improving the surface profile accuracy of the workpiece”) 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). While Applicant claims at the end of claim 1 that the, “the A-axis rotary assembly does not rotate during the process of the cutter machining the workpiece,” Applicant never goes as far as to set forth, “During the machining process, the A-axis remains fixed.” On top of this, it does not appear that Applicant’s argument makes sense. Since the A-axis rotary assembly (11) is mounted upon the C-axis turntable (9) (see Figures 1 and 2), when the C-axis turntable (9) incurs rotation, isn’t the A-axis being moved therewith? In at least this way, the A-axis isn’t even fixed like Applicant argues. Furthermore, it is reiterated that Applicant never sets forth five-axis coordinated machining in the claim set, nor does Applicant claim anything to do with either linear axes (including speed and acceleration) or a surface profile of the workpiece. As such, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1 and Liechti/Johnson, Applicant also argues the following:
Applicant notes that Johnson also does not disclose this distinguishing technical feature.
Furthermore, Liechti lacks the motivation and suggestion to arrive at the distinguishing technical feature. Liechti explicitly discloses that the rotation axis of the blisk intersects with the rotation axis of the worktable, and it is obvious to achieve five-axis coordinated machining through the cooperation between the rotation axis of the blade and the rotation axis of the worktable. Therefore, Liechti would not be modified on this basis, nor is there any motivation for it to be combined with Johnson.
In summary, the prior art references do not disclose the technical solution of Claim 1 of the present application, and Claim 1 of the present application involves an inventive step. Claim 1 should be patentable over Liechti and Johnson.
The dependent claims set forth additional limitations not found in the prior art, and are also allowable based at least on their dependency from allowable independent claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
First, with respect to the, “distinguishing technical feature,” the following is what Applicant identified it as:
The claimed machining center recites at least a distinguishing technical feature - the intersection point of the rotation axis of the B-axis rotary assembly and the rotation axis of the C-axis rotary assembly is the center of the machining area of the blisk (8); the machining area is at the same height as the rotation center of the A-axis rotary assembly; and the A-axis rotary assembly does not rotate during the process of the cutter machining the workpiece.
Please be advised that Johnson (which is applied as a modifying reference) is not relied upon by Exmainer to teach, “the A-axis rotary assembly does not rotate during the process of the cutter machining the workpiece.” As was explained above, as it pertains to the A-axis rotary assembly (11) of Liechti, said A-axis rotary assembly (11) is capable of being operated so as to only index/rotate the workpiece (1), e.g. a provided blisk, in-between processes of machining said workpiece (1). That is to say that the A-axis rotary assembly (11) of Liechti is capable of being operated such that it does not rotate during a process of the tool/cutter (24) machining the workpiece (1), e.g. the provided blisk. For example, during a given process in which the tool/cutter (24) is in physical contact with the workpiece (1) so as to machine the workpiece (1), the A-axis rotary assembly (11) does not rotate during this time. Based on the foregoing, in at least this instance, the provided blisk is not in constant rotation like Applicant argues, and Liechti reads on, “the A-axis rotary assembly does not rotate during the process of the cutter machining the workpiece.”
Next please be advised that Liechti and Johnson in combination teach, “the intersection point of the rotation axis of the B-axis rotary assembly and the rotation axis of the C-axis rotary assembly is the center of the machining area of the blisk.” Thus, this limitation is not a distinguishing technical feature like Applicant argues. This will now be explained.
In the modified blisk machining center of Liechti, the B-axis rotary assembly (18) of the assembly of Johnson is located where the attachment head (6) of Liechti was located prior to being replaced. This is because, the (now-replaced) attachment head (6) of Liechti provided for rotation about a horizontal axis, and because the B-axis rotary assembly (18) of Johnson is itself rotatable about a horizontal rotation axis. Examiner reiterates that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the attachment head (6) of Liechti with the assembly of Johnson said assembly comprising the attachment head (20) and the B-axis rotary assembly (18) of Johnson, so as to provide the blisk machining center of Liechti with the advantage of being able to orient the tool (24) that is received by the attachment head (20) into a variety of different orientations with respect to the workpiece (1) that is retained by the A-axis rotary assembly (11) of Liechti.
Noting the above, in the modified blisk machining center of Liechti, as it pertains to the B-axis rotary assembly (18) thereof, an intersection of the rotation axis of the B-axis rotary assembly (18) and the rotation axis of the C-axis rotary assembly (8) is “a center of a machining area” at which the workpiece (1), e.g. the provided blisk, undergoes machining. This is because this intersection between the (horizontal) rotation axis of the B-axis rotary assembly and the (vertical) rotation axis of the C-axis rotary assembly (8) occurs at the center of the revolving turntable (8) of said C-axis rotary assembly (8), and this revolving turntable (8) helps to define the machining area at which the provided workpiece (1), e.g. the provided blisk, undergoes machining. Based on the foregoing, Applicant’s argument concerning this feature is not found to be not persuasive.
Lastly, as it pertains to Applicant’s argument concerning Liechti and Johnson and the limitation corresponding to, “the machining area is at the same height as the rotation center of the A-axis rotary assembly,” please be advised of the following.
In the modified blisk machining center of Liechti, the height of the machining area thereof corresponds to, for example, a height of the assembly of Johnson with respect to the vertical Y-axis direction (this is because the tool/cutter (24) that performs machining is mounted to the assembly of Johnson), said assembly comprising the attachment head (20) and the B-axis rotary assembly (18) of Johnson. In order to better explain this point, Examiner directs attention to Figure 1 of Liechti. As can be seen in Figure 1, a height of attachment head (6) of Liechti is able to be made equal to a height of the rotation center of the A-axis rotary assembly (11), since the attachment head (6) of Liechti is translatable in the vertical Y-axis direction.
Next, noting again that in the modified blisk machining center of Liechti that the attachment head (6) of Liechti was replaced with the assembly of Johnson in the aforedescribed modification, and further noting again that the height of the machining area in the modified blisk machining center corresponds to a height of the assembly of Johnson with respect to the vertical Y-axis direction, please be advised that when the assembly of Johnson is vertically translated so as to be brought to a height (with respect to the vertical Y-axis direction) that is equal to the height of the rotation center of the A-axis rotary assembly (11), the result is “the height of the machining area is the same as a height of a rotation center of the A-axis rotary assembly [11].”
Based on the foregoing, the prior art reads on all aspects of what Applicant referred to as the “distinguishing technical feature.” Applicant’s arguments are therefore not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Vitale whose telephone number is (571)270-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM- 6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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 VITALE/Examiner, Art Unit 3722
/SUNIL K SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3722