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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/17/2026, with respect to claim objections of claims 12-20 have been fully considered and are moot in light of the recent amendments to the claims. The objections of 4/22/2026 have been withdrawn because the claims were amended. Similarly, the 35 USC 112(b) rejections of 4/22/2026 are moot.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/17/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C 102 have been fully considered and are moot in light of the recent amendments to the claims. The rejections of 4/22/2026 have been withdrawn because the claims were amended.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments towards the art of Kulkarni in view of Shimada, the combination of the art continues to teach the inventive concept of focusing a laser beam, irradiating a coting of a curvilinear portion, scanning a laser beam, changing a focus depth, and producing a width of a slot for each path less than the width of the preceding pass.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US8357454B2 Kulkarni in view of US10099249B2 Shimada
Regarding claim 1,
Kulkarni teaches,
A method of forming a slot (grooves 28) in a coating (thermal barrier coating 18) formed on a curvilinear portion of a part (aero foil section of a turbine 10 which is a curvilinear feature of a wing, aka, turbine blade; abstract; column 3 lines 59 to 67), the method comprising performing a plurality of laser ablation passes (column 10 lines 9 to 11), each laser ablation pass of the plurality of laser ablation passes (76) including:
focusing a laser beam to a focus depth (figs. 4a and 4b and column 7 lines 27 to 67 and column 8 lines 1 to 38 teach performing passes at desired focal distances);
irradiating the coating of the curvilinear portion with the laser beam focused at the focus depth to remove coating material of the coating by laser ablation (figs. 4a and 4b and column 7 lines 27 to 67 and column 8 lines 1 to 38 teach performing passes at desired focal distances in the ceramic material layer 46 which is a coating layer);
and scanning the laser beam in a scanning direction while irradiating the coating of the curvilinear portion with the laser beam, the scanning direction being a direction transverse to a thickness direction of the coating, wherein the focus depth of each subsequent pass of the plurality of laser ablation passes is deeper in a thickness direction of the coating than the pass preceding the subsequent pass (dashed depth lines A1 to A3 indicate a desired focal distance and depth; figs. 4a and 4b and column 7 lines 27 to 67 and column 8 lines 1 to 38 teach performing passes at desired focal distances).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Kulkarni does not teach: wherein irradiating the coating produces a width of the slot for each pass, and irradiating the coating includes controlling the laser beam to produce a width of the slot for each subsequent pass that is less than the width of the slot of the pass preceding the subsequent pass.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Shimada teaches a method for using a laser to create a decorative pattern on a workpiece (abstract) and further teaches wherein irradiating the coating produces a width of the slot for each pass, and irradiating the coating includes controlling the laser beam to produce a width of the slot for each subsequent pass that is less than the width of the slot of the pass preceding the subsequent pass (column 6 lines 41 to 60 teach performing passes of a laser at different line to line widths W1 to W3 where W2 is less than W3).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify the passes of Kulkarni with the line widths of Shimada for the purpose of creating favorable hairline patterns 22 (Shimada column 6 lines 51 to 52).
Regarding claim 2,
Kulkarni teaches, The method of claim 1 (as discussed above),
wherein the curvilinear portion of the part is curved in at least the scanning direction (aero foil section of a turbine 10 which is a curvilinear feature of a wing, aka, turbine blade; abstract; column 3 lines 59 to 67; ).
Regarding claim 4,
Kulkarni teaches, The method of claim 1 (as discussed above),
wherein the number of the plurality of laser ablation passes is controlled to produce a slot that has a depth that is less than the thickness of the coating (claims 4 and 7).
Regarding claim 5,
Kulkarni teaches, The method of claim 1 (as discussed above).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Kulkarni does not teach:
A method of forming a slot in a coating formed on a curvilinear portion of a part, the curvilinear portion of the part being curved in a direction transverse to a longitudinal axis of the part and in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the part, the method comprising: forming a first slot using the method of claim 1, the scanning direction having a component direction parallel to the longitudinal axis;
rotating the part about the longitudinal axis;
and forming a second slot using the method of claim 1, the scanning direction having a component direction parallel to the longitudinal axis.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Shimada teaches
A method of forming a slot (pattern 22) in a coating (film 21) formed on a curvilinear portion of a part (claim 1 automobile interior part 11), the curvilinear portion (the arc-like laser-processed grooves 24, 25) of the part being curved in a direction transverse to a longitudinal axis of the part and in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the part (figs. 1 and 9), the method comprising: forming a first slot using the method of claim 1, the scanning direction having a component direction parallel to the longitudinal axis (as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above);
rotating the part about the longitudinal axis (column 7 lines 4 to 20 teaches the use of work-displacement robot 43 to rotate the automobile-interior part 11 with respect the laser irradiating device 44);
and forming a second slot using the method of claim 1, the scanning direction having a component direction parallel to the longitudinal axis (streaming direction A1 is the longitudinal axis that hairline pattern 22 is formed parallel to).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Kulkarni with the teachings of Shimada for the purpose of creating favorable hairline patterns 22 (Shimada column 6 lines 51 to 52).
Regarding claim 6,
The primary combination teaches the method of claim 5 (as discussed above),
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Kulkarni does not teach: wherein forming the first slot and forming the second slot each includes scanning the laser beam in the scanning direction with a component direction of the scanning direction being in a radial direction of the part.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Shimada teaches wherein forming the first slot and forming the second slot each includes scanning the laser beam in the scanning direction with a component direction of the scanning direction being in a radial direction of the part (see annotated fig. 9 below).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Kulkarni with the teachings of Shimada for the purpose of creating favorable hairline patterns 22 (Shimada column 6 lines 51 to 52).
PNG
media_image1.png
486
867
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7,
Kulkarni teaches The method of claim 1 (as discussed above),
wherein the laser beam is scanned in the scanning direction while irradiating the coating of the curvilinear portion with the laser beam for a scanning distance, the focus depth being constant over the scanning distance (figs. 4a and 4b and column 7 lines 27 to 67 and column 8 lines 1 to 38 teach performing a first pass at desired first focal distance before performing a second pass with a second focal distance, therefore, the first pass is a scanning direction for a distance).
Regarding claim 9,
Kulkarni teaches The method of claim 1 (as discussed above),
wherein the coating is a ceramic coating, and the ceramic coating is formed on a substrate of the part, the substrate being a metal (ceramic material layer 46 which is a coating layer, claim 1, claim 7).
Regarding claim 10,
Kulkarni teaches The method of claim 9 (as discussed above),
wherein the part is a component of a gas turbine engine and the ceramic coating is a thermal barrier coating (aero foil section of a turbine 10 which is a curvilinear feature of a wing, aka, turbine blade; abstract; column 3 lines 59 to 67; claim 1 teaches the ceramic coating is a thermal barrier coating).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US8357454B2 Kulkarni in view of US10099249B2 Shimada in view of US20170216969A1 Dietrich
Regarding claim 8,
Kulkarni teaches The method of claim 7 (as discussed above),
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Kulkarni does not teach: wherein the scanning distance includes a start position and an end position, at least one of the start position and the end position of a subsequent pass being different than the pass preceding the subsequent pass.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Dietrich teaches a method for creating a thermal barrier coating having an increased service life (par. 15) where a laser is used to create engraving lines 1 and 2 (fig. 2 par. 33 and 34) wherein the scanning distance (distance of engraving lines 1 and 2) includes a start position and an end position (engraving lines 1 and 2 are inherent to have a start and finish because engraving lines 1 and 2 cannot be infinite), at least one of the start position and the end position of a subsequent pass being different than the pass preceding the subsequent pass (engraving lines 1 and 2 are passes with different start and end positions such that engraving lines 1 and 2 are perpendicular).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to use the invention of Kulkarni in the patterns as taught by Dietrich for creating a thermal barrier coating having an increased service life (par. 15).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US8357454B2 Kulkarni in view of US10099249B2 Shimada in view of US 20200256201 A1 Schaeffer
Regarding claim 11,
Kulkarni teaches, The method of claim 10 (as discussed above).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Kulkarni does not teach: wherein the part is a heat shield for a fuel nozzle, the heat shield including a flange having the curvilinear portion.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Schaeffer teaches a method of controlling an extent of a thermal barrier coating (TBC) sheet spall and a hot gas path (HGP) component are disclosed. The method provides an HGP component having a body with an exterior surface” (abstract) and further teaches wherein the part is a heat shield for a fuel nozzle (108), the heat shield including a flange having the curvilinear portion (fig. 1).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to perform the method of Kulkarni on the fuel nozzle 108 of a combustor 104 as taught by Schaeffer for the purpose of modifying a desired part to include a fuel nozzle.
Expressions relating the material or article worked upon (e.g., a heat shield for a fuel nozzle) by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 12-17 contain allowable subject matter.
The closest prior art of record is discussed hereafter:
US20050215986A1 Chernyak
The prior art of record by itself or in combination does not disclose the structural and functional limitations as recited in the claims. Specifically, the prior art does not disclose a method comprising calibrating a laser beam prior to performing the plurality of laser ablation passes, imaging a calibration block, forming a calibration slot, locating the position of the focus of the laser beam in the field of view of the first camera based on the depth of the calibration slot; and locating the position of the focus of the laser beam in a field of view of a second camera based on the depth of the calibration slot, the field of view of the second camera being transverse to the field of view of the first camera as recited in claim 12.
While Chernyak does disclose in claim 1 “a method for calibrating laser pulses from a laser eye surgery system using an image capture device, the method comprising: imaging a known object with an image capture device; directing a pulsed laser beam onto a calibration surface so as to leave a mark on the calibration surface;
imaging the mark on the calibration surface with the image capture device”, Chernyak does not disclose locating the position of the focus of the laser beam in the field of view of the first camera based on the depth of the calibration slot; and locating the position of the focus of the laser beam in a field of view of a second camera based on the depth of the calibration slot, the field of view of the second camera being transverse to the field of view of the first camera.
Since none of the prior art references of record alone or in combination disclose all the limitations of the applicant's claim 12, and since the prior art of record does not teach and render obvious of imaging a calibration block, forming a calibration slot, locating the position of the focus of the laser beam in the field of view of the first camera based on the depth of the calibration slot; and locating the position of the focus of the laser beam in a field of view of a second camera based on the depth of the calibration slot, the field of view of the second camera being transverse to the field of view of the first camera, thus claim 12 reads over the prior art of record and is considered to have allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM M ECKARDT whose telephone number is (313)446-6609. The examiner can normally be reached 6 a.m to 2:00 p.m EST Monday to Friday.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
ADAM MICHAEL. ECKARDT
Assistant Examiner
Art Unit 3761
/ADAM M ECKARDT/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
