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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/08/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 01/28/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 17-19 and 24 are canceled. Claims 1-10 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claim(s) 11-16, 20-23 and 25-30 remain pending and have been examined below.
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 11-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashish et al (US PGPUB No. 2004/0235395) in view of Hunter (US PGPUB No. 2008/0038991), hereinafter referred to as Hashish 1 and Hunter, respectively.
Regarding claim 11 (Currently Amended), Hashish 1 discloses a method of operating a fluid jet system [Hashish 1, fig 2, 110], the method comprising:
positioning a shroud relative to a workpiece such that the shroud, in combination with the workpiece, at least partially encloses a region [Hashish 1, fig 2, 170 is positioned relative to 80 and encloses a region between the wall of 170 and 80];
at least partially filling the region with an inert substance [Hashish 1, page 4, pp 0050, an inert gas, such as nitrogen can be pumped in through 171];
generating a fluid jet [Hashish 1, fig 2, 90 is ejected];
discharging the fluid jet through an outlet of a nozzle of the fluid jet system when the nozzle is positioned within the region and radially surrounded by the inert substance and the shroud [Hashish 1, fig 2, 90 is ejected through outlet 55 when surrounded by nitrogen from 171 and surrounded by 170];
directing the discharged fluid jet through the inert substance within a portion of the region beyond the outlet [Hashish 1, fig 2, showing 90 moves through the region of 170 and inert gas pumped in through 171]; and
impinging the workpiece with the fluid jet [Hashish 1, fig 2, showing 90 makes contact with 80].
Hashish 1 does not explicitly disclose submerging at least a portion of the workpiece and at least a portion of the shroud in a volume of fluid.
Hunter teaches a method of operating a fluid jet system [Hunter, fig 3, 11], the method comprising:
submerging at least a portion of a workpiece and at least a portion of a nozzle in a volume of fluid [Hunter, fig 3, showing 13 is submerged within fluid 18 and at least a portion of the nozzle 17 is also submerged];
generating a fluid jet [Hunter, fig 3, showing a fluid jet is formed];
discharging the fluid jet through an outlet of a nozzle of the fluid jet system [Hunter, fig 3, showing the fluid jet is discharged from 17]; and
impinging the workpiece with the fluid jet [Hunter, fig 3, showing the fluid jet from 17 impinges onto 13].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of operating the fluid jet system of Hashish 1 to include the step of submerging the workpiece, and the nozzle (and also the shroud of Hashsish) as taught by Hunter because by submerging the workpiece and the nozzle within the fluid a very smooth surface finish is produced on the surface of the workpiece [Hunter, page 2, pp 0027, summarized].
Regarding claim 12 (Previously Presented), Hashish 1 as modified further discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising: cooling the volume of fluid [Hunter, page 2, pp 0029].
Regarding claim 14 (Original), Hashish 1 as modified further discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising: mixing abrasive particles with a fluid to form a slurry [Hunter, page 2, pp 0023]; and pressurizing the slurry [Hunter, page 2, pp 0023, the slurry is pressurized], wherein generating the fluid jet includes passing the pressurized slurry through an orifice to generate an abrasive slurry jet [Hunter, fig 2, showing the fluid jet comes out of an orifice in 17].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashish et al (US PGPUB No. 2004/0235395) in view of Hunter (US PGPUB No. 2008/0038991), as applied to claim 11 above, and in further view of Zeng (US Patent No. 6,021,682), hereinafter referred to as Hashish 1, Hunter, and Zeng respectively.
Regarding claim 13 (Previously Presented), Hashish 1 as modified further discloses the method of claim 11, but does not explicitly disclose wherein positioning the shroud relative to the workpiece includes forming a gap between a bottom of the shroud and a top of the workpiece, and wherein submerging at least a portion of the shroud in the volume of fluid includes filling the gap with the fluid thereby capturing a pocket of inert gas within the region.
Zeng teaches a method of operating a fluid jet system, the method comprising:
positioning a shroud relative to a workpiece such that the shroud, in combination with the workpiece, at least partially encloses a region [Zeng, fig 1, 15 is positioned relative to 16, at least partially encloses a region between 15 and 14];
at least partially filling the region with a gas [Zeng, fig 1, 40 fills the space of 15 and col 5, lines 8-14];
generating a fluid jet [Zeng, col 3, lines 13-40, teaching high pressure liquid and abrasives are formed in an abrasive water jet];
discharging the fluid jet through an outlet of a nozzle of the fluid jet system [Zeng, fig 1, showing the fluid being discharged from 14];
when the nozzle is positioned within the region and radially surrounded by the gas and the shroud [Zeng, fig 1, showing that 14 is surrounded by 15 and the gas from 40];
directing the discharged fluid jet through the gas within a portion of the region beyond the outlet [Zeng, fig 1, showing 14 is discharged through the region of 15 with the gas from 40 and extends beyond the area of 15]; and
impinging the workpiece with the fluid jet [Zeng, fig 1, showing the fluid hits workpiece 16];
wherein positioning the shroud relative to the workpiece includes forming a gap between a bottom of the shroud and a top of the workpiece [Zeng, fig 1, showing a gap 17 between 16 and 15].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the method of Hashish 1 to have included the step of positioning the shroud to include a gap between the bottom of the shroud and the top of the workpiece as taught by Zeng, because this allows for the controller to control the stand-off distance of the focus tube for optimal cutting [Zeng, col 3, lines 35-40, summarized]. Therefore, when the abrasive water jet system of Hashish 1 as modified is submerged and an inert substance fills the shroud and when modified with Zeng, the condition of at least a portion of the shroud in the volume of fluid includes filling the gap with the fluid thereby capturing a pocket of inert gas within the region is met by pressurizing the gas from [Zeng, fig 1, 40] and [Hashish 1, fig 2, 172] a pocket of the inert substance is pushed outwards from [Zeng, fig 1, 15] and [Hashish 1, fig 2, 170] causing the pocket to be generated.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashish et al (US PGPUB No. 2004/0235395) in view of Hunter (US PGPUB No. 2008/0038991), as applied to claim 11 above, and in further view of Hashish et al (US PGPUB No. 2015/0118942), hereinafter referred to as Hashish 1, Hunter, and Hashish 2 respectively.
Regarding claim 15 (Original), Hashish 1 as modified further discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising: pressurizing a fluid [Hunter, page 2, pp 0023, the slurry is pressurized].
However, Hashish 1 as modified may not explicitly disclose mixing abrasive particles with the pressurized fluid to form a slurry, wherein generating the fluid jet includes passing the slurry through an orifice to generate an abrasive slurry jet.
Hashish 2 teaches mixing abrasive particles with the pressurized fluid to form a slurry [Hashish 2, fig 5, showing 146 and 142 are mixed within 156], wherein generating the fluid jet includes passing the slurry through an orifice to generate an abrasive slurry jet [Hashish 2, fig 5, abrasive jet 132 is formed and is passed through 134].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Hashish 1 to include the mixing of the abrasive and high pressure fluid source to form the slurry to be passed through the orifice of the nozzle of the abrasive water jet as taught by Hashish 2 because this allows for a continuous flow of abrasives to be entrained [Hashish 2, page 6, pp 0054, summarized] which allows for continuous operation as desired by the user and reduces downtime from having to re-load abrasive.
Claims 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng (US Patent No. 6,021,682) in view of Hashish et al (US PGPUB No. 2004/0235395), hereinafter referred to as Hashish 1, respectively.
Regarding claim 16 (Previously Presented), Zeng teaches a method of operating a fluid jet system, the method comprising:
generating a fluid jet with the fluid jet system [Zeng, fig 1, 10 generates fluid from 22 and 20];
discharging the fluid jet toward a workpiece from a cutting head of the fluid jet system [Zeng, fig 1, showing that fluid of 20 and 22 is discharged through 14 to space 17];
drilling a hole in the workpiece with the fluid jet [Zeng, fig 3, showing a pierce through in the workpiece];
while drilling the hole into a first material of the workpiece, monitoring at least one acoustic parameter produced by the fluid jet drilling the hole in the workpiece [Zeng, fig 3, showing a dB parameter being measured for pierce through];
drilling the hole through several layers in iteration of the workpiece [Zeng, col 7, lines 10-25, teaching that the workpiece may be drilled through in multiple iterations];
detecting a change in the at least one acoustic parameter resulting from impact of the fluid jet with the second material [Zeng, fig 3 and col 7, line 66 – col 8, line 4, teaching that pierce through moment of change is detected in the workpiece]; and
discontinuing generation of the fluid jet upon detection of the change in the at least one acoustic parameter [Zeng, fig 3, showing that the work is completed after the pierce through moment].
Zeng does not explicitly disclose drilling the hole through the first material and into a second material of the workpiece.
Hashish discloses a method of operating a fluid jet system, the method comprising:
generating a fluid jet with the fluid jet system [Hashish, fig 2, 90 is ejected];
discharging the fluid jet toward a workpiece from a cutting head of the fluid jet system [Hashish, fig 2, 90 is ejected through outlet 55];
drilling a hole in the workpiece with the fluid jet [Hashish, fig 2, showing 90 makes contact with 80]; and
drilling the hole through the first material and into a second material of the workpiece [Hashish, page 3, pp 0041, teaching that multiple substrates 80 may be worked upon].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified method of Zeng to incorporate multiple workpieces such that the multiple layers approach of Zeng would also then be applied to multiple substrates as taught by Hashish because per MPEP 2143(I)(A) the combination of old elements is held to be obvious over the prior art. Where in the instant case, to include the multiple workpieces (substrates) to be worked upon by the system as taught by Hashish in the system of Zeng, each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references. The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined working on multiple workpieces within the system as taught by Hashish in the system of Zeng because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, the elements being the abrasive water jet system of Zeng and the working of multiple workpieces (substrates) at a time. In the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination gave the predictable result of Zeng penetrates through the second material or second substrate, in the same iteration approach, that the acoustic sensor would then also detect when the second material (second substrate) is pierced through.
Regarding claim 20 (Previously Presented), Zeng as modified further discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the at least one acoustic parameter includes a frequency, an amplitude, or both of a sound generated by impact of the fluid jet with the workpiece [Zeng, fig 3, showing amplitude in dB of the pierce through].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants arguments regarding claim 11 starting on page 13 are a moot point since the new grounds of rejection are in view of Hashish et al (US PGPUB No. 2004/0235395) in view of Hunter (US PGPUB No. 2008/0038991) which has not been previously applied to claim 11. Applicants arguments regarding claim 16 starting on claim 14 are a moot point since the new grounds of rejection are now in view of Zeng (US Patent No. 6,021,682) in view of Hashish et al (US PGPUB No. 2004/0235395) which has not been previously applied to claim 16. Applicants arguments regarding claims 21-23 are a moot point in view of new grounds of rejection of claim 16. Applicants arguments starting on page 17 regarding claims 25-30 are found persuasive and are hereby withdrawn and have been examined in view of all of the previously cited prior art and are hereby found to be allowable over the prior art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25-30 are allowed.
Claims 21-23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 21 (Previously Presented), the prior art considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “wherein drilling the hole in the workpiece with the fluid jet includes drilling through a housing that encloses the hazardous component” together in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and in the independent claim.
Claim 22 would be allowed as being dependent on claim 21.
Regarding claim 23 (Original), the prior art considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “while discharging the fluid jet, keeping the hazardous component out of alignment with an outlet of the cutting head through which the fluid jet is discharged” together in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and in the independent claim.
Regarding claim 25 (Previously Presented), Epplin et al (US Patent No. 8,641,337) teaches a method of forming parts on a CNC [Epplin, abstract], wherein a path is calculated based on surface area and provision for leaving a thin part of the material to hold the material down [Epplin, col 4, lines 5-15]. However, Epplin does not disclose the AWJ or the calculation of different thicknesses and prioritizing the thinner areas to the shortest path.
The prior art considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “plotting a path along which to cut the workpiece, wherein the path prioritizes cutting through the thinner regions of the workpiece over following the shortest distance around the target region” together in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and in the independent claim.
Claims 26-27 are allowed as being dependent on claim 25.
Regarding claim 28 (Currently Amended), the prior art considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “lowering a temperature of the volume of liquid to a first temperature; after lowering the temperature to the first temperature, generating a fluid jet” together in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and in the independent claim.
Claim 29 is allowed as being dependent on claim 28.
Regarding claim 30 (Previously Presented), Hashish et al (US PGPUB No. 2015/0118942) discloses a method of operating a slurry jet system comprising:
mixing abrasives and fluid to form an abrasive slurry [Hashish, fig 5, 146 and 142 are mixed within 154];
passing the abrasive slurry through an orifice of a cutting head to generate an abrasive slurry jet [Hashish, fig 5, jet 132 passes through 134]; and
discharging the abrasive slurry jet through the outlet and impinging the workpiece with the abrasive slurry jet [Hashish, fig 5, 132 is discharged through 134 and impinges 114].
The prior art considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “positioning an outlet of the cutting head within an interior space of a workpiece that at least partially encloses a hazardous component” together in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and in the independent claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT NEIBAUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7979. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 am - 5:00 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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/ROBERT F NEIBAUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights