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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 27th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) have been considered but are moot because the limitations of the claims have been amended to add new issues. New grounds of rejection have been issued.
On page 6 of the Remarks filed January 27th, 2026, Applicant restates the same argument included in the Remarks filed September 26th, 2025 that “Tabota fails to disclose that the “several characteristics” are associated with the surface of the first geometric solid 1, and the same “several characteristics” are associated with the surface of the second geometric solid 2.” Applicant is directed to the Examiners response to said argument as included in the ‘Response to Arguments’ section of Final Office Action mailed December 12th, 2025.
As cited in the previous Office Action and restated below, Tabota teaches in figures 8a-8e and at least paragraphs 152-155 geometric data characterizing the geometry of the first geometric solid 1 and explicitly in par. 152 “The characteristics of the first geometric solid 1 are dependent on the characteristics of the second geometric solid 2, or vice versa, since these characteristics relate to two solids 1, 2 which will mate with one another during use as they move relative to one another once they have been produced.” Tabota explicitly states that the geometric characteristics stored as geometric data define the first geometric solid 1 and the second geometric solid 1 as is necessary for geometric solids 1 and 2 to mate as disclosed.
On page 6 of the present Remarks filed January 27th, 2026, Applicant argues that Tabota fails to disclose an algorithm according to amended claim 1, stating that “Tabota is completely silent with respect to any algorithm, either a mathematical algorithm or a geometric creation algorithm, being used to generate data indicative of the second geometry.”
As cited in the previous Office Action and restated below, Tabota explicitly teaches in figures 1-2, 6, and 8a-8e and at least paragraphs 6-7 the use of an algorithm to cyclically generate a parametric model of the second geometry (second geometric solid 2) using the geometric key (fig. 8e and par.’s 152-155: geometric data including “several characteristics defining the geometry of the shape of the surface of the first geometric solid 1 in a first system of coordinates with the start of the coordinates at point O” inputted into a processor and stored on internal memory) of the first geometry (par. 6: “The present invention relates to the generation of parametric models associated with a 3D geometry of mating solids, to be precise to a fourth type of CAD for systems and digital control programs for machine tools with NC. In practice, the determination of mating parametric models and geometric data of the surfaces of mating solids is integrated in a cycle for constructing set solids, during which the determination of geometric parameters for constructing a first 3D solid is performed, which is used as the basis for constructing a second 3D solid.” See also par. 7: “ […] the construction of models of two mating solids is completely interrelated and integrated in one cycle, wherein the two models are completely interrelated.”).
The words of the claims are given their plain meaning under the broadest reasonable interpretation as would be understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2111.01(I)). In the present instance one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the geometric data defining two compatible, mated geometric surfaces, as disclosed by Tabota fully anticipate the limitations of the geometric key as claimed in claim 1. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Tabota’s cycle of determining mating parametric models and geometric data of the surfaces of mating solids, during which a first 3D solid is constructed and used as the basis for constructing a second 3D solid, (See Tabota par’s 6-7) anticipates the use of a mathematical algorithm and geometric creation algorithm as claimed in amended claim 1.
Accordingly, amended claim 1 is rejected.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding the rejoinder of previously withdrawn claims 12-14, the request for rejoinder is denied and claims 12-14 are not reentered.
Claims 12-14 (See Requirement for Restriction mailed 3/10/25: Invention II) were previously restricted for being drawn a method for forming a pair of mated components based on a preexisting geometric key. Said invention is distinct as a subcombination of the invention of claims 1-11 (See Requirement for Restriction mailed 3/10/25: Invention I), which is drawn to a pair of pre-existing components determined from a geometric key generated using the geometries of the preexisting components. As stated in the Requirement for Restriction mailed March 3rd, 2025, the subcombination of the invention of claims 12-14 (Invention II) has separate utility such as the printing, manufacture, and/or fabrication of original products from a computer-aided design without the need for initial physical models, whereas the invention of claims 1-11 (Invention I) requires a first component with first geometry in order to produce a geometric key.
The amendment to claim 12 wherein the determining second geometry using the second geometric key comprises using “a mathematical algorithm” or “a geometric creation algorithm” does not sufficiently link the two sets of claims into one invention. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the invention of claims 12-14 maintains the utility separate from the invention of claims 1-11, regardless of the step of using said algorithms and the geometric key in both instances.
Accordingly, claims 12-14 are not rejoined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tabota (US 20160140772 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Tabota discloses (in at least figures 1-2, 6, and 8a-8e, the description, and the claims) a component pair (fig.’s 1-2 and par. 149: first geometric solid 1 and second geometric solid 2. See also par. 151: “ Geometric solids having any desired surface shape can be used as the geometric solids 1, 2. For efficient use of the proposed method, geometric solids having a complex surface shape are selected as the geometric solids 1, 2 […]”) comprising:
a first component comprising a first mating surface defining a first geometry (first geometric solid 1) associated with a geometric key (fig. 8e and par.’s 152-155: geometric data including “several characteristics defining the geometry of the shape of the surface of the first geometric solid 1 in a first system of coordinates […]” inputted into a processor and stored on internal memory) that provides encrypted access to the first geometry (par. 65 and par. 190: the geometric data and model are stored in “[…] external storage device, for example a magnetic strip storage device or a solid-state storage device, for use for the subsequent production of the first and second geometric solids 1, 2.” Solid state storage devices, especially those used in the computer systems disclosed by Tabota, are encrypted1 as is standard in the art. Storage in a solid state drive conceals the geometric data with encoded software and dedicated hardware allocation.); and
a second component comprising a second mating surface defining a second geometry (second geometric solid 2), the second geometry being determined using the geometric key (fig. 8e and par.’s 152-155: geometric data including “several characteristics defining the geometry of the shape of the surface of the first geometric solid 1 in a first system of coordinates with the start of the coordinates at point O” inputted into a processor and stored on internal memory) that provides encrypted access to the second geometry (par. 65 and par. 190: the geometric data and model are stored in “[…] external storage device, for example a magnetic strip storage device or a solid-state storage device, for use for the subsequent production of the first and second geometric solids 1, 2.” Solid state storage devices, especially those used in the computer systems disclosed by Tabota, are encrypted1 as is standard in the art. Storage in a solid state drive conceals the geometric data with encoded software and dedicated hardware allocation.) and being complementary to the first geometry, wherein the first component and the second component may be properly mated together only when the first geometry is received by the second geometry (par. 152: “The characteristics of the first geometric solid 1 are dependent on the characteristics of the second geometric solid 2, or vice versa, since these characteristics relate to two solids 1, 2 which will mate with one another during use as they move relative to one another once they have been produced”).
wherein determining the second geometry using the geometric key comprises:
generating, using the geometric key and a mathematical algorithm, data indicative of the second geometry; or generating, using the geometric key and a geometric creation algorithm, data indicative of the second geometry (par. 6: “The present invention relates to the generation of parametric models associated with a 3D geometry of mating solids, to be precise to a fourth type of CAD for systems and digital control programs for machine tools with NC. In practice, the determination of mating parametric models and geometric data of the surfaces of mating solids is integrated in a cycle for constructing set solids, during which the determination of geometric parameters for constructing a first 3D solid is performed, which is used as the basis for constructing a second 3D solid.” That is, Tabota explicitly teaches the use of an algorithm to cyclically developing a parametric model of the second geometry using the geometric key of the first geometry. See also par. 7: “ […] the construction of models of two mating solids is completely interrelated and integrated in one cycle, wherein the two models are completely interrelated.”).
Regarding Claim 2: Tabota discloses the component pair of claim 1, wherein the first geometry of the first mating surface comprises a male feature and wherein the second geometry of the second mating surface comprises a female feature, wherein the male feature and the female feature form an interlocking assembly (fig. 6 and par.’s 195-196: first conical screw 11 and second conical screw 12 selected as first and second geometric solids 1 and 2. Note that the male features (surface protrusions) of 11 mate with the female features (surface grooves) of 12, and vice versa).
Regarding Claim 3: Tabota discloses the component pair of claim 2, wherein one of the first geometry and the second geometry is recessed, and the other one of the first geometry and the second geometry is protruded to form the interlocking assembly (fig. 6 and par.’s 195-196: spiral toothed surface of first conical screw 11 interlock with complementary grooved surface of second conical screw 12).
Regarding Claim 10: Tabota discloses the component pair of claim 1, wherein the first component is a first pipe having a non-circular cross sectional profile and wherein the second component is a second pipe to be received within the first pipe having a complementary non-circular cross sectional profile (fig. 6 and par.’s 195-196: non-circular cross section of first conical screw 11 received by complementary cross-sectional profile of second conical screw 12).
Regarding Claim 11: The component pair of claim 1, wherein a portion of the second component is additively manufactured (par. 190: 3D printer can be used to manufacture first and second geometric solids using their corresponding geometric data).
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.
Claim 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabota (US 20160140772 A1) further in view of Knaack (US 20140003975 A1).
Regarding Claim 4: Tabota discloses the component pair of claim 1, wherein the first mating surface and second mating surface can have any desired surface shape (par. 151: “ Geometric solids having any desired surface shape can be used as the geometric solids 1, 2. For efficient use of the proposed method, geometric solids having a complex surface shape are selected as the geometric solids 1, 2 […]”) and wherein the first mating surface comprises a bolt hole and wherein the second mating surface comprises a bolt stud (fig. 6 and par.’s 195-196: first conical screw 11 and second conical screw 12 selected as first and second geometric solids 1 and 2, spiral toothed surface of first conical screw 11 interlock with complementary grooved surface of second conical screw 12).
Tabota does not explicitly disclose wherein the first geometry of the first mating surface comprises a plurality of bolt holes spaced in a non-uniform pattern nor does Tabota disclose wherein the second geometry of the second mating surface comprises a plurality of bolt studs spaced in the non-uniform pattern.
Knaack discloses an analogous art (support housing for an engine component in at least figures 2-4, the description, and the claims) wherein a first geometry of a first mating surface (fig. 3 and par.’s 27-30: cast support housing 32 with mounting flange 310) comprises a plurality of bolt holes spaced in a non-uniform pattern about the first mating surface, and wherein a second geometry of a second mating surface (fig.’s 3-4: bearing support 90) comprises a plurality of bolt studs spaced in the non-uniform pattern around the second mating surface, and wherein the non-uniform pattern comprises the plurality of bolt holes not being equidistant about a circumferential direction and varying in position along a radial direction (fig.’s 3-4 and par. 29: “One or more fasteners and/or dowel pins may pass through mounting flange 310 via mounting holes 312 and be used to connect bearing support 90 to housing 32. Mounting holes 312 may be asymmetrically arranged around mounting flange 310 and usable to mount bearing support 90 to mounting flange 310 properly in only one orientation”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the first and second mating surfaces, as taught by Tabota, to include a plurality of bolt holes and corresponding bolt studs spaced in a non-uniform pattern, as taught by Knaack, such that the bolt holes and studs are aligned when the specific geometries of the two surfaces are properly mated.
Regarding Claim 5: Tabota discloses the component pair of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first mating surface and the second mating surface are mounting flanges.
Knaack discloses an analogous art (support housing for an engine component in at least figures 2-4, the description, and the claims) wherein the first mating surface and the second mating surface are mounting flanges (fig.’s 3-4: mounting flange 310 mated with bearing support 90).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the first and second mating surfaces, as taught by Tabota, to be mounting flanges, as taught by Knaack, thereby increasing the industrial applicability of the invention to include engine, turbine, gearbox, or other rotary machine components that require precise alignment (par. 4).
Regarding Claim 6: Tabota in view of Knaack discloses the component pair of claim 5, and Knaack further discloses wherein the mounting flanges include a plurality of pins and a plurality of tails received within the pins when interlocked (fig.’s 3-4 and par. 29: “One or more fasteners and/or dowel pins may pass through mounting flange 310 via mounting holes 312 and be used to connect bearing support 90 to housing 32. Mounting holes 312 may be asymmetrically arranged around mounting flange 310 and usable to mount bearing support 90 to mounting flange 310 properly in only one orientation.” See also par.’s 31-33: description of support housing 32 and mounting flange 310 attachment structures).
The rationale to combine is the same as for claim 5.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabota (US 20160140772 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ahmad (US 20190338655 A1).
Regarding Claim 7: Tabota discloses the component pair of claim 1, further disclosing a triggering feature engaged only when the component pair is properly mated (fig.’s 8a-8e and par. 90: processor automatically constructs the first mating surface and displays the product on a monitor display. Then, upon approval of the first surface’s geometry, the user commands the processor to store the geometric key and construct the second mating surface being determined by the geometric key).
Tabota does not explicitly disclose that the triggering feature is positioned proximate to the first mating surface or a trigger positioned proximate to the second mating surface of the second component, wherein the trigger engages the triggering feature.
Ahmad discloses an analogous art (method for designing a complementary airfoil and blade root for a rotor blade in at least figures 1-6, the description, and the claims) further comprising: a triggering feature positioned proximate to the first mating surface of the first component (fig. 1 and par. 35: rotor blade 1 has blade root 4 with side faces 2); and a trigger positioned proximate the second mating surface of the second component (fig. 1 and par. 35: vibration test bench 8 with blade root socket 6 has excitation device 7 ), wherein the trigger engages the triggering feature only when the component pair is properly mated (par. 35: “ […] the blade root socket 6 of the excitation device 7 simulates the blade root socket of a rotor of that turbomachine in which the rotor blade 1 is to be subsequently used. The detected actual natural frequency is then compared with an acceptable, previously determined reference range.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the triggering feature, as taught by Ahmad, to be included in the component pair of Tabota thereby improving the user’s ability to rapidly and readily observe whether the component’s surfaces are properly mated.
Regarding Claim 8: Tabota in view of Ahmad disclose component pair of claim 7, and Tabota further discloses wherein a controller performs an action in response to the triggering feature being engaged (fig. 8a-8e and par. 90: processor used to operate triggering feature).
Regarding Claim 9: Tabota discloses the component pair of claim 1, wherein the first mating surface and second mating surface can have any desired surface shape (par. 151: “ Geometric solids having any desired surface shape can be used as the geometric solids 1, 2. For efficient use of the proposed method, geometric solids having a complex surface shape are selected as the geometric solids 1, 2 […]”).
Tabota does not explicitly disclose a dovetail mating feature.
Ahmad discloses an analogous art (method for designing a complementary airfoil and blade root for a rotor blade in at least figures 1-6, the description, and the claims) wherein the first geometry comprises a first dovetail mating feature on the first mating surface and wherein the second geometry comprises a second dovetail mating feature on the second mating surface, wherein the second dovetail mating feature is configured to mate with the first dovetail mating feature (fig. 1 and par. 34: blade root of rotor blade 4 is of a dovetail design mating with complementary feature blade root socket 6 of test bench 8).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the dovetail mating feature, as taught by Ahmad, to thereby increasing the industrial applicability of the invention to comply with engine, turbine, gearbox, or other rotary machine components that require precise alignment (par. 34).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes:
McCallister (US 20100289627 A1) discloses the component pair according to certain limitations of claim 1, notably a key providing encrypted access to a first and second geometry.
Lacy (US 10487660 B2) discloses the component pair according to claims 1-3, 5-6, and 9-10.
Steinbach (US 4069696 A) discloses the component pair according to claims 1-3,5-8, and 10.
Herzog (WO 2017036625 A1) discloses the component pair according to claims 1-3, 5-6, and 9-10.
Gold (US 20180292331 A1) discloses the component pair according to claims 1, 7-8, and 11.
Verdegan (US 20110220560 A1) discloses the component pair according to claims 1-3, 5, and 7-8.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN MANCINI whose telephone number is (703)756-5796. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8AM-5PM.
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, KRISTINA DEHERRERA can be reached at (303)297-4237. 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.
/EVAN MANCINI/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855 3/6/26
1 Note: The term “encrypted” in this instance is interpreted in view of the Specification filed 7/20/22 to mean any means of concealing information or data (See Specification paragraph [0069] “the geometric key is encrypted or otherwise maintained in a secure location to prevent others from easily replicating.”).