DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-8 and 16-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 9-15) in the reply filed on 21 May 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-8 and 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 9, 11 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (US 2019/0299309).
Regarding claim 9, Yang discloses a method of forming a workpiece (100) including a gas turbine fuel nozzle [0023] (= a method for forming a nozzle inlet of a nozzle), the method comprising:
Providing an article/workpiece (e.g. 990) having a body including an exterior surface [0024] (Figure 5), the article/workpiece body forming an internal passage (112) (= providing a nozzle aperture body including an external surface, the nozzle body forming a manifold passage);
Forming the workpiece with internal passage (e.g. any part of the internal passage, 112) (612, Figure 6) (= forming a nozzle aperture extending through the nozzle body between and to a nozzle inlet and a nozzle outlet, the nozzle inlet disposed at the manifold passage, the nozzle outlet disposed at the external surface, forming the nozzle aperture including forming an edge of the nozzle body at the nozzle inlet);
Positioning a flexible electrode (616) into the internal passage (612) (Figure 6) [0003], [0062] (= positioning a machining tool of an electro-chemical machining assembly at the nozzle inlet); and
Electrochemically removing material from the workpiece [0003], [0041] (= forming the nozzle inlet by removing the edge with the machining tool).
Regarding claim 11, Yang discloses applying a voltage and supplying and circulating an electrolyte in the gap between the electrode and workpiece (abstract).
Regarding claims 13-14, Yang discloses attaching a leader (640) to a first end of the electrode (616) and is configured for pulling the electrode to be inserted into the internal passage (612). Yang discloses mechanically connecting the leader to the first end and then pulling the electrode to be inserted [0062].
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2019/0299309).
Regarding claim 12, Yang discloses applying voltage to electrochemically remove a predetermined amount of material. Yang discloses a controller that controls a pulse duration, frequency and magnitude of the pulsed voltage supplied [0041]. Regarding the claimed “predetermined electrical current threshold value”, the phrase is not particularly limiting. The value may be selected to be any current (or voltage). Selecting applying current or voltage is an obvious engineering design choice since the values are related through Ohm’s Law.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2019/0299309) in view of Rudrapatna et al. (US 2022/0364272).
Regarding claim 10, Yang fails to disclose wherein forming the nozzle inlet includes forming a fillet of the nozzle body at the nozzle inlet, the fillet extending circumferentially about the nozzle inlet.
In the same or similar field of forming openings in gas turbine engines, Rudrapatna discloses that an inlet section (310) of the turbine engine includes a bellmouth and defines an opening. The inlet section also includes a fillet (326) [0040] which extends about a perimeter of a cooling hole (300) (Figure 3) [0044].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a method comprising a nozzle inlet with a fillet because Rudrapatna discloses that a fillet is a known structure formed in an inlet section of a gas turbine engine. It would have been obvious to construct the gas turbine engine of Yang with a fillet structure for providing a cooling hole for the gas turbine engine [0044].
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2019/0299309) in view of Butterfield et al. (US 5,026,462).
Regarding claim 15, Yang fails to disclose drilling the nozzle orifice through the nozzle body in a direction from the nozzle outlet to the nozzle inlet.
Butterfield discloses a method for electrochemical machining of spray holes in fuel injection nozzles (title). Butterfield discloses the method including first drilling spray holes followed by electrochemical machining to round off inner corners in a manner which does not substantially affect the diameters of the remaining portions of the spray holes. Butterfield discloses that the final diameters and lengths of the spray holes can be determined accurately by the original drilling or boring process with electrochemical machining providing a highly desirable rounding of the inner edges of the spray holes (Col. 4 lines 13-27).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a method comprising drilling a nozzle orifice because Butterfield discloses that it is known in the art to initially drill a hole with the desired diameter size and then subsequently carry out electrochemical machining to producing a smooth surface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEFANIE S WITTENBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-7594. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 am -4:00 pm EST.
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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/Stefanie S Wittenberg/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795