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 I, claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 01/08/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dulaney (US 6,144,012).
Regarding claim 1, Dulaney teaches a processed product manufacturing method (abstract) comprising: preparing a workpiece containing metal (Col. 3, lines 9-13); and forming along a surface of the workpiece a plurality of first regions applied with a tensile residual stress (laser beam spots form the first regions; Col. 4, lines 12-32) and a second region applied with a compressive residual stress by irradiating a plurality of irradiation points separated from each other in the surface with a laser beam (Col. 1, lines 57-63; Col. 2, lines 15-20; Col. 4, lines 12-32), wherein the first regions are formed to be separated from each other, and each of the first region is surrounded by the second region when viewed from a direction orthogonal to the surface (Col. 1, lines 57-63; Col. 2, lines 15-20; Col. 4, lines 12-32).
Regarding claim 2, Dulaney teaches the processed product manufacturing method according to claim 1, wherein the irradiation points are irradiated with the laser beam so that a plastic deformation region formed by plastic deformation is formed at a position corresponding to each of the irradiation points, and wherein the plastic deformation region corresponding to each of the irradiation points is formed not to overlap an adjacent plastic deformation region (Dulaney teaches applying compressive residual stress and it is known that plastic deformation applies compression residual stress (see instant application para. 0004); Col. 1, lines 57-63; Col. 2, lines 15-20; Col. 4, lines 12-32).
Regarding claim 3, Dulaney teaches the processed product manufacturing method according to claim 1, wherein the irradiation points are irradiated with the laser beam so that a metal flow region is formed at a position corresponding to each of irradiation points by a metal flow (It is known that when plastic deformation occurs in the workpiece, a metal flow occurs in the periphery of a region in which plastic deformation occurs (see instant application paragraph 0004); Col. 1, lines 57-63; Col. 2, lines 15-20; Col. 4, lines 12-32), and wherein the metal flow region corresponding to each of the irradiation points is irradiated to overlap an adjacent metal flow region (It is known that when plastic deformation occurs in the workpiece, a metal flow occurs in the periphery of a region in which plastic deformation occurs (see instant application paragraph 0004); Col. 1, lines 57-63; Col. 2, lines 15-20; Col. 4, lines 12-32).
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dulaney in view of Clauer (US 6,752,593).
Regarding claim 4, Dulaney teaches all the elements of the claimed invention as set forth in claim 1, except for, wherein the irradiation points are simultaneously irradiated with the laser beam.
Clauer teaches a processed product manufacturing method (abstract), wherein the irradiating points are simultaneously irradiated with the laser beam (Col. 14, lines 27-31).
Therefore, it would have it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Dulaney, with Clauer, by simultaneously irradiating the irradiating points with the laser beam, for a faster processing.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dulaney in view of Delvaux (US 2010/0061863).
Regarding claim 5, Dulaney teaches all the elements of the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1, except for, wherein the workpiece contains at least one of titanium and a titanium alloy.
Delvaux teaches a processed product manufacturing method (para.0001), wherein the workpiece contains at least one of titanium and a titanium alloy (para.0015).
Therefore, it would have it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the workpiece of Dulaney, with Delvaux, by applying the method of Dulaney to the titanium workpiece of Delvaux, as the Dulaney workpiece is also an aircraft gas turbine engine compressor blade and the titanium workpiece of Delvaux will benefit from the advantages of Dulaney method.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 7,097,720, US 2006/0254681 and US 2008/0241546.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBA T ROSARIO-APONTE whose telephone number is (571)272-9325. The examiner can normally be reached M to F; 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, Steven Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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.
/ALBA T ROSARIO-APONTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 01/15/2026
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761