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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-13 are pending:
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 03/21/2023, 04/26/2023, 05/28/2024, 10/07/2024, 02/06/2026 is/are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Implied language
Drawings
Figure 8, 12a should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3
Line2 remove “as the process,” to improve clarity and to mirror the claim construction style of the remaining claims
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-2, 4, 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bailey (US 2010/0226780).
Claim 1
Bailey discloses:
“A laser processing method (Claim 1, Abstract) for imparting compressive residual stress (Para5) to an object along an objective area on a surface of the object by irradiating the objective area with laser light (best seen Fig1/7/8, compressive stress in shock peened spots 58 on airfoil 34 by laser 2 from generator 31 via optics 35), the method comprising:
a processing step of scanning the objective area (Fig1/4-5, shock peened spots 58 formed on leading edge LE of airfoil 34; Fig6, shock peened spots 58 formed at airfoil tip 38 region) with an irradiation spot of the laser light (best seen Fig7/8, laser light 2 shown by arrowed lines flowing from generator 31 via optics 35 to working regions of airfoil 34, irradiation spot is where laser 2 contacts the airfoil 34 at shock peened spots 58) while increasing a moving average in intensity of the laser light per unit area (Para34/Fig6, third laser pulse fluence of rows R3/4 is greater than second laser pulse fluence of row R2 which are further greater than the first laser pulse fluence of row R1; Para33/Fig5, varying laser strength along the span/vertical/radial direction).”
Claim 2
Bailey discloses: “The laser processing method according to claim 1, wherein, in the processing step, a process of moving the irradiation spot of the laser light along each of a plurality of lines extending in a first direction and arranged in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction is executed to scan the objective area with the irradiation spot of the laser light (best seen Fig1/4/6, laser 2 is moved between shock peened spots 58 that are arranged in rows in both the radial and axial directions of the blade, radial/axial directions are perpendicular), and wherein, in the processing step, the intensity of the laser light per unit area is increased for at least one of the plurality of lines to increase the moving average (Para34/Fig6, third laser pulse fluence of rows R3/4 is greater than second laser pulse fluence of row R2 which are further greater than the first laser pulse fluence of row R1; Para33/Fig5, varying laser strength along the span/vertical/radial direction).”
Claim 7
Bailey discloses: “The laser processing method according to claim 2, wherein, in the processing step, a position of a convergence spot of the laser light is moved in a direction intersecting with the objective area to increase the moving average (Bailey: Para26, area of laser beam focus is increased/decreased while the strength of the laser beam 2 is held fixed or constant in order to vary the surface pulse fluence laser shock, increasing/decreasing the area over which the laser beam 2 is focused is an alternative way to state that the convergence spot of the laser is moved in/out of the working plane).”
Claim 4
Bailey discloses: “The laser processing method according claim 1, wherein, in the processing step, a position of a convergence spot of the laser light is moved in a direction intersecting with the objective area to increase the moving average (Bailey: Para26, area of laser beam focus is increased/decreased while the strength of the laser beam 2 is held fixed or constant in order to vary the surface pulse fluence laser shock, increasing/decreasing the area over which the laser beam 2 is focused is an alternative way to state that the convergence spot of the laser is moved in/out of the working plane).”
Claim 6
Bailey discloses:
“A laser processing apparatus (overall arrangement best seen Fig7, system 10) for imparting compressive residual stress (Para5, Abstract) to an object along an objective area on a surface of the object by irradiating the objective area with laser light (best seen Fig1/7/8, compressive stress in shock peened spots 58 on airfoil 34 by laser from generator 31 via optics 35), the apparatus comprising:
a support part (best seen Fig7, fixture 15) configured to support the object (best seen Fig7, blade 8 in fixture 15);
an irradiation part (best seen Fig7/8, laser 2 from generator 31 via optics 35) configured to irradiate the objective area (best seen Fig1/7/8, compressive stress in shock peened spots 58 on airfoil 34 by laser from generator 31 via optics 35) with the laser light (best seen Fig7/8, laser 2 from generator 31 via optics 35); and
a control part (best seen Fig7, controllers 128/24) configured to control (best seen Fig7, controllers 128/24; Para35) an operation of at least one of the support part (Para35/Fig7, CNC controller 128, manipulator 127 manipulates blade 8) and the irradiation part (Para35/Para7, laser controller 24 controls operation of laser 2 via generator 31 and optics 35),
wherein the control part (best seen Fig7, controller 128/24) controls the operation of at least one of the support part (best seen Fig7, CNC controller 128) and the irradiation part (best seen Fig7, controller laser 24) such that the objective area is scanned with an irradiation spot of the laser light (best seen Fig1/7/8, compressive stress in shock peened spots 58 on airfoil 34 by laser from generator 31 via optics 35) while a moving average in intensity of the laser light per unit area is increased (Para34/Fig6, third laser pulse fluence of rows R3/4 is greater than second laser pulse fluence of row R2 which are further greater than the first laser pulse fluence of row R1; Para33/Fig5, varying laser strength along the span/vertical/radial direction).”
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.
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) 3, 5, 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey (US 2010/226780) in view of Gabilondo (RU 2 661 131).
Claim 3
Bailey discloses the arrangement of Claim 2.
Bailey is silent to explicitly how the path of the laser travels between the disclosed lines and rows of Bailey.
Gabilondo teaches (Fig6a, scan line 2E) that it is known to move a laser over a working surface from a first side to a second side in the first direction, ie top to bottom in the vertical direction of the page, alternating with moving from the second side to the first side in the first direction, ie the arrangement moves the laser alternating between down/up/down/up/etc in the vertical direction of the page.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look to the prior art to select a laser travel path method, as Bailey is silent to the particular travel path of the laser relative to the workpiece and one of ordinary skill in the art would have to make such selection on laser travel path method in order to actually practice the disclosure of Bailey, and Gabilondo teaches that it is known in the art to move a laser over a working surface from a first side to a second side in the first direction, ie top to bottom in the vertical direction of the page, alternating with moving from the second side to the first side in the first direction, ie the arrangement moves the laser alternating between down/up/down/up/etc in the vertical direction of the page, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing Bailey with a working known in the art laser travel path method for the laser of Bailey.
Claim 8
The modified arrangement of Bailey by the teachings of Gabilondo discloses: “The laser processing method according to claim 3, wherein, in the processing step, a position of a convergence spot of the laser light is moved in a direction intersecting with the objective area to increase the moving average (Bailey: Para26, area of laser beam focus is increased/decreased while the strength of the laser beam 2 is held fixed or constant in order to vary the surface pulse fluence laser shock, increasing/decreasing the area over which the laser beam 2 is focused is an alternative way to state that the convergence spot of the laser is moved in/out of the working plane).”
Claim 13
The modified arrangement of Bailey by the teachings of Gabilondo discloses the arrangement of Claim 8.
Bailey teaches (Para29-33/Fig4/Table1-2) that the applied laser energy is varied (best seen Table 2) based on material thickness (Table 1) across the worked surface 54 in the various different positions P1-9 and rows R1-4 in order to result (Para33) in a constant Volumetric Fluence for the given peened spots 58. Thus, teaching that it is known to vary laser strength based on prior measured conditions in the working surface 54 in order to result in an imparted stress that is constant across the worked surface 54.
Bailey is silent to the laser strength variance determination coming from a sample part, as opposed to the actual worked part, and is silent to scanning the sample part with a constant laser intensity to measure the resulting compressive stress on the sample.
Gabilondo teaches (Specification, roughly 3/8 through the document Para starting with “By changing parameters, such as the geometric configuration” and recited in full in the bullet below) that it is known in the art to use test parts via trial and error laser scanning of the test parts to determine optimal laser power and/or laser spot size in order to optimize the desired final result for the workpiece. The office notes that a trial and error using constant laser power over area is within the taught bounds of tested parameters of the geometric configuration of the scanning circuit.
“By changing parameters, such as the geometric configuration of the scanning circuit, that is, the path of the circuit, and / or the scanning speed, and / or the power of the laser beam, and / or the size of the laser spot, and / or even such parameters as the wavelength and angle of incidence laser beam to the surface to be hardened, the system provides flexibility to optimize heating along and across the surface to be hardened. Experiments can be performed on test machined parts or using computer simulations by trial and error, and the operator can dynamically change parameter values such as length and position / orientation of segments, scanning speed for each segment, laser beam power in each segment, etc. ., until a combination of parameters is found that provides acceptable hardening characteristics without unduly degrading more heat-sensitive areas or parts.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Bailey to perform the preparation determination of variable laser energy to result in a constant peened stress across the peened spots, by applying the teachings of Gabilondo to use test parts via trial and error laser scanning of the test parts to determine optimal laser power and/or laser spot size in order to optimize the desired final result for the workpiece, as Gabilondo teaches that the use of test parts in the optimization preparation determination of laser properties is a known in the art optimization method, and such a modification would merely be the use of a known technique, from Gabilondo, to improve a similar technique, of Bailey, in the same way in the art workpiece preparation determination, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing Bailey with a test part analysis of stress due to various laser beam power and/or spot size, included within the taught bounds would be constant power over area, in order to preparation determine the optimal laser power per area to apply to the actual workpiece to have a constant resultant imparted peened stress on the worked surface.
Claim 10
The modified arrangement of Bailey by the teachings of Gabilondo discloses the arrangement of Claim 3.
Bailey teaches (Para29-33/Fig4/Table1-2) that the applied laser energy is varied (best seen Table 2) based on material thickness (Table 1) across the worked surface 54 in the various different positions P1-9 and rows R1-4 in order to result (Para33) in a constant Volumetric Fluence for the given peened spots 58. Thus, teaching that it is known to vary laser strength based on prior measured conditions in the working surface 54 in order to result in an imparted stress that is constant across the worked surface 54.
Bailey is silent to the laser strength variance determination coming from a sample part, as opposed to the actual worked part, and is silent to scanning the sample part with a constant laser intensity to measure the resulting compressive stress on the sample.
Gabilondo teaches (Specification, roughly 3/8 through the document Para starting with “By changing parameters, such as the geometric configuration” and recited in full in the bullet below) that it is known in the art to use test parts via trial and error laser scanning of the test parts to determine optimal laser power and/or laser spot size in order to optimize the desired final result for the workpiece. The office notes that a trial and error using constant laser power over area is within the taught bounds of tested parameters of the geometric configuration of the scanning circuit.
“By changing parameters, such as the geometric configuration of the scanning circuit, that is, the path of the circuit, and / or the scanning speed, and / or the power of the laser beam, and / or the size of the laser spot, and / or even such parameters as the wavelength and angle of incidence laser beam to the surface to be hardened, the system provides flexibility to optimize heating along and across the surface to be hardened. Experiments can be performed on test machined parts or using computer simulations by trial and error, and the operator can dynamically change parameter values such as length and position / orientation of segments, scanning speed for each segment, laser beam power in each segment, etc. ., until a combination of parameters is found that provides acceptable hardening characteristics without unduly degrading more heat-sensitive areas or parts.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Bailey to perform the preparation determination of variable laser energy to result in a constant peened stress across the peened spots, by applying the teachings of Gabilondo to use test parts via trial and error laser scanning of the test parts to determine optimal laser power and/or laser spot size in order to optimize the desired final result for the workpiece, as Gabilondo teaches that the use of test parts in the optimization preparation determination of laser properties is a known in the art optimization method, and such a modification would merely be the use of a known technique, from Gabilondo, to improve a similar technique, of Bailey, in the same way in the art workpiece preparation determination, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing Bailey with a test part analysis of stress due to various laser beam power and/or spot size, included within the taught bounds would be constant power over area, in order to preparation determine the optimal laser power per area to apply to the actual workpiece to have a constant resultant imparted peened stress on the worked surface.
Claim 12
Bailey discloses the arrangement of Claim 7.
Bailey teaches (Para29-33/Fig4/Table1-2) that the applied laser energy is varied (best seen Table 2) based on material thickness (Table 1) across the worked surface 54 in the various different positions P1-9 and rows R1-4 in order to result (Para33) in a constant Volumetric Fluence for the given peened spots 58. Thus, teaching that it is known to vary laser strength based on prior measured conditions in the working surface 54 in order to result in an imparted stress that is constant across the worked surface 54.
Bailey is silent to the laser strength variance determination coming from a sample part, as opposed to the actual worked part, and is silent to scanning the sample part with a constant laser intensity to measure the resulting compressive stress on the sample.
Gabilondo teaches (Specification, roughly 3/8 through the document Para starting with “By changing parameters, such as the geometric configuration” and recited in full in the bullet below) that it is known in the art to use test parts via trial and error laser scanning of the test parts to determine optimal laser power and/or laser spot size in order to optimize the desired final result for the workpiece. The office notes that a trial and error using constant laser power over area is within the taught bounds of tested parameters of the geometric configuration of the scanning circuit.
“By changing parameters, such as the geometric configuration of the scanning circuit, that is, the path of the circuit, and / or the scanning speed, and / or the power of the laser beam, and / or the size of the laser spot, and / or even such parameters as the wavelength and angle of incidence laser beam to the surface to be hardened, the system provides flexibility to optimize heating along and across the surface to be hardened. Experiments can be performed on test machined parts or using computer simulations by trial and error, and the operator can dynamically change parameter values such as length and position / orientation of segments, scanning speed for each segment, laser beam power in each segment, etc. ., until a combination of parameters is found that provides acceptable hardening characteristics without unduly degrading more heat-sensitive areas or parts.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Bailey to perform the preparation determination of variable laser energy to result in a constant peened stress across the peened spots, by applying the teachings of Gabilondo to use test parts via trial and error laser scanning of the test parts to determine optimal laser power and/or laser spot size in order to optimize the desired final result for the workpiece, as Gabilondo teaches that the use of test parts in the optimization preparation determination of laser properties is a known in the art optimization method, and such a modification would merely be the use of a known technique, from Gabilondo, to improve a similar technique, of Bailey, in the same way in the art workpiece preparation determination, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing Bailey with a test part analysis of stress due to various laser beam power and/or spot size, included within the taught bounds would be constant power over area, in order to preparation determine the optimal laser power per area to apply to the actual workpiece to have a constant resultant imparted peened stress on the worked surface.
Claim 9
Bailey discloses the arrangement of Claim 2.
Bailey teaches (Para29-33/Fig4/Table1-2) that the applied laser energy is varied (best seen Table 2) based on material thickness (Table 1) across the worked surface 54 in the various different positions P1-9 and rows R1-4 in order to result (Para33) in a constant Volumetric Fluence for the given peened spots 58. Thus, teaching that it is known to vary laser strength based on prior measured conditions in the working surface 54 in order to result in an imparted stress that is constant across the worked surface 54.
Bailey is silent to the laser strength variance determination coming from a sample part, as opposed to the actual worked part, and is silent to scanning the sample part with a constant laser intensity to measure the resulting compressive stress on the sample.
Gabilondo teaches (Specification, roughly 3/8 through the document Para starting with “By changing parameters, such as the geometric configuration” and recited in full in the bullet below) that it is known in the art to use test parts via trial and error laser scanning of the test parts to determine optimal laser power and/or laser spot size in order to optimize the desired final result for the workpiece. The office notes that a trial and error using constant laser power over area is within the taught bounds of tested parameters of the geometric configuration of the scanning circuit.
“By changing parameters, such as the geometric configuration of the scanning circuit, that is, the path of the circuit, and / or the scanning speed, and / or the power of the laser beam, and / or the size of the laser spot, and / or even such parameters as the wavelength and angle of incidence laser beam to the surface to be hardened, the system provides flexibility to optimize heating along and across the surface to be hardened. Experiments can be performed on test machined parts or using computer simulations by trial and error, and the operator can dynamically change parameter values such as length and position / orientation of segments, scanning speed for each segment, laser beam power in each segment, etc. ., until a combination of parameters is found that provides acceptable hardening characteristics without unduly degrading more heat-sensitive areas or parts.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Bailey to perform the preparation determination of variable laser energy to result in a constant peened stress across the peened spots, by applying the teachings of Gabilondo to use test parts via trial and error laser scanning of the test parts to determine optimal laser power and/or laser spot size in order to optimize the desired final result for the workpiece, as Gabilondo teaches that the use of test parts in the optimization preparation determination of laser properties is a known in the art optimization method, and such a modification would merely be the use of a known technique, from Gabilondo, to improve a similar technique, of Bailey, in the same way in the art workpiece preparation determination, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing Bailey with a test part analysis of stress due to various laser beam power and/or spot size, included within the taught bounds would be constant power over area, in order to preparation determine the optimal laser power per area to apply to the actual workpiece to have a constant resultant imparted peened stress on the worked surface.
Claim 11
Bailey discloses the arrangement of Claim 4.
Bailey teaches (Para29-33/Fig4/Table1-2) that the applied laser energy is varied (best seen Table 2) based on material thickness (Table 1) across the worked surface 54 in the various different positions P1-9 and rows R1-4 in order to result (Para33) in a constant Volumetric Fluence for the given peened spots 58. Thus, teaching that it is known to vary laser strength based on prior measured conditions in the working surface 54 in order to result in an imparted stress that is constant across the worked surface 54.
Bailey is silent to the laser strength variance determination coming from a sample part, as opposed to the actual worked part, and is silent to scanning the sample part with a constant laser intensity to measure the resulting compressive stress on the sample.
Gabilondo teaches (Specification, roughly 3/8 through the document Para starting with “By changing parameters, such as the geometric configuration” and recited in full in the bullet below) that it is known in the art to use test parts via trial and error laser scanning of the test parts to determine optimal laser power and/or laser spot size in order to optimize the desired final result for the workpiece. The office notes that a trial and error using constant laser power over area is within the taught bounds of tested parameters of the geometric configuration of the scanning circuit.
“By changing parameters, such as the geometric configuration of the scanning circuit, that is, the path of the circuit, and / or the scanning speed, and / or the power of the laser beam, and / or the size of the laser spot, and / or even such parameters as the wavelength and angle of incidence laser beam to the surface to be hardened, the system provides flexibility to optimize heating along and across the surface to be hardened. Experiments can be performed on test machined parts or using computer simulations by trial and error, and the operator can dynamically change parameter values such as length and position / orientation of segments, scanning speed for each segment, laser beam power in each segment, etc. ., until a combination of parameters is found that provides acceptable hardening characteristics without unduly degrading more heat-sensitive areas or parts.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Bailey to perform the preparation determination of variable laser energy to result in a constant peened stress across the peened spots, by applying the teachings of Gabilondo to use test parts via trial and error laser scanning of the test parts to determine optimal laser power and/or laser spot size in order to optimize the desired final result for the workpiece, as Gabilondo teaches that the use of test parts in the optimization preparation determination of laser properties is a known in the art optimization method, and such a modification would merely be the use of a known technique, from Gabilondo, to improve a similar technique, of Bailey, in the same way in the art workpiece preparation determination, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing Bailey with a test part analysis of stress due to various laser beam power and/or spot size, included within the taught bounds would be constant power over area, in order to preparation determine the optimal laser power per area to apply to the actual workpiece to have a constant resultant imparted peened stress on the worked surface.
Claim 5
Bailey discloses the arrangement of Claim 1.
Bailey teaches (Para29-33/Fig4/Table1-2) that the applied laser energy is varied (best seen Table 2) based on material thickness (Table 1) across the worked surface 54 in the various different positions P1-9 and rows R1-4 in order to result (Para33) in a constant Volumetric Fluence for the given peened spots 58. Thus, teaching that it is known to vary laser strength based on prior measured conditions in the working surface 54 in order to result in an imparted stress that is constant across the worked surface 54.
Bailey is silent to the laser strength variance determination coming from a sample part, as opposed to the actual worked part, and is silent to scanning the sample part with a constant laser intensity to measure the resulting compressive stress on the sample.
Gabilondo teaches (Specification, roughly 3/8 through the document Para starting with “By changing parameters, such as the geometric configuration” and recited in full in the bullet below) that it is known in the art to use test parts via trial and error laser scanning of the test parts to determine optimal laser power and/or laser spot size in order to optimize the desired final result for the workpiece. The office notes that a trial and error using constant laser power over area is within the taught bounds of tested parameters of the geometric configuration of the scanning circuit.
“By changing parameters, such as the geometric configuration of the scanning circuit, that is, the path of the circuit, and / or the scanning speed, and / or the power of the laser beam, and / or the size of the laser spot, and / or even such parameters as the wavelength and angle of incidence laser beam to the surface to be hardened, the system provides flexibility to optimize heating along and across the surface to be hardened. Experiments can be performed on test machined parts or using computer simulations by trial and error, and the operator can dynamically change parameter values such as length and position / orientation of segments, scanning speed for each segment, laser beam power in each segment, etc. ., until a combination of parameters is found that provides acceptable hardening characteristics without unduly degrading more heat-sensitive areas or parts.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Bailey to perform the preparation determination of variable laser energy to result in a constant peened stress across the peened spots, by applying the teachings of Gabilondo to use test parts via trial and error laser scanning of the test parts to determine optimal laser power and/or laser spot size in order to optimize the desired final result for the workpiece, as Gabilondo teaches that the use of test parts in the optimization preparation determination of laser properties is a known in the art optimization method, and such a modification would merely be the use of a known technique, from Gabilondo, to improve a similar technique, of Bailey, in the same way in the art workpiece preparation determination, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing Bailey with a test part analysis of stress due to various laser beam power and/or spot size, included within the taught bounds would be constant power over area, in order to preparation determine the optimal laser power per area to apply to the actual workpiece to have a constant resultant imparted peened stress on the worked surface.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 7,736,450 to Bailey: US Patent version of Bailey above
US 10,138,528 to Gabilondo: US Patent version of Gabilondo above
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN HUNTER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-5093. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-18.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571 272 9059. 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.
/JOHN S HUNTER, JR/Examiner, Art Unit 3761