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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 02/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-17, 19 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Office Action mailed on 11/13/2025 except for the 112(b) rejection of claims 7-8, 12, 19 for “substantially”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-8, 12, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 7, 12, and 19 recite “substantially”. The term is indefinite because it is not clear what is the range of acceptable tolerance. It is not clear if 5%, or 10%, or 15% deviation is accepted as substantially.
Dependent claim 8 is rejected based on its dependency on claim 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18 and 20 are allowed.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claim 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The applicant’s argument on pages 12-13 of the remarks submitted on 02/13/2026 with respect to claims 18-20 are persuasive. The 103 rejection of claims 18-20 has been withdrawn.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-13, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Jean et al., US 20210023638 (hereafter Jean).
Regarding claim 1,
A method for manufacturing a component, comprising: (Fig. 3 teaches wire EDM method)
PNG
media_image1.png
529
760
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 in Jean
providing a workpiece; (308 in Fig. 3)
and machining an aperture into the workpiece using an electrical discharge machining wire supported by a guide, (Fig. 3 teaches machining aperture into workpiece 308 while wire 304 is fed via wire guide 305.)
the machining of the aperture comprising moving the guide along a guide path where the electrical discharge machining wire cuts the workpiece along a wire path (Paragraph [19] teaches “A controller 307 causes relative motion between the work piece 308 and the wire electrode 304 along a cutting path 310.” Paragraph [20] teaches “The cutting path 310 is determined in accordance with a desired profile shape of the component being machined, based on a nominal geometry.” Here desired shape corresponds to guide path. And cutting path corresponds to wire path.)
that is different than the guide path, (Paragraph [21] teaches “Certain profile shapes may cause the wire electrode 304 to deviate from the cutting path, leaving more or less material than is expected. For example, when the profile shape has tight curves, the wire electrode 304 may not be as tightly held by the wire guides 305, causing potential deviations in the cutting path.”)
and a speed of the electrical discharge machining wire is maintained during the cutting of the workpiece along the wire path. (Paragraph [26] teaches “the displacement speed may vary along the cutting path of the component as a function of the complexity of the profile, as well as potential dissymmetry of a surface due to flushing conditions, orientation of the wire (i.e. tilt), the wire used, the machine used, and other parameters of the process.”)
Regarding claim 2,
The method of claim 1, wherein the speed comprises a federate speed of the electrical discharge machining wire longitudinally along the wire path. (Paragraph [56] of the original disclosure describes “The term "federate speed" may describe a cutting speed that the EDM wire 62 cuts through the rotor disk 24 and its electrically conductive material along the wire path 94.”
Paragraph [25] in Jean teaches “Cutting parameters may include one or more of cutting speed, voltage, pressure, and water conductivity. The cutting parameters may include the displacement speed of the wire as it follows a cutting path, the cutting time of a given cutting pass, and/or the overall cutting time for the component, once all cutting passes are completed.”)
Regarding claim 5,
The method of claim 1, wherein the aperture comprises a firtree slot.(Fig. 2 in Jean teaches a firtree slot.)
PNG
media_image2.png
467
557
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 in Jean
Regarding claim 6,
The method of claim 1, wherein the wire path follows a tortuous trajectory. (Fig. 2 in Jean teaches a tortuous trajectory.)
Regarding claim 7,
The method of claim 1, further comprising modeling the guide path such that the wire path substantially matches a predetermined cutting path. (Paragraph [32] teaches “In some embodiments, determining the modified cutting path comprises selecting one or more zones from the plurality of zones and determining an offset to be applied to an original cutting path for the at least one zone, in order to obtain the modified cutting path.” Here modified cutting path is the modeled guide path to reduce error.)
Regarding claim 8,
The method of claim 7, wherein the guide path is modeled based on data for another aperture previously machined using wire electrical discharge machining. (Paragraph [27] teaches “Referring back to FIG. 4, at step 406 a modified cutting path is determined for at least one second component based on the cutting parameters of the one or more first components. For example, the original cutting path for the first cutting pass is modified based on the cutting parameters of the second cutting pass in order to obtain a modified cutting path for the first cutting pass of a subsequent component.”)
PNG
media_image3.png
573
417
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 in Jean
Regarding claim 9,
The method of claim 1, wherein the cutting of the workpiece along the wire path is a roughing pass for the machining of the aperture. (Paragraph [24] teaches “In some embodiments, three cutting passes are performed. A first cutting pass, a “roughing” pass, uses a first energy level that is high enough to remove a large quantity of material from the work piece as quickly as possible, leaving a rough surface.”)
Regarding claim 10,
The method of claim 9, wherein the machining of the aperture further comprises performing a finishing pass and a polishing pass with the electrical discharge machining wire following the roughing pass. (Paragraph [24] teaches “A second cutting pass, a “finishing” pass, uses a second energy level lower than the first energy level but with a greater frequency (i.e. a greater number of current discharges per unit of time). The finishing pass cleans the rough surface left by the roughing pass. A third cutting pass, a “polishing” pass, uses a third energy level lower than the second energy level and with an even greater frequency. The polishing pass cleans the finished surface left by the finishing pass and corrects metallurgical properties of the surface, to provide a desired surface integrity.”)
Regarding claim 11,
A manufacturing method, (Fig. 3 teaches wire EDM method)
comprising: providing a first component; (308 in Fig. 3)
cutting a first rough cut aperture (Paragraph [24] teaches “A first cutting pass, a “roughing” pass, uses a first energy level that is high enough to remove a large quantity of material from the work piece as quickly as possible, leaving a rough surface.”)
into the first component using an electrical discharge machining wire supported by a guide, (Fig. 3 teaches machining aperture into workpiece 308 while wire 304 is fed via wire guide 305.)
the cutting of the first rough cut aperture (Paragraph [24] teaches “A first cutting pass, a “roughing” pass, uses a first energy level that is high enough to remove a large quantity of material from the work piece as quickly as possible, leaving a rough surface.”)
comprising moving the guide along a first guide path where the electrical discharge machining wire cuts the first component along a first wire path (Paragraph [19] teaches “A controller 307 causes relative motion between the work piece 308 and the wire electrode 304 along a cutting path 310.” Paragraph [20] teaches “The cutting path 310 is determined in accordance with a desired profile shape of the component being machined, based on a nominal geometry.” Here desired shape corresponds to guide path. And cutting path corresponds to wire path.)
that is different than the first guide path, (Paragraph [21] teaches “Certain profile shapes may cause the wire electrode 304 to deviate from the cutting path, leaving more or less material than is expected. For example, when the profile shape has tight curves, the wire electrode 304 may not be as tightly held by the wire guides 305, causing potential deviations in the cutting path.”)
and a speed of the electrical discharge machining wire is maintained during the cutting of the first rough cut aperture along the first wire path; (Paragraph [25] teaches that wire maintains a displacement speed along a cutting path.)
modeling a second guide path based on a comparison between data for the first wire path and data for a predetermined cutting path; (Paragraph [27] teaches “Cutting parameters for any cutting pass N of a component X may be used to modify a cutting path of a cutting pass N−1 of a component X+1.”)
providing a second component; (Fig. 4, step 408 teaches a second component.)
and cutting a second rough cut aperture into the second component using the electrical discharge machining wire supported by the guide, the cutting of the second rough cut aperture comprising moving the guide along the second guide path where the electrical discharge machining wire cuts the second component along a second wire path that is different than the second guide path. (The claim is interpreted as the second component is cut similar to the first component.
Paragraph [29] teaches “At step 408, one or more second components are machined using Wire-EDM with one or more cutting paths that are based on the modified cutting path obtained in step 406.”)
Regarding claim 12,
The manufacturing method of claim 11, wherein the second wire path substantially matches the predetermined cutting path. (Paragraph [39] teaches “the method 400 is applied iteratively, over a plurality of components. For example, data is gathered from one or more first components and used to optimize the machining of one or more second components. Data is then gathered from the one or more second components to assess whether the machining process has been fully optimized. If not, data from the one or more second components is used to optimize the machining of one or more third components, and so on, until full optimization has been reached.”)
Regarding claim 13,
The manufacturing method of claim 11, wherein the speed of the electrical discharge machining wire is maintained during the cutting of the second rough cut aperture long the second wire path. (Paragraph [26] teaches “the displacement speed may vary along the cutting path of the component as a function of the complexity of the profile, as well as potential dissymmetry of a surface due to flushing conditions, orientation of the wire (i.e. tilt), the wire used, the machine used, and other parameters of the process.”)
Regarding claim 15,
The manufacturing method of claim 11, further comprising: cutting a first finish cut aperture into the first component using the electrical discharge machining wire; and cutting a second finish cut aperture into the second component using the electrical discharge machining wire.( Paragraph [24] teaches “A second cutting pass, a “finishing” pass, uses a second energy level lower than the first energy level but with a greater frequency (i.e. a greater number of current discharges per unit of time). The finishing pass cleans the rough surface left by the roughing pass.” It is implied that the second component also goes through similar finishing process.)
Regarding claim 16,
The manufacturing method of claim 11, further comprising: cutting a first polished aperture into the first component using the electrical discharge machining wire; and cutting a second polished aperture into the second component using the electrical discharge machining wire. (Paragraph [24] in Jean teaches “A third cutting pass, a “polishing” pass, uses a third energy level lower than the second energy level and with an even greater frequency. The polishing pass cleans the finished surface left by the finishing pass and corrects metallurgical properties of the surface, to provide a desired surface integrity.” It is implied that the second component also goes through similar polishing process.)
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jean as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Campli, US 20210170513 (hereafter Campli).
The method of claim 1, wherein the speed comprises a wire speed of the electrical discharge machining wire. (Paragraph [56] of the original disclosure describes “The term "wire speed" may describe a speed the EDM wire 62 moves from the wire spool 64 to the wire draw unit 66.” Primary combination of references is silent about this limitation.
Fig. 8 in Campli teaches wire traveling speed as a parameter in the WEDM process flow.)
PNG
media_image4.png
657
571
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 8 in Campli
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to include wire speed as a parameter as taught in Campli to the method of Jean. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “continuously comparing the wire wearing model with one or more wire wearing limits, and adjusting the wire traveling speed according to the comparison of the actual wire wearing model and the one or more wire wearing limits. The wire electrical discharge machining process is conducted with reduced wire consumption, safely, efficiently and profitably” as taught in abstract in Campli.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jean as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Frederick, US 8925201 (hereafter Frederick).
The method of claim 1, wherein the component comprises a rotor disk; and the aperture comprises a slot in the rotor disk. (Jean is silent about this.
Frederick teaches rotor disc 32 with slot 48 in Fig. 3.)
PNG
media_image5.png
396
425
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 in Frederick
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to include the rotor disk and slot as taught in Frederick to the method of Jean. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The disc and blade fixings of a rotor assembly of gas turbine engines, particularly of the high pressure turbine rotor assembly, conventionally comprise an undulating or "firtree" shaped profile in order to meet the requirements of engine performance, weight reduction, secondary air consumption, disc/blade life considerations, etc.” as taught in column 1, lines 12-18 in Frederick.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jean as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Campli, US 20210170513 (hereafter Campli).
The manufacturing method of claim 11, further comprising measuring the first rough cut aperture to provide the data for the first wire path. ( Campli teaches measuring crater size and updating wire model in Fig. 8.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to include measuring the crater size as a parameter as taught in Campli to the method of Jean. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “continuously comparing the wire wearing model with one or more wire wearing limits, and adjusting the wire traveling speed according to the comparison of the actual wire wearing model and the one or more wire wearing limits. The wire electrical discharge machining process is conducted with reduced wire consumption, safely, efficiently and profitably” as taught in abstract in Campli.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jean as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Frederick, US 8925201 (hereafter Frederick).
The manufacturing method of claim 11, wherein the first component comprises a rotor disk; and the first rough cut aperture is a rough cut slot in the rotor disk. (Similar scope to claim 4 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 02/13/2026 with respect to claim(s)1-17, 19 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argued on pages 7-8 against 112(b) rejection of claims 7-8, 12, 19. Applicant cited paragraph [56] of the original disclosure to describe “substantially” as “within bounds of acceptable tolerances”. However, this definition does not give any idea of the tolerance range. Acceptable tolerance is different for different applications, and users. The rejection is maintained.
In response to applicant's argument on pages 8-13 that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a ) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The independent claims 1, and 11 recite “a speed of the electrical discharge machining wire”. The claim is interpreted as the wire travels at a certain speed. Additionally, the independent claims do not define “speed” of the wire. The original disclosure describes two types of speed- federate speed (paragraph [8]), and wire speed (paragraph [9]). However, the claimed “speed” can be any of these or any speed related to the wire.
Jean teaches a displacement speed of the wire is maintained along a cutting path. Paragraph [21] in Jean teaches “It will be understood that “displacement speed of the wire electrode” is used herein to refer to a relative speed of the wire electrode 304 with respect to the work piece 308, and is applicable whether it is the work piece 308 or the cutting equipment 314 that is displaced.” Thus, Jean teaches a speed of the wire.
The applicant’s argument on pages 12-13 of the remarks submitted on 02/13/2026 with respect to claims 18-20 are persuasive. The 103 rejection of claims 18-20 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAHMIDA FERDOUSI whose telephone number is (303)297-4341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-3:00PM; PST.
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.
/FAHMIDA FERDOUSI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights