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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/11/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 08/12/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-17 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 06/12/2026.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18 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).
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 The 103 rejection of claims 18-20 has been withdrawn.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 § 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) 1-3, 5-13, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jean et al., US 20210023638 (hereafter Jean), and further in view of Nakayama et al., US 5660579 (hereafter Nakayama).
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 constant during the cutting of the workpiece along the wire path. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Nakayama teaches in column 7, lines 18-22 “the wire electrode 1, which is a wire that is used as an electrode, is guided along the upper wire guide 2 and the lower wire guide 3, and travels at a constant speed in the wire movement direction Wn”. )
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the step of constant speed as taught in Nakayama to the method of Jean. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order “to enable high speed shaping during the detailed machining” as taught in column 3, lines 27-30 in Nakayama.
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 3,
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.
Nakayama teaches in column 7, lines 18-22 “the wire electrode 1, which is a wire that is used as an electrode, is guided along the upper wire guide 2 and the lower wire guide 3, and travels at a constant speed in the wire movement direction Wn”. )
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the step of constant wire speed as taught in Nakayama to the method of Jean. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order “to enable high speed shaping during the detailed machining” as taught in column 3, lines 27-30 in Nakayama.
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 matches a predetermined cutting path. (Paragraph [32] in Jean 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] in Jean 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] in Jean 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] in Jean 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 in Jean 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.”)
…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.”)
… and a speed of the electrical discharge machining wire is constant during the cutting of the first rough cut aperture along the first wire path; (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Nakayama teaches in column 7, lines 18-22 “the wire electrode 1, which is a wire that is used as an electrode, is guided along the upper wire guide 2 and the lower wire guide 3, and travels at a constant speed in the wire movement direction Wn”. )
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the step of constant speed as taught in Nakayama to the method of Jean. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “For the initial machining W1, which is a rough machining procedure, a great deal of shaping must be performed in as short a period as possible. During the initial machining W1 procedure, the discharge energy, the rotation speed, and the wire tension are set for the highest machining speed” as taught in column 8, lines 18-22 in Nakayama.
Regarding claim 12,
The manufacturing method of claim 11, wherein the second wire path 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(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jean, Nakayama 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_image4.png
396
425
media_image4.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, Nakayama 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. ( Primary combination of references is silent about this.
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, Nakayama 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 08/12/2026 with respect to claim(s)1-17 have been considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant amended claims 1 and 11 to include “a speed of the electrical discharge machining wire is constant during the cutting” and argued this makes the invention distinguishable over prior art. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Nakayama as discussed above.
Conclusion
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