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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 11/26/2025 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response filed on 11/26/2025. Claims 11-17 are withdrawn. Claims 1-10 and 18-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Interpretation
Note: Whenever the claims indicated inclusive (and) or alternative (or) limitations, only the alternative limitations were examined unless stated different in the rejection. Similarly, whenever the claims indicated optional limitations (e.g. “optionally"), the claim limitations were considered to be a preference and not a requirement unless stated different in the claim rejection.
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.
(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.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al (Chinese Patent Publication No. CN109396972), hereinafter referred to as Wang.
Regarding claim 1, Wang et al (Chinese Patent Publication No. CN109396972) discloses a method for machining a workpiece [Wang, fig 1], the method comprising:
orienting a first ultrasonic impact grinding tool head [Wang, page 23, pp 0051, 304 and 305 form a ultrasonic impact grinding tool head, where the head impacts the work surface and meets the definition of the claim] relative to the workpiece such that a tip of the first ultrasonic impact grinding tool head is spaced from a surface of the workpiece above a first work zone of the workpiece [Wang, figs 3-4, showing a first of two 305s oriented apart from the work and page 30, pp 0064, 304 and 305];
supplying, by a first nozzle, a first portion of a particulate slurry to the first work zone on the workpiece [Wang, page 31, pp 0066, first of a 309];
orienting a second ultrasonic impact grinding tool head [Wang, page 23, pp 0051, 304 and 305 form a ultrasonic impact grinding tool head] relative to the workpiece such that a tip of the second ultrasonic impact grinding tool head is spaced from the surface of the workpiece above a second work zone of the workpiece [Wang, figs 3-4, showing a second of two 305s oriented apart from the work and page 30, pp 0064, 304 and 305];
supplying, by a second nozzle, a second portion of the particulate slurry to the second work zone on the workpiece [Wang, page 31, pp 0066, second of a 309];
vibrating the tip of the first ultrasonic impact grinding tool head [Wang, page 31, pp 0065, applied to the first of 304 and 305]; and
vibrating the tip of the second ultrasonic impact grinding tool head [Wang, page 31, pp 0065, applied to the second of 304 and 305].
Regarding claim 3, Wang further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: supporting, by a gantry, the first ultrasonic impact grinding tool head [Wang, figs 3-4, 303]; and supporting, by the gantry, the second ultrasonic impact grinding tool head [Wang, figs 3-4, 303].
Regarding claim 4, Wang further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: supporting, by a cylindrical drum, a first tool arm comprising the first ultrasonic impact grinding tool head [Wang, fig 3, first of 304]; and supporting, by the cylindrical drum, a second tool arm comprising the second ultrasonic impact grinding tool head [Wang, fig 3, second of 304].
Regarding claim 6, Wang further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: coordinating, by a central processing unit, a position of the first ultrasonic impact grinding tool head and a position of the second ultrasonic impact grinding tool head [Wang, claim 10, step S2, teaching that force feedback control happens which teaches that a controller must be involved with the positioning of the ultrasonic impact grinding heads].
Regarding claim 7, Wang further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: supporting the workpiece on a mount connected to a base [Wang, fig 1, 2].
Regarding claim 8, Wang further discloses the method of claim 7, further comprising: rotating the base and/or mount to rotate the workpiece about a center axis [Wang, fig 2, 2 showing 203 rotating].
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.
Claims 2 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (Chinese Patent Publication No. CN109396972) in view of Nakano (US Patent No. 5,062,933), hereinafter referred to as Wang and Nakano, respectively.
Regarding claim 2, Wang further discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose vibrating the tip of the first ultrasonic impact grinding tool head to form a first hole in the first work zone of the workpiece; and vibrating the tip of the second ultrasonic impact grinding tool head to form a second hole in the second work zone of the workpiece.
Nakano teaches a method for machining a workpiece [Nakano, fig 1, A is a workpiece to be machined], the method comprising:
orienting a first ultrasonic impact grinding tool head relative to the workpiece such that a tip of the first ultrasonic impact grinding tool head is spaced from a surface of the workpiece above a first work zone of the workpiece [Nakano, col 2, lines 64-67, B is spaced apart from A];
supplying, by a first nozzle, a first portion of a particulate slurry to the first work zone on the workpiece [Nakano, col 2, line 67 - col 3, lines 2, D which contains particulate C, onto A]; and
vibrating the tip of the ultrasonic impact grinding tool head to form a hole in the first work zone of the workpiece [Nakano, col 3, lines 45-59 and col 4, lines 4-16, vertical vibration of B forming cavity within A].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the elliptical ultrasonic grinding tool of Wang for the vertical vibrating tools of Nakano to cause the first and second ultrasonic impact grinding heads to form holes within the workpiece as required by the claim because per MPEP 2143(I)(B) the substitution of elements is held to be obvious over the prior art. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. Where in the instant case, that is the substitution of UIG of the Nakano for the elliptical ultrasonic grinding tool head of Wang, each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. In the substitution each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination gave the predictable result of the substituted UIG of Nakano will operate the same within the apparatus of Wang.
Regarding claim 18, Wang discloses a method for machining a workpiece [Wang, fig 1], the method comprising:
orienting a first ultrasonic impact grinding tool head [Wang, page 23, pp 0051, 304 and 305 form a ultrasonic impact grinding tool head] relative to the workpiece such that a first tip of the first ultrasonic impact grinding tool head is positioned over a surface of the workpiece without contacting the surface of the workpiece [Wang, figs 3-4, showing a first of two 305s oriented apart from the work and page 30, pp 0064, 304 and 305];
delivering, by a first nozzle, a first supply of particulate slurry between the surface of the workpiece and the first tip [Wang, page 31, pp 0066, first of a 309];
orienting a second ultrasonic impact grinding tool head [Wang, page 23, pp 0051, 304 and 305 form a ultrasonic impact grinding tool head] relative to the workpiece such that a second tip of the second ultrasonic impact grinding tool head is positioned over the surface of the workpiece without contacting the surface of the workpiece [Wang, figs 3-4, showing a second of two 305s oriented apart from the work and page 30, pp 0064, 304 and 305];
delivering, by a second nozzle, a second supply of particulate slurry between the surface of the workpiece and the second tip [Wang, page 31, pp 0066, second of a 309].
Wang does not explicitly disclose vibrating the first tip along a longitudinal axis of the first tip to cause particles in the first supply of particulate slurry to vibrate and cut a first feature in the surface of the workpiece; and vibrating the second tip along a longitudinal axis of the second tip to cause particles in the second supply of particulate slurry to vibrate and cut a second feature in the surface of the workpiece.
Nakano teaches a method for machining a workpiece [Nakano, fig 1, A is a workpiece to be machined], the method comprising:
orienting a first ultrasonic impact grinding tool head relative to the workpiece such that a first tip of the first ultrasonic impact grinding tool head is positioned over a surface of the workpiece without contacting the surface of the workpiece [Nakano, col 2, lines 64-67, B is spaced apart from A];
delivering, by a first nozzle, a first supply of particulate slurry between the surface of the workpiece and the first tip [Nakano, col 2, line 67 - col 3, lines 2, D which contains particulate C, onto A]; and
vibrating the first tip along a longitudinal axis of the first tip to cause particles in the first supply of particulate slurry to vibrate and cut a first feature in the surface of the workpiece [Nakano, col 3, lines 45-59 and col 4, lines 4-16, vertical vibration of B].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the elliptical ultrasonic grinding tool of Wang for the vertical vibrating tools of Nakano to cause the first and second ultrasonic impact grinding heads to form holes within the workpiece as required by the claim because per MPEP 2143(I)(B) the substitution of elements is held to be obvious over the prior art. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. Where in the instant case, that is the substitution of UIG of the Nakano for the elliptical ultrasonic grinding tool head of Wang, each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. In the substitution each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination gave the predictable result of the substituted UIG of Nakano will operate the same within the apparatus of Wang.
Regarding claim 19, Wang as modified further discloses the method of claim 18, further comprising: coordinating, by a central processing unit, a position of the first ultrasonic impact grinding tool head relative to the workpiece and a position of the second ultrasonic grinding tool head relative to the workpiece [Wang, claim 10, step S2, teaching that force feedback control happens which teaches that a controller must be involved with the positioning of the ultrasonic impact grinding heads].
Regarding claim 20, Wang as modified further discloses the method of claim 18, further comprising: supporting the workpiece on a mount [Wang, fig 1, 2 holds a workpiece]; and rotating the mount to rotate the workpiece [Wang, fig 2, 203 rotates to rotate the workpiece].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (Chinese Patent Publication No. CN109396972) in view of Mehr (US PGPUB No. 2022/0212341), hereinafter referred to as Wang and Mehr, respectively.
Regarding claim 5, Wang further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: supporting, by a robotic arm, the first ultrasonic impact grinding tool head [Wang, fig 3, 301 supports the first 305]; and supporting, by the robotic arm, the second ultrasonic impact grinding tool head [Wang, fig 3, 301 supports the second 305 as well].
However, Wang does not explicitly disclose supporting, by a first robotic arm, the first ultrasonic impact grinding tool head; and supporting, by a second robotic arm, the second ultrasonic impact grinding tool head, specifically the first and second UIGs being supported by individual and separate robotic arms.
Mehr teaches supporting, by a first robotic arm [Mehr, fig 1, 100A and page 9, pp 0118], a first ultrasonic impact grinding tool head [Mehr, fig 1, 130 and 125 and page 9, pp’s 0117 and 0121-0122]; and supporting, by a second robotic arm [Mehr, fig 1, 100B and page 9, pp 0118], the second ultrasonic impact grinding tool head [Mehr, fig 1, 130 and 125 and page 9, pp’s 0117 and 0121-0122].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have separated the UIGs of Wang that are on the same robotic arm to be on separate and individual first and second robotic arms as taught by Mehr because the second robot arm allows for greater geometry shaping [Mehr, page 1, pp 0008, summarized].
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (Chinese Patent Publication No. CN109396972) in view of Chamberlain et al (US PGPUB No. 2011/0158820), hereinafter referred to as Wang and Chamberlain, respectively.
Regarding claims 9-10, Wang further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the ultrasonic grinding head is used on various hard and brittle material workpieces including, but not limited to, ceramics and silicon [Wang, page 4, pp 0004].
However, Wang does not explicitly teach the workpiece comprises a ceramic matrix composite material (clm 9), wherein the ceramic matrix composite material comprises silicon carbide fibers in a silicon carbide matrix (clm 10).
Chamberlain teaches a workpiece [Chamberlain, fig 1] being machined with an ultrasonic machining process [Chamberlain, page 2, pp’s 0016 and 0020, 52 is a cutting tool such as an ultrasonic machining probe], wherein the workpiece comprises a ceramic matrix composite material [Camberlain, page 1, pp 0011, workpiece is made from CMC] (clm 9), wherein the ceramic matrix composite material comprises silicon carbide fibers in a silicon carbide matrix (clm 10) [Chamberlain, page 1, pp 0011, workpiece of CMC includes silicon carbide fibers and silicon matrix].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have machined the workpiece of Chamberlain within the device of Wang because per MPEP 2143(I)(B) the substitution of elements is held to be obvious over the prior art. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. Where in the instant case, that is the substitution of the workpiece comprising CMCs of Chamberlain for the workpiece of Wang, each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. In the substitution each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination gave the predictable result of the ultrasonic grinding head would be able to work on the workpiece of Chamberlain.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT NEIBAUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7979. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/ROBERT F NEIBAUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723