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 .
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the article support system of Claim 12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 12-13 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.
Claim 12 recites in part, “…the stage movable in at least three dimensions”. It is unclear what is meant to be covered by the recitation of “at least three dimensions”, as it is unclear how the stage would be moveable in a fourth or higher dimension. Therefore, Claim 12 is indefinite in scope.
Claim 13 is indefinite due to its dependency on Claim 12.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hu et al., hereafter Hu (US 20150209899).
Regarding Claim 1, Hu discloses a method of processing a group of holes in an article, the method comprising: establishing an ablation characteristic including at least one of, a laser operating parameter and an ablation pattern for the group of holes (paragraphs 0043,0049,0053);
ablating a first group of holes with a laser based on a first established ablation characteristic (paragraph 0043 – holes through thermal barrier coating as first group of holes);
ablating a second group of holes with the laser based on a second established ablation characteristic (paragraph 0043 – holes through underlying metal layer as second group of holes); and
wherein the first established ablation characteristic is different from the second established ablation characteristic (paragraph 0043 – laser is adjusted between first and second group of holes, including adjusting one or more parameters of the laser).
Regarding Claim 2, Hu discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 above. Hu further discloses further comprising: establishing a first ablation pattern; ablating the first group of holes with the first ablation pattern; establishing a second ablation pattern; ablating the second group of holes with the second ablation pattern; and wherein the first ablation pattern is different from the second ablation pattern (paragraph 0053 – laser path plan includes at least two different spiral patterns as first and second ablation patterns).
Regarding Claim 4, Hu discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 above. Hu further discloses further comprising: establishing a first laser operating parameter; ablating the first group of holes with the first laser operating parameter; establishing a second laser operating parameter; ablating the second group of holes with the second laser operating parameter; and wherein the first laser operating parameter is different from the second laser operating parameter (paragraphs 0043,0049,0053 - laser is adjusted between first and second group of holes, including adjusting one or more parameters of the laser).
Regarding Claim 5, Hu discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 above. Hu further discloses wherein the first group of holes is the same as the second group of holes (paragraphs 0043,0049,0053).
Regarding Claim 6, Hu discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 above. Hu further discloses wherein the established ablation characteristic further comprises at least one of a working zone characteristic, a cooling hole characteristic, and a synchronized machine motion characteristic (paragraphs 0043,0049,0053).
Regarding Claim 9, Hu discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 above. Hu further discloses wherein the ablation pattern further comprises an ablation order of the holes in the group of holes, and the ablation order reduces thermal damage to the holes or a substrate of the article (paragraphs 0043,0048,0049,0052).
Regarding Claim 10, Hu discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 above. Hu further discloses wherein the establishing step selects the laser operating parameter to reduce damage to a substrate of the article (paragraphs 0043,0049,0053).
Regarding Claim 11, Hu discloses a laser ablation system comprising:
a laser configured to deliver laser beam pulses to at least one hole in a group of holes of an article (paragraphs 0043,0049);
a control system configured to establish a laser characteristic of the laser, the laser characteristic including at least one of, a laser operating parameter and an ablation pattern for the group of holes (paragraphs 0040, 0043,0049,0053);
the control system controlling the laser to ablate the at least one hole based on a first laser characteristic, and subsequently, the control system controlling the laser to ablate the at least one hole based on a second laser characteristic, wherein the first laser characteristic is different from the second laser characteristic (paragraph 0043 – laser is adjusted between first and second group of holes, including adjusting one or more parameters of the laser);
and wherein the control system is configured to minimize or reduce damage to the article (paragraphs 0043, 0048, 0049, 0053).
Regarding Claim 14, Hu discloses all the limitations of Claim 11 above. Hu further discloses wherein the control system is configured to change the laser characteristic and ablate the at least one hole in the group of holes based on the changed laser characteristic (paragraphs 0043,0049,0053).
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 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu.
Regarding Claim 12, Hu teaches all the limitations of Claim 11 above. However, Hu fails to teach further comprising: an article support system comprised of a multi-axis stage, the stage movable in at least three dimensions.
Hu does teach a laser ablation system with a multi-axis stage moveable in three dimensions (Figs. 4,6,7; paragraphs 0053-0054). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there are two solutions to moving the laser and article relative to each other during operation - either the laser moves, or the article moves. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the laser ablation system taught by Hu could an article support system with a multi-axis stage moveable in three dimensions rather than moving the laser, as moving the article is one of a finite number of identified predictable solutions to moving a laser and article relative to each other during ablating.
Regarding Claim 13, Hu teaches all the limitations of Claim 12 above. Hu further teaches wherein the control system is configured to establish a laser characteristic and at least one of, a working zone characteristic, a cooling hole characteristic, and a synchronized machine motion characteristic (paragraphs 0043,0049,0053).
Claims 3, 7-8, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu in view of Goya et al., hereafter Goya (US 10792759).
Regarding Claim 3, Hu teaches all the limitations of Claim 2 above. However, Hu fails to teach further comprises: evaluating a material thermal capability of a substrate of the article, to reduce or minimize thermal damage to the substrate.
Hu does teach evaluating a sensed parameter and adjusting the laser accordingly to reduce damage to the substrate (paragraphs 0043,0049,0053).
Goya teaches evaluating a material thermal capability of a thermal barrier coating as well as the substrate of an article to reduce thermal damage (Col. 13, line 59 – Col. 14, line 12). Hu and Goya are analogous prior art as they each relate to laser ablation systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that Hu could evaluate a material thermal capability of the substrate of the article, in order to reduce or minimize thermal damage to the substrate (Goya Col. 13, line 59 – Col. 14, line 12).
Regarding Claim 7, Hu teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 above. However, Hu fails to teach wherein the establishing step evaluates a material thermal capability of a substrate of the article, or any layers on the substrate, to minimize or reduce damage to the article.
Hu does teach evaluating a sensed parameter and adjusting the laser accordingly to reduce damage to the substrate (paragraphs 0043,0049,0053).
Goya teaches evaluating a material thermal capability of a thermal barrier coating as well as the substrate of an article to reduce thermal damage (Col. 13, line 59 – Col. 14, line 12). Hu and Goya are analogous prior art as they each relate to laser ablation systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that Hu could evaluate a material thermal capability of the substrate of the article and any layers, in order to reduce or minimize thermal damage to the article (Goya Col. 13, line 59 – Col. 14, line 12).
Regarding Claim 8, Hu as modified by Goya teaches all the limitations of Claim 7 above. Hu as modified by Goya further teaches further comprising: ablating the first hole to a thermal threshold and then ablating the second hole while the first hole cools during a predetermined time.
Hu teaches ablating the first hole and then ablating the second hole after a predetermined time (paragraph 0043).
Goya teaches ablating a first hole to a thermal threshold and then ablating the second hole after a period of time, in order to reduce damage to the article (Goya Col. 13, line 48 – Col. 14, line 12). Hu and Goya are analogous prior art as they each relate to laser ablation systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill that Hu could ablate the first hole to a thermal threshold before ablating the second hole after a predetermined time as taught by Goya, in order to reduce damage to the article (Goya Col. 13, line 48 – Col. 14, line 12; the first hole would naturally cool if left alone for the predetermined time).
Regarding Claim 15, Hu teaches all the limitations of Claim 11 above. However, Hu fails to teach wherein the control system is configured to evaluate a material thermal capability of a substrate of the article to minimize or reduce damage to the substrate or a coating layer thereon.
Hu does teach evaluating a sensed parameter and adjusting the laser accordingly to reduce damage to the substrate (paragraphs 0043,0049,0053).
Goya teaches evaluating a material thermal capability of a thermal barrier coating as well as the substrate of an article to reduce thermal damage (Col. 13, line 59 – Col. 14, line 12). Hu and Goya are analogous prior art as they each relate to laser ablation systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that Hu could evaluate a material thermal capability of the substrate of the article, in order to reduce or minimize thermal damage to the substrate and TBC layer (Goya Col. 13, line 59 – Col. 14, line 12).
Regarding Claim 16, Hu teaches all the limitations of Claim 11 above. However, Hu fails to teach wherein the ablation pattern ablates a first hole to a thermal threshold and then ablates a second hole while the first hole cools for a predetermined time (paragraph 0043).
Hu does teach ablating the first hole and then ablating the second hole after a predetermined time (paragraph 0043).
Goya teaches ablating a first hole to a thermal threshold and then ablating the second hole after a period of time, in order to reduce damage to the article (Goya Col. 13, line 48 – Col. 14, line 12). Hu and Goya are analogous prior art as they each relate to laser ablation systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill that Hu could ablate the first hole to a thermal threshold before ablating the second hole after a predetermined time as taught by Goya, in order to reduce damage to the article (Goya Col. 13, line 48 – Col. 14, line 12; the first hole would naturally cool if left alone for the predetermined time).
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu in view of Bunker et al., hereafter Bunker (US 20100282721).
Regarding Claim 17, Hu teaches all the limitations of Claim 11 above.
However, Hu fails to teach wherein the laser operating parameter includes a laser pulse width and the laser pulse width maximizes removal of a coating layer and reduces damage to a substrate of the article.
Bunker teaches a laser ablation system where a laser operating parameter includes a laser pulse width (paragraph 0025), in order to achieve a wide range of laser intensity, while mitigating negative effects of laser machining and reaching a high material removal rate (paragraph 0025). Hu and Bunker are analogous prior art as they each relate to laser ablation systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the laser operating parameter of Hu could include a laser pulse width as taught by Bunker, in order to achieve a wide range of laser intensity, while mitigating negative effects of laser machining and reaching a high material removal rate (Bunker paragraph 0025).
Regarding Claim 18, Hu teaches a laser ablation system comprising:
a laser configured to deliver laser pulses to at least one hole in a group of holes in an article (paragraph 0043),
a control system configured to establish a laser characteristic of the laser, the laser characteristic including at least one of, a laser operating parameter and an ablation pattern for the group of holes (paragraphs 0040,0043,0049,0053);
the control system controlling the laser to ablate the at least one hole based on a first laser characteristic (paragraph 0043), and subsequently,
the control system controlling the laser to ablate the at least one hole based on a second laser characteristic, wherein the first laser characteristic is different from the second laser characteristic (paragraph 0043 - laser is adjusted between first and second group of holes, including adjusting one or more parameters of the laser).
However, Hu fails to teach the laser having an average laser power of 25 W to 250 W, a pulse width of 1 to 1,000 picoseconds, and a repetition rate in the range of 10 kHz to 10 MHz.
Hu does teach that the average laser power is in the range of 10 W to 100 W (paragraph 0032), in order to ablate a hole with the laser.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (See MPEP 2144.05 I.). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the average laser power could be in the range of 10 W to 100 W, as Hu teaches that such a range is sufficient to ablate a hole with the laser, and claimed ranges overlapping ranges taught by the prior art are obvious (MPEP 2144. 05 I.).
Bunker teaches a laser ablation system where the laser pulse width is in a 50 microsecond to 1 femtosecond range (paragraph 0025), in order to achieve a wide range of laser intensity, while mitigating negative effects of laser machining and reaching a high material removal rate (paragraph 0025). Hu and Bunker are analogous prior art as they each relate to laser ablation systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the laser pulse width of Hu could be in a 50 microsecond to 1 femtosecond range as taught by Bunker, in order to achieve a wide range of laser intensity, while mitigating negative effects of laser machining and reaching a high material removal rate (Bunker paragraph 0025).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (See MPEP 2144.05 I.). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the laser pulse width could be in a picosecond range, or within a 1 picosecond to 1,000 picosecond range, as Bunker teaches a 50 microsecond to 1 femtosecond range will achieve a wide range of laser intensity, while mitigating negative effects of laser machining and reaching a high material removal rate (paragraph 0025), and claimed ranges overlapping ranges taught by the prior art are obvious (MPEP 2144. 05 I.).
Bunker also teaches that the laser repetition rate is greater than 1000 Hz (paragraph 0025), in order to achieve a wide range of laser intensity, while mitigating negative effects of laser machining and reaching a high material removal rate (paragraph 0025). Therefore, it would have been further obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the repetition rate of Hu could be greater than 1000 Hz as taught by Bunker, in order to achieve a wide range of laser intensity, while mitigating negative effects of laser machining and reaching a high material removal rate (Bunker paragraph 0025).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (See MPEP 2144.05 I.). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the repetition rate could be in a range of 10 kHz to 10 MHz, as Bunker teaches a repetition rate greater than 1000 Hz will achieve a wide range of laser intensity, while mitigating negative effects of laser machining and reaching a high material removal rate (paragraph 0025), and claimed ranges overlapping ranges taught by the prior art are obvious (MPEP 2144. 05 I.).
Regarding Claim 19, Hu as modified by Bunker teaches all the limitations of Claim 18 above. Hu as modified by Bunker further teaches wherein the laser has a pulse width of 1 to 15 picoseconds (Bunker paragraph 0025).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (See MPEP 2144.05 I.). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the laser pulse width could be in within a 1 picosecond to 15 picosecond range, as Bunker teaches a 50 microsecond to 1 femtosecond range will achieve a wide range of laser intensity, while mitigating negative effects of laser machining and reaching a high material removal rate (paragraph 0025), and claimed ranges overlapping ranges taught by the prior art are obvious (MPEP 2144. 05 I.).
Regarding Claim 20, Hu as modified by Bunker teaches all the limitations of Claim 18 above. Bunker further teaches wherein the laser has a laser spot size of 0.05 mm to 0.5 mm (paragraph 0025). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill that the laser taught by Hu could have a spot size of 0.05 mm to 0.5 mm, as Bunker teaches that a laser spot size of less than about 0.2 mm will help will achieve a wide range of laser intensity, while mitigating negative effects of laser machining and reaching a high material removal rate (paragraph 0025).
However, Hu as modified by Bunker fails to explicitly teach a laser beam quality between 1 and 3.
Bunker does teach that the laser beam quality is desirable to achieve the targeted spot size (paragraph 0025). Barring some criticality or unexpected results, the finding of an optimum range or amount through routine experimentation is obvious. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at applicants claimed laser beam quality range, if through routine experimentation it was found that such a range provided an optimum value of achieving the targeted spot size (Bunker paragraph 0025). (Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II. A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Deshi (US 20060169677), Das (US 20040134897), Kinoshita (US 6346687), Beck (US 8237082), and Neil (US 6809291) each teaches a method of ablating holes in an article.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACKSON GILLENWATERS whose telephone number is (469)295-9151. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-6:00PM ET, M-F.
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, NATHANIEL WIEHE can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JACKSON N GILLENWATERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745