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 amendments filed February 16, 2026 have been entered. Accordingly, claims 1, 3, and 5-8 are currently pending and have been examined. The examiner acknowledges the amendments of claims 1 and 7. Claims 2 and 4 are cancelled by applicant. The previous claim objection been withdrawn due to applicant amendments. The previous 103 rejections have been modified due to applicant’s amendments. For the reason(s) set forth below, applicant’s arguments have not been found persuasive. The action is Final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/12/2026 has been received and considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida (JP 2009202307) in view of Suzuki (US Patent No. 6,099,391) and Lien (WO 2021077445).
Regarding claim 1, Uchida discloses: a smoothing method (Figures 1-4 and see also paragraph 0022) comprising:
a step of performing direct pressure blasting on the workpiece while rotating the workpiece (see figure 1A-B showing the workpiece (element 1) being rotated about an axis (see paragraph 0022) via pressure blasting (element 3 and see also paragraph 0022),
wherein in the blasting, injection media (element 2b) are injected in a direction orthogonal (see paragraph 0022 where the prior art discloses element 2b as “abrasive particles” (injection media) and see paragraph 0026 where the prior art discloses element 2b (injection media) are projected onto the surface of the rolling element “workpiece) is preferably “0° or more and 90°”, thus the injected media is injected in a direction orthogonal (90°) to the workpiece),
wherein the injection media include a core material made of an elastic body (see paragraph 0022 where the prior art discloses element 2b (injection media) is made of “elastic body (elastic material)”) and abrasive grains (element 4 and see also paragraph 0022) provided on a surface of the core material (see figure 2),
wherein hardness of the core material is lower than hardness of the abrasive grains (See paragraph 0024 where the prior art lists examples of the elastic body (core material) includes “rubber and thermoplastic elastomer” and element 4 (abrasive grains) is made of “diamond or silicon carbide”, thus one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that hardness of the abrasive grain (diamond or silicon carbide) would particular be harder than the core material (rubber and thermoplastic elastomer) and therefore the hardness of the core material is lower than hardness of the abrasive grains, as recited.), and
wherein in the step of performing the blasting, an injection pressure of the injection media is set to 0.01 MPa or more and 0.10 MPa or less (see paragraph 0018 where the prior art discloses the abrasive particles having “a discharge pressure” (injection pressure) is “0.1 to 1.5 MPa”, thus for illustrative purposes the examiner takes the value of 0.1 MPa of the injection pressure and would therefore be within the claimed ratio of 0.01 MPa or more and 0.10 MPa or less).
Furthermore, the prior at discloses that the workpiece is rotated (see arrow in figures 1A-1B) while blasted, but appears to be silent comprising a step of attaching a workpiece to a rotating shaft of a rotating mechanism, the step of performing direct pressure blasting on the workpiece while rotating the workpiece about the rotating shaft as an axial center, wherein in the blasting, injection media are injected in the direction orthogonal to the rotating shaft, and wherein in the step of performing the blasting, a rotational frequency of the workpiece is set to 30 revolutions per minute or less.
Suzuki is also concern in providing a smoothing method (see figures 1-32, see also col. 2, ll. 27-30, and see also col. 4, ll. 41-45) comprising a step of direct blasting (see figure 23 via elements 17/172) an injection media (see figure 13 elements 118/120/122), further comprising a step of attaching a workpiece (element 112) to a rotating shaft (element 142) of a rotating mechanism (element 140 and see also col. 8, ll. 22-26), the step of performing direct pressure blasting on the workpiece while rotating the workpiece about the rotating shaft as an axial center (see annotated figure 9 below showing the step of performing direct pressure blasting (via element 172) on the workpiece (element 112) while rotating the workpiece(see figures 24-26) about the rotating shaft as an axial center (X-X axis)), and wherein in the blasting injection media are injected in the direction orthogonal to the rotating shaft (see annotated figure 9 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
884
774
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Uchida to incorporate the teachings of Suzuki to provide a step of attaching a workpiece to a rotating shaft of a rotating mechanism, the step of performing direct pressure blasting on the workpiece while rotating the workpiece about the rotating shaft as an axial center, and wherein in the blasting, injection media are injected in the direction orthogonal to the rotating shaft. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that providing a known rotating mechanism attached to the workpiece would necessarily allow the user to treat the workpiece with the injection media at different locations, thus increasing efficiency and productivity during operations.
However, Uchida modified appears to be silent wherein in the step of performing the blasting, a rotational frequency of the workpiece is set to 30 revolutions per minute or less.
Lien is also concern in providing a smoothing method (see figures 1-4, see also page 001 paragraph 006 under “Summary of invention”, and see also page 002 paragraph 005 under “Detailed ways”) comprising a step of direct blasting (see figure 2 via element 1) an injection media (see page 003 paragraph 001-002), a step of attaching a workpiece to a rotating mechanism (element 3), in the step of performing the blasting, a rotational frequency of the workpiece is set to 30 revolutions per minute or less (see page 003 paragraph 002 where the prior at discloses element 3 as “rotating carrier”, see also page 004, paragraph 008 where the prior at discloses rotating the carrier (element 3) at “5 revolutions per minute”, thus the rotational frequency of the workpiece is set to 30 revolutions per minute or less).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Uchida to incorporate the teachings of Lien to provide the step of performing the blasting, a rotational frequency of the workpiece is set to 30 revolutions per minute or less. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that providing desired rotational frequency including the claimed 30 revolutions per minute or less would necessarily allow the user to rotate the workpiece and treat the workpiece at different locations, thus increasing efficiency and productivity during operations.
Regarding claim 3, Uchida modified discloses: the smoothing method according to claim 1, wherein in the step of performing the blasting, an injection distance (see figure 1b annotated below Detail A) of the injection media.
PNG
media_image2.png
482
684
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Uchida modified appears to be silent wherein the injection distance of the injection media is set to 50 mm or more and 100 mm or less.
Suzuki is also concern in providing a smoothing method (see figures 1-32, see also col. 2, ll. 27-30, and see also col. 4, ll. 41-45) comprising a step of direct blasting (see figure 4 via elements 30) an injection media (see figure 4 elements 12/14/16), and wherein in the step of performing the blasting, an injection distance of the injection media is set to 50 mm or more and 100 mm or less (see col.5, ll. 60-63 and figure 4 showing an injection distance of “50 mm”) .
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Uchida to incorporate the teachings of Suzuki to provide wherein the injection distance of the injection media is set to 50 mm or more and 100 mm or less. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that injecting the injection media at a desired distance onto the workpiece would necessarily prevent the blaster from accidently abutting the workpiece during operations, thus preventing damages.
Regarding claim 5, Uchida modified discloses: the smoothing method according to claim 1, wherein a content rate of the abrasive grains in the injection media is 15% by mass or more and 26% by mass or less (see paragraph 0038 where the prior art discloses the abrasive grains in element 2b (injection media) is “10 to 90 mass%”, thus for illustrative purposes the examiner takes the value of 20% by mass of the abrasive grains and would therefore be within the claimed ratio of 15% by mass or more and 26% by mass or less).
Regarding claim 6, Uchida modified discloses: the smoothing method according to claim 1, wherein the injection media have a particle size distribution of 125 µm or more and 600 µm or less (see paragraph 0022 where the prior art disclose element 2b (injection media) as “a second abrasive particle”, see paragraph 0023 where the prior art disclose the size of the second abrasive particle is about “0.02 to 3 mm”, with a conversion factor of 1mm to 1000 μm, for illustrative purposes the examiner takes the value of 0.2 mm which is 200 µm and would therefore be within the claimed ratio of 125 µm or more and 600 µm or less).
Regarding claim 7, Uchida modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claim 1, but appears to be silent wherein in the step of performing the blasting, a first period during which the workpiece is rotated in a first rotation direction about the rotating shaft as an axial center and a second period during which the workpiece is rotated in a second rotation direction opposite to the first rotation direction are alternately repeated.
Suzuki is also concern in providing a smoothing method (see figures 1-32, see also col. 2, ll. 27-30, and see also col. 4, ll. 41-45) comprising a step of direct blasting (see figure 23 via elements 17/172) an injection media (see figure 13 elements 118/120/122), further comprising a step of attaching a workpiece (element 112) to a rotating shaft (element 142) of a rotating mechanism (element 140 and see also col. 8, ll. 22-26), wherein in the step of performing the blasting, a first period during which the workpiece is rotated in a first rotation direction about the rotating shaft as an axial center (see figure 24 showing the step of performing the blasting (via element 172) for a first period during which the workpiece (element 112) is rotated in a first direction (arrow A) about the rotating shaft (element 142) as the axial center) and a second period during which the workpiece is rotated in a second rotation direction opposite to the first rotation direction are alternately repeated (see figure 24, see also col. 13, ll. 1-6, and col. 17, ll. 33-36 where the prior art discloses the workpiece rotating in a second direction (arrow B) which is opposite to the direction (normal and opposite direction) and further discloses the gear (workpiece) being “rotated alternately” in the normal and opposite direction (first and second rotation direction).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Uchida to incorporate the teachings of Suzuki to provide wherein in the step of performing the blasting, a first period during which the workpiece is rotated in a first rotation direction about the rotating shaft as an axial center and a second period during which the workpiece is rotated in a second rotation direction opposite to the first rotation direction are alternately repeated. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that alternately rotating the workpiece at various different directions would necessarily allow the user to treat the workpiece with the injection media at different locations, thus increasing efficiency and productivity during operations.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida (JP 2009202307) in view of Suzuki (US Patent No. 6,099,391) and Lien (WO 2021077445) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ishibashi (JP 2006159402).
Regarding claim 8, Uchida modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claim 1, but appears to be silent further comprising a step of performing peening on the workpiece before the step of performing the blasting.
Ishibashi is also concern in providing a smoothing method (Figures 1-14 and see also paragraph 0084) comprising step of performing direct pressure blasting on the workpiece (see figure 12 and see also paragraph 0097) and further comprising a step of performing peening on the workpiece before the step of performing the blasting (see paragraphs 00163-0164 where the prior art discloses surface smoothing performed by blasting process “after surface modification treatment such as shot peening”, thus peening is performed on the workpiece before the step of performing the blasting).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Uchida to incorporate the teachings of Lien to provide the step of performing peening on the workpiece before the step of performing the blasting. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that providing the step of peening would necessarily increase in compressive stress, improve surface hardness, and refine the surface crystal structure of the workpiece as disclosed by Ishibashi (see paragraph 0164).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 4-5 of the “Remarks”, the applicant argues the amendments of claim 1 and the combination of the prior arts, specifically:
The Office Action takes the position that Suzuki discloses the direct-pressure blasting of claim 1, that Lien discloses the rotational speed of claim 4, and that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Uchida to incorporate the teachings of Suzuki and Lien. Applicant respectfully disagrees, as next discussed.
In Uchida, the second polishing step is performed by projecting second abrasive particles 2b made of elastic bodies containing abrasive grains 4, from a shotblasting nozzle 3 toward the surface 1a of the rolling element 1 at a predetermined angle to thereby smooth the surface (see paras. 0022 and 0026).
In Suzuki, the ejection mechanism 124 applies a spouted jet 122 of water 118 and glass beads 120 to the gear 112 to give compressive residual stresses to the surface of the tooth flank 204 of the gear 112 and grind the surface (see pp. 8 to 12).
In Lien, the purpose of sandblasting is to increase the roughness of the inner wall of the metal container and improve the adhesion of glaze powder and enamel to the inner wall of the metal container. In Lien, No. 46 diamond abrasive is used for sandblasting.
In blasting processing, it is common technical knowledge that the type of injection media and injection parameters such as the injection angle, the injection pressure, and the rotational frequency of the workpiece are set in accordance with the intended purpose of the blasting treatment. Uchida, Suzuki, and Lien differ both in the purpose of their blasting treatment and in the type of injection media used for the blasting. Accordingly, Applicant submits that it would not be obvious to incorporate, in Uchida, the injection parameters described in Suzuki and Lien.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not impart the teachings of Suzuki and Lien into Uchida smoothing method as proposed, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Furthermore, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, from the teaching of Suzuki showing that it is well known in the art to have a step of attaching a workpiece to a rotating shaft of a rotating mechanism, the step of performing direct pressure blasting on the workpiece while rotating the workpiece about the rotating shaft as an axial center, and wherein in the blasting, injection media are injected in the direction orthogonal to the rotating shaft, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Uchida in order to provide a known rotating mechanism attached to the workpiece would necessarily allow the user to treat the workpiece with the injection media at different locations, thus increasing efficiency and productivity during operations. Additionally, the teaching of Lien showing that it is well known in the art to have the step of performing the blasting, a rotational frequency of the workpiece is set to 30 revolutions per minute or less, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Uchida in order to provide a desired rotational frequency including the claimed 30 revolutions per minute or less would necessarily allow the user to rotate the workpiece and treat the workpiece at different locations, thus increasing efficiency and productivity during operations.
Lastly, regarding the arguments of Suzuki utilizing an ejection mechanism applies a spouted jet of water and glass beads to the gear to give compressive residual stresses to the workpiece and the prior art of Lien utilizing No. 46 diamond abrasive for sandblasting. The examiner indicates that those features are not being relying on as the teaching, but rather that it well known in the art to provide a rotating mechanism in order to rotate a workpiece and having a rotational frequency of the workpiece is set to 30 revolutions per minute or less. Thus, arguments have been found unpersuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALBERTO SAENZ whose telephone number is (313)446-6610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30PM EST.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736