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
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 05/26/2026. Claims 1-20 are examined.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grotenhuis 9346113 in view of Li 2010/0051588, and further in view of Suzuki 2007/0289949.
Regarding Claim 17, Grotenhuis teaches a manufacturing method (Fig. 3), comprising:
electrical discharge machining 110 a workpiece WP using an electrode 112 to form an aperture (hole) in the workpiece WP, the workpiece WP extending between a face surface [a] and a back surface [b] (Annotated Fig. 4, below),
measuring an EDM voltage (measures the voltage between the electrode and the workpiece) indicative of a gap voltage (gap voltage) between the electrode 112 and the workpiece WP using a measurement device 124 to provide an EDM voltage measurement signal (measured gap voltage as input – this reads as a measurement signal) indicative of the EDM voltage (gap voltage) (Col. 2, l. 50 – Col. 3, l. 12, Col. 3, ll. 24-36, and Col. 3, ll. 44-59; Figs. 3-4. Annotated Fig. 4, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
847
751
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: Annotated Fig. 4 of Grotenhuis (U.S. 9346113)
Grotenhuis does not teach the electrical discharge machining comprising plunging the electrode into the workpiece through the face surface, and determining whether the electrode has broken through the back surface using the EDM voltage measurement signal.
Li teaches a similar manufacturing method comprising an electrical discharge machining 10, controller 14, and
the electrical discharge machining 10 comprising plunging the electrode 11 into the workpiece through the face surface 102 (seen in Fig. 2a-2c) ([0021; 0026-29]; Figs. 2a-c).
determining (via controller 14, modules 140-142) whether the electrode 11 has broken (breakthrough stage) through the back surface (seen in Fig. 2c) using the EDM voltage measurement signal (sent signals …from element 16, voltage detection) ([0016-17; 0021, 0026-29]; Figs. 1 & 2a-c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the electrical discharge machining 110 and the electrode 112 of Grotenhuis to include Li’s electrode 11 and plunge the electrode 11 into the workpiece through the face surface 102, as taught by Li, because it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element, in this case, electrode 112 of Grotenhuis, for another, in this case, electrode 11 of Li, to obtain predictable results, in this case, machining holes in a workpiece, is an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR INT’L CO. V. TELEFLEX.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide the controller 130 of Grotenhuis to include the controller 14, comprising modules 140-142, for determining whether the electrode 11 has broken (breakthrough stage) through the back surface using the measurement signal (sent signals …from element 16, voltage detection), as taught by Li, in order to end the machining upon completion of the breakthrough stage, thereby avoiding having the electrode damage other structures of the workpiece so as to improve the machining quality (Li [0028]).
Grotenhuis in view of Li does not teach using a high frequency measurement device to provide an EDM voltage measurement signal indicative of the EDM voltage, the EDM voltage is measured by the high frequency measurement device at a measurement frequency equal to or greater than ten kilohertz.
Suzuki teaches
using a high frequency measurement device 10a to provide an EDM voltage measurement signal (inherent – signal of voltage 6 gets sent to current value acquisition unit 10a) indicative of the EDM voltage 6, the EDM voltage 6 is measured by the high frequency measurement device 10a at a measurement frequency equal to or greater than ten kilohertz (a frequency from approximately 1kHz to several tens of kHz. This reads as equal to or greater than ten kilohertz.) ([0025; 0037-38]; Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide the measurement device 124 of Grotenhuis in view of Li to include a high frequency measurement device 10a that measures the EDM voltage 6 is measured by the high frequency measurement device 10a at a measurement frequency equal to or greater than ten kilohertz (a frequency from approximately 1kHz to several tens of kHz. This reads as equal to or greater than ten kilohertz.) as taught by Suzuki, because it is known in the prior art for voltage applied for generating the current to the electrode gap to have a frequency from approximately 1kHz to several tens of kHz (Suzuki, [0010, 0025]).
While Grotenhuis in view of Li and Suzuki and Inoue teaches an apparatus, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered an obvious extension of prior art teachings.
Regarding Claim 19, Grotenhuis in view of Li and Suzuki and Inoue teaches the method as claimed and as discussed above for claim 17. However, Grotenhuis in view of Li and Suzuki, as discussed so far, does not teach the determining of whether the electrode has broken through the back surface is performed during the electrical discharge machining; and the electrical discharge machining is terminated when it is determined that the electrode has completely broken through the back surface.
Li further teaches
the determining (via controller 14, modules 140-142) of whether the electrode 11 has broken (breakthrough stage) through the back surface (seen in Fig. 2c) is performed during the electrical discharge machining (during the machining; breakthrough stage begins … detection elements 16-18 detect and send signals to controller 14 for processing) ([0015-17; 0021, 0027-29]); and
the electrical discharge machining 10 is terminated (end the machining upon completion of the breakthrough stage) when it is determined that the electrode 11 has completely broken (breakthrough stage) through the back surface (seen in Fig. 2c) ([0016-17; 0021, 0026-29]; Figs. 1 & 2a-c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide the controller 130 of Grotenhuis in view of Li and Suzuki to include controller 14, comprising modules 140-142, for determining (via controller 14, modules 140-142) of whether the electrode 11 has broken (breakthrough stage) through the back surface is performed during the electrical discharge machining (during the machining; breakthrough stage begins … detection elements 16-18 detect and send signals to controller 14 for processing); and have the electrical discharge machining 10 be terminated (end the machining upon completion of the breakthrough stage) when it is determined that the electrode 11 has completely broken (breakthrough stage) through the back surface , as taught by Li, in order to end the machining upon completion of the breakthrough stage, thereby avoiding having the electrode damage other structures of the workpiece so as to improve the machining quality (Li [0028]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grotenhuis in view of Li and Suzuki, and further in view of Huttner 2016/0074952.
Regarding Claim 18, Grotenhuis in view of Li and Suzuki teaches the method as claimed and as discussed above for claim 17, and Grotenhuis further teaches
measuring an EDM voltage (measures the voltage between the electrode and the workpiece) indicative of a gap voltage (gap voltage) between the electrode 112 and the workpiece WP using a measurement device 124 to provide an EDM voltage measurement signal (measured gap voltage as input – this reads as a measurement signal) indicative of the EDM voltage (gap voltage), and controlling (via controller 130) movement of the electrode 112 using the EDM system measurement signal (measured gap voltage as input – this reads as a measurement signal) (Col. 2, l. 50 – Col. 3, l. 12, Col. 3, ll. 9-36, and Col. 3, ll. 44-59; Figs. 3-4. Annotated Fig. 4, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
847
751
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: Annotated Fig. 4 of Grotenhuis (U.S. 9346113)
Grotenhuis in view of Li and Suzuki, as discussed so far, does not teach using a low frequency measurement device to provide an EDM system voltage measurement signal indicative of the gap voltage, the EDM system voltage is measured by the low frequency measurement device at a measurement frequency equal to or less than five-hundred hertz.
Huttner teaches electrochemical machining of a workpiece with a pulsed voltage applied with a frequency of 100 Hz to 3kHz (100 Hz to 3 kHz reads on the frequency equal or less than 500 Hz, as claimed.) ([0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the measurement device 124 of Grotenhuis in view of Li and Suzuki to measure the pulsed voltage with a frequency equal to or less than five-hundred hertz (100 Hz to 3 kHz), as taught by Huttner, because it has been held that “Applying a known technique”, in this case, applying a Huttner’s pulsed voltage 6 with a frequency of pulsed voltage with a frequency equal to or less than five-hundred hertz (100 Hz to 3 kHz), “to a known device (method, or product)”, in this case, Grotenhuis in view of Li and Suzuki’s measurement device 124, “ready for improvement”, in this case, providing the correct amount of voltage need during the electrochemical machining process between the tool and the workpiece, “to yield predictable results”, in this case, producing a hole in the workpiece and removing the material from the workpiece. MPEP § 2143 I (D).
While Grotenhuis in view of Li, Suzuki, and Huttner teaches an apparatus, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered an obvious extension of prior art teachings.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grotenhuis in view of Li.
Regarding Claim 20, Grotenhuis teaches a manufacturing method (Fig. 3), comprising:
electrical discharge machining 110 a workpiece WP using an electrode 112 to form an aperture (hole) in the workpiece WP, the workpiece WP extending between a face surface [a] and a back surface [b] (Annotated Fig. 4, below),
the workpiece WP secured to a support 116 by a fixture [c] (Annotated Fig. 4, below),
and the electrode 112 supported by and electrically coupled to a guide 114;
measuring a measurement voltage between the guide 114 and the fixture [c] indicative of a gap voltage between the electrode 112 and the workpiece WP (measures the voltage between the electrode and the workpiece) using a measurement device 124 to provide a measurement signal (measured gap voltage as input – this reads as a measurement signal) indicative of the measurement voltage (gap voltage), the measurement device 124 electrically coupled to the guide 114 and the fixture [c] (Col. 2, l. 50 – Col. 3, l. 12, Col. 3, ll. 24-36, and Col. 3, ll. 44-59; Figs. 3-4. Annotated Fig. 4, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
847
751
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: Annotated Fig. 4 of Grotenhuis (U.S. 9346113)
Grotenhuis further comprises a controller 130 that operatively is connected and controls the movement of the electrical discharge machining 110, including the electrode 112 and the support 116 (Col. 3, ll. 24-36; Figs. 3-4).
Grotenhuis does not teach the electrical discharge machining comprising plunging the electrode into the workpiece through the face surface, and determining whether the electrode has broken through the back surface using the measurement signal.
Li teaches a similar manufacturing method comprising an electrical discharge machining 10, controller 14, and
the electrical discharge machining 10 comprising plunging the electrode 11 into the workpiece through the face surface 102 (seen in Fig. 2a-2c) ([0021; 0026-29]; Figs. 2a-c).
determining (via controller 14, modules 140-142) whether the electrode 11 has broken (breakthrough stage) through the back surface (seen in Fig. 2c) using the measurement signal (sent signals …from element 16, voltage detection) ([0016-17; 0021, 0026-29]; Figs. 1 & 2a-c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the electrical discharge machining 110 and the electrode 112 of Grotenhuis to include Li’s electrode 11 and plunge the electrode 11 into the workpiece through the face surface 102, as taught by Li, because it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element, in this case, electrode 112 of Grotenhuis, for another, in this case, electrode 11 of Li, to obtain predictable results, in this case, machining holes in a workpiece, is an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR INT’L CO. V. TELEFLEX.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide the controller 130 of Grotenhuis to include the controller 14, comprising modules 140-142, for determining whether the electrode 11 has broken (breakthrough stage) through the back surface using the measurement signal (sent signals …from element 16, voltage detection), as taught by Li, in order to end the machining upon completion of the breakthrough stage, thereby avoiding having the electrode damage other structures of the workpiece so as to improve the machining quality (Li [0028]).
While Grotenhuis in view of Li teaches an apparatus, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered an obvious extension of prior art teachings.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Prior art does not teach or fairly suggest, either by itself or in combination with other prior art, and in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim 1, “measuring a first voltage indicative of a gap voltage between the electrode and the workpiece using a first measurement device to provide a first measurement signal indicative of the first voltage; controlling movement of the electrode using the first measurement signal; measuring a second voltage indicative of the gap voltage using a second measurement device to provide a second measurement signal indicative of the second voltage; and determining whether the electrode has broken through the workpiece using the second measurement signal.” disclosed in the specification [0062-65] and Fig. 6.
Prior art of Li 2010/0051588 teaches electrical discharge machining with only one voltage measurement device.
Closest prior art of Katogi 2017/0259362 teaches (in [0024]; Fig. 1) one detection circuit connected to two lines.
Closest prior art of Furuta 11135668 teaches (in Fig. 2) two voltage circuits54, 56 with one voltage detector.
Closest prior art of Yamada 2015/0246403 ([0021-22]; Fig. 1) teaches a gap current detector 14 and a voltage gap detector 13.
However, Grotenhuis, Li, Inoue, Katogi, Furuta, or Yamada does not teach either by itself or in combination with other prior art, the above limitations of independent claim 1.
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.”
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments, filed on 05/26/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-20 have been considered, and the arguments are persuasive. Therefore, this second Non-Final rejection is issued. Applicant has been notified telephonically about this second non-final Office Action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACEK LISOWSKI whose telephone number is (408) 918-7635. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 10 am - 6 pm 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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached on (571) 270-5426. 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.
/JACEK LISOWSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/PHUTTHIWAT WONGWIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights