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 08/17/2026. Claims 1-19 are examined.
Specification
Amendments to the specification were received. The amended specification has been entered.
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 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 1-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reed 2013/0206739.
Regarding Claim 1, Reed teaches a manufacturing method (manufacturing techniques) ([0150-153]), comprising:
providing a workpiece 100 that includes a face surface 104 and a back surface 102 ([0082, 0085]; Figs. 4-6);
machining a first aperture 114 into the workpiece using an energy beam (laser or electron beam machining), the first aperture 114 projecting partially into the workpiece 100 from the face surface 104 to an end (end is the point where metering section 112 and diffusion section 114 meet, the transition point at the line where sections 158 and 100 connect, seen in Fig. 6) of the first aperture 114; and directing a waterjet (water jet machining) into the first aperture 114 to machine a second aperture 112 into the workpiece 100, the second aperture 112 extending from the end of the first aperture 114 (seen in Fig. 6) to the back surface 102 ([0087, 0150; 0152-154; 0160; 0164-165; 0172; 0199]; Figs. 3-6 & 29. Reed teaches that the hole and its parts such as an inlet 110, metering portion 112, diffusion portion 114 , outlet 116, and other cooling features can be made via a two-step process that includes laser or electron beam machining and water jet machining. Furthermore, Reed teaches that laser or electron beam machining can be used for making the metering portion 112 or the diffusion portion 114, and that water jet machining can also be used for making the metering portion 112 or the diffusion portion 114. The hole making process can start either from side 102 of element 100 or from side 104 of element 158, as seen in Fig. 6. Therefore, Reed that that laser or electron beam machining is used for making the first aperture from the surface and into the element, and then the water jet machining is used for making the second aperture, from the end of the first aperture and to the outlet, as claimed).
Regarding Claim 2, Reed teaches the method as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Reed further teaches
the energy beam (laser or electron beam machining) comprises a laser generated by a percussion laser machining device (Laser machining methods include … percussion laser machining) ([0150]).
Regarding Claim 3, Reed teaches the method as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Reed further teaches
the energy beam (laser or electron beam machining) comprises a laser beam generated by an ablation laser machining device (Laser machining methods include … laser ablation) ([0150], ll. 9-13, and [0152], ll. 5-8).
Regarding Claim 4, Reed teaches the method as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Reed further teaches
the workpiece 100 includes a substrate (substrate (wall 100)) and a coating 158 (thermal barrier coating 158) over the substrate (substrate); and the first aperture 114 projects from the face surface 104 and partially into or through the coating 158 ([0105-106]; Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 5, Reed teaches the method as claimed and as discussed above for claim 4, and Reed further teaches
the coating 158 comprises a ceramic material (coating material such as a ceramic … coating) ([0153]).
Regarding Claim 6, Reed teaches the method as claimed and as discussed above for claim 4, and Reed further teaches
the coating 448 comprises a metal material (coatings 448 take a variety of forms including metal coatings) ([0172]; Fig. 23).
Regarding Claim 7, Reed teaches the method as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Reed further teaches
a centerline ([a] or [b]) of the first aperture 114 is angularly offset (seen in Fig. 6) from the face surface 104 by an acute angle [c] ([0085; 0092-93] Annotated Fig. 6, below. [0085] teaches cooling holes 106 as being arranged at an angle between parallel [0 deg.] and perpendicular [90 deg.] to the second surface. Therefore, centerline of any cooling hole has the same angles. It is clearly shown that any centerline through the first aperture 114 has an acute angle with respect to face surface 104.).
PNG
media_image1.png
435
707
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: Annotated Fig. 6 of Reed (U.S. 2013/0206739)
Regarding Claim 8, Reed teaches the method as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Reed further teaches
the energy beam (laser or electron beam machining) extends along a centerline ([a] or [b]) when machining the first aperture 114; and
the waterjet (water jet machining) extends along the centerline 118 when machining the second aperture 112 ([0015; 0150-152]; Figs. 4 & 6. [0015] teaches making the metering section [second aperture 112] using a first technique, such as laser or particle beam, and making the diffusing section [first aperture 114] using a second technique, such as fluid jet guided laser. The second technique being different from the first technique. [0150-152] teaches many technique methods for forming holes, such as laser or electron beam machining, or water jet machining. Therefore, these teachings read on claims above.).
Regarding Claim 9, Reed teaches the method as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Reed further teaches
the waterjet (water jet machining) enlarges the first aperture 114 providing an enlarged first aperture 114 during the machining of the second aperture 112 ([0167] teaches that fluid stream size can be varied to change the beam size in real time allowing the hole or passage with varying cross-sectionals shape and area to be formed. Therefore, this reads on the water jet enlarging first aperture during the drilling of the second aperture as claimed.).
Regarding Claim 10, Reed teaches the method as claimed and as discussed above for claim 9, and Reed further teaches
at least the enlarged first aperture 114 and the second aperture 112 form a cooling aperture 106 in the workpiece 100; the cooling aperture 106 extends from an inlet 110 in the back surface 102 to an outlet 116 in the face surface 104 ([0087; 0150-152; 0167; 0170; Figs. 4-6).
Regarding Claim 11, Reed teaches the method as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Reed further teaches
the waterjet (water jet machining) removes recast and/or thermally damaged material (removing ablated material before resolidification) from the first aperture 114 during the machining of the second aperture 112 (inherent) ([0015; 0167-1688]; Fig. 6. The fluid stream size is varied and affects the cross-sectional shape and area [of hole] to be formed. The water jet machining used for machining the second aperture 112 inherently will remove some of the materials form the first aperture 114 because of the area being increased. Therefore, this reads on the claim.).
Regarding Claim 12, Reed teaches the method as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Reed further teaches
a centerline 118 of the second aperture 112 is angularly offset (inclined) from the face surface 104 by an acute angle [c] (acute angle [c], seen in Fig. 6) ([0092-93]; Annotated Fig. 6, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
435
707
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: Annotated Fig. 6 of Reed (U.S. 2013/0206739)
Regarding Claim 14, Reed teaches the method as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Reed further teaches
forming a component 100 of a turbine engine 10, the forming of the component 100 including the machining (Laser machining methods) of the first aperture 114 and the machining of the second aperture 112; a cooling hole 106 comprising the first aperture 114 and the second aperture 112 ([0074,0079, 0082, 0087; 0149-152]; Figs. 4-6).
Regarding Claim 15, Reed teaches the method as claimed and as discussed above for claim 14, and Reed further teaches
the cooling hole 106 comprises a meter section 112 and a diffuser section 114 (Fig. 6); and
an outlet (outlet) of the diffuser section 114 is substantially formed by the machining of the first aperture 114 with the energy beam (laser or electron beam machining) ([0087-88; 0149-150, 0152] ; Figs. 4-6).
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.
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed in view of Maurer 2014/0170935.
Regarding Claim 13, Reed teaches the method as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1. However, Reed does not teach the waterjet comprises a mixture of water and media entrained in the water.
Maurer teaches
the waterjet (water jet) comprises a mixture of water and media entrained in the water (water with added abrasive material for abrasive water jet cutting) ([0017-21]. Maurer teaches examples of machining jets used for forming holes in a workpiece can be pure water, water with added abrasive material, jet formed from liquid other than water, or jet formed from another medium.).
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 waterjet (water jet machining) of Reed to be waterjet (water jet) comprising a mixture of water and media entrained in the water (water with added abrasive material for abrasive water jet cutting), as taught by Maurer, because Maurer teaches that water jet machining using pure water, or water with added abrasive material, are well-known alternatives (Maurer [0017-21]).
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavers 2005/0173388 in view of Reed.
Regarding Claim 16, Lavers teaches a manufacturing method (electro machining methods) ([0039]; Figs. 4-6), comprising:
providing a workpiece (workpiece) with a face surface [m] and a back surface [n], the workpiece extending between the face surface [m] and the back surface [n] (Annotated Figs. 5-6);
machining the workpiece (workpiece) with an energy beam 9 (laser beam 9) to form a blind aperture 18 (seen in Fig. 5), the blind aperture 18 projecting into the workpiece (seen in Fig. 5) from the face surface [m]; and machining the workpiece (workpiece) to extend the blind aperture 18 to the back surface [n] and form a cooling aperture 18, 20 (seen in Fig. 6), the cooling aperture 18, 20 extending from an inlet [p] in the back surface [n] to an outlet [d] in the face surface [m]. ([0042; 0044-46]; Annotated Figs. 5-6, below).
PNG
media_image2.png
800
537
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure B: Annotated Figs. 5-6 of Lavers (U.S. 2005/0173388)
Lavers does not teach machining the workpiece with a waterjet to extend the blind aperture to the back surface and form a cooling aperture.
Reed teaches
machining the workpiece 100 with a waterjet (water jet machining) to extend the aperture 106 to the back surface 102 and form a cooling aperture 106 ([0087, 0150; 0152-154; 0160; 0164-165; 167; 0170; 0172; 0199]; Figs. 3-6 & 29. Reed teaches many suitable manufacturing techniques for forming the cooling holes such as electrical discharge machining (EDM), electron beam (EB) machining, laser drilling, laser machining, electrical chemical machining (ECM), water jet machining, casting, mechanical machining and combinations thereof. Therefore, the suitable manufacturing methods are equivalent. Reed further teaches that the hole and its parts such as an inlet 110, metering portion 112, diffusion portion 114 , outlet 116, and other cooling features can be made via a two-step process that includes laser or electron beam machining and water jet machining. Furthermore, Reed teaches that laser or electron beam machining can be used for making the metering portion 112 or the diffusion portion 114, and that water jet machining can also be used for making the metering portion 112 or the diffusion portion 114. The hole making process can start either from side 102 of element 100 or from side 104 of element 158, as seen in Fig. 6. Therefore, Reed that that laser or electron beam machining is used for making the first aperture from the surface and into the element, and then the water jet machining is used for making the second aperture, from the end of the first aperture and to the outlet, as claimed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify machining the workpiece (workpiece) of Lavers to use Reed’s waterjet (water jet machining) to extend Lavers’ blind aperture 18 to the back surface [n] and form a cooling aperture 18, 20, because Reed teaches that manufacturing methods of holes such as electron beam (EB) machining, laser drilling, laser machining, …, water jet machining … and combinations thereof, are equivalent (Reed [0150]).
Regarding Claim 17, Lavers in view of Reed teaches the method as claimed and as discussed above for claim 16, and Lavers further teaches
the blind aperture 18, 20 projects into the workpiece (workpiece) to an end surface [n], and a centerline [x] is angularly offset (seen in Figs. 5-6) from the end surface [n] by an angle [w] ([0042; 0044-46]; Annotated Figs. 5-6, below);
PNG
media_image2.png
800
537
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure B: Annotated Figs. 5-6 of Lavers (U.S. 2005/0173388)
Lavers in view of Reed, as discussed so far, does not teach a centerline of the waterjet is angularly offset from the end surface by an angle when the machining of the workpiece with the waterjet begins; and the angle is between eighty-five degrees and ninety degrees.
Reed further teaches
a centerline 118 of the waterjet (water jet machining) is angularly offset (inclined) from the end surface 102 by an angle [v] (acute angle [v], seen in Fig. 6) when the machining of the workpiece 100 with the waterjet begins; and the angle [v] is between eighty-five degrees and ninety degrees (between parallel [0 deg.] and perpendicular [90 deg.] to the second surface) ([0085; 0092-93] Annotated Fig. 6, below. [0085] teaches cooling holes 106 as being arranged at an angle between parallel [0 deg.] and perpendicular [90 deg.] to the second surface 108, seen in Fig. 2C. Surface 108 and 102 are the same. Therefore, centerline of any cooling hole has the same angles. It is clearly shown that the centerline 118 through aperture 112 of hole 106 has an acute angle [v] with respect to end surface 102, and that angle can be between 0-90 degrees, reading on the 85-90 degrees range claimed.).
PNG
media_image1.png
435
707
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: Annotated Fig. 6 of Reed (U.S. 2013/0206739)
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 centerline [x] of Lavers in view of Reed and make the centerline [x] be angularly offset (inclined) from the end surface 102 by an angle [v] (acute angle [v]) when the machining of the workpiece 100 with the waterjet begins; and the angle [v] is between eighty-five degrees and ninety degrees (between parallel [0 deg.] and perpendicular [90 deg.] to the second surface), as taught by Reed, in order to “encourage attached flow along hot inner surface 108 of gas path wall 102” (Reed [0078], ll. 5-6).
Regarding Claim 18, Lavers in view of Reed teaches the method as claimed and as discussed above for claim 16, and Lavers further teaches
the workpiece (workpiece) includes a substrate 2 (conductive metallic portion 2) and a coating 5 (non-conductive ceramic coating 5) over the substrate 2; and the blind aperture 18 projects through the coating 5 to or into the substrate 2 ([0039; 0042, 0044-46]; Figs. 5-6. Blind aperture 18 goes through coating 5, and blind aperture 18, 20 goes into the substrate 2).
Regarding Claim 19, Lavers in view of Reed teaches the method as claimed and as discussed above for claim 16, and Lavers further teaches
the energy beam 9 (laser beam 9) comprises a pulsed laser beam (laser … pulsed operation) ([0044]).
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments, filed on 08/17/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-19 have been considered but they are not persuasive and are still unpatentable over the previously applied prior art. However, to the extent possible, Applicant’s arguments have been addressed in the body of the rejections at the appropriate locations, and a summary is provided below.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections of independent claims 1 and 16, respectively:
Applicant argues (pp. 1-4 of Remarks) that prior art of Reed only teaches using various techniques but does not teach first aperture to be machined via energy beam from the surface to a certain distance into the element, and then the second aperture to be machined via waterjet from the end of the first aperture to the outlet.
However, prior art of Reed in ([0087, 0150; 0152-154; 0160; 0164-165; 0172; 0199]; Figs. 3-6 & 29) teaches that the hole and its parts such as an inlet 110, metering portion 112, diffusion portion 114 , outlet 116, and other cooling features can be made via a two-step process that includes laser or electron beam machining and water jet machining. Furthermore, Reed teaches that laser or electron beam machining can be used for making the metering portion 112 or the diffusion portion 114, and that water jet machining can also be used for making the metering portion 112 or the diffusion portion 114. The hole making process can start either from side 102 of element 100 or from side 104 of element 158, as seen in Fig. 6. Therefore, Reed that that laser or electron beam machining is used for making the first aperture from the surface and into the element, and then the water jet machining is used for making the second aperture, from the end of the first aperture and to the outlet. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
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 extension fee 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 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