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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 11/20/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no showing that examining group II would have a serious search burden on the Examiner. This is not found persuasive because as expressly recited in MPEP 808.02(C) “a different field of search” where it is necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other inventions(s) (e.g. search different classes subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries, a different field of search is shown even though the two may be classified together). In the instant case, the election of group I, the method, requires at least a search of “molding”, “forming”, “forging” an air foil, along with “machining”, “grinding”, “abrading” away the mold flash. Where the election of group II would require at least a search of the terms “a strut system” and “cam wheel” which are not terms required in group I. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Status of Claims This action is in reply to the response filed on 11/20/2025 . Claim 20 is withdrawn. Claim s 1-19 are currently pending and have been examined. Claim Objections Claim s 9-11 and 15-17 are objected to because of the following informalities: A) claim 9 should read as “ wherein an arm is received within a slot in the to retain the pair of grinders within the housing but allow them to move axially ”. B) claim 10 should read as “ wherein the pair of grinders are allowed to rotate in a direction generally perpendicular to a direction of rotation about [[ the ]] a pivot pin ”. C) claim 11 should read as “ wherein at least one grinder is mounted within a housing, and the housing is pivotally mounted on a strut such that the orientation of the notch in the grinders the at least one grinder can change as it moves along a surface of the preform ” D) claim 15 should read as “ wherein an arm is received within a slot in the at least one grinder to retain the at least one grinder within the housing but allow it to move axially ”. E) claim 16 should read as “ wherein the at least one grinder is allowed to rotate in a direction generally perpendicular to a direction of rotation about [[ the ]] a pivot pin ”. F) claim 17 should read as “ wherein the at least one grinder is allowed to rotate in a direction generally perpendicular to a direction of rotation about [[ the ]] a pivot pin ”. Appropriate correction is required. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 1-19 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. Regarding claim 1, the limitation “ molding an airfoil preform such that it has an airfoil extending radially ” is indefinite because the term “it” is unclear. What specifically does the term “it” refer back to? This can be confusing and unclear if the term is not explicitly called back to as to which structure is being referred back to. For purposes of examination the Office will interpret the limitation to read as “molding an airfoil preform such that [[ it ]] the airfoil preform has an airfoil extending radially” . Claims 2-19 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1. Regarding claim 5, the limitation “ the housing is pivotally mounted on a strut such that the orientation of the notch in the grinders can change as it moves along a surface of the preform ” is indefinite because the term “it” is unclear. What specifically does the term “it” refer back to? The notch? The grinders? This can be confusing and unclear if the term is not explicitly called back to as to which structure is being referred back to. For purposes of examination the Office will interpret the limitation to read as “the housing is pivotally mounted on a strut such that the orientation of the notch in the grinders can change as [[ it ]] the notch moves along a surface of the preform” . Claims 6-10 are rejected as being dependent on claim 5. Regarding claim 9, the limitation “ wherein an arm is received within a slot in the to retain the pair of grinders within the housing but allow them to move axially ” is indefinite because the term “ them ” is unclear. What specifically does the term “ them ” refer back to? This can be confusing and unclear if the term is not explicitly called back to as to which structure is being referred back to. For purposes of examination the Office will interpret the limitation to read as “wherein an arm is received within a slot in the to retain the pair of grinders within the housing but allow them the grinders to move axially” . Regarding claim 10, the limitation “ wherein the pair of grinders are allowed to rotate in a direction generally perpendicular to a direction of rotation about a pivot pin ” is indefinite because t he term “ generally ” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ generally ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of examination the Office will interpret the limitation to read as “wherein the pair of grinders are allowed to rotate in a direction generally substantially perpendicular to a direction of rotation about [[the]] a pivot pin” , where the term “substantially” is recognized to cover manufacturing and engineering tolerances. Regarding claim 11, the limitation “ the housing is pivotally mounted on a strut such that the orientation of the notch in the grinders at least one grinder can change as it moves along a surface of the preform ” is indefinite because the term “it” is unclear. What specifically does the term “it” refer back to? This can be confusing and unclear if the term is not explicitly called back to as to which structure is being referred back to. For purposes of examination the Office will interpret the limitation to read as “ the housing is pivotally mounted on a strut such that the orientation of the notch in the grinders at least one grinder can change as [[ it ]] the at least one grinder moves along a surface of the preform ” . Claims 12-17 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 11. Regarding claim 12, the limitation “ wherein at least one grinder is movable axially into and out of the housing as it moves along the preform ” is indefinite because the term “it” is unclear. What specifically does the term “it” refer back to? This can be confusing and unclear if the term is not explicitly called back to as to which structure is being referred back to. For purposes of examination the Office will interpret the limitation to read as “wherein at least one grinder is movable axially into and out of the housing as [[ it ]] the at least one grinder moves along the preform” . Claims 13-16 are rejected as being dependent on claim 12. Regarding claim 15, the limitation “ wherein an arm is received within a slot in the grinder to retain the grinder within the housing but allow it to move axially ” is indefinite because the term “it” is unclear. What specifically does the term “it” refer back to? This can be confusing and unclear if the term is not explicitly called back to as to which structure is being referred back to. For purposes of examination the Office will interpret the limitation to read as “wherein an arm is received within a slot in the grinder to retain the grinder within the housing but allow [[ it ]] the grinder to move axially” . Claim 16 is rejected as being dependent on claim 15. Regarding claims 16-17, the limitation “ wherein the at least one grinder is allowed to rotate in a direction generally perpendicular to a direction of rotation about [[ the ]] a pivot pin ” is indefinite because t he term “ generally ” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ generally ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of examination the Office will interpret the limitation to read as “ wherein the grinder is allowed to rotate in a direction generally substantially perpendicular to a direction of rotation about [[ the ]] a pivot pin ”, where the term “substantially” is recognized to cover manufacturing and engineering tolerances. 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, 11-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Smedley (US Patent No. 2,741,164) , hereinafter referred to as Smedley . Regarding claim 1 , Smedley discloses a method of forming a component having an airfoil comprising: a) molding an airfoil preform such that it has an airfoil extending radially [Smedley, col 4, lines 39-45, 20 is forged which the Office interprets], and between a leading edge and a trailing edge [Smedley, col 4, lines 39-45, 20a], with at least one of the leading and trailing edges being formed with a mold flash [Smedley, col 4, lines 39-45, 21]; b) machining away the mold flash [Smedley, col 4, line 50]; c) moving a cutting tool [Smedley, col 5, lines 6-9, 23] having at least one grinder with a notch along the at least one of the preform leading edge and trailing edge [Smedley, col 5, lines 10-13, 23a], the notch having side surfaces that will form the at least one of the leading edge and trailing edge on the airfoil preform [Smedley, fig 12a, 23a is shaped having side surface that form 20a]; and d) moving the cutting tool in conjunction with a cam moving through a cam path to control the position of the at least one grinder along the at least one of leading and trailing edges [Smedley, col 5, lines 14-29 and 54-71] . Regarding claim 2, Smedley further discloses t he method as set forth in claim 1, wherein at least the method steps c) and d) are performed on each of the leading edge and trailing edge [Smedley, col 1, lines 55-57]. Regarding claim 3, Smedley further discloses t he method as set forth in claim 1, wherein steps a)-d) are performed on each of the leading and trailing edges [Smedley, col 1, lines 55-57]. Regarding claim 11, Smedley further discloses t he method as set forth in claim 1, wherein at least one grinder is mounted within a housing, and the housing is pivotally mounted on a strut such that the orientation of the notch in the grinders can change as it moves along a surface of the preform [Smedley, figs 10-11 and 12A-12B, showing 23 is pivotally mounted on 70 within 24 and the orientation of 23a can change]. Regarding claims 12-16, Smedley further discloses t he method as set forth in claim 11, wherein at least one grinder is movable axially into and out of the housing as it moves along the preform [Smedley, figs 10-11, there is an axial component to the movement of 23 within 24 by the adjustment of 70] ( clm 12); wherein at least one grinder is retained within the housing, but allowed to move axially [Smedley, figs 10-11, 23 is held by 24 but allowed to adjust by 70] ( clm 13); wherein at least one spring biases the at least one grinder outwardly of the housing [Smedley, col 6, lines 52 - col 7, line 29, spring 81] ( clm 14); wherein an arm is received within a slot in the grinder to retain the grinder within the housing but allow it to move axially [Smedley, figs 10-11, 72] ( clm 15); and wherein the grinder is allowed to rotate in a direction generally perpendicular to a direction of rotation about the pivot pin [Smedley, figs 10-11, 23 is allowed to pivot perpendicular to 72] ( clm 16). Regarding claim 17, Smedley further discloses t he method as set forth in claim 11, wherein the grinder is allowed to rotate in a direction generally perpendicular to a direction of rotation about the pivot pin [Smedley, figs 10-11, 23 is allowed to pivot perpendicular to 72]. Regarding claim 19, Smedley further discloses t he method as set forth in claim 1, wherein the preform is to be a static vane for use in a gas turbine engine turbine section [Smedley, col 1, lines 55-57]. 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 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smedley (US Patent No. 2,741,164) , alone, hereinafter referred to as Smedley . Regarding claim 4 , Smedley discloses the method as set forth in claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the cutting tool has a pair of grinders moving serially along the at least one of the leading and trailing edges . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the at least one grinder [Smedley, fig 10, 23] of Smedley to make having more than one grinder such that the grinder is duplicated because per MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) the duplication of parts is held obvious over the prior art. Where in the instant case, to have duplicated the at least one grinder is only a slight variation therefrom and would not produce an unexpected outcome and would have therefore constituted an obvious mechanical expedient before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The predictable result is that there is at least a second grinder 23 that follows the cam and is added to be within the housing 24 and follows the path of the first 23. Regarding claim 5, Smedley as modified further discloses t he method as set forth in claim 4, wherein the pair of grinders are mounted within a housing [Smedley, figs 10-11, 24], and the housing is pivotally mounted on a strut such that the orientation of the notch in the grinders can change as it moves along a surface of the preform [Smedley, figs 10-11, 24 is pivotable by strut 70] Regarding claims 6-7, Smedley as modified further discloses t he method as set forth in claim 5, wherein the pair of grinders are movable axially into and out of the housing as they move along the preform [Smedley, figs 10-11, there is an axial component to the movement of 23 within 24 by the adjustment of 70] ( clm 6); and wherein the pair of grinders are retained within the housing, but allowed to move axially [Smedley, figs 10-11, 23 is held by 24 but allowed to adjust by 70] ( clm 7). Regarding claim 8, Smedley as modified further discloses t he method as set forth in claim 7, wherein at least one spring biases the pair of grinders outwardly of the housing [Smedley, col 6, lines 52 - col 7, line 29, spring 81] . Regarding claim 9, Smedley as modified further discloses t he method as set forth in claim 7, wherein an arm is received within a slot in the to retain the pair of grinders within the housing but allow them to move axially [Smedley, figs 10-11, 72] . Regarding claim 10, Smedley as modified further discloses t he method as set forth in claim 5, wherein the pair of grinders are allowed to rotate in a direction generally perpendicular to a direction of rotation about the pivot pin [Smedley, figs 10-11, 23 is allowed to pivot perpendicular to 72] . Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smedley (US Patent No. 2,741,164) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Allaire et al (US Patent No. 5,110,652) , hereinafter referred to as Smedley and Allaire, respectively . Regarding claim 18, Smedley further discloses the method as set forth in claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the preform is formed of ceramic matrix composites . Allaire teaches a method of forming a component having an airfoil [Allaire, fig 2] comprising: a) molding an airfoil preform such that it has an airfoil extending radially [Allaire, fig 2, abstract], and between a leading edge and a trailing edge [Allaire, fig 2, 45 and 46], with at least one of the leading and trailing edges being formed with a mold flash [Allaire, fig 2, and col 10, lines 5-12, 47 and 48, where the Office interprets the adjunct choke flow material to be flash]; b) machining away the mold flash [Allaire, col 10, lines 13-21, 47 and 48 can be machined]; wherein the preform is formed of ceramic matrix composites [Allaire, abstract]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the method and apparatus of machining an airfoil of Smedley on the CMC airfoil of Allaire because the removal of the adjunct choke flow material (flash) accomplished by machining assures a final part of excellent edge quality and surface homogeneity [Allaire, col 10, lines 19-22, summarized]. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sensenich (US Patent No. 2,482,375) teaches molding an airfoil and having flashing [ Sensenich , fig 6, A and F] . Rizzo jr et al (US PGPUB No. 2015/0360338) teaches a machining system for finishing at least the trailing edge of airfoils. Mullooly et al (US PGPUB No. 2009/0320287) teaches molding an airfoil having flashing [ Mullooly , figs 4-5]. Gosinski et al (US Patent No. 7,097,540) teaches a method of machining an airfoil to remove excess material on at least the trailing edge. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ROBERT NEIBAUR whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7979 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT David Posigian can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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