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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites “chamber” but should be amended to recite --chamfer--.
Applicant is advised that should claim 19 be found allowable, claim 20 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cordes et al. (WO2018000009, with reference to translation) in view of Harada et al. (U.S. PGPub 2022/0355388).
Claim 1: Cordes et al. discloses a method of forming an aperture in a composite material (e.g. fiber-reinforced plastics, metallic composites, and other highly abrasive materials - paragraphs 6, 22, 43), the method comprising: drilling a pilot hole (4) into the composite material (paragraph 24); and spiral machining the pilot hole to enlarge a diameter of the pilot hole (paragraph 26, 50, 92-93), wherein the enlarged pilot hole is the aperture in the composite material (i.e. the aperture is the resulting enlarged hole following machining).
The machined material is not necessarily a ceramic matrix composite. However, Harada et al. suggests that diamond tools (such as used by Cordes et al. - see e.g. paragraphs 20, 22) may be used with various materials such as fiber-reinforced composites and CMC alike (paragraph 22). Thus, 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 Cordes tool on a CMC material as an alternative to other composites depending upon the desired workpiece to be machined and because there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Claim 2: Cordes discloses that the final aperture is enlarged from the initial drilled hole, but does not disclose by what degree, and so does not disclose a diameter of the pilot hole is 50%-70% of a final diameter of the aperture. However, 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 Cordes to enlarge by the relative amount claimed since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777(Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the method of Cordes would not appear to operate differently with the claimed range and since the method generally enlarges the hole to some unspecified degree and a hole of any final diameter would presumably function the same way regardless of how it resulted. Additionally or alternatively, there is also no evidence of record that establishes that changing the relative diameter of the pilot hole would result in a difference in function in Cordes. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the method, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the method would function as intended being given the claimed diameters. In any case, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result (instant specification, paragraphs 19 and 31).
Claim 3: Referring to Cordes, the spiral machining is in-plane spiral machining (e.g. as implied in paragraphs 26 and 92-93 by a circular movement about the drilling axis).
Claim 4: The step of spiral machining comprises inserting a tool (3) into the pilot hole, moving the tool in a spiral path to enlarge the diameter of the aperture (e.g. as implied in paragraphs 26 and 92-93 by a circular movement about the drilling axis while rotating the tool).
Claim 5: Only a radial force is applied to the aperture during the spiral machining step (only radial forces would be expected based on the above cited machining steps).
Claim 6: The method of claim 1 wherein the spiral machining is done using a diamond milling tool (e.g. paragraphs 20, 22).
Claim 7: A chamfer is created on either end of the aperture during the spiral machining process (paragraph 95, noting that the radial machining length between chamfer portions may be 100% of the material thickness per paragraph 54).
Claim 8: The spiral machining is performed with a tool (3) having a first diameter in a section (15) of the tool and a second diameter on either side of the section of the tool or on both sides of the section of the tool (at chamfer portions 27 and 30), wherein the second diameter is larger than the first diameter (evident in Fig. 2).
Claim 9: A shape of the tool formed by the first and second diameters creates a [chamfer] on either end of the aperture during the spiral machining process (paragraphs 10, 95, 99).
Claim 15: Cordes further discloses making the pilot hole with diamond tooling (e.g. paragraphs 20, 22).
Claim 16: Cordes et al. discloses a method of forming an aperture in a composite material (e.g. fiber-reinforced plastics, metallic composites, and other highly abrasive materials - paragraphs 6, 22, 43), the method comprising: drilling a pilot hole (4) into the composite material (paragraph 24); and spiral machining the pilot hole in a radial direction with a tool (3) to enlarge a diameter of the pilot hole until the aperture in the ceramic matrix composite material is formed (paragraph 26, 50, 92-93), wherein the enlarged pilot hole is the aperture (i.e. the aperture is the resulting enlarged hole following machining); wherein the has a first diameter in a section (15) of the tool and a second diameter on either side of the section of the tool or on both sides of the section of the tool (at chamfer portions 27 and 30), wherein the second diameter is larger than the first diameter (evident in Fig. 2).
The machined material is not necessarily a ceramic matrix composite. However, Harada et al. suggests that diamond tools (such as used by Cordes et al. - see e.g. paragraphs 20, 22) may be used with various materials such as fiber-reinforced composites and CMC alike (paragraph 22). Thus, 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 Cordes tool on a CMC material as an alternative to other composites depending upon the desired workpiece to be machined and because there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Claim 17: The second diameter is disposed at an end of the aperture (the second diameter portions of the tool, i.e. the chamfer portions, are located the respective ends of the aperture during chamfering).
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cordes et al. and Harada et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xing et al. (NPL, cited in IDS).
Claim 10: Cordes and Harada teach a method substantially as claimed except for applying a backing material to the ceramic matrix composite material, wherein the backing material covers an area of the aperture to be formed. However, Xing et al. teaches a method of drilling CMC materials (e.g. section 2.1) including applying a backing material to the ceramic matrix composite material (e.g. section 2.2 and Fig. 4b), wherein the backing material covers an area of the aperture to be formed (Id.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied a backing material as claimed since it reduces damage at the hole exit, for example (section 4. Conclusions).
Claim 11: In teaching the backing material, Xing does not teach fiberglass. However, 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 fiberglass as the backing material it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 20, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the backing material.
Claim 12: Xing further teaches holding the backing material in place by clamps (e.g. section 2.2 and Fig. 4b).
Claim 13: In teaching the backing material, Xing does not teach removing the backing material after drilling of the pilot hole. However, the examiner submits this would be implicit or obvious since the backing material is not intended to be part of the final product.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cordes et al. and Harada et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gardiner (NPL).
Cordes and Harada teach a method substantially as claimed except for making the pilot hole with a laser microjet. However, Gardiner teaches that laser microjet is a useful technique for drilling CMC materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the pilot hole with a laser microjet since it may have sped up the process compared to conventional milling (e.g. page 3, first paragraph) and/or reduced the wear and increased the tool life of the Cordes tool by reducing its machining burden, for example.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cordes et al. in view of Harada et al and Xing.
Claim 18: Cordes et al. discloses a method of forming an aperture in a composite material (e.g. fiber-reinforced plastics, metallic composites, and other highly abrasive materials - paragraphs 6, 22, 43), the method comprising: drilling a pilot hole (4) into the composite material (paragraph 24); and spiral machining the pilot hole to enlarge a diameter of the aperture (paragraph 26, 50, 92-93), wherein the enlarged pilot hole is the aperture in the composite material (i.e. the aperture is the resulting enlarged hole following machining).
The machined material is not necessarily a ceramic matrix composite. However, Harada et al. suggests that diamond tools (such as used by Cordes et al. - see e.g. paragraphs 20, 22) may be used with various materials such as fiber-reinforced composites and CMC alike (paragraph 22). Thus, 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 Cordes tool on a CMC material as an alternative to other composites depending upon the desired workpiece to be machined and because there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Cordes and Harada do not teach applying a backing material to a surface of the ceramic matrix composite material, drilling opposite from the backing material, and removing the backing material from the ceramic matrix composite material after the spiral machining. However, Xing et al. teaches a method of drilling CMC materials (e.g. section 2.1) including applying a backing material (e.g. graphite plate - section 2.2) to a surface (lower surface - Fig. 4b) of the ceramic matrix composite material, drilling opposite from the backing material (from the top, Id.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied a backing material as claimed since it reduces damage at the hole exit, for example (section 4. Conclusions). Xing does not explicitly teach removing the backing material. However, the examiner submits this would be implicit or obvious since the backing material is not intended to be part of the final product.
Claims 19-20: In teaching the backing material, Xing does not teach fiberglass. However, 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 fiberglass as the backing material it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 20, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the backing material.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW P TRAVERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3218. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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, Sunil K. Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/Matthew P Travers/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726