DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 09 June 2026.
Claims 1-15 and 17-20 are currently pending.
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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Cholet and Zhao, commensurate with the position of the original rejection of Claim 16. It is noted, the Applicant’s arguments pertaining to Cholet are not found persuasive since the Zhao reference was relied upon for the integrally bladed rotor (IBR) and method of polishing the IBR teachings. It is further noted, Applicant has not provided arguments against the combination of Cholet and Zhao, nor any arguments pertaining to the Zhao reference.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are not found persuasive for at least the same reasons as explained above.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Examiner note: no 112(f) invocations have been identified by the Office.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 10-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cholet et al (US 20120124834), hereafter referred to as Cholet, in view of Non-Patent Literature Zhao et al, “Surface roughness prediction and parameters optimization in grinding and polishing process for IBR of aero-engine,” hereafter referred to as Zhao.
Regarding Claim 1, Cholet discloses the following:
A manufacturing method, comprising:
at a controller (control unit see [0048]), controlling a robotic polishing device (1, FIG. 2) to polish a plurality of first zones (S41 or alternatively S1, FIG. 1; see [0032-33]) of a bladed rotor (see [0031]) for an aircraft engine based on a first operating parameter (any one of [0051-54]) associated with the robotic polishing device (1, FIG. 2);
wherein an exterior of the bladed rotor (see [0031]) includes the plurality of first zones (S41 or alternatively S1, FIG. 1; see [0032-33]) and a plurality of second zones (S49 or alternatively S7, FIG. 1; see [0032-33]), the plurality of first zones (S41 or alternatively S1, FIG. 1; see [0032-33]) distributed circumferentially about an axis of the bladed rotor (see [0031]) in a first array, and the plurality of second zones (S49 or alternatively S7, FIG. 1; see [0032-33]) distributed circumferentially about the axis of the bladed rotor (see [0031]) in a second array; and
at the controller (control unit see [0048]), controlling the robotic polishing device (1, FIG. 2) to polish the plurality of second zones (S49 or alternatively S7, FIG. 1; see [0032-33]) using the robotic polishing device (1, FIG. 2) based on a second operating parameter (any one of [0051-54]);
wherein the second operating parameter (any one of [0051-54]) for the robotic polishing device (1, FIG. 2) is different (for example the difference may be in the type of parameter selected, or by varying the feed rate, see [0059]) than the first operating parameter (any one of [0051-54]).
wherein the bladed rotor (see [0031]) includes a rotor (see [0031]) disk and a plurality of rotor blades (10); the plurality of rotor blades (10) are arranged circumferentially about and project out from the rotor (see [0031]) disk;
each of the plurality of first zones (S41 or alternatively S1, FIG. 1; see [0032-33]) is associated with a respective one of the plurality of rotor blades (10); and
Cholet does not explicitly disclose the following:
wherein the plurality of rotor blades arranged circumferentially about and projecting out from the rotor disk are integral;
each of the plurality of second zones is associated with a portion of the rotor disk between a respective circumferentially neighboring pair of the plurality of rotor blades.
However Zhao teaches the following:
integrally bladed rotors (IBR) are well known in the art (see for example section 1);
it is well known in the art to polish each of the plurality of second zones (hub of rotor, see section 2.1), which is associated with a portion of the rotor disk between a respective circumferentially neighboring pair of the plurality of rotor blades.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bladed rotor disk and the method as disclosed by Cholet, by making the bladed rotor disc an integrally bladed rotor (IBR) and changing the second selected zone to a zone within the hub, with the reasonable expectation of successfully polishing the entire IBR, as disclosed by Zhao (section 2.1).
The Examiner notes, the simple substitution of the bladed rotor, as disclosed by Cholet, with the IBR, as taught by Zhao, yields the predictable result of providing a known type of bladed rotor (i.e. substituting one known means to provide a bladed rotor for another known means to provide a bladed rotor). This rationale further supports a conclusion of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
Regarding Claim 2, Cholet as modified by Zhao discloses the following:
The manufacturing method of claim 1,
Cholet does not explicitly disclose the following:
wherein the robotic polishing device includes an abrasive polishing belt; the first operating parameter comprises a first grit of the abrasive polishing belt; and
the second operating parameter comprises a second grit of the abrasive polishing belt.
However Cholet teaches the following:
the grit of the abrasive belt is a results effective variable affecting the amount of material removed and the surface finish (see [0050-54]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second operating parameters as disclosed by Cholet, wherein the first and second operating parameters are a first and second grit, with the expected result of affecting the amount of material removed and the surface finish, as taught by Cholet (see [0050-55). Therein the selection of the first and second grit could be undertaken following the extension of the same logic as taught by Cholet, under the same known conditions, and using the same result effective variables (see MPEP 2144.05, II).
Regarding Claim 3, Cholet discloses the following:
The manufacturing method of claim 1,
Cholet does not explicitly disclose the following:
wherein the robotic polishing device includes an abrasive polishing belt; the first operating parameter comprises a first speed of the abrasive polishing belt; and
the second operating parameter comprises a second speed of the abrasive polishing belt.
However Cholet teaches the following:
the speed of the abrasive belt is a results effective variable affecting the amount of material removed and the surface finish (see [0050-54]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second operating parameters as disclosed by Cholet, wherein the first and second operating parameters are a first and second speed of the abrasive polishing belt, with the expected result of affecting the amount of material removed and the surface finish, as taught by Cholet (see [0050-55). Therein the selection of the first and second speed of the abrasive polishing belt could be undertaken following the extension of the same logic as taught by Cholet, under the same known conditions, and using the same result effective variables (see MPEP 2144.05, II).
Regarding Claim 4, Cholet discloses the following:
The manufacturing method of claim 1,
Cholet does not explicitly disclose the following:
wherein the first operating parameter comprises a first pressure exerted by the robotic polishing device against the bladed rotor; and the second operating parameter comprises a second pressure exerted by the robotic polishing device against the bladed rotor.
However Cholet teaches the following:
the pressure of the abrasive belt is a results effective variable affecting the amount of material removed and the surface finish (see [0050-54]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second operating parameters as disclosed by Cholet, wherein the first and second operating parameters are a first and second pressure exerted, with the expected result of affecting the amount of material removed and the surface finish, as taught by Cholet (see [0050-55). Therein the selection of the first and second pressure exerted could be undertaken following the extension of the same logic as taught by Cholet, under the same known conditions, and using the same result effective variables (see MPEP 2144.05, II).
Regarding Claim 5, Cholet discloses the following:
The manufacturing method of claim 1,
Cholet does not explicitly disclose the following:
wherein the first operating parameter comprises a first force exerted by the robotic polishing device against the bladed rotor; and the second operating parameter comprises a second force exerted by the robotic polishing device against the bladed rotor.
However Cholet teaches the following:
the force (it is noted, since pressure is disclosed, force is inherently disclosed because it is not possible to exert a pressure without exerting a force) of the abrasive belt is a results effective variable affecting the amount of material removed and the surface finish (see [0050-54]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second operating parameters as disclosed by Cholet, wherein the first and second operating parameters are a first and second force exerted by the robotic polishing device, with the expected result of affecting the amount of material removed and the surface finish, as taught by Cholet (see [0050-55). Therein the selection of the first and second force exerted by the robotic polishing device could be undertaken following the extension of the same logic as taught by Cholet, under the same known conditions, and using the same result effective variables (see MPEP 2144.05, II).
Regarding Claim 7, Cholet as modified by Zhao discloses the following:
The manufacturing method of claim 1,
Cholet continues to teach the following:
wherein the first operating parameter (any one of [0051-54]) comprises a first tool path speed of the robotic polishing device (1, FIG. 2) along the exterior of the bladed rotor (see [0031]); and the second operating parameter (any one of [0051-54]) comprises a second tool path speed of the robotic polishing device (1, FIG. 2) along the exterior of the bladed rotor (see [0031]).
Regarding Claim 10, Cholet as modified by Zhao discloses the following:
The manufacturing method of claim 1,
Cholet continues to teach the following:
wherein the controlling of the robotic polishing device (1, FIG. 2) to polish the plurality of first zones (S41 or alternatively S1, FIG. 1; see [0032-33]) is further based on a third operating parameter (any one of [0051-54]) for the robotic polishing device (1, FIG. 2); the controlling of the robotic polishing device (1, FIG. 2) to polish the plurality of second zones (S49 or alternatively S7, FIG. 1; see [0032-33]) is further based on a fourth operating parameter (any one of [0051-54]) for the robotic polishing device (1, FIG. 2); and
the third operating parameter (any one of [0051-54]) for the robotic polishing device (1, FIG. 2) is different (for example the difference may be in the type of parameter selected, or by varying the feed rate, see [0059]) than the first operating parameter (any one of [0051-54]) than the fourth operating parameter (any one of [0051-54]).
Regarding Claim 11, Cholet as modified by Zhao discloses the following:
The manufacturing method of claim 1,
Cholet continues to teach the following:
wherein the controlling of the robotic polishing device (1, FIG. 2) to polish the plurality of first zones (S41 or alternatively S1, FIG. 1; see [0032-33]) is further based on a third operating parameter (any one of [0051-54]) for the robotic polishing device (1, FIG. 2); the controlling of the robotic polishing device (1, FIG. 2) to polish the plurality of second zones (S49 or alternatively S7, FIG. 1; see [0032-33]) is further based on a fourth operating parameter (any one of [0051-54]) for the robotic polishing device (1, FIG. 2); and
the third operating parameter (any one of [0051-54]) for the robotic polishing device (1, FIG. 2) is the same (for example see [0055]) as the fourth operating parameter (any one of [0051-54]).
Regarding Claim 12, Cholet discloses the following:
The manufacturing method of claim 1,
Cholet does not explicitly disclose the following:
wherein each of the plurality of first zones are polished before polishing any of the plurality of second zones.
However the Examiner notes the following:
MPEP 2143(E) states it is obvious to try a modification to a system or method if: (1) the prior art identifies a problem or need known at the time of the invention, (2) the prior art teaches a finite number of predictable potential solutions, and (3) one of ordinary skill could have pursued the known solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(E). In this case, the prior art teaches a map of removals to be made on the blade which is converted into a map of control parameters for controlling the polishing machine, but does not disclose the sequence in which the polishing of the map is performed. However there are only a finite number of sequences the polishing may take place, since the machine may either polish the first zone followed by the second zone, may polish the second zone prior to polishing the first zone (of an individual blade), or the machine may polish all of the first zones prior to polishing of the second zones, or finally the machine may polish all of the second zones prior to polishing the first zones, . Thus it would have been obvious to try polishing the plurality of first zones before polishing the plurality of second zones.
Regarding Claim 13, Cholet as modified by Zhao discloses the following:
The manufacturing method of claim 1,
Cholet continues to teach the following:
wherein a first of the plurality of first zones (S41 or alternatively S1, FIG. 1; see [0032-33]) axially neighbors a first of the plurality of second zones (S49 or alternatively S7, FIG. 1; see [0032-33]).
Regarding Claim 14, Cholet as modified by Zhao discloses the following:
The manufacturing method of claim 1,
Cholet continues to teach the following:
wherein a first of the plurality of first zones (S41 or alternatively S1, FIG. 1; see [0032-33]) radially neighbors a first of the plurality of second zones (S49 or alternatively S7, FIG. 1; see [0032-33]).
Regarding Claim 15, Cholet as modified by Zhao discloses the following:
The manufacturing method of claim 1,
Cholet continues to teach the following:
wherein a first of the plurality of first zones (S41 or alternatively S1, FIG. 1; see [0032-33]) circumferentially neighbors a first of the plurality of second zones (S49 or alternatively S7, FIG. 1; see [0032-33]).
Regarding Claim 17, Cholet discloses the following:
A manufacturing method, comprising:
polishing a first zone (S41 or alternatively S1, FIG. 1; see [0032-33]) on an exterior of a component for an aircraft engine using a robotic polishing device (1, FIG. 2) according to a first polishing process (using parameters disclosed in [0051-54], also see [0058-59]); and
polishing a second zone (S49 or alternatively S7, FIG. 1) on the exterior of the component using the robotic polishing device (1, FIG. 2) according to a second polishing process polishing process (using parameters disclosed in [0051-54], also see [0058-59]);
wherein an operating parameter for the robotic polishing device (1, FIG. 2) is at least one of maintained or different during the first polishing process (using parameters disclosed in [0051-54], also see [0058-59]) and the second polishing process polishing process (using parameters disclosed in [0051-54], also see [0058-59]) (Cholet discloses keeping some of the parameters the same and varying others such as the feed rate); and
wherein the operating parameter comprises one of:
an abrasive polishing belt speed ([0052]);
a pressure exerted by the robotic polishing device (1, FIG. 2) against the component ([0053]);
a tool path speed of the robotic polishing device (1, FIG. 2) along the exterior of the component ([0054]);
Cholet does not explicitly disclose the following:
wherein the component is an integrally bladed rotor;
However Zhao teaches the following:
integrally bladed rotors (IBR) are well known in the art (see for example section 1);
it is well known in the art to polish each of the plurality of second zones (hub of rotor, see section 2.1), which is associated with a portion of the rotor disk between a respective circumferentially neighboring pair of the plurality of rotor blades.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bladed rotor disk and the method as disclosed by Cholet, by making the bladed rotor disc an integrally bladed rotor (IBR) and changing the second selected zone to a zone within the hub, with the reasonable expectation of successfully polishing the entire IBR, as disclosed by Zhao (section 2.1).
The Examiner notes, the simple substitution of the bladed rotor, as disclosed by Cholet, with the IBR, as taught by Zhao, yields the predictable result of providing a known type of bladed rotor (i.e. substituting one known means to provide a bladed rotor for another known means to provide a bladed rotor). This rationale further supports a conclusion of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
Regarding Claim 18, Cholet as modified by Zhao discloses the following:
The manufacturing method of claim 17,
Cholet continues to teach the following:
wherein the first zone (S41 or alternatively S1, FIG. 1; see [0032-33]) is contiguous with the second zone (S49 or alternatively S7, FIG. 1).
Regarding Claim 19, Cholet as modified by Zhao discloses the following:
The manufacturing method of claim 17,
Cholet continues to teach the following:
wherein the first zone (S41 or alternatively S1, FIG. 1; see [0032-33]) is one of a plurality of first zones (S41 or alternatively S1, FIG. 1; see [0032-33]) on the exterior of the component, and
each of the plurality of first zones (S41 or alternatively S1, FIG. 1; see [0032-33]) is polished using the robotic polishing device (1, FIG. 2) according to the first polishing process (using parameters disclosed in [0051-54], also see [0058-59]); the second zone (S49 or alternatively S7, FIG. 1) is one of a plurality of second zones (S49 or alternatively S7, FIG. 1; see [0032-33]) on the exterior of the component,
and each of the plurality of second zones (S49 or alternatively S7, FIG. 1; see [0032-33]) is polished using the robotic polishing device (1, FIG. 2) according to the second polishing process polishing process (using parameters disclosed in [0051-54], also see [0058-59]); and the plurality of second zones (S49 or alternatively S7, FIG. 1; see [0032-33]) are interspersed with the plurality of first zones (S41 or alternatively S1, FIG. 1; see [0032-33]) circumferentially about an axis of the component (see [0031]).
Regarding Claim 20, Cholet discloses the following:
A manufacturing method, comprising:
polishing a first zone (S41 or alternatively S1, FIG. 1; see [0032-33]) on an exterior of a bladed rotor (see [0031]) for an aircraft engine (intended use; however [0001] discloses a fan blade and fan attached to the compressor, thus one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the intended use of the fan blade is for an aircraft) using a robotic polishing device (1, FIG. 2) according to a first polishing process (using parameters disclosed in [0051-54], also see [0058-59]), the bladed rotor (see [0031]) including a rotor (see [0031]) disk and a plurality of rotor blades (10), the plurality of rotor blades (10) arranged circumferentially about and projecting out from the rotor (see [0031]) disk, and the first zone (S41 or alternatively S1, FIG. 1; see [0032-33]) on a first of the plurality of rotor blades (10); and
polishing a second zone (S49 or alternatively S7, FIG. 1) on the exterior of the bladed rotor (see [0031]) using the robotic polishing device (1, FIG. 2) according to a second polishing process polishing process (using parameters disclosed in [0051-54], also see [0058-59]), the second zone (S49 or alternatively S7, FIG. 1) on a portion of the rotor (see [0031]) disk circumferentially adjacent the first of the plurality of rotor blades (10);
wherein an operating parameter for the robotic polishing device (1, FIG. 2) is maintained during the first polishing process (using parameters disclosed in [0051-54], also see [0058-59]) and the second polishing process polishing process (using parameters disclosed in [0051-54], also see [0058-59]), but different (for example the difference may be in the type of parameter selected, or by varying the feed rate, see [0059]) between the first polishing process (using parameters disclosed in [0051-54], also see [0058-59]) and the second polishing process polishing process (using parameters disclosed in [0051-54], also see [0058-59]).
Cholet does not explicitly disclose the following:
wherein the component is an integrally bladed rotor;
However Zhao teaches the following:
integrally bladed rotors (IBR) are well known in the art (see for example section 1);
it is well known in the art to polish each of the plurality of second zones (hub of rotor, see section 2.1), which is associated with a portion of the rotor disk between a respective circumferentially neighboring pair of the plurality of rotor blades.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bladed rotor disk and the method as disclosed by Cholet, by making the bladed rotor disc an integrally bladed rotor (IBR) and changing the second selected zone to a zone within the hub, with the reasonable expectation of successfully polishing the entire IBR, as disclosed by Zhao (section 2.1).
The Examiner notes, the simple substitution of the bladed rotor, as disclosed by Cholet, with the IBR, as taught by Zhao, yields the predictable result of providing a known type of bladed rotor (i.e. substituting one known means to provide a bladed rotor for another known means to provide a bladed rotor). This rationale further supports a conclusion of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cholet as modified by Zhao, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of non-patent literature Wang et al, “Reducing roughness of freeform surface through tool orientation optimization in multi-axis polishing of blisk,” hereafter referred to as Wang.
Regarding Claim 6, Cholet as modified by Zhao discloses the following:
The manufacturing method of claim 1,
Cholet as modified by Zhao does not explicitly disclose the following:
wherein the first operating parameter comprises a first angle of inclination between a head of the robotic polishing device and the exterior of the bladed rotor being polished; and the second operating parameter comprises a second angle of inclination between the head of the robotic polishing device and the exterior of the bladed rotor being polished.
However Wang teaches the following:
it is well known in the art the angle of inclination between the head of the robotic polishing device and the exterior of a bladed rotor affects the roughness of the polished area (see for example Abstract); and/or the angle of inclination between the head of the robotic polishing device (synonymous with tool orientation) affects the amount of grains cut by the abrasive material (see for example Page 923, second paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second operating parameters as disclosed by Cholet, wherein the first and second operating parameters are a first and second angle of inclination between the head of the robotic polishing device and the exterior of the bladed rotor being polished, with the expected result of affecting the amount of material removed and the roughness surface finish, as taught by Wang (Page 923 second paragraph, Abstract). Therein the selection of the first and second force exerted by the robotic polishing device could be undertaken following the extension of the same logic as taught by Wang, under the same known conditions, and using the same result effective variables (see MPEP 2144.05, II).
Cholet as modified by Wang results in the following limitation(s):
wherein the first operating parameter (any one of [0051-54]) comprises a first angle of inclination between a head of the robotic polishing device (as taught by Wang) and the exterior of the bladed rotor being polished; and the second operating parameter (any one of [0051-54]) comprises a second angle of inclination between the head of the robotic polishing device and the exterior of the bladed rotor being polished (as taught by Wang).
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cholet as modified by Zhao, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of non-patent literature Xiao et al, “Path planning method for longitudinal micro marks on blisk root-fillet with belt grinding” hereafter referred to as Xiao.
Regarding Claim 8, Cholet as modified by Zhao discloses the following:
The manufacturing method of claim 1,
Cholet as modified by Zhao does not explicitly disclose the following:
wherein the first operating parameter comprises a first offset between adjacent passes of the robotic polishing device along the exterior of the bladed rotor; and the second operating parameter comprises a second offset between adjacent passes of the robotic polishing device along the exterior of the bladed rotor.
However Xiao teaches the following:
it is well known in the art to optimize the offset between adjacent passes of the robotic polishing device (synonymous with step size; see section 3.1) based on the complexity of the surface and the number of desired iterations (see section 3.1, number 3; FIG. 11), thereby resulting in a reasonable row spacing of the tool path.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second operating parameters as disclosed by Cholet, wherein the first and second operating parameters are a first and second offset between adjacent passes of the robotic polishing device along the exterior of the bladed rotor and the exterior of the bladed rotor being polished, with the expected result of selecting a reasonable row spacing, as taught by Xiao (section 3.1). Therein the selection of the first and second offset between adjacent passes of the robotic polishing device along the exterior of the bladed rotor could be undertaken following the extension of the same logic as taught by Xiao, under the same known conditions, and using the same result effective variables (see MPEP 2144.05, II).
Cholet as modified by Zhao and as modified by Xiao results in the following limitation(s):
wherein the first operating parameter (any one of [0051-54]) comprises a first offset (as taught by Xiao) between adjacent passes of the robotic polishing device (1, FIG. 2) along the exterior of the bladed rotor (see [0031]); and the second operating parameter (any one of [0051-54]) comprises a second offset (as taught by Xiao) between adjacent passes of the robotic polishing device (1, FIG. 2) along the exterior of the bladed rotor (see [0031]).
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cholet as modified by Zhao, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Ohara et al (JP 2006123059), hereafter referred to as Ohara.
Regarding Claim 9, Cholet as modified by Zhao discloses the following:
The manufacturing method of claim 1,
Cholet as modified by Zhao does not explicitly disclose the following:
wherein the first operating parameter comprises a first tool head configuration for the robotic polishing device; and the second operating parameter comprises a second tool head configuration for the robotic polishing device.
However Ohara teaches the following:
it is well known in the art to appropriately set the rotation conditions of the polishing member, the width of the polishing member (synonymous with tool head configuration), etc., so it is possible to set the appropriate polishing state according to the target location of the workpiece and perform the polishing operation (see [0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second operating parameters as disclosed by Cholet, wherein the first and second operating parameters are a first and second tool head configuration, with the expected result of setting the appropriate polishing state according to the target location of the workpiece and perform the polishing operation, as taught by Ohara ([0072]). Therein the selection of the first and second tool head configuration could be undertaken following the extension of the same logic as taught by Ohara, under the same known conditions, and using the same result effective variables (see MPEP 2144.05, II).
Cholet as modified by Zhao and as modified by Ohara results in the following limitation(s):
wherein the first operating parameter (any one of [0051-54]) comprises a first tool head configuration (as taught by Ohara) for the robotic polishing device (1, FIG. 2); and the second operating parameter (any one of [0051-54]) comprises a second tool head configuration (as taught by Ohara) for the robotic polishing device (1, FIG. 2).
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 BRIAN C DELRUE whose telephone number is (313)446-6567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Eastern).
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, Nathaniel E. Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/BRIAN CHRISTOPHER DELRUE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights