DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 1-19-2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is not a serious search burden. This is not found persuasive because Groups I,II and III require diverse search areas, the Group II fan blade fixture search requires a workholding search in B25B which is not required in the Group I roller tool search in B21H and B24B and the Group III tool assembly search in Y10T29 is not required in the Group I roller tool search in B21D and B24B.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “axel” in line 3 should be --axle--. 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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-6 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. Claim 1, line 1 sets forth “for deep rolling a workpiece” and claims 2-6 recite “for deep rolling a fan blade” it is not clear if claim 1 is also supposed to recite “fan blade” or if claims 2-6, line 1 are supposed to recite “workpiece” to align with claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3,5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tomioka et al. (8,250,720). Tomioka discloses a system comprising a roller tool (86) for rolling a workpiece (10) and a fixture (28,36; col. 11, lines 40-43). The roller tool comprising an adaptor plate (turret plate, 40; col. 9, line 27) proximate an adapter end (axial end portion; col. 9, line 28), an arm (56,74) attached to the adaptor plate (40) at an arm adapter end at an end portion (58,60; Fig. 1, col. 9, lines 54-57) of the arm part (56) proximate the adaptor plate (40; Fig. 3). The arm (56,74) comprising a roller end (80; Fig. 2) opposite the adapter end (58,60; Fig. 1), the arm comprising a midspan portion (Fig. 1) between the adapter end (58,60) and the roller end (80), an offset comprising a dogleg portion (col. 9, lines 37-38) formed in the arm (56,74) configured to prevent contact with the workpiece (10) and a roller disk (86) is joined to the roller end (80), the roller disk configured to contact the workpiece (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 2, the arm (56,74) comprises a stiffener (60; Fig. 3) proximate the midspan to aid in fixing the arm (56,74) in position. Regarding claim 3, a roller disk support (84,82) is attached to the roller end (80; Fig. 2) wherein an interlock feature (104) is configured to mate with the arm (56,74) by being fixed to the arm portion by stopper (102; col. 10, lines 56-58) proximate the roller end (80). Regarding claim 5, the roller disk support (84; Fig. 1) is tapered wherein Fig. 2 shows that the support has an angled structure from the axle (88) toward the roller periphery. Regarding claim 6, the roller disk support comprises a bore for an axle (88).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomioka et al. (8,250,720) in view of Zhou (2015/0258600). Tomioka does not disclose that the roller tool axle is integral. Zhou teaches a roller tool (82; Figs 5 and 6) with an integral axle (81; [0137], lines 1-3). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the roller tool of Tomioka to have an integral axle as taught by Zhou in order to strengthen the roller by not having an axial bore for a separate roller axle.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomioka et al. (8,250,720) in view of Kraus et al. (2013/0312473). Tomioka does not disclose that the arm portion near the roller is curved. Kraus teaches (Fig. 3) that an arm portion (11) which supports a roller (15,17) is a curved cylindrical shape. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the shape of the arm portion of Tomioka proximate the roller to be a cylindrical curved shape since a change in shape is an obvious matter of design choice since a rectangular shaped arm as in Tomioka and a cylindrical columnar shaped arm of Kraus are both structured to hold a roller in position for rolling a workpiece.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD THOMAS TOLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4525. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Chris Templeton can be reached at 571-270-1477. 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.
/EDWARD T TOLAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights