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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 9/21/2023. These drawings are accepted.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 are currently amended.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Hz,” should be replaced with “Hz” (with comma removed) for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
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:
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.
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.”
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is “jaws for clamping the metal alloy” in Claim 7, which is described in the specification as the means for attaching the rectifier on page 12, line 12.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid i being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-15 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the same formulation" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the orientation" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims dependent on any of the rejected claims are likewise rejected under this statute.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brand et al (US 2017/0361422 A1) in view of CN 112760525 A, based on the machine translation, and the document Products Finishing.
Brand et al teaches polishing a metallic workpiece with an abrasive polishing media comprising metallic chips, liquid, and abrasive (abstract) and as represented below in the annotated drawing:
PNG
media_image1.png
564
529
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The metallic workpiece includes rotors from turbines [0012]. Brand et al teaches shaking and oscillation at a desired amplitude and frequency [0014], which reads on vibratory finishing. The workpiece 18 is immersed in the hopper 34. The polishing media includes aluminum oxide [0017], copper [0021], and a liquid [0024]. The polishing process continues until the desired surface finish is achieved. Subsequent run time may be predetermined based on testing results of the initial run. Periodically reversing the direction of the motors 40 at predetermined time interval is helpful in producing a consistent and acceptable end result [0028]. If varying grits of abrasive are used, the total process time may be divided into shorter sessions with different polishing media [0029]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the orientation of the workpiece would change between sessions to allow for the polishing apparatus to be cleaned of excess media between sessions. When the polishing process is complete, the hopper is emptied of media and the rotor is removed from the fixture 42. The rotor may be cleaned of excess media, for example by a water rinse and drying. However, Brand et al does not teach producing the workpiece as recited in step (a) or that some or all of the abrasive composition is evacuated and replaced by a new abrasive composition of the same formulation as claimed.
Regarding producing the workpiece, CN 112760525 A (CN ‘525) teaches forming a nickel base super alloy for a turbine engine (abstract). The method includes melting and depositing a powder mixture, and a laser beam is used for fusion welding (page 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the metallic workpiece in Brand et al with the process of CN ‘525, since CN ‘525 teaches a superalloy with excellent weldability at ambient temperature and a good combination of mechanical and oxidation characteristics (page 2).
Regarding evacuating and replacing the abrasive composition with the same formulation, Products Finishing abrasive media in vibratory finishing does not last forever; with no abrasive, cutting stops and so does wear (page 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace some or all of the polishing media in Brand et al as taught by Products Finishing, since Brand et al teaches using abrasive materials and performing tests to achieve a desired surface finish.
Regarding Claim 2, Brand et al teaches the workpiece is titanium or a nickel-based alloy [0012].
Regarding Claim 3, Brand et al teaches less than 0.05% abrasive, more than 98% metallic chip (copper), and less than 2% liquid [0026].
Regarding Claim 4, Brand et al teaches a surfactant may be added to the liquid [0025].
Regarding Claim 6, Brand et al teaches an array as represented in FIG. 1 [0012], which reads on at least one aerodynamic blade that are configured to form a monobloc assembly with a rectifier at least taught by rim 16 with annular shape around an axis of revolution.
Regarding Claim 8, CN ‘525 teaches acid extruding the formed ingot and washing to remove surface oxidation (page 3).
Regarding Claim 9, CN ‘525 teaches an acid.
Regarding Claim 10, aluminum oxide would have a hardness greater than titanium or nickel-based alloys, since Products Finishing teaches that the media needs to be capable of removing metal from parts (page 1).
Regarding Claim 11, the density of copper is 8.96 g/cm3 and aluminum oxide is 3.99 g/cm3 as evidenced by the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics.
Regarding Claim 12, Brand et al teaches less than 2% liquid [0026], which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 14, the Brand et al teaches oscillating or shaking in both lateral and vertical components [0014], which reads on three axes.
Regarding Claim 15, CN ‘525 teaches aging the turbine engine component (page 2).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brand et al in view of CN ‘525 and Products Finishing as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 81/01976 A1.
Brand et al in view of CN ‘525 and Products Finishing discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Brand et al in view of CN ‘525 and Products Finishing does not teach the frequency as claimed.
WO 81/01976 A1 (WO ’976) teaches vibration treatment of parts in a working fluid environment (page 1) using oscillatory motion and a frequency of 30-100 Hz (page 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the desired frequency (see Bland et al [0014]) to treat the metallic workpiece in Bland et al in view of CN ‘525 and Products Finishing to have the frequency range taught by WO ‘976, since WO ‘976 teaches increasing the speed of relative movement of parts and working fluids without increasing the amplitude of oscillations and thereby reducing the processing time of parts (page 2).
Claims 1-4, 8-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2015/055601 A1 in view of CN ‘525 and Products Finishing.
WO 2015/055601 (WO ‘601) teaches a method of polishing a machine component comprising at least one airfoil portion (abstract) using a polishing mixture comprising an abrasive powder, a liquid, and metal particles in a vibrating container (page 3, lines 13-15). The polishing mixture comprises aluminum oxide, copper particles, and a liquid (page 11, lines 9-13). Different positions of the blade were treated (page 17, line 3) and only part of the component is covered (page 11, line 5-7), which reads on changing the position of the component. However, WO ‘601 does not teach producing a blank by additive manufacturing using laser fusion as in step (a) or that some or all of the abrasive composition is evacuated and replaced by a new abrasive composition as claimed.
Regarding producing the workpiece, CN ‘525 is applied as discussed above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the metallic workpiece in WO ‘601 with the process of CN ‘525, since CN ‘525 teaches a superalloy with excellent weldability at ambient temperature and a good combination of mechanical and oxidation characteristics (page 2).
Regarding evacuating and replacing the abrasive composition, Products Finishing is applied as discussed above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace some or all of the polishing media in WO ‘601 as taught by Products Finishing, since WO ‘601 teaches using abrasive materials and performing tests to achieve a desired surface finish.
Regarding Claim 2, CN ‘525 teaches a nickel base superalloy.
Regarding Claim 3, WO ‘601 teaches 0.05-0.4% abrasive powder, 90-98% metal particles, and 3-10% liquid (page 7, lines 6-8).
Regarding Claim 4, WO ‘601 teaches the liquid is water (page 7, line 2).
Regarding Claim 8, CN ‘525 teaches acid extruding the formed ingot and washing to remove surface oxidation (page 3).
Regarding Claim 9, CN ‘525 teaches an acid.
Regarding Claim 10, aluminum oxide would have a hardness greater than titanium or nickel-based alloys, since Products Finishing teaches that the media needs to be capable of removing metal from parts (page 1).
Regarding Claim 11, the density of copper is 8.96 g/cm3 and aluminum oxide is 3.99 g/cm3 as evidenced by the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics.
Regarding Claim 12, WO ‘601 teaches 3-10% liquid (page 7, lines 6-8), which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 15, CN ‘525 teaches aging the turbine engine component (page 2).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO ‘601 in view of CN ‘525 and Products Finishing as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO ‘976 A1.
WO ‘601 in view of CN ‘525 and Products Finishing discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, WO ‘601 in view of CN ‘525 and Products Finishing does not teach the frequency as claimed.
WO ’976 is applied as discussed above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the desired frequency to treat the metallic workpiece in WO ‘601 in view of CN ‘525 and Products Finishing to have the frequency range taught by WO ‘976, since WO ‘976 teaches increasing the speed of relative movement of parts and working fluids without increasing the amplitude of oscillations and thereby reducing the processing time of parts (page 2).
Claims 6, 7, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO ‘601 in view of CN ‘525 and Products Finishing as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mingot (US 2022/0410327 A1).
Mingot is in the same patent family as CA 3161362 A1 published 06/17/2021.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
WO ‘601 in view of CN ‘525 and Products Finishing discloses the invention substantially as claimed. WO ‘601 teaches at least one airfoil portion (abstract) but is not limited to rotor and stator blades or buckets for turbomachines (page 1, lines 4-7). However, WO ‘601 in view of CN ‘525 and Products Finishing does not teach the configuration of a monobloc assembly of a rectifier as in Claim 6 or the tooling recited in Claim 7.
Mingot teaches polishing a component made by additive manufacturing [0004] as represented below in the annotated drawings:
PNG
media_image2.png
1149
982
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, the component is exemplified in the drawings as a turbine engine rectifier. Regarding Claim 7, the retaining elements read on “jaws for clamping.” The flat ferromagnetic base and electromagnetic field are represented in the drawings above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Mingot to polish a component with the process of WO ‘601 in view of CN ‘525 and Products Finishing, since Mingot teaches reducing the installation operations for performing polishing and removal operations and providing a versatile device [0015-0016].
Regarding Claim 13, Mingot teaches the blank is on the bottom of the tank, and at least overlaps extending at most 30% of the maximum height of the abrasive composition since it is immersed.
Regarding Claim 14, Mingot teaches sussultatory (up and down) and vibrational (side to side) movements [0007], which reads on three axes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO 01/76819 A1 (WO ‘819) teaches a method of polishing and/or cleaning a substrate (abstract). The substrate can be any suitable metal including titanium (page 2, lines 30-33). The polishing and cleaning components include abrasives such as alumina (page 4, lines 9-11) with an aqueous carrier (Ibid, line 33) and a metal catalyst such as copper (page 5, lines 29-32). Sensors are used to monitor the parameters of the polishing process such as to monitor the polishing or cleaning solution and the substrate surface. Higher polishing performance can be achieved by detecting changes as the process proceeds or ends (page 13, line 26 to page 14, line 6).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tima M. McGuthry-Banks whose telephone number is (571)272-2744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 am to 4:00 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, Keith D. Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
Tima M. McGuthry-Banks
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/TIMA M. MCGUTHRY-BANKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733