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 .
Claims 1-15 are pending and under consideration for this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al (CN 110125734 A).
Claim 1: Wang discloses a device for plasma-electrolytic machining of an electrically conductive surface of a workpiece (see e.g. abstract) having
an application unit (see e.g. #8 on Fig 1) for applying an electrolyte jet to the surface (see e.g. [0022]),
a supply unit (see e.g. #1 on Fig 1) for at least temporarily supplying the application unit with the electrolyte required to generate the electrolyte jet (see e.g. [0022]),
at least one electrode, which forms a counter-electrode to the surface during machining (see e.g. [0019]), and
at least one electrical energy source, using which the electrode and the surface can be supplied with electrical energy during machining, such that a current flows between the electrode and the surface to be machined upon contact with the electrolyte (see e.g. [0019]),
characterized in that the application unit is designed to generate a first and at least one separate second electrolyte jet (based on the morphology of the workpiece, see e.g. [0066]; [0069]; [0070]), which have different jet effect areas on the surface to be machined and are applied to the surface of the workpiece consecutively (changing the position of the arm, see e.g. [0042]; [0070]).
Claim 2: Wang discloses that the application unit has at least one control element (see e.g. [0027]), by means of which the jet effect area (see e.g. [0042]; [0070]) and/or a flow characteristic of the electrolyte jet can be changed (see e.g. [0069]).
Claim 3: Wang discloses at least one measurement unit for continuously or discontinuously measuring at least one characteristic of the surface, for determining a distance between the application unit and the surface and/or for determining the relative position of the application unit to the surface (see e.g. [0012]), and/or a control unit (see e.g. [0027]), by means of which a control signal can be generated as a function of a characteristic of the workpiece surface and/or an associated setpoint value and can be transmitted to the application unit in order to change the jet effect area (see e.g. [0042]; [0070]), the spatial arrangement of the electrolyte jets (see e.g. [0041]), and/or the flow characteristic of the electrolyte jet, are provided (see e.g. [0069]).
Claim 6: Wang discloses at least one adjusting unit for changing a distance and/or the relative position between the surface of the workpiece and at least one outlet opening of the application unit is provided (see e.g. [0012]; [0041]).
Claim 8: Wang discloses a supply of the electrode with electrical energy (see e.g. [0019] and an electrical voltage prevailing between the electrode and the surface to be machined (see e.g. [0014]).
Claim 9: Wang discloses characterized in that the supply unit has an electrolyte supply, via which electrolyte can be fed to the application unit (see e.g. [0010]) and an electrolyte discharge, via which electrolyte dispensed by the application unit can be discharged (see e.g. [0071]).
Claim 12: Wang discloses a method for plasma-electrolytic machining of an electrically conductive surface of a workpiece (see e.g. abstract; [0062]), in which
at least one electrolyte (see e.g. #1 on Fig 1) is conveyed to an application unit (see e.g. #8 on Fig 1), by which, at least at times, an electrolyte jet is applied to the surface of the workpiece (see e.g. [0022]), and
an electrical voltage is applied between the surface of the workpiece to be machined and an electrode (see e.g. [0019]), which are at least partially in contact with the electrolyte (see e.g. Fig 1), so that the electrode forms a counter-electrode to the surface of the workpiece during machining (see e.g. [0019]),
characterized in that the application unit generates a first and at least one separate second electrolyte jet (based on the morphology of the workpiece, see e.g. [0066]; [0069]; [0070]), which have different jet effect areas and consecutively act on the surface of the workpiece via the application unit) changing the position of the arm, see e.g. [0042]; [0070]).
Claim 13: Wang discloses that the surface of the workpiece to be machined is being moved relative to the application unit (see e.g. [0044]).
Claim 15: Wang discloses that, before, during or after machining of the surface, at least one machining and/or process parameter (see e.g. [0056]), an electrical voltage applied between the electrode and the surface to be machined (see e.g. [0065]), a distance between the application unit and/or an outlet opening of the application unit and the workpiece surface (see e.g. [0012]), the supply with electrolytes (see e.g. [0069]), a movement of the workpiece (see e.g. [0044], and a movement of the application unit is measured and/or adjusted (see e.g. [0070]).
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 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.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang
Claim 14: Wang discloses that the electrolyte is at least partially collected following application onto the surface of the workpiece (see e.g. [0040]). Wang does not explicitly teach that the collected electrolyte is reapplied to the surface. However, Wang describes the collecting process as “recovery” (see e.g. [0040]), which implies that it is being collected to be used again. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the method of Wang so that collected electrolyte is reapplied to the workpiece. Wang teaches treating all electrolyte to a changing process to change a characteristic of the electrolyte (temperature, [0054]).
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Withers et al (US 20030027505 A1).
Claim 4: Wang does not explicitly teach that the application unit has at least two outlet openings. Withers discloses a review of devices for machining a workpiece (see e.g. abstract), making it analogous art (MPEP 2141.01(a) I). The device of Withers comprises an application unit for delivering fluid to the workpiece (see e.g. [0023]) which have at least two outlet openings (see e.g. #140 and #142 on Fig 2), which allows the fluid to be delivering with different flow rates to different positions on the workpiece for a more uniform machining process (see e.g. [0025]; [0006]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the device of Wang so that the application unit has at least two outlet openings as taught in Withers for a more uniform machining result.
Claim 5: Wang in view of Withers teaches that the outlet openings are movably arranged (see e.g. Wang - [0021], are nozzle-shaped (see e.g. Wang - [0021]; Withers - abstract), can be supplied with the electrolyte separately from the supply unit (see e.g. Withers - [0038]) and/or are designed to apply at least two electrolyte jets with different jet effect areas, spatial arrangements, and flow characteristics onto the workpiece surface (see e.g. Withers - #140 #142 on Fig 2; [0025]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Huang et al (Principle, process, and application of metal plasma electrolytic polishing: a review”, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2021) 114, pages 1893–1912).
Claim 7: Wang does not explicitly teach that the electrode surrounds the electrolyte jet at least in certain areas during operation. Instead, Wang discloses that the electrode is in the storage tank (see e.g. [0019]). Huang discloses a review of devices for plasma-electrolytic machining of an electrically conductive surface of a workpiece (see e.g. abstract), making it analogous art (MPEP 2141.01(a) I). In Huang, the cathode is the nozzle itself (see e.g. page 1902, Fig 13). KSR rationale B states “Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” is a suitable rationale for obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the device of Wang by connecting the cathode at the nozzle as taught in Huang instead of having it in the storage tank. This substation would have predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Klutchert et al (WO 2015192818 A1).
Claim 10: Wang discloses that the temperature of the electrolyte needs to be controlled (see e.g. [0056]) but does not explicitly teach at least one sensor unit for detecting the temperature. Klutchert discloses a device for plasma-electrolytic machining of an electrically conductive surface of a workpiece (see e.g. abstract), making it analogous art (MPEP 2141.01(a) I). The device of Klutchert includes a temperature sensor for maintaining the electrolyte at a predetermined temperature (see e.g. [0090]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the device of Wang to include the temperature sensor taught in Klutchert to maintain the electrolyte at the predetermined temperature.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Schulze et al (“Process analysis of plasma-electrolytic polishing (PeP) of forming tools”, International Journal of Material Forming, Jan 2022, 15: 6, pages 1-10).
Claim 11: Wang discloses does not explicitly teach at least one emitter is provided, using which, at least at times, sound waves and/or electromagnetic waves can be coupled into at least one of the electrolyte jets. Schulze discloses a device for plasma-electrolytic machining of an electrically conductive surface of a workpiece (see e.g. abstract), making it analogous art (MPEP 2141.01(a) I). According to Schulze, the inclusion of an emitter (“ultrasonic transducer”, see e.g. page 6, Fig 9) for delivering ultrasonic waves improves the machining process (see e.g. page 9, col 1, paragraph starting with “In order”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the device of Wang to include the emitter to provide ultrasonic waves as taught in Schulze to improve the machining process.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER W KEELING whose telephone number is (571)272-9961. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 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, Luan Van can be reached at 571-272-8521. 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.
/ALEXANDER W KEELING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights