FINAL REJECTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
1. Claims 1-14 are presented for examination.
2. The text of those applicable section of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office Action.
3. The rejections are respectfully maintained that is applicable to the amended claims for applicant's convenience.
4. Claims 1, 2 and 4-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hoebel et al. (Hoebel), US publication no. 2006/0157456 A1.
As per claim 1, Hoebel teaches a method for material-removing machining of a component for a turbomachine [figure 1; para 9, 25], comprising the steps of:
i) recording of a distance image by contact-free measurement of at least one surface of the component that is to be machined [para 38];
ii) comparing the distance image to a computer model of the component [“by comparing reference position data from the CMM with data from the hole detection workcell at positions of interest”; see para 37] by superimposing [after alignment] the computer model and the distance image on one another and determining the sites of the component that are to be machined based on deviations between the distance image and the computer model [“Using information from original manufacturing (CAD data) the vision system is positioned in a start position which is close to the real location of the cooling hole. Images are taken at various angles and the optimum alignment with the cooling channels is derived from automated image processing using advanced image analysis tools. After alignment, the vision system automatically determines the centre of gravity of the cooling passage and positions the robot accordingly”, see para 38];
iii) generating a tool path for the sites of the component that are to be machined [para 38];
iv) material-removing machining of the component on the basis of the tool path by spark erosion, laser drilling, or conventional drilling [para 39, 41];
Hoebel teaches:
[0037] ii) an error-mapping table is established and used to compensate for residual deviations between position data indicated by the robot and the real, absolute position. The error-mapping table can be obtained with the help of a reference (master) component, which has been prepared with features that can be accurately measured. For instance, it is possible to fix mechanically drilled brass coupons onto the component's surface. The holes on these brass coupons can be accurately pinned and measured on a CMM ( coordinate measurement machine), which is not possible for the original, laser-drilled holes. In this way, an error map can be established by comparing reference position data from the CMM with data from the hole detection workcell at
positions of interest. With the error map it is then possible to apply position dependent corrections to the indicated positions and orientations.
[0038] As seen in FIG. 3, the 3D position of each cooling channel is a reference point that is obtained from the intersection of the channel axis with a local tangential
surface plane. The local tangential plane can be established with any suitable measurement device, e.g., touch probes, eddy current sensors, optical triangulation sensors, conoscopic sensors, and/or interferometers. A preferred solution makes use of an optical distance sensor. After a calibration of the sensor's tool centre point (TCP) it collects 3D-position information from the tangential surface that surrounds the cooling hole under inspection. A plane is then fitted through a suitable number of measurement points ( e.g., 5 measurement points as seen in FIG. 3). Using information from original manufacturing (CAD data) the vision system is positioned in a start position which is close to the real location of the cooling hole. Images are taken at various angles and the optimum alignment with the cooling channels is derived from automated image processing using advanced image analysis tools. After alignment, the vision system
automatically determines the centre of gravity of the cooling passage and positions the robot accordingly. The 3D-reference position of the cooling passage 5 is obtained from the intersection of the local tangential plane with the symmetry axis of the aligned vision system.
[0039] In a second process step the data contained in this file is used for a precision machining operation, where residual material from a re-coating operation is removed
from the cooling holes 5. In this way, a desired cooling flow rate and a favorable film distribution of the cooling medium can be re-established. Unwanted material could be overspray coating 6, other material plugging the cooling passages, recast from the original drilling or base material, if the intention is to enlarge a diffuser-end portion of the cooling passage 5. An example is the machining of a cooling passage 5 which has a part with cylindrical cross section ending in a diffusor opening. Then, the part with the cylindrical section defines the total amount of cooling fluid that can be guided through the passage 5.
[0041] The precision machining operation is either carried out on a dedicated machining workcell (CNC or robotic system) or on the same workcell that was originally used to
acquire hole position and orientation data. Advantageously, a high power q-switched or precision drilling solid state laser or waterjet drilling is used for the precision machining
operation, e.g., the removal of the unwanted material that prevents the desired flow of the cooling medium.
As per claim 2, Hoebel teaches the component to be machined is a used component and, during an overhaul, is machined in a material-removing manner [para 23].
As per claim 4, Hoebel teaches a site to be machined is a drilled hole, the position of which is determined in step ii) [para 32, 37].
As per claim 5, Hoebel teaches in step ii), additionally an orientation of the drilled hole is determined and is incorporated into the tool path [para 22].
As per claim 6, Hoebel teaches the component to be machined has a plurality of drilled holes, wherein the distance image and the computer model in step ii) are aligned on the basis of the drilled holes [figure 3; para 38].
As per claim 7, Hoebel teaches in step ii), a number, a diameter, and/or a pattern of the drilled holes is taken into account [figure 3; para 38].
As per claim 8, Hoebel teaches in step ii), the computer model is expanded and/or compressed for adaptation to the distance image, wherein the site to be machined in the expanded and/or compressed distance image is determined [para 35-37, 41].
As per claim 9, Hoebel teaches the distance image in step i) is recorded using a time of flight-based distance measurement using a laser distance measurement [para 38].
As per claim 10, Hoebel teaches a measuring unit, with which the distance image is recorded in step i) [para 38], and a machining tool, with which the component is machined in a material-removing manner in step iv), are moved using the same manipulator [para 39, 41].
As to claim 11-13, basically are the corresponding elements that are carried out the method of operating step in claims 1 and 10. Accordingly, claims 11-13 are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claims 1 and 10.
As per claim 14, Hoebel teaches a rotating or swivel table for clamping of the component to be machined for the measurement and/or material-removing machining [figure 1; para 32].
5. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoebel et al. (Hoebel), US publication no. 2006/0157456 A1 in view of Eisen et al. (Eisen), EP 2719494 A1.
As per claim 3, Hoebel fails to teach the component to be machined was machined prior to step i) in a soldering and/or welding process, by crack welding and/or deposition welding.
Eisen teaches the component to be machined was machined prior to step i) in a soldering and/or welding process, by crack welding and/or deposition welding [English translation, para 19].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention to combine the teachings of Hoebel and Eisen because they both disclose a machining process, the specify teachings of Eisen stated above would have further enhanced the performance and functionality of Hoebel system to obtain predictable results to crack welding.
6. Examiner's note: Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. MPEP 2141.02 VI: “PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS."
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed 07/09/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
8. In the remarks, applicants argued in substance that Hoebel fails to disclose "comparing the distance image to a computer model of the component by superimposing the computer model and the distance image on one another".
9. In response to applicant’s argument, Hoebel discloses comparing the distance image to a computer model of the component by superimposing the computer model and the distance image on one another [para 37-38].
Also see detailed action above.
Conclusion
10. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUN CAO whose telephone number is (571)272-3664. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30 am-4:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamini Shah can be reached on 571-272-2279. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/CHUN CAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights