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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on May 19 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that there is not a serious burden. This is not found persuasive because as already mentioned , Group II would require a search in at least CPC Y10T29/49547 along with a unique text search which is not required for Group I.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on as already mentioned .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 2nd, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement filed May 19th, 2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of a reference listed that is not in the English language. Specifically, Foreign Patent Document Cite No. 2. Although the IDS states that an English abstract has been submitted, the foreign reference submitted does not contain an English abstract. Foreign Patent Document Cite No. 2 (see IDs filed on May 19th, 2026) has been lined through in the IDS and therefore not considered. Otherwise, all other references have been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, Line 2-3: “adaptor plate proximate an adapter end” should read --adaptor plate proximate to an adapter end--
Claim 1, Line 5: “adapter end proximate the adaptor plate” should read --adapter end proximate to the adaptor plate--
Claim 1, Line 6: “roller end opposite the adapter end” should read --roller end opposite to the adapter end--
Claims 2-7 (Line 1): “The system for deep rolling a workpiece according to Claim 1” should read --A system for deep rolling a workpiece according to--
Claim 9-13 (Line 1): “The system for deep rolling a fan blade according to” should read --A system for deep rolling a fan blade according to--
Claim 8 (Lines 3-4): “adaptor plate proximate an adapter end” should read--adaptor plate proximate to an adapter end--
Claim 8 (Line 6): “adapter end proximate the adaptor plate” should read -- adapter end proximate to the adaptor plate--
Claim 8 (Line 7): “roller end opposite the adapter end” should read --roller end opposite to the adapter end--
Claim 8 (Lines 17-18): “a front and a rear opposite the front” should read --a front and a rear opposite to the front--
Claim 8 (Lines 18-19): “a right side and a left side opposite the right side” should read -- a right side and a left side opposite to the right side--
Claim 8 (Line 32): “an upper region” should read --the upper region--
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:
(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.
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 limitations use 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) are:
“dynamic force controller” in Claim 8 (Line 2)
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them 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.
Claim 1-13 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 limitations “an adaptor plate proximate an adapter end” (Lines 2-3), and “the arm comprising an adapter end proximate the adaptor plate” (Lines 4-5). In addition, Claim 1 recites the limitations “a roller end opposite the adapter end” (Line 6) and “the arm comprising a midspan portion between the adapter end and the roller end” (Lines 6-8). It is unclear if there is only an adapter end or there are more than one adapter end. If there are more than one adapter end, it is unclear which one is being referenced in Claim 1, Line 6 and Claim 1, Line 6-8. Thus, rendering the claim indefinite because the metes and bounds for the limitation has not been established. Claims 2-7, which depend on claim 1, are equally rejected.
Claim 8 recites the limitations “an adaptor plate proximate an adapter end” (Lines 3-4), and “the arm comprising an adapter end proximate the adaptor plate” (Lines 5-6). In addition, Claim 8 recites the limitations “a roller end opposite the adapter end” (Line 7) and “the arm comprising a midspan portion between the adapter end and the roller end” (Lines 7-9). It is unclear if there is only an adapter end or there are more than one adapter end. If there are more than one adapter end, it is unclear which one is being referenced in Claim 8, Line 7 and Claim 8, Line 7-9. Thus, rendering the claim indefinite because the metes and bounds for the limitation has not been established. Claims 9-10 and 12-13, which depend on Claim 8, are equally rejected. Claim 11, which depends on Claim 10, is equally rejected.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “a front and a rear opposite the front” in Lines 17-18. It is unclear what front and rear are referring to, thus, rendering the claim indefinite because the metes and bounds for the limitation has not been established. Is it a front and a rear portion? A front and a rear side? Is it a front and a rear element? Claims 9-10 and 12-13, which depend on Claim 8, are equally rejected. Claim 11, which depends on Claim 10, is equally rejected.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomioka et al. (US8250720B2), hereinafter "Tomioka" in view of Shiraishi et al. (JP2000176513A), hereinafter "Shiraishi". For text citation of Shiraishi refer to the machine translation provided by the Examiner.
Regarding Claim 1, Tomioka discloses a system (Fig. 1) for deep rolling a workpiece (Fig. 1, Element 10) comprising: a roller tool (Fig. 1, Element 86) comprising an adaptor plate (Fig. 1, Element 40; Column 9, Lines 27) proximate an adapter end (axial end portion, Column 9, Line 28); an arm (Fig. 1, Elements 56 and 74) attached to the adaptor plate, the arm comprising an adapter end (Fig. 1, Elements 58 and 60) proximate the adaptor plate, the arm comprising a roller end (Fig. 1, Element 80) opposite the adapter end, the arm comprising a midspan portion (Fig. 1) between the adapter end and the roller end; and a roller disk (Fig. 1, Element 86) joined to the roller end.
Tomioka fails to disclose the roller disk including a surface feature configured to contact the workpiece and imprint a surface texture on a workpiece surface.
Nonetheless, Shiraishi discloses a roller disk (Fig. 1a, Element 1) including a surface feature (Fig. 1a; Figs. 3a-d; ¶0012-0013) configured to contact a workpiece (¶0012, Lines 8-9) and imprint a surface texture on a workpiece surface (¶0017).
Tomioka and Shiraishi are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of rolling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Shiraishi of using a roller disk that includes a surface feature configured to contact the workpiece and imprint a surface texture on a workpiece surface into the system for deep rolling a workpiece disclosed by Tomioka to impart a desired surface roughness or textured pattern on the workpiece (¶0002).
Regarding Claim 2, the prior art combination of Tomioka and Shiraishi renders the system for deep rolling a workpiece as claimed in Claim 1 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Tomioka and Shiraishi further teaches wherein the surface feature (Figs. 1a, 3a-d) is formed on a roller disk surface (Fig. 1a, Element 1; ¶0012).
Regarding Claim 3, the prior art combination of Tomioka and Shiraishi renders the system for deep rolling a workpiece as claimed in Claim 1 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Tomioka and Shiraishi further teaches wherein the surface feature (Figs. 1a, 3a-d) comprises a diamond shaped protrusion (Fig. 3c) configured to imprint a diamond shaped asperity into the workpiece surface (¶0017).
Regarding Claim 6, the prior art combination of Tomioka and Shiraishi renders the system for deep rolling a workpiece as claimed in Claim 1 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Tomioka and Shiraishi further teaches wherein the surface feature (Figs. 1a, 3a-d) comprises a square shaped protrusion (Fig. 3b) configured to imprint a square shaped asperity into the workpiece surface (¶0017).
Regarding Claim 7, the prior art combination of Tomioka and Shiraishi renders the system for deep rolling a workpiece as claimed in Claim 1 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Tomioka and Shiraishi further teaches wherein the surface feature (Figs. 1a, 3a-d) comprises a triangle shaped protrusion (Fig. 3d) configured to imprint a triangle shaped asperity into the workpiece surface (¶0017).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomioka in view of Shiraishi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ideushi (JPS61238433A), hereinafter "Ideushi". For text citation of Ideushi refer to the machine translation provided by the Examiner.
Regarding Claim 4, the prior art combination of Tomioka and Shiraishi renders the system for deep rolling a workpiece as claimed in Claim 1 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Tomioka and Shiraishi fails to teach wherein the surface feature comprises multiple rounded cylinders with rounded grooves in between each rounded cylinder configured to imprint a rounded shaped channel into the workpiece surface.
Nonetheless, Ideushi teaches a surface feature (see annotated Fig. 1 of Ideushi reproduced below) comprising multiple rounded cylinders (see annotated Fig. 1 of Ideushi reproduced below) with rounded grooves (see annotated Fig. 1 of Ideushi reproduced below) in between each rounded cylinder configured to imprint a rounded shaped channel (Fig. 1, Element 11) into the workpiece surface (Fig. 1, Element 1).
Tomioka, Shiraishi, and Ideushi are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of rolling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Ideushi of using a surface feature comprising comprises multiple rounded cylinders with rounded grooves in between each rounded cylinder configured to imprint a rounded shaped channel into the workpiece surface into the system for deep rolling a workpiece disclosed by Tomioka and modified by Shiraishi to form V-grooves into the workpiece (¶0001, Lines 1-2).
PNG
media_image1.png
456
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Ideushi
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomioka in view of Shiraishi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Springer (US0102609A), hereinafter "Springer”.
Regarding Claim 5, the prior art combination of Tomioka and Shiraishi renders the system for deep rolling a workpiece as claimed in Claim 1 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Tomioka and Shiraishi fails to teach wherein the surface feature comprises multiple sharp edged cylinders with sharp edged grooves in between each sharp edged cylinder configured to imprint a sharp edged channel into the workpiece surface.
Nonetheless, Springer teaches a surface feature (Fig. 1, Element A) comprising multiple sharp edged cylinders (see annotated Fig. 1 of Springer reproduced below) with sharp edged grooves (Fig. 1, Elements 1-6) configured to imprint a sharp edged channel (Fig. 3, Element a’) into the workpiece surface (Fig. 3).
Tomioka, Shiraishi, and Springer are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of rolling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Springer of using a surface feature comprising multiple sharp edged cylinders with sharp edged grooves in between each sharp edged cylinder configured to imprint a sharp edged channel into the workpiece surface into the system for deep rolling a workpiece disclosed by Tomioka and modified by Shiraishi to provide the roller disk with suitably-shaped projections to form indentations into the workpiece (Lines 39-42).
PNG
media_image2.png
316
347
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Springer
Claim 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomioka in view of Kray et al. (US20130134292A1), hereinafter "Kray" and Jones et al. (US20030114082A1), hereinafter "Jones".
Regarding Claim 8, Tomioka discloses a system (Fig. 1) for deep rolling a fan blade (intended use) comprising: a roller tool (Fig. 1, Element 86) comprising a dynamic force controller (Fig. 1, Element 130; Column 11, Lines 23-34) in operative communication (Fig. 1, Element 42) with an adaptor plate (Fig. 1, Element 40; Column 9, Lines 27) proximate an adapter end (axial end portion, Column 9, Line 28); an arm (Fig. 1, Elements 56 and 74) attached to the adaptor plate, the arm comprising an adapter end (Fig. 1, Elements 58 and 60) proximate the adaptor plate, the arm comprising a roller end (Fig. 1, Element 80) opposite the adapter end, the arm comprising a midspan portion (Fig. 1) between the adapter end and the roller end; a roller disk (Fig. 1, Element 86) joined to the roller end.
Tomioka fails to disclose the roller disk including a surface feature configured to contact the fan blade and imprint a surface texture on a fan blade surface; and a fixture supporting the fan blade; the fixture comprising: a body including an upper region opposite a lower region, the body includes a front and a rear opposite the front, the body includes a right side and a left side opposite the right side; the body supports a pivot clamp, the pivot clamp attaches to the body with a pivot attached to the body; a support attached to the body, the support includes at least one brace coupled to the rear of the body, the support is configured to engage an airfoil portion of the fan blade; a receiver formed in the body configured to support the root of the fan blade, wherein the receiver includes at least one landing configured to support a corresponding portion of the root; and a shoulder attached to the body configured to support a platform portion of the fan blade; wherein the shoulder is located in an upper region of the body between the receiver and the support.
Nonetheless, Kray discloses a roller disk (Fig. 4, Element 100) including a surface feature (Fig. 4, Element 104) configured to contact the fan blade (Fig. 4, Element 200) and imprint a surface texture (Fig. 4, Element 204) on a fan blade surface (Fig. 4, Element 202).
Tomioka and Kray are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of rolling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Kray of using a roller disk that includes a surface feature configured to contact the fan blade and imprint a surface texture on a fan blade surface into the system disclosed by Tomioka to apply a surface texture to the airfoil and reduced the drag coefficient of said airfoil (¶0001-0002).
The prior art combination of Tomioka and Kray fail to teach a fixture supporting the fan blade; the fixture comprising: a body including an upper region opposite a lower region, the body includes a front and a rear opposite the front, the body includes a right side and a left side opposite the right side; the body supports a pivot clamp, the pivot clamp attaches to the body with a pivot attached to the body; a support attached to the body, the support includes at least one brace coupled to the rear of the body, the support is configured to engage an airfoil portion of the fan blade; a receiver formed in the body configured to support the root of the fan blade, wherein the receiver includes at least one landing configured to support a corresponding portion of the root; and a shoulder attached to the body configured to support a platform portion of the fan blade; wherein the shoulder is located in an upper region of the body between the receiver and the support.
Nonetheless, Jones teaches a fixture (Fig. 3) supporting the fan blade (Fig. 4, Element 30); the fixture comprising: a body (Fig. 3, Element 62) including an upper region (see annotated Fig. 4 of Jones reproduced below) opposite a lower region (see annotated Fig. 4 of Jones reproduced below), the body includes a front (see annotated Fig. 4 of Jones reproduced below) and a rear (see annotated Fig. 4 of Jones reproduced below) opposite the front, the body includes a right side (see annotated Fig. 4 of Jones reproduced below) and a left side (see annotated Fig. 4 of Jones reproduced below) opposite the right side; the body supports a pivot clamp (Figs. 3-4, Element 70 and 74), the pivot clamp attaches to the body with a pivot (Figs. 3-4, Elements 78 and 80) attached to the body; a support (see annotated Fig. 4 of Jones reproduced above) attached to the body, the support includes at least one brace (see annotated Fig. 4 of Jones reproduced below) coupled to the rear of the body, the support is configured to engage an airfoil portion (Fig. 4, Element 34) of the fan blade (Examiner Note: the support is interpreted as providing lateral support to the airfoil); a receiver (see annotated Fig. 3 of Jones reproduced below) formed in the body configured to support the root (Fig. 2, Element 36) of the fan blade, wherein the receiver includes at least one landing (Fig. 3, Elements 66) configured to support (Fig. 4) a corresponding portion of the root; and a shoulder (see annotated Fig. 3 of Jones reproduced below) attached to the body (see annotated Fig. 3 of Jones reproduced below) configured to support a platform portion (see annotated Fig. 2 of Jones reproduced below; Examiner Note: the shoulder is interpreted as not only locating the platform portion of the blade but also providing lateral support to the platform portion) of the fan blade; wherein the shoulder (see annotated Fig. 3 of Jones reproduced below) is located in an upper region (see annotated Fig. 4 of Jones reproduced below) of the body between the receiver (see annotated Fig. 3 of Jones reproduced below) and the support (see annotated Fig. 4 of Jones reproduced below).
Tomioka, Kray, and Jones are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of material shaping. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the fixture of Jones into the system disclosed by Tomioka and modified by Kray to provide a fixture to hold the fan blade in a specific fixed position for the shaping of said fan blade (¶0006, Lines 1-4).
PNG
media_image3.png
614
1013
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 of Jones
PNG
media_image4.png
619
686
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Jones
PNG
media_image5.png
746
477
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Jones
Regarding Claim 9, the prior art combination of Tomioka, Kray, and Jones renders the system for deep rolling a fan blade as claimed in Claim 8 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Tomioka, Kray, and Jones further teaches wherein the surface feature (Kray - Fig. 4, Element 104) is formed on a roller disk surface (Kray - Fig. 4, Element 102).
Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomioka, Kray, and Jones as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Shiraishi.
Regarding Claim 10, the prior art combination of Tomioka, Kray, and Jones renders the system for deep rolling a fan blade as claimed in Claim 8 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Tomioka, Kray, and Jones fails to teach wherein the surface feature comprises a diamond shaped protrusion configured to imprint a diamond shaped asperity into the fan blade surface.
Nonetheless, Shiraishi teaches a surface feature (Fig. 1a; Figs. 3a-d; ¶0012-0013) comprising a diamond shaped protrusion (Fig. 3c) configured to imprint a diamond shaped asperity into a surface (¶0017).
Tomioka, Kray, Jones, and Shiraishi are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of material shaping. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Shiraishi of using a surface feature comprising a diamond shaped protrusion into the system disclosed by Tomioka and modified by Kray and Jones to imprint a diamond shaped asperity into the fan blade surface and impart a desired surface roughness or textured pattern on the fan blade (¶0002).
Regarding Claim 13, the prior art combination of Tomioka, Kray, and Jones renders the system for deep rolling a fan blade as claimed in Claim 8 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Tomioka, Kray, and Jones fails to teach wherein the surface feature comprises at least one of a square shaped protrusion configured to imprint a square shaped asperity into the fan blade surface; and a triangle shaped protrusion configured to imprint a triangle shaped asperity into the fan blade surface.
Nonetheless, Shiraishi teaches a surface feature (Fig. 1a; Figs. 3a-d; ¶0012-0013) comprising at least one of a square shaped protrusion (Fig. 3b) configured to imprint a square shaped asperity into a surface (¶0017); and a triangle shaped protrusion (Fig. 3d) configured to imprint a triangle shaped asperity into a surface (¶0017).
Tomioka, Kray, Jones, and Shiraishi are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of material shaping. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Shiraishi of using a surface feature comprising at least one of a square shaped protrusion configured to imprint a square shaped asperity into a surface; and a triangle shaped protrusion configured to imprint a triangle shaped asperity into a surface into the system disclosed by Tomioka and modified by Kray and Jones to imprint a square and or triangle shaped asperity into the fan blade surface and impart a desired surface roughness or textured pattern on the fan blade (¶0002).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomioka, Kray, Jones, and Shiraishi as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Ideushi.
Regarding Claim 11, the prior art combination of Tomioka, Kray, Jones, and Shiraishi renders the system for deep rolling a fan blade as claimed in Claim 10 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Tomioka, Kray, Jones, and Shiraishi fails to teach wherein the surface feature comprises multiple rounded cylinders with rounded grooves in between each rounded cylinder configured to imprint a rounded shaped channel into the fan blade surface.
Nonetheless, Ideushi teaches a surface feature (see annotated Fig. 1 of Ideushi reproduced above) comprising multiple rounded cylinders (see annotated Fig. 1 of Ideushi reproduced above) with rounded grooves (see annotated Fig. 1 of Ideushi reproduced above) in between each rounded cylinder configured to imprint a rounded shaped channel (Fig. 1, Element 11) into a surface (Fig. 1, Element 1).
Tomioka, Kray, Jones, Shiraishi, and Ideushi are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of material shaping. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Ideushi of using a surface feature comprising multiple rounded cylinders with rounded grooves in between each rounded cylinder configured to imprint a rounded shaped channel into a surface into the system disclosed by Tomioka and modified by Kray and Jones to imprint a rounded shaped channel into the fan blade surface to form V-grooves into the fan blade surface (¶0001, Lines 1-2).
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomioka, Kray, and Jones as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Springer.
Regarding Claim 12, the prior art combination of Tomioka, Kray, and Jones renders the system for deep rolling a fan blade as claimed in Claim 8 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Tomioka, Kray, and Jones fails to teach wherein the surface feature comprises multiple sharp edged cylinders with sharp edged grooves in between each sharp edged cylinder configured to imprint a sharp edged channel into the fan blade surface.
Nonetheless, Springer teaches a surface feature (Fig. 1, Element A) comprising multiple sharp edged cylinders (see annotated Fig. 1 of Springer reproduced above) with sharp edged grooves (Fig. 1, Elements 1-6) configured to imprint a sharp edged channel (Fig. 3, Element a’) into a surface (Fig. 3).
Tomioka, Kray, Jones, and Springer are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of material shaping. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Springer of using a surface feature comprising multiple sharp edged cylinders with sharp edged grooves in between each sharp edged cylinder configured to imprint a sharp edged channel into a surface into the system disclosed by Tomioka and modified by Kray and Jones to imprint a sharp edged channel into the fan blade surface by providing the roller disk with suitably-shaped projections to form indentations into the fan blade (Lines 39-42).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALONDRA MICHELLE ORTIZ-ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9539. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-5PM ET.
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, Christopher 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.
/A.M.O./ Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights