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 1-30 and 32-40 are pending. Claim 31 is cancelled.
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-15 and 39, drawn to a method, classified in B08B 9/032.
II. Claims 16-29 and 40, drawn to an apparatus, classified in B23Q 11/0075.
III. Claims 30 and 32-38, drawn to a device, classified in B08B 13/00.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II, and Inventions I and III, are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the apparatus of Invention II can be used, e.g., for coating, and the device of Invention III can be used, e.g., for spin drying.
Inventions II and III are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, the subcombination of Invention II has separate utility such as preventing foreign object debris in a part finishing operation. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
The examiner has required restriction between subcombinations usable together. Where applicant elects a subcombination and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification, and the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with John Peck on 03/11/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Invention I, claims 1-15 and 39. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 16-30, 32-38 and 40 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it refers to the purported merits of the invention and does not include the claimed steps. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 12 and 39 are objected to because of the following:
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “the internal channel” in lines 6-8 (3 occurrences) should apparently be replaced with “the at least one internal channel”.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase “the internal channel” in line 1 should apparently be replaced with “the at least one internal channel”.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase “the internal channel” in line 1 should apparently be replaced with “the at least one internal channel”; and the phrase “opening, provides” in line 2 should apparently be replaced with “opening provides”.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase “the internal channel” in line 1 should apparently be replaced with “the at least one internal channel”.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase “comprising a manifold” in line 1 should apparently be replaced with “comprising the use of a manifold”, or the like, since the claim is directed to a method.
Regarding claim 39, the phrase “comprising a device” in line 1 should apparently be replaced with “comprising the use of a device”, or the like, since the claim is directed to a method.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2016/0222811 to Philbrick et al. (“Philbrick”).
Regarding claim 1, Philbrick teaches a method for preventing foreign object debris in a part finishing operation (abstract, para [0025] – [0027], Figs. 2-4) comprising, connecting a part comprising at least one internal channel to a fluid pump (ref. 86) such that the fluid pump is in fluid communication with the at least one internal channel (para [0026] – [0027], Figs. 3-4); operating the pump to pressurize the part with a fluid (para [0026], Figs. 3-4); breaching the internal channel with a machining device (ref. 76) to form an opening in the internal channel (para [0025]); and pumping the fluid through the internal channel and the opening to produce a fluid current that exits the part (para [0027], Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, Philbrick discloses a method wherein the fluid is a coolant from the machining device (para [0022]).
Regarding claim 5, Philbrick discloses a method wherein the fluid pump is in fluid communication with a fluid reservoir (para [0022]).
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 3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0222811 to Philbrick et al. (“Philbrick”).
Regarding claim 3, Philbrick does not explicitly teach performing the method wherein the part is additively manufactured. However, it would have been obvious to perform the Philbrick method wherein the part is additively manufactured, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it is disclosed as effective for treating a part.
Regarding claim 6, Philbrick discloses a method wherein the fluid is a coolant (translation, para [0022]), but does not explicitly teach the method wherein the fluid pump is in fluid communication with a coolant system of the machining device. However, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the Philbrick method wherein the fluid pump is in fluid communication with a coolant system of the machining device, with a reasonable expectation of success, in view of the disclosure of the coolant.
Regarding claim 7, Philbrick discloses that the cooling fluid flow provides cooling (para [0022]), and it can be reasonably expected that pumping the fluid through the internal channel and the opening provides cooling to the machining device.
Regarding claim 8, Philbrick does not explicitly teach the method wherein pumping the fluid through the internal channel and the opening provides sufficient cooling for a machining operation of the machining device. Initially, it is noted that “sufficient” cooling will depend upon, inter alia, a particular machining operation. Moreover, since Philbrick, as modified, discloses the claimed steps, it can be reasonably expected that the Philbrick method will have substantially identical cooling characteristics as that of the presently claimed method.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0222811 to Philbrick et al. (“Philbrick”) in view of BE 1027305 to Snyers (“Snyers”, and note the attached translation).
Regarding claim 4, Philbrick does not explicitly teach the method wherein the internal channel and the fluid pump are in fluid communication with an adapter coupled to the part. However, coupling adapters was known in the art as effective for establishing fluid connections (see, e.g., Snyers at, inter alia, claims 1-6, Fig. 2, translation, page 6, first full para), and the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the Philbrick method was known, wherein the internal channel and the fluid pump are in fluid communication with an adapter coupled to the part, with a reasonable expectation of success, since coupling adapter was known as effective for establishing fluid connections.
Regarding claim 11, Philbrick/Snyers disclose that additive manufacturing was known in the art (Snyers, translation, page 6, second full para), but do not explicitly teach the method wherein the adapter is additively manufactured on the part. However, it would have been obvious to perform the Philbrick/Snyers method wherein the adapter is additively manufactured on the part, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it is disclosed as effective for treating a part.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0222811 to Philbrick et al. (“Philbrick”) in view of JP 3835361 to Panasonic Electric Works Co. Ltd. (“Panasonic”, and note the attached translation).
Regarding claim 9, Philbrick does not explicitly teach the method wherein the fluid passing through the opening is recirculated through the pump and the part. However, recirculation was known as effective for enhanced polishing (see, e.g., Panasonic at, inter alia, Fig. 8, translation, para [0045] – [0046]), and the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the Philbrick method as was known wherein the fluid passing through the opening is recirculated through the pump and the part, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance polishing.
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0222811 to Philbrick et al. (“Philbrick”) in view of JP 3835361 to Panasonic Electric Works Co. Ltd. (“Panasonic”, and note the attached translation) and in further view of FR 3126895 to Safran Helicopter Engines SAS (“Safran”, and note the attached translation).
Regarding claim 10, Philbrick does not explicitly teach the method wherein the part and the fluid pump are in fluid communication with a filter and recirculating fluid passes through the filter. However, recirculation was known as effective for enhanced polishing (see, e.g., Panasonic at, inter alia, Fig. 8, translation, para [0045] – [0046]), and the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the Philbrick method as was known wherein the fluid is recirculated, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance polishing.
Further, the use of filters was known as enhancing cleaning (see, e.g., Safran at, inter alia, translation, pages 4 and 7), and the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the Philbrick/Panasonic method as was known wherein the part and the fluid pump are in fluid communication with a filter and recirculating fluid passes through the filter, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance cleaning.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0222811 to Philbrick et al. (“Philbrick”) in view of US 2019/0374983 to Barua et al. (“Barua”).
Regarding claim 12, Philbrick does not explicitly teach the method the use of a manifold in fluid communication with the fluid pump, and wherein the at least one internal channel is a plurality of internal channels, and each of the plurality of channels is in fluid communication with the manifold. However, the use of manifolds was known in the art as effective for providing convenient fluid flow paths and enhancing process control (see, e.g., Barua at, inter alia, abstract, para [0001] – [0004]), and the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the Philbrick method, as was known, wherein it uses a manifold in fluid communication with the fluid pump, and wherein the at least one internal channel is a plurality of internal channels, and each of the plurality of channels is in fluid communication with the manifold, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide convenient fluid flow paths and enhance process control.
Regarding claim 13, Philbrick/Barua do not explicitly teach the method wherein the manifold is additively manufactured on the part. However, lacking a teaching otherwise, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to perform the Philbrick/Barua method wherein the manifold is additively manufactured on the part, with a reasonable expectation of success, since there does not appear to be a teaching or suggestion that the use of such a manifold would inhibit the effectiveness of the method.
Regarding claim 14, Philbrick does not explicitly teach the method wherein the fluid pump is in fluid communication with a valve. However, the use of valves was known in the art as effective for enhancing process control (see, e.g., Barua at, inter alia, para [0029], [0040] – [0041]), and the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the Philbrick method as was known wherein the fluid pump is in fluid communication with a valve, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance process control.
Regarding claim 15, it can be reasonably expected that actuating the valve used in the Philbrick/Barua method will regulate the fluid current since that is what valves do.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 39 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, and is objected to on other grounds as discussed above, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and amended to properly cure the other grounds of objection.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art reference is US 2016/0222811 to Philbrick et al. The prior art references of record, taken alone or in combination, do not anticipate or suggest fairly the limitations of wherein the method includes the use of a device in fluid communication with the fluid pump, the device comprising, a cylindrical base with a central axis, a first end with an exit hole therewithin, and an exterior coaxial with the central axis and with an entrance hole therewithin; wherein the entrance hole and the exit hole form a fluid path; a housing disposed about the cylindrical base with a cylindrical interior coaxial with the central axis, and an exterior with a through hole therewithin; a first bearing and a second bearing coaxial with the axis, wherein the first and second bearings are disposed about the base, distal to the through hole and on opposing sides of the through hole; and wherein the first and second bearings are coupled to the base and the housing and configured so that the housing can rotate about the base and form a fluid path such that the through hole and the exit hole are in fluid communication, in combination with the other method steps as instantly recited. Upon further search no other prior art has been located at the date of this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC GOLIGHTLY whose telephone number is (571)270-3715. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10 am - 7 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/ERIC W GOLIGHTLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714