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 .
Applicant’s amendment filed 06/25/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-30 and 32-40 are pending. Claims 16-30, 32-38 and 40 are withdrawn. Claim 31 is cancelled.
Claim Objections
Claim 31 is objected to because of the following:
Regarding claim 31, the claim should be shown in the claims listing, along with the status identifier (Canceled).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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) the method comprising, connecting a part to a fluid pump (ref. 86) such that the fluid pump is in fluid communication with at least one internal channel (para [0026] – [0027], Figs. 3-4) of the part; pressurizing the part with a fluid using the fluid pump (para [0026], Figs. 3-4); breaching the at least one internal channel to form an opening in the at least one internal channel (para [0025]) using a machining device (ref. 76); and pumping the fluid through the at least one internal channel and the opening to produce a fluid current that exits the part (para [0027], Fig. 2) using the pump.
Ecolab does not explicitly teach that the breaching the part is performed after the pressurizing. However, selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C).
Regarding claim 2, Philbrick discloses a method wherein the fluid is a coolant from the machining device (para [0022]).
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 5, Philbrick discloses a method wherein the fluid pump is in fluid communication with a fluid reservoir (para [0022]).
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 at least one 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 at least one 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 translation in the Office action mailed 03/27/2026).
Regarding claim 4, Philbrick does not explicitly teach the method wherein the at least one 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 at least one 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 translation in the Office action mailed 03/27/2026).
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 translation in the Office action mailed 03/27/2026) and in further view of FR 3126895 to Safran Helicopter Engines SAS (“Safran”, and note the translation in the Office action mailed 03/27/2026).
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 connecting at least one of the part and the fluid pump to a manifold in fluid communication with the fluid pump, wherein the at least one internal channel 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 comprises connecting at least one of the part and the fluid pump to a manifold in fluid communication with the fluid pump, wherein the at least one internal channel 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, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to actuate the valve to regulate the fluid current since that is what valves do in order to enhance process control.
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 connecting 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights