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 without traverse of Group I (encompassing claims 1-8 and 17-20) in the reply filed on 3/31/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings have been received on 8/26/2024 and these drawings have been objected to under 37 CFR 1.84 for the following reasons: lines, numbers and letters are not uniformly thick and well defined; and numbers and reference characters are not plain and legible for all figures (see specifically figs. 5-7). New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because of the reasons stated above. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8: “Blade” should be amended to read “blade”
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.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soderberg (US 2130818) in view of Hatayama (US 5344262).
Regarding claim 1, Soderberg discloses a machining system comprising: a blade assembly including: a blade (shear knife 19; see figs. 3-5), a circular aperture (a circular aperture is formed within pitman 16; see fig. 3), and an ovular aperture (a circular aperture is formed within pitman 17; see fig. 3); a first shaft configured to rotate in a first direction (shaft 7 is configured to rotate by action of pinion 12; see pg. 1, col. 2, lines 3-8), the first shaft including a first cam disposed within the circular aperture (shaft 7 comprises crank 14 on one end, which is disposed within an aperture of pitman 16; see pg. 1, col. 2, lines 9-20); and a second shaft configured to rotate in a second direction (shaft 8 is configured to rotate by action of pinion 12; see pg. 1, col. 2, lines 3-8), the second shaft including a second cam disposed within the ovular aperture (shaft 8 comprises crank 15 on one end, which is disposed within an aperture of pitman 17; see pg. 1, col. 2, lines 9-20), the first cam and the second cam configured to move the blade assembly in a circular motion (cranks 15, 16 are configured such that shear knife 19 is capable of moving in a circular motion; see figs. 3-5).
Examiner notes that the term “ovular” (which as best understood, is intended to mean ovoid) is interpreted as describing an oval or ellipsoidal shape. Since a circle is a type of ellipse, it is Examiner’s interpretation that the circular apertures as disclosed by Soderberg fulfill the limitations of a “circular aperture” and an “ovular aperture”.
Soderberg does not explicitly disclose the second direction in an opposite direction from the first direction.
Hatayama discloses the second direction in an opposite direction from the first direction (crankshafts 117, 18 can be configured to rotate synchronously in opposite directions; see col. 9, lines 22-38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Soderberg in view of Hatayama to make the first and second shafts rotate in opposite directions. Hatayama discloses an arrangement in which a tool support 14 is actuated by crankshafts 117, 18, which move in opposite directions relative to one another. This results in cutter 13 following a bow-shaped path while it reciprocates (see col. 9, lines 22-38). A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Soderberg in view of Hatayama in order to provide an alternate cutting path. Further, it would be desirable to use an alternate cutting path according to the workpiece or material being cut. Therefore, in order to provide alternative cutting paths, such a modification would be obvious.
Regarding claim 3, Soderberg as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Soderberg as modified further discloses a motor to drive at least one of the first shaft or the second shaft (shafts 7, 8 are rotated by gears 9, 10, which are actuated by pinion 12 – pinion 12 may be driven in any suitable manner, which is understood to include a motor; see pg. 1, col. 2, lines 3-8).
Regarding claim 4, Soderberg as modified discloses the limitations of claim 3 as described in the rejection above.
Soderberg as modified further discloses a first gear disposed on the first shaft and a second gear disposed on the second shaft (shaft 7 includes gear 9 on the end opposite crank 14 and shaft 8 includes gear 10 on the end opposite crank 15; see pg. 1, col. 2, lines 3-5 and fig. 2), wherein the first gear drives the second gear or the second gear drives the first gear (as modified to have the shafts rotate in opposite directions, pinion 12 must be removed – thus, either of gears 9, 10 can be the driving gear).
Regarding claim 5, Soderberg as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Soderberg as modified further discloses wherein the blade is configured to machine a slot in a ceramic matrix composite (CMC) part (shear knife 19 is capable of machining a slot).
Regarding claim 6, Soderberg as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Soderberg as modified discloses the invention essentially as claimed as discussed above. However, Soderberg as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the blade is from 3 millimeters (mm) to 6 mm deep and from 0.8 mm to 2 mm wide.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Soderberg to have a blade from 3 millimeters (mm) to 6 mm deep and from 0.8 mm to 2 mm wide since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In the instant case, the device of Soderberg as modified would be capable of performing a cutting operation on a part regardless of its size. Further, it appears Applicant has placed no criticality on the claimed range, simply indicating that the blade “may have, for example, a length of 10 millimeters (mm) to 150 mm, a depth of 3 mm to 6 mm, and a width of 0.8 mm to 2 mm” (see paragraph [0025] of instant specification).
Regarding claim 7, Soderberg as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Soderberg as modified further discloses wherein the blade and machining system are configured to machine a slot with an aspect ratio of 100:1 (shear knife 19 is capable of machining a slot of a variety of aspect ratios).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soderberg (US 2130818) in view of Hatayama (US 5344262), and further in view of Mao (US 20220402295).
Regarding claim 2, Soderberg as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Soderberg as modified does not explicitly disclose a coolant to flow through a cut created by the blade and remove shavings created by operation of the machining system.
Mao discloses a coolant to flow through a cut created by the blade and remove shavings created by operation of the machining system (the coolant may be applied to cutter 1 and workpiece 2 in order to wash off swarf at the processing region; see paragraph [0079]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Soderberg in view of Mao to include a coolant for removing shavings created during operation. Mao discloses a coolant spraying mechanism which is capable of spraying coolant to the processing region of workpiece 2. This allows for the removal of debris, while also ensuring that workpiece 2 is within the desired temperature range during machining (see paragraphs [0078-0079]). Therefore, in order to keep the workpiece clean and at the desired temperature, such a modification would be obvious.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soderberg (US 2130818) in view of Hatayama (US 5344262), and further in view of Peker (US 20020142182).
Regarding claim 8, Soderberg as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Soderberg as modified does not explicitly disclose the blade comprises a bonded or plated diamond material
Peker discloses the blade comprises a bonded or plated diamond material (the cutting tools may include a coating of diamond; see paragraph [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Soderberg in view of Peker to make the blade from a plated diamond material. Peker discloses a cutting tool that may be at least partially coated with a diamond coating in order to provide a significantly harder blade, which improves wear performance (see paragraph [0029]). Therefore, in order to improve the hardness and thus improve wear resistance of the cutting tool, such a modification would be obvious.
Claims 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soderberg (US 2130818) in view of Hatayama (US 5344262), and further in view of Vetters (US 20170321567).
Regarding claim 17, Soderberg discloses a machining system comprising: a blade assembly including: a blade (shear knife 19; see figs. 3-5), a circular aperture (a circular aperture is formed within pitman 16; see fig. 3), and an ovular aperture (a circular aperture is formed within pitman 17; see fig. 3); a first shaft configured to rotate in a first direction (shaft 7 is configured to rotate by action of pinion 12; see pg. 1, col. 2, lines 3-8), the first shaft including a first cam disposed within the circular aperture (shaft 7 comprises crank 14 on one end, which is disposed within an aperture of pitman 16; see pg. 1, col. 2, lines 9-20); a second shaft configured to rotate in a second direction (shaft 8 is configured to rotate by action of pinion 12; see pg. 1, col. 2, lines 3-8), the second shaft including a second cam disposed within the ovular aperture (shaft 8 comprises crank 15 on one end, which is disposed within an aperture of pitman 17; see pg. 1, col. 2, lines 9-20); and a motor configured to cause the first cam and second cam to rotate (shafts 7, 8 are rotated by gears 9, 10, which are actuated by pinion 12 – pinion 12 may be driven in any suitable manner, which is understood to include a motor; see pg. 1, col. 2, lines 3-8), the first cam and the second cam configured to move the blade assembly in a circular motion and cut a slot in the CMC part (cranks 15, 16 are configured such that shear knife 19 is capable of moving in a circular motion to cut a part; see figs. 3-5).
Examiner notes that the term “ovular” (which as best understood, is intended to mean ovoid) is interpreted as describing an oval or ellipsoidal shape. Since a circle is a type of ellipse, it is Examiner’s interpretation that the circular apertures as disclosed by Soderberg fulfill the limitations of a “circular aperture” and an “ovular aperture”.
Soderberg does not explicitly disclose the second direction in an opposite direction from the first direction.
Hatayama discloses the second direction in an opposite direction from the first direction (crankshafts 117, 18 can be configured to rotate synchronously in opposite directions; see col. 9, lines 22-38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Soderberg in view of Hatayama to make the first and second shafts rotate in opposite directions. Hatayama discloses an arrangement in which a tool support 14 is actuated by crankshafts 117, 18, which move in opposite directions relative to one another. This results in cutter 13 following a bow-shaped path while it reciprocates (see col. 9, lines 22-38). A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Soderberg in view of Hatayama in order to provide an alternate cutting path. Further, it would be desirable to use an alternate cutting path according to the workpiece or material being cut. Therefore, in order to provide alternative cutting paths, such a modification would be obvious
Soderberg as modified does not explicitly disclose a ceramic matrix composite (CMC) part.
Vetters discloses a ceramic matrix composite (CMC) part (CMC seal segment 136; see paragraph [0069] and fig. 3A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the system of Soderberg to include a CMC part. Examiner notes that the “[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims” (see In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); MPEP 2115). In the instant case, while Vetters discloses a CMC part (see fig. 3A), the blade assembly, shafts, and motor are all that is required by the claim. Further, as presently interpreted, the device of Soderberg as modified is capable of performing a cutting operation on a CMC part.
Regarding claim 18, Soderberg as modified discloses the limitations of claim 17 as described in the rejection above.
Soderberg as modified further discloses a first gear disposed on the first shaft and a second gear disposed on the second shaft (shaft 7 includes gear 9 on the end opposite crank 14 and shaft 8 includes gear 10 on the end opposite crank 15; see pg. 1, col. 2, lines 3-5 and fig. 2), wherein the first gear drives the second gear or the second gear drives the first gear (as modified to have the shafts rotate in opposite directions, pinion 12 must be removed – thus, either of gears 9, 10 can be the driving gear).
Regarding claim 20, Soderberg as modified discloses the limitations of claim 17 as described in the rejection above.
Vetters further discloses wherein the CMC part is a seal segment of a gas turbine engine (the CMC part is formed as a seal segment for use in a segmented turbine shroud for a gas turbine engine; see abstract).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soderberg (US 2130818) in view of Hatayama (US 5344262), and further in view of Mao (US 20220402295).
Regarding claim 19, Soderberg as modified discloses the limitations of claim 17 as described in the rejection above.
Soderberg as modified does not explicitly disclose a coolant to flow through a cut created by the blade and remove shavings created by operation of the machining system.
Mao discloses a coolant to flow through a cut created by the blade and remove shavings created by operation of the machining system (the coolant may be applied to cutter 1 and workpiece 2 in order to wash off swarf at the processing region; see paragraph [0079]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Soderberg in view of Mao to include a coolant for removing shavings created during operation. Mao discloses a coolant spraying mechanism which is capable of spraying coolant to the processing region of workpiece 2. This allows for the removal of debris, while also ensuring that workpiece 2 is within the desired temperature range during machining (see paragraphs [0078-0079]). Therefore, in order to keep the workpiece clean and at the desired temperature, such a modification would be obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HALEIGH N WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3818. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 530AM-330PM EST.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571)272-4502. 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.
/HALEIGH N WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights