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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/21/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed 06/19/2026 has been fully considered and made of record. As such, the object to the claims and rejection of the claims under 112(b), as outlined in the Office action mailed 04/21/2026, have been withdrawn. Claims 1-10, 13-14 and 16-20 are pending with claims 1-7 withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20 has a status identifier of “currently amended” without showing any claim annotation. A review of the previous claim amendment (01/14/2026) reveals that the text of claim 20 has not been amended and it appears that the correct status identifier should be “previously presented” instead of “currently amended.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 8-10 and 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 8 recites the limitation "the blade block" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8, lines 9-10 recites the limitation “eliminating a bulk of residual stress up-front, early in the process.” Claim 10 which directly depends from claim 8 recites in lines 6-7 a further step of “eliminating a bulk of residual stress early in the process” which is confusing and unclear if these are the same or different eliminating steps.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 8-10 and 13, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by MOTSCH (US 20190338643A1) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over MOTSCH (US 20190338643A1).
As applied to claim 8, MOTSCH teaches a process for eliminating residual stress in a forging for an integrally bladed rotor (paragraph [0074]) comprising steps of providing a forging for the integrally bladed rotor (blisk or bling, paragraph [0040]); and removing material from the forging proximate a blade block (locally limited area, step S3, paragraph [0077]) prior to a finish machining step (step S7, paragraph [0081]). MOTSCH further teaches removing forging material in the range of 45-50% by volume near the blade block (1/20 to 1/2 volume overlaps the range of 45-50%, paragraph [0007]); a step of generating at least one of a timing feature, a radial locating feature, and an axial locating feature configured to locate a finish part inside of the forging (measurements can be taken for material removal at a location in particular the largest amount has to be removed, paragraph [0088]; material is removed at different amounts or at different locations in step S3, paragraph [0097]); and a step of performing a finish machining after the step of removing material from the forging (machining is by lathe 401 or other types of machining, paragraph [0077], material removal step S7 performed after material removal steps S3 and S5 is considered as finish machining since results in final geometry, paragraph [0081], material has to be removed until finished structural component is formed, paragraph [0081]). As such, considering broadest reasonable claim interpretation, any removing steps prior to the final machining step S7 reads on the claimed removing material from the forging bulk material rough stock to eliminate a bulk of residual stress up-front and early in process.
Alternatively, if Applicant does not agree that MOTSCH explicitly teaches removing forging material in the range of 45-50% by volume near the blade block, MOTSCH teaches multiple removal steps are performed on the forging in order to influence the internal stresses in the structural components such that the structural components has a higher structural stability and consequently a longer service life (paragraphs [0005] and [0006]). MOTSCH further teaches that calculation and simulation are done to determine how much material has to be removed at what position of the structural component and/or how large the initial shape of the structural component has to be planned (paragraph [0076]).
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to have removed the forging material in the range of 45-50% by volume from near the blade block, because applicant has not disclosed that only the claimed ratio of 45-50% by volume provides any advantages, is used for any particular purpose, or solves any stated problems (no criticality of the ratio is disclosed by the applicant). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected applicant’s invention to perform equally well with any other ratio by volume of the removed material such as one taught by MOTSCH or the claimed ration because either one performs the same function of removing enough material to influence the residual stresses in the forged integrally bladed rotor resulting in a higher structurally stability and prolonged service life.
As applied to claim 9, MOTSCH teaches the invention cited including further comprising mechanically relaxing the forging by removing the material over areas that would keep a part formed from the forging rigid (step S5, paragraph [0079]).
As applied to claim 10, MOTSCH teaches the invention cited including further comprising removing the bulk material from the forging in areas near airfoils of a finish part formed from the forging (disc is part of the finished part); eliminating a bulk of residual stress early in the process (step S3 is the first removing step); and ensuring dimensional conformity in the finish part (taking dimensions of inner structural component taken into account, paragraph [0003], paragraph [0086]).
As applied to claim 13, MOTSCH teaches the invention cited including wherein material of the forging possesses a residual stress located proximate locations from which airfoils of a finish part are formed within the forging (disc for supporting multiple airfoils, see paragraph [0019] and claim 13).
Claim(s) 14 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MOTSCH (us 20190338643A1) in view of Ochiai et al. (US 10,589,339, hereinafter “Ochiai”).
As applied to claim 14, MOTSCH teaches a process for eliminating residual stress in a forging for an integrally bladed rotor (paragraph [0074]) comprising steps of
providing a forging for the integrally bladed rotor (blisk or bling, paragraph [0040]); removing material (step S3, paragraph [0077]) from the forging in a range of 45-50% by volume proximate a blade block (1/20 to 1/2 volume overlaps the range of 45-50%, paragraph [0007]) prior to a finish machining step (step S7, paragraph [0081]); and performing a finish machining step after the step of removing material from the forging (machining is by lathe 401 or other types of machining, paragraph [0077], material removal step S7 performed after material removal steps S3 and S5 is considered as finish machining since results in final geometry, paragraph [0081], material has to be removed until finished structural component is formed, paragraph [0081]).
Alternatively, if Applicant does not agree that MOTSCH explicitly teaches removing forging material in the range of 45-50% by volume proximate the blade block, MOTSCH teaches multiple removal steps are performed on the forging in order to influence the internal stresses in the structural components such that the structural components has a higher structural stability and consequently a longer service life (paragraphs [0005] and [0006]). MOTSCH further teaches that calculation and simulation are done to determine how much material has to be removed at what position of the structural component and/or how large the initial shape of the structural component has to be planned (paragraph [0076]).
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to have removed the forging material in the range of 45-50% by volume from near the blade block, because applicant has not disclosed that only the claimed ratio of 45-50% by volume provides any advantages, is used for any particular purpose, or solves any stated problems (no criticality of the ratio is disclosed by the applicant). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected applicant’s invention to perform equally well with any other ratio by volume of the removed material such as one taught by MOTSCH or the claimed ration because either one performs the same function of removing enough material to influence the residual stresses in the forged integrally bladed rotor resulting in a higher structurally stability and prolonged service life.
MOTSCH does not explicitly teach the finish machining step is selected from the group consisting of a rough turn, a finish mill of blades, a vibratory polish of the blades and a finish turn.
Ochiai teaches that it is well-known in the art of manufacturing bladed disks (integrally bladed rotor) to subject a metal block to forging (col. 4, lines 35-39) followed by a series of machining including rough milling, interim finish milling and finish milling to arrive at the end product form (paragraph bridging cols. 4 and 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to subject the integrally bladed rotor of MOTSCH to a finish machining such as finish mill, as taught by Ochiai, as an effective means of fabricating the rotor to match the specific design requirements.
As applied to claim 16, MOTSCH as modified by Ochiai teaches the invention cited including MOTSCH teaches wherein prior to removal of material from the forging, material of the forging possesses a residual stress located proximate locations from which airfoils of a finish part are formed within the forging (disc for supporting multiple airfoils, see paragraph [0019] and claim 13).
As applied to claim 17, MOTSCH as modified by Ochiai teaches the invention cited including MOTSCH teaches further comprising eliminating and thus reducing the residual stress from the forging by removing material from forging. Furthermore, MORSCH does not teach any distortion in the forging during the manufacturing process, which considering broadest reasonable claim interpretation, teaches the claimed reducing is done in absence of distortion of the finish part during the .
As applied to claim 18, MOTSCH as modified by Ochiai teaches the invention cited including MOTSCH teaches further comprising generating at least one of a timing feature, a radial locating feature, and an axial locating feature configured to locate a finish part inside of the forging (radial locating feature and axial locating feature are taught by MOTSCH teaching measurements can be taken for material removal at a location in particular the largest amount has to be removed, paragraph [0088]; material is removed at different amounts or at different locations in step S3, paragraph [0097]).
As applied to claim 19, MOTSCH as modified by Ochiai teaches the invention cited including MOTSCH teaches further comprising mechanically relaxing the forging by removing the material over areas that would keep a part formed from the forging rigid (step S5, paragraph [0079]).
As applied to claim 20, MOTSCH as modified by Ochiai teaches the invention cited including MOTSCH teaches further comprising performing the finish machining step (step S7) and since in step S3 the residual stress was eliminated then there is no more part movement, which considering the broadest reasonable claim interpretation, teaches the claimed performing the finish machining step in the absence of a part movement.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., particular structural features) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s main argument is that the art of record of MOTSCH does not teach the claimed range of 45-50% by volume of material removed from forging. The examiner respectfully disagrees with such argument. The multiple material removal steps of MOTSCH teach the claimed range of 45-50% by volume both in a 102(a)(1) and 103-type rejection. As for Applicant’s argument that MOTSCH fails to teach finish machining, the examiner submits that multiple machining steps taught by MOTSCH indeed teaches the last machining step (i.e. S7) results in final product and as such, is considered as finish machining. Please note paragraph [0081] of MOTSCH teaches the “final geometry” is created after step S7 if not already in earlier removal steps as follows”
[0081] In an optional subsequent step S7, material is again removed from the structural component 100A (see FIG. 5F), optionally at a location at the structural component 100A that adjoins an area at which material has already been removed in a previous step S3, S5. In this step, the final geometry of the structural component 100A can be created, if this has not already happened before.
Applicant further argues that the finish machining step is positively recited in the claims and that the claim process does not include the use of a furnace for thermal treatment between material removal steps required by Motsch and further argues that Motsch is a completely different process. The Applicant may be correct about the positive recitation of the finish machining and that no thermal steps are being claimed, however, Applicant is using a transitional phrase of “comprising” for the overall process and as such, this does not preclude the applied art from teaching addition process steps. Furthermore, the final machining step S7 to create final geometry of the structural component 100A disclosed in paragraph [0081] of Motsch explicitly teaches the claimed “final machining step” even if does not disclose a verbatim phrase.
From the Applicant’s arguments, instant claims and specification, it appears that the claimed invention is directed to providing a material that had been forged and subjected to some material removal step (early in the process) to eliminate some of the residual stress formed in the forged material followed by final machining step to form the finished part. The examiner submits that the process taught by Motsch explicitly (102-type rejection) teaches these claim steps and is only relied on an alternative 103-type rejection to teach the claimed range of 45-50% by volume which Applicant fails to disclose any criticality of such claim range. The reliance on secondary art of Ochiai is only to teach that material used for integrally bladed rotor that have been forged can be subjected to a finish machining to arrive at the end product.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hagen et al. (US 20180281134A1) teaches a method for redistributing an area of residual stress around a machined central aperture in an engine component. The method includes changing tensile stress to compressive stress at an area circumscribing the machined aperture. The method can be applied to, for example, a forged engine component such as a rotating disk or an impeller part for a gas turbine engine (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARANG AFZALI whose telephone number is (571)272-8412. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am - 4 pm 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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/SARANG AFZALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 08/28/2026
Prosecution Insights