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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mental processes and mathematical relationships) without significantly more. Claim 17 recites: A method for manufacturing, comprising (this falls within the statutory categories of invention) providing a rotating structure rotatable about an axis, the rotating structure comprising a shaft; (this is generally linking the use of the exception to the field of rotating structures such as engine shafts, as per MPEP 2106.05(h)) measuring a minimum wall thickness measurement of the shaft at one or more locations axially along the shaft to provide minimum wall thickness data; (this is insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, as per MPEP 2106.05(g). The data gathered is numerical in nature and later used for calculations that can be performed mentally with aid of pencil and paper) measuring a maximum wall thickness measurement of the shaft at one or more locations axially along the shaft to provide maximum wall thickness data; (this is insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, as per MPEP 2106.05(g). The data gathered is numerical in nature and later used for calculations that can be performed mentally with aid of pencil and paper measuring a runout measurement of the shaft at one or more locations axially along the shaft to provide runout data; and (this is insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, as per MPEP 2106.05(g). The data gathered is numerical in nature and later used for calculations that can be performed mentally with aid of pencil and paper processing the minimum wall thickness data, the maximum wall thickness data and the runout data to determine a correction to balance rotation of the rotating structure about the axis. ( this processing can be done by a person mentally, especially with aid of blueprint papers. This falls within the scope of observation of the measured values, and evaluation of the resulting calculations. Notably, the recitation “to balance rotation …” is an intended result and not an actual action that is positively recited, in contrast to the physical balance step of claim 1) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the following additional elements: 1) generally linking the use of the exception to the technical field of rotating structures , and 2 ) insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (the measurements ). Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The specification that a data is measured is only tangentially linked to the analysis steps, and does not meaningfully limit the claim. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, l imitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 18 recites “ modifying the rotating structure ”, but does not specify how this is done or even that this modification is physical (unlike claim 1). As such, this amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception as per MPEP 2106.05(f). This claim remains ineligible. Claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 17, and is rejected under the same grounds as those set forth above. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claim s 1-7, 9, 12, 14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshimoto (US 20100179675 A1) . Regarding Claim 1, Yoshimoto teaches: providing a rotating structure rotatable about an axis, the rotating structure comprising a shaft; (Fig. 1, ¶43; ¶53 The crankshaft working treatment is started after an automatic carrying-in device (not illustrated in the figure) unloads a forged material crankshaft 1 on a temporary receiver (not illustrated in the figure) within the center-hole working machine 10.) measuring a plurality of physical parameters of the shaft; (Fig. 3; ¶57 the shape measuring machine 11 measures the entire peripheral shape of each of the plurality of counterweights of the material crankshaft; ¶58 the shape of the material crankshaft 1 is configured to be measured under the condition that the material crankshaft 1 is rotated in the shape measuring machine 11.; ¶57 a shape of each main journal or a shape of each pin journal may be herein measured.) computationally modeling the rotating structure using the plurality of physical parameters to determine a correction to balance rotation of the rotating structure about the axis; and (Figs. 2 and 3; ¶61 three-dimensional (3D) shape data, corresponding to the measured actual material crankshaft 1, is reproduced; ¶68 After the detection of the best-fit position, the CPU 21 computes an error (profile error) between the design shape and the actual measured shape regarding the entire periphery of each counterweight. Based on the error; ¶71 Next, the CPU 21 modifies the three-dimensional shape design data so that the center part of each of the journals (i.e., the main journals and the pin journals) interposed among the counterweights can smoothly continue to the counterweights disposed on the both sides of each journal; ¶104 when the crankshaft has the required thickness (Yes in Step S5), balance of the post-working crankshaft is computed (Step S6).) physically altering the rotating structure according to the correction. (¶117 when the crankshaft's imbalance is within the predetermined range (Yes in Step S7), the CPU 21 decides the assumed center line and phase reference line as references in working, and notifies the center-hole working machine 10 of the information indicating the center line and the phase reference line; ¶119 When receiving the aforementioned notification, the center-hole working machine 10 clamps the material crankshaft 1 with the workpiece clamper, and unlocks and retracts the workpiece chuck. Next, the center-hole working machine 10 executes milling for the both end surfaces of the material crankshaft 1 with a milling cutter in order to obtain the notified center line and phase reference line (Step S8).) Regarding Claim 2 , Yoshimoto teaches: wherein one of the plurality of physical parameters is a first runout measurement of the shaft at a first axial location along the shaft. (Fig. 7, ¶57 The polar coordinate is computed for the entire periphery of each counterweight; ¶61 three-dimensional shape data, corresponding to the shapes of the actual counterweights, can be generated. Furthermore, to make the reproduced actual counterweights smoothly continue to each other, the CPU 21 modifies sizes, displacement in up, down, right and left directions, and displacement in angles of the journals (main journals and pin journals) disposed between the counterweights with respect to the three-dimensional shape design data (Step S2). With the configuration, three-dimensional (3D) shape data, corresponding to the measured actual material crankshaft 1, is reproduced.; ¶113 Based on the three-dimensional shape data, the CPU 21 firstly grasps the shape of the crankshaft for which working simulation is executed up to a predetermined working processing and computes the principal axis of inertia of the crankshaft.; examiner notes that the polar measurements described being taken as the material crankshaft is rotated are directly equivalent to runout measurements) Regarding Claim 3 , Yoshimoto teaches: wherein another one of the plurality of physical parameters is a second runout measurement of the shaft at a second axial location along the shaft. (Fig. 7, ¶57 The polar coordinate is computed for the entire periphery of each counterweight; ¶61 three-dimensional shape data, corresponding to the shapes of the actual counterweights, can be generated. Furthermore, to make the reproduced actual counterweights smoothly continue to each other, the CPU 21 modifies sizes, displacement in up, down, right and left directions, and displacement in angles of the journals (main journals and pin journals) disposed between the counterweights with respect to the three-dimensional shape design data (Step S2). With the configuration, three-dimensional (3D) shape data, corresponding to the measured actual material crankshaft 1, is reproduced.; ¶113 Based on the three-dimensional shape data, the CPU 21 firstly grasps the shape of the crankshaft for which working simulation is executed up to a predetermined working processing and computes the principal axis of inertia of the crankshaft.; examiner notes that the polar measurements described being taken as the material crankshaft is rotated are directly equivalent to runout measurements, and that each journal and counterweight is measured, equivalent to measuring at multiple axial locations) Regarding Claim 4 , Yoshimoto teaches: wherein one of the plurality of physical parameters is a first wall thickness measurement of the shaft at a first axial location along the shaft. (¶ 102 CPU 21 decides whether or not the material crankshaft 1 has a thickness to be required as a crankshaft; see ¶57, 61, and 113 as cited above for claims 2 and 3.; examiner notes that the polar measurements across multiple components remain within the scope of this claim language.) Regarding Claim 5 , Yoshimoto teaches: the first wall thickness measurement is a minimum wall thickness measurement of the shaft at the first axial location along the shaft; and (¶ 102 CPU 21 decides whether or not the material crankshaft 1 has a thickness to be required as a crankshaft; see ¶57, 61, and 113 as cited above for claims 2 and 3) another one of the plurality of physical parameters is a maximum wall thickness measurement of the shaft at the first axial location along the shaft. (¶57 The polar coordinate is computed for the entire periphery of each counterweight. Accordingly, the polar coordinates of the entire periphery of each counterweight (shape data: measurement data) are computed.; see citations above; examiner notes that measuring the thickness (or polar displacement) of an entire periphery inherently provides the maximum and minimum thickness of that periphery.) Regarding Claim 6 , Yoshimoto teaches: wherein another one of the plurality of physical parameters is a second wall thickness measurement of the shaft at a second axial location along the shaft. (¶ 102 CPU 21 decides whether or not the material crankshaft 1 has a thickness to be required as a crankshaft; see ¶57, 61, and 113 as cited above for claims 2 and 3; examiner notes that the polar measurements described being taken as the material crankshaft is rotated are directly equivalent to runout measurements of thickness, and that each journal and counterweight is measured, equivalent to measuring at multiple axial locations) Regarding Claim 7 , Yoshimoto teaches: wherein the computationally modeling of the rotating structure comprises modeling a dynamic rotational response of the rotating structure using the plurality of physical parameters to determine the correction. (Figs. 2 and 3, notably step 7 of Fig. 3; ¶61 three-dimensional (3D) shape data, corresponding to the measured actual material crankshaft 1, is reproduced; ¶68 After the detection of the best-fit position, the CPU 21 computes an error (profile error) between the design shape and the actual measured shape regarding the entire periphery of each counterweight. Based on the error; ¶71 Next, the CPU 21 modifies the three-dimensional shape design data so that the center part of each of the journals (i.e., the main journals and the pin journals) interposed among the counterweights can smoothly continue to the counterweights disposed on the both sides of each journal; ¶104 when the crankshaft has the required thickness (Yes in Step S5), balance of the post-working crankshaft is computed (Step S6).) Regarding Claim 9 , Yoshimoto teaches: wherein the physically altering of the rotating structure comprises removing material from the rotating structure. (¶119 executes milling for the both end surfaces of the material crankshaft 1 with a milling cutter ) Regarding Claim 12 , Yoshimoto teaches: wherein the rotating structure consists of the shaft. (Fig. 1, ¶43; ¶53 The crankshaft working treatment is started after an automatic carrying-in device (not illustrated in the figure) unloads a forged material crankshaft 1 on a temporary receiver (not illustrated in the figure) within the center-hole working machine 10.) Regarding Claim 14 , Yoshimoto teaches: wherein the rotating structure further comprises a component mounted to the shaft. (Fig. 1, ¶43; ¶53 The crankshaft working treatment is started after an automatic carrying-in device (not illustrated in the figure) unloads a forged material crankshaft 1 on a temporary receiver (not illustrated in the figure) within the center-hole working machine 10.) Regarding Claim 17 , Yoshimoto teaches: providing a rotating structure rotatable about an axis, the rotating structure comprising a shaft; (Fig. 1, ¶43; ¶53 The crankshaft working treatment is started after an automatic carrying-in device (not illustrated in the figure) unloads a forged material crankshaft 1 on a temporary receiver (not illustrated in the figure) within the center-hole working machine 10.) measuring a minimum wall thickness measurement of the shaft at one or more locations axially along the shaft to provide minimum wall thickness data; (¶ 102 CPU 21 decides whether or not the material crankshaft 1 has a thickness to be required as a crankshaft; see ¶57, 61, and 113 as cited above for claims 2 and 3) measuring a maximum wall thickness measurement of the shaft at one or more locations axially along the shaft to provide maximum wall thickness data; (¶57 The polar coordinate is computed for the entire periphery of each counterweight. Accordingly, the polar coordinates of the entire periphery of each counterweight (shape data: measurement data) are computed.; see citations above; examiner notes that measuring the thickness (or polar displacement) of an entire periphery inherently provides the maximum and minimum thickness of that periphery.) measuring a runout measurement of the shaft at one or more locations axially along the shaft to provide runout data; and (Fig. 7, ¶57 The polar coordinate is computed for the entire periphery of each counterweight; ¶61 three-dimensional shape data, corresponding to the shapes of the actual counterweights, can be generated. Furthermore, to make the reproduced actual counterweights smoothly continue to each other, the CPU 21 modifies sizes, displacement in up, down, right and left directions, and displacement in angles of the journals (main journals and pin journals) disposed between the counterweights with respect to the three-dimensional shape design data (Step S2). With the configuration, three-dimensional (3D) shape data, corresponding to the measured actual material crankshaft 1, is reproduced.; ¶113 Based on the three-dimensional shape data, the CPU 21 firstly grasps the shape of the crankshaft for which working simulation is executed up to a predetermined working processing and computes the principal axis of inertia of the crankshaft.; examiner notes that the polar measurements described being taken as the material crankshaft is rotated are directly equivalent to runout measurements) processing the minimum wall thickness data, the maximum wall thickness data and the runout data to determine a correction to balance rotation of the rotating structure about the axis. (Figs. 2 and 3; ¶61 three-dimensional (3D) shape data, corresponding to the measured actual material crankshaft 1, is reproduced; ¶68 After the detection of the best-fit position, the CPU 21 computes an error (profile error) between the design shape and the actual measured shape regarding the entire periphery of each counterweight. Based on the error; ¶71 Next, the CPU 21 modifies the three-dimensional shape design data so that the center part of each of the journals (i.e., the main journals and the pin journals) interposed among the counterweights can smoothly continue to the counterweights disposed on the both sides of each journal; ¶104 when the crankshaft has the required thickness (Yes in Step S5), balance of the post-working crankshaft is computed (Step S6).) Regarding Claim 18 , Yoshimoto teaches: modifying the rotating structure according to the correction to provide a balanced rotating structure. (¶117 when the crankshaft's imbalance is within the predetermined range (Yes in Step S7), the CPU 21 decides the assumed center line and phase reference line as references in working, and notifies the center-hole working machine 10 of the information indicating the center line and the phase reference line; ¶119 When receiving the aforementioned notification, the center-hole working machine 10 clamps the material crankshaft 1 with the workpiece clamper, and unlocks and retracts the workpiece chuck. Next, the center-hole working machine 10 executes milling for the both end surfaces of the material crankshaft 1 with a milling cutter in order to obtain the notified center line and phase reference line (Step S8).) Regarding Claim 19, Yoshimoto teaches: providing a rotating structure rotatable about an axis, the rotating structure comprising a shaft and a component mounted to the shaft; (Fig. 1, ¶43; ¶53 The crankshaft working treatment is started after an automatic carrying-in device (not illustrated in the figure) unloads a forged material crankshaft 1 on a temporary receiver (not illustrated in the figure) within the center-hole working machine 10.) measuring a plurality of physical parameters of the rotating structure; and (Fig. 3; ¶57 the shape measuring machine 11 measures the entire peripheral shape of each of the plurality of counterweights of the material crankshaft; ¶58 the shape of the material crankshaft 1 is configured to be measured under the condition that the material crankshaft 1 is rotated in the shape measuring machine 11.; ¶57 a shape of each main journal or a shape of each pin journal may be herein measured.) modeling the rotating structure using the plurality of physical parameters to determine a correction to balance rotation of the rotating structure about the axis. (Figs. 2 and 3; ¶61 three-dimensional (3D) shape data, corresponding to the measured actual material crankshaft 1, is reproduced; ¶68 After the detection of the best-fit position, the CPU 21 computes an error (profile error) between the design shape and the actual measured shape regarding the entire periphery of each counterweight. Based on the error; ¶71 Next, the CPU 21 modifies the three-dimensional shape design data so that the center part of each of the journals (i.e., the main journals and the pin journals) interposed among the counterweights can smoothly continue to the counterweights disposed on the both sides of each journal; ¶104 when the crankshaft has the required thickness (Yes in Step S5), balance of the post-working crankshaft is computed (Step S6).) Regarding Claim 20 , Yoshimoto teaches: physically altering the rotating structure according to the correction to provide a balanced rotating structure. (¶117 when the crankshaft's imbalance is within the predetermined range (Yes in Step S7), the CPU 21 decides the assumed center line and phase reference line as references in working, and notifies the center-hole working machine 10 of the information indicating the center line and the phase reference line; ¶119 When receiving the aforementioned notification, the center-hole working machine 10 clamps the material crankshaft 1 with the workpiece clamper, and unlocks and retracts the workpiece chuck. Next, the center-hole working machine 10 executes milling for the both end surfaces of the material crankshaft 1 with a milling cutter in order to obtain the notified center line and phase reference line (Step S8).) Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 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. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshimoto (US 20100179675 A1) in view of MTU (DE 102016203647 A1) and Forte (Bertoneri, M., & Forte, P. (2015, May). Turbomachinery high speed modal balancing: modeling and testing of scale rotors. In Proceedings of the 9th IFToMM International Conference on Rotor Dynamics (pp. 15-25). Cham: Springer International Publishing.) . Regarding Claim 8 : Yoshitomo does not teach in particular, but MTU teaches: the rotating structure is configured for an aircraft drive unit; and (¶20 a turbomachine designed as an aircraft engine; see also Yoshimoto ¶2 a crankshaft to be used for engines of automobiles and the like.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the aircraft engine application of MTU to the engine components being modeled by Yoshimoto, in order to produce a rotor with a particularly low imbalance (MTU ¶6), and also as this amounts to simple substitution of one known element for another (Yoshimoto itself notes it can be used for engines as cited, and the engine type it uses is compatible with aircraft engines). Yoshimoto in view of MTU does not teach in particular, but Forte teaches: the dynamic rotational response of the rotating structure is modeled at an operating speed of the rotating structure during one or more modes of operation of the aircraft drive unit. (Section 1, MBM requires an accurate rotor dynamic model ... MBM instead requires less time because the number of calibrations is equal to the number of modes that influence the rotor response in the operating speed range; Section 2, speed range of interest; Section 5, MBM showed its selective mode excitation and lower residual unbalances ... the industrial application of MBM in order to balance centrifugal compressors is feasible ... MBM has been successfully introduced in GE Oil & Gas, and it was recently helpful to balance some centrifugal compressor rotors operating above the second critical speed that had shown problems with the standard ICM method.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the MBM balance modeling of Forte to the engine components balance process of Yoshimoto as modified by MTU, in order to better balance the rotors (Forte, Section 5). Claim s 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshimoto (US 20100179675 A1) in view of Irwin (US 4177692 A) . Regarding Claim 10 : Yoshitomo does not teach in particular, but Irwin teaches: wherein the physically altering of the rotating structure comprises adding material to the rotating structure. ( examiner notes that adding balancing masses to rotors is so notoriously well known that it has been standard practice since at least 1977, as seen by the citations to the reference below: col 3 lines 37-66, In order to obviate this problem and to assure the best possible balancing procedure, in the illustrated engine seven balance planes are established on the rotor shaft assembly ... 4. Drive shaft 50, rear flange outer diameter 72 ... The balance adjustment at these points can be accomplished by either removal of material from the part or addition of balance weight thereto during assembling balancing of the shaft rotor assembly 16 ... the drive shaft rear flange outer diameter 72 is accessible to locate Phillip head set screws 84 thereon of different length and weight which are staked in place in tapped bores 86 in flange outer diameter 72 after installation of shaft 50.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the balancing method involving adding mass from Irwin in the engine component balance process of Yoshimoto, in order to assure the best possible balancing procedure (Irwin, column 3 lines 37-40). Regarding Claim 11 : Yoshitomo does not teach in particular, but Irwin teaches: providing a balancing mass; and inserting the balancing mass into a bore of the shaft and attaching the balancing mass to the shaft. ( examiner notes that adding balancing masses to rotors is so notoriously well known that it has been standard practice since at least 1977, as seen by the citations to the reference below: col 3 lines 37-66, In order to obviate this problem and to assure the best possible balancing procedure, in the illustrated engine seven balance planes are established on the rotor shaft assembly ... 4. Drive shaft 50, rear flange outer diameter 72 ... The balance adjustment at these points can be accomplished by either removal of material from the part or addition of balance weight thereto during assembling balancing of the shaft rotor assembly 16 ... the drive shaft rear flange outer diameter 72 is accessible to locate Phillip head set screws 84 thereon of different length and weight which are staked in place in tapped bores 86 in flange outer diameter 72 after installation of shaft 50.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the balancing method involving adding mass from Irwin in the engine component balance process of Yoshimoto, in order to assure the best possible balancing procedure (Irwin, column 3 lines 37-40). Claim s 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshimoto (US 20100179675 A1) in view of MTU (DE 102016203647 A1) . Regarding Claim 13 : Yoshitomo does not teach in particular, but MTU teaches: wherein the rotating structure further comprises a bladed rotor. (blades 32 of the rotor element 12) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the aircraft engine application of MTU to the engine components being modeled by Yoshimoto, in order to produce a rotor with a particularly low imbalance (MTU ¶6), and also as this amounts to simple substitution of one known element for another (Yoshimoto itself notes it can be used for engines as cited, and the engine type it uses is compatible with aircraft engines). Regarding Claim 15 : Yoshitomo does not teach in particular, but MTU teaches: wherein the rotating structure is configured for a motor or an engine of an aircraft. (¶20 a turbomachine designed as an aircraft engine; see also Yoshimoto ¶2 a crankshaft to be used for engines of automobiles and the like.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the aircraft engine application of MTU to the engine components being modeled by Yoshimoto, in order to produce a rotor with a particularly low imbalance (MTU ¶6), and also as this amounts to simple substitution of one known element for another (Yoshimoto itself notes it can be used for engines as cited, and the engine type it uses is compatible with aircraft engines). Regarding Claim 16 : Yoshimoto teaches: wherein the physically altering of the rotating structure provides the balanced rotating structure. (¶117 when the crankshaft's imbalance is within the predetermined range (Yes in Step S7), the CPU 21 decides the assumed center line and phase reference line as references in working, and notifies the center-hole working machine 10 of the information indicating the center line and the phase reference line; ¶119 When receiving the aforementioned notification, the center-hole working machine 10 clamps the material crankshaft 1 with the workpiece clamper, and unlocks and retracts the workpiece chuck. Next, the center-hole working machine 10 executes milling for the both end surfaces of the material crankshaft 1 with a milling cutter in order to obtain the notified center line and phase reference line (Step S8).) Yoshitomo does not teach in particular, but MTU teaches: assembling a balanced rotating structure into an aircraft drive unit; (Abstract, a rotor produced by this method; ¶20 a turbomachine designed as an aircraft engine; see also Yoshimoto ¶2 a crankshaft to be used for engines of automobiles and the like.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the aircraft engine application of MTU to the engine components being modeled by Yoshimoto, in order to produce a rotor with a particularly low imbalance (MTU ¶6), and also as this amounts to simple substitution of one known element for another (Yoshimoto itself notes it can be used for engines as cited, and the engine type it uses is compatible with aircraft engines). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BIJAN MAPAR whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3674 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Thursday, 11:00-8:30 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Rehana Perveen can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-3676 . 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. /BIJAN MAPAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189