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 Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 21, the recitation of “the first vane side retaining surfaces extends from the second end to the first vane end retaining surfaces” should read -- the first vane side retaining surfaces extend from the second end to the first vane end retaining surface--.
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.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panzenhagen et al. (US20140038498), hereinafter Panzenhagen, in view of Asch (DE102010010120), attached as a PDF, and in further view of Nesteroff et al. (US20200056625), hereinafter Nesteroff.
Regarding claim 1, Panzenhagen discloses a blasting assembly comprising: a wheel (Fig. 5 element 25) that is rotatable about a first axis (Fig. 5, 0051, where rotational axis corresponds to first axis), the wheel defining a hole (Fig. 5 element 21) centered about the first axis (Fig. 5, 0051) and at least one radially extending slot (Fig. 5 elements 24) that has a first slot end that faces the hole and a second slot end that is opposite the first slot end (see annotated Fig. 5 below); and a vane (Fig. 6 element 26) configured to be received into each radially extending slot such that each vane is retained in a radially extending slot as the wheel is rotated and configured to propel media (0053 and 0001-0003, where each vane (26) is capable of propelling media as the wheel (25) is rotated), the vane including: a body (see annotated Fig. 7 below) radially extending between a first vane end and a second vane end (see annotated Fig. 6 below), the body extending between a first flange and a second flange (see annotated Fig. 7 below), and having opposing vane side surfaces (see annotated Fig. 7 below); and an attachment portion (Fig. 7 element 22) integral with the second flange (see annotated Fig. 7 below), the attachment portion configured to be received into the slot (0054), the attachment portion having a first vane end retaining surface and a second vane end retaining surface (see annotated Fig. 6 below, where the combination of the first and second vane end retaining surfaces make up element 37) that abut the second slot end (Fig. 9, 0060); wherein the first vane end retaining surface and the second vane end retaining surface are adjacent to each other (see annotated Fig. 6 below).
Panzenhagen fails to disclose the first vane end retaining surface is convex, and the second vane end retaining surface is concave.
Asch is also concerned with a blasting assembly and teaches the first vane end retaining surface (Fig. 1 element 30) is convex (Fig. 1, 0010 and 0023). It 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 to modify the blasting assembly of Panzenhagen to make the first vane end retaining surface be convex, as taught by Asch, because Asch teaches that making the first vane end retaining surface convex provides "a point or Line contact can be provided between the end face of the wedge and the carrier disc, so that even after prolonged operation there is no undesirable jamming in the area of the stop, which would hinder the release of the throwing blade" (0010).
Panzenhagen, as modified, fails to disclose the second vane end retaining surface is concave.
Nesteroff is also concerned with vanes on a centrifugal wheel and teaches providing a fillet between two components (0016 and 0027). It 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 to modify the blasting assembly of Panzenhagen, as modified, to add a fillet between the first vane end retaining surface (i.e. a first component) and a bottom surface of the second flange (i.e. a second component), thus making the second vane end retaining surface be concave, as taught by Nesteroff, because Nesteroff teaches that providing a fillet (which creates a concave surface) between two elements (such as the second flange and the attachment portion) reduces stress (0016 and 0027).
Examiner notes that in order to make the modifications to the Vane, as described above, modification of the mating surface (Fig. 9 element 34) of Panzenhagen is also being modified to correspond in shape to the first and second vane end retaining surfaces in order for the mating surface (34) to maintain the intended function of mating with the first and second vane end retaining surfaces as described in paragraph 0060 of Panzenhagen.
PNG
media_image1.png
314
393
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
463
620
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
447
596
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Panzenhagen, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the second vane end retaining surface abuts the first vane end retaining surface without an edge therebetween (see annotated Fig. 6 above, where these limitations are describing features that a fillet, corresponding to the second vane end retaining surface, applied between the first vane end retaining surface and the bottom surface of the second flange, which is disclosed by Panzenhagen, as modified, in the rejection of claim 1, would necessarily have, therefore these limitations are met by Panzenhagen, as modified).
Regarding claim 3, Panzenhagen, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the second vane end retaining surface of the attachment portion has opposing ends that extend in a direction toward the second vane end (see annotated Fig. 6 above, where these limitations are describing features that a fillet, corresponding to the second vane end retaining surface, applied between the first vane end retaining surface and the bottom surface of the second flange, which is disclosed by Panzenhagen, as modified, in the rejection of claim 1, would necessarily have, therefore these limitations are met by Panzenhagen, as modified).
Regarding claim 4, Panzenhagen, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 3, as described above, and further discloses the second vane end retaining surface has a radially extending first centerline that extends along a radius extending from a first line axis and a second centerline that extends along a radius extending from a second line axis (see annotated Fig. 6 above, where these limitations are describing features that a fillet, corresponding to the second vane end retaining surface, applied between the first vane end retaining surface and the bottom surface of the second flange, which is disclosed by Panzenhagen, as modified, in the rejection of claim 1, would necessarily have, therefore these limitations are met by Panzenhagen, as modified).
Regarding claim 5, Panzenhagen, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the second vane end retaining surface has negative curvature (see annotated Fig. 6 above, where this limitation is describing features that a fillet, corresponding to the second vane end retaining surface, applied between the first vane end retaining surface and the bottom surface of the second flange, which is disclosed by Panzenhagen, as modified, in the rejection of claim 1, would necessarily have, therefore this limitation is met by Panzenhagen, as modified).
Regarding claim 6, Panzenhagen, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the second slot end has a slot end retaining surface (Panzenhagen, Fig. 9 element 34, 0060) having a first section that corresponds to the first vane end retaining surface and a second section that corresponds to the second vane end retaining surface (see annotated Fig. 9 below, where the modification necessary to meet this limitation has already been disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 in the paragraph beginning with "Examiner notes that").
PNG
media_image4.png
372
722
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Panzenhagen, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses depth of the radially extending slot tapers in a direction from the first slot end to the second slot end (Panzenhagen, Fig. 9, 0058 and claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, Panzenhagen, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the wheel has a slot flange (Panzenhagen, Fig. 9, element 36) having a thickness that tapers in a direction from the second slot end to the first slot end (Panzenhagen, Fig. 9 and Fig. 5A, 0056, where Fig. 9 shows the tapering of the slot flange (36) and Fig. 5A shows the top surface of the wheel (25) as planar, and therefore the thickness of the slot flange (36) must also be tapering in a direction from the second slot end to the first slot end).
Regarding claim 9, Panzenhagen, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the attachment portion has a first end (Panzenhagen, Fig. 6 element 29) and an opposite second end (Panzenhagen, Fig. 6 element 30), and wherein thickness of the attachment portion tapers in a direction from the second end toward the first end (Panzenhagen, Fig. 6, 0053).
Regarding claim 10, Panzenhagen, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 9, as described above, and further discloses the attachment portion has a vane base retaining surface and a pair of vane shoulder retaining surfaces that converge toward each other in a direction from the second end of the attachment portion toward the first end of the attachment portion (see annotated Fig. 6' below), and wherein one of the pair of vane shoulder retaining surfaces is on opposite sides of a vane portion of the vane (see annotated Fig. 7 above, where it is shown that the vane (26) is symmetrical and therefore, a vane shoulder retaining surface would be located on opposite sides of a vane portion (equivalent to the vane body)).
Examiner notes that the vane side retaining surface and the vane base retaining surface being two separate surfaces matches Applicant's definition of surfaces being two separate surfaces as the vane side retaining surface abuts the vane base retaining surface without an edge therebetween (see recitation of claim 2 above and at least 0043 of Applicant's specification)
PNG
media_image5.png
437
596
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Panzenhagen, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 10, as described above, and further discloses the attachment portion has a vane side retaining surface with width that tapers in a direction from the second end of the attachment portion toward the first end of the attachment portion (see annotated Fig. 6' above).
Regarding claim 12, Panzenhagen discloses a vane (Fig. 6 element 26) for insertion into a slot (Fig. 5 elements 24) of a wheel (Fig. 5 element 25) of a blasting assembly (0050, where centrifugal blasting wheel corresponds to a blasting assembly) such that the vane propels media as the wheel is rotated (0001-0003), the vane comprising: a body (see annotated Fig. 7 above) radially extending between a first vane end and a second vane end (see annotated Fig. 6 above), between a first flange and a second flange (see annotated Fig. 7 above), and having opposing vane side surfaces (see annotated Fig. 7 above); and an attachment portion (Fig. 7 element 22) integral with the second flange (see annotated Fig. 7 above), the attachment portion configured to be received into the slot (0054), the attachment portion having a first vane end retaining surface and a second vane end retaining surface (see annotated Fig. 6 above, where the combination of the first and second vane end retaining surfaces make up element 37) that abut the second slot end (Fig. 9, 0060); wherein the first vane end retaining surface and the second vane end retaining surface are adjacent to each other (see annotated Fig. 6 above).
Panzenhagen fails to disclose the first vane end retaining surface is convex, and the second vane end retaining surface is concave.
Asch is also concerned with a blasting assembly and teaches the first vane end retaining surface (Fig. 1 element 30) is convex (Fig. 1, 0010 and 0023). It 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 to modify the blasting assembly of Panzenhagen to make the first vane end retaining surface be convex, as taught by Asch, because Asch teaches that making the first vane end retaining surface convex provides "a point or Line contact can be provided between the end face of the wedge and the carrier disc, so that even after prolonged operation there is no undesirable jamming in the area of the stop, which would hinder the release of the throwing blade" (0010).
Panzenhagen, as modified, fails to disclose the second vane end retaining surface is concave.
Nesteroff is also concerned with vanes on a centrifugal wheel and teaches providing a fillet between two components (0016 and 0027). It 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 to modify the blasting assembly of Panzenhagen, as modified, to add a fillet between the first vane end retaining surface (i.e. a first component) and a bottom surface of the second flange (i.e. a second component), thus making the second vane end retaining surface be concave, as taught by Nesteroff, because Nesteroff teaches that providing a fillet (which creates a concave surface) between two elements (such as the second flange and the attachment portion) reduces stress (0016 and 0027).
Examiner notes that in order to make the modifications to the Vane, as described above, modification of the mating surface (Fig. 9 element 34) of Panzenhagen is also being modified to correspond in shape to the first and second vane end retaining surfaces in order for the mating surface (34) to maintain the intended function of mating with the first and second vane end retaining surfaces as described in paragraph 0060 of Panzenhagen.
Regarding claim 13, Panzenhagen, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 12, as described above, and further discloses the second vane end retaining surface abuts the first vane end retaining surface without an edge therebetween (see annotated Fig. 6 above, where these limitations are describing features that a fillet, corresponding to the second vane end retaining surface, applied between the first vane end retaining surface and the bottom surface of the second flange, which is disclosed by Panzenhagen, as modified, in the rejection of claim 1, would necessarily have, therefore these limitations are met by Panzenhagen, as modified).
Regarding claim 14, Panzenhagen, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 12, as described above, and further discloses the second vane end retaining surface of the attachment portion has opposing ends that extend in a direction toward the second vane end (see annotated Fig. 6 above, where these limitations are describing features that a fillet, corresponding to the second vane end retaining surface, applied between the first vane end retaining surface and the bottom surface of the second flange, which is disclosed by Panzenhagen, as modified, in the rejection of claim 1, would necessarily have, therefore these limitations are met by Panzenhagen, as modified).
Regarding claim 15, Panzenhagen, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 12, as described above, and further discloses the second vane end retaining surface has a radially extending first centerline that extends along a radius extending from a first line axis and a second centerline that extends along a radius extending from a second line axis (see annotated Fig. 6 above, where these limitations are describing features that a fillet, corresponding to the second vane end retaining surface, applied between the first vane end retaining surface and the bottom surface of the second flange, which is disclosed by Panzenhagen, as modified, in the rejection of claim 1, would necessarily have, therefore these limitations are met by Panzenhagen, as modified).
Regarding claim 16, Panzenhagen, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 12, as described above, and further discloses the second vane end retaining surface has negative curvature (see annotated Fig. 6 above, where this limitation is describing features that a fillet, corresponding to the second vane end retaining surface, applied between the first vane end retaining surface and the bottom surface of the second flange, which is disclosed by Panzenhagen, as modified, in the rejection of claim 1, would necessarily have, therefore this limitation is met by Panzenhagen, as modified).
Regarding claim 17, Panzenhagen, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 12, as described above, and further discloses the attachment portion has a first end (Panzenhagen, Fig. 6 element 29) and an opposite second end (Panzenhagen, Fig. 6 element 30), and wherein thickness of the attachment portion tapers in a direction from the second end toward the first end (Panzenhagen, Fig. 6, 0053).
Regarding claim 18, Panzenhagen, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 17, as described above, and further discloses the attachment portion has a vane base retaining surface and a pair of vane shoulder retaining surfaces that converge toward each other in a direction from the second end of the attachment portion toward the first end of the attachment portion (see annotated Fig. 6' above), and wherein one of the pair of vane shoulder retaining surfaces is on opposite sides of a vane portion of the vane (see annotated Fig. 7 above, where it is shown that the vane (26) is symmetrical and therefore, a vane shoulder retaining surface would be located on opposite sides of a vane portion (equivalent to the vane body)).
Examiner notes that the vane side retaining surface and the vane base retaining surface being two separate surfaces matches Applicant's definition of surfaces being two separate surfaces as the vane side retaining surface abuts the vane base retaining surface without an edge therebetween (see recitation of claim 2 above and at least 0043 of Applicant's specification)
Regarding claim 19, Panzenhagen, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 18, as described above, and further discloses the attachment portion has a vane side retaining surface with width that tapers in a direction from the second end of the attachment portion toward the first end of the attachment portion (see annotated Fig. 6' above).
Regarding claim 20, Panzenhagen, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 12, as described above, and further discloses the vane is configured to be held in the slot through centrifugal force as the wheel is rotated (Panzenhagen, where the vane (26) is capable of being held in the slot (24) through centrifugal force as the wheel (25) is rotated).
Regarding claim 21, Panzenhagen, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the attachment portion further includes a first end (Panzenhagen, Fig. 6 element 29), an opposite second end (Panzenhagen, Fig. 6 element 30), and a pair of first vane side retaining surfaces (Panzenhagen, see annotated Fig. 6’ above, where “vane side retaining surface” corresponds to one of the first vane side retaining surfaces and where the vane being symmetrical (shown at least in Fig. 14 of Panzenhagen) means that there is a corresponding first vane retaining surface opposite the one shown in annotated Fig. 6’); wherein the first vane side retaining surfaces extends from the second end to the first vane end retaining surfaces (see annotated Fig. 6’ above); and wherein the first vane end retaining surface extends between the first vane side retaining surfaces (Fig. 7) and has a constant radius (Asch, Fig. 1 shows the convex first vane end retaining surface (30) as having a constant radius).
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panzenhagen et al. (US20140038498), hereinafter Panzenhagen, in view of Asch (DE102010010120), attached as a PDF.
Regarding claim 1, Panzenhagen discloses a blasting assembly comprising: a wheel (Fig. 5 element 25) that is rotatable about a first axis (Fig. 5, 0051, where rotational axis corresponds to first axis), the wheel defining a hole (Fig. 5 element 21) centered about the first axis (Fig. 5, 0051) and at least one radially extending slot (Fig. 5 elements 24) that has a first slot end that faces the hole and a second slot end that is opposite the first slot end (see annotated Fig. 5 below); and a vane (Fig. 6 element 26) configured to be received into each radially extending slot such that each vane is retained in a radially extending slot as the wheel is rotated and configured to propel media (0053 and 0001-0003, where each vane (26) is capable of propelling media as the wheel (25) is rotated), the vane including: a body (see annotated Fig. 7 below) radially extending between a first vane end and a second vane end (see annotated Fig. 6 below), the body extending between a first flange and a second flange (see annotated Fig. 7 below), and having opposing vane side surfaces (see annotated Fig. 7 below); and an attachment portion (Fig. 7 element 22) integral with the second flange (see annotated Fig. 7 below), the attachment portion configured to be received into the slot (0054), the attachment portion having a first vane end retaining surface and a second vane end retaining surface (see annotated Fig. 6 below, where the combination of the first and second vane end retaining surfaces make up element 37) that abut the second slot end (Fig. 9, 0060); wherein the first vane end retaining surface and the second vane end retaining surface are adjacent to each other (see annotated Fig. 6 below), the second vane end retaining surface is concave (see annotated Fig. 6 and annotated Fig. 6’’ below, where the surface defined between the edges shown in annotated Fig. 6’’ defines a fillet which corresponds to a second vane end retaining surface which is concave).
Panzenhagen fails to disclose the first vane end retaining surface is convex.
Asch is also concerned with a blasting assembly and teaches the first vane end retaining surface (Fig. 1 element 30) is convex (Fig. 1, 0010 and 0023). It 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 to modify the blasting assembly of Panzenhagen to make the first vane end retaining surface be convex, as taught by Asch, because Asch teaches that making the first vane end retaining surface convex provides "a point or Line contact can be provided between the end face of the wedge and the carrier disc, so that even after prolonged operation there is no undesirable jamming in the area of the stop, which would hinder the release of the throwing blade" (0010).
Examiner notes that in order to make the modification to the Vane, as described above, modification of the mating surface (Fig. 9 element 34) of Panzenhagen is also being modified to correspond in shape to the first vane end retaining surface in order for the mating surface (34) to maintain the intended function of mating with the first and second vane end retaining surfaces as described in paragraph 0060 of Panzenhagen.
PNG
media_image1.png
314
393
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
463
620
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
447
596
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
388
626
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2-11, examiner notes that the same rejection is used as the rejection of claims 2-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Panzenhagen, in view of Asch, and in further view of Nesteroff, as described above. Therefore, those rejections will not be repeated here.
Regarding claim 12, Panzenhagen discloses a vane (Fig. 6 element 26) for insertion into a slot (Fig. 5 elements 24) of a wheel (Fig. 5 element 25) of a blasting assembly (0050, where centrifugal blasting wheel corresponds to a blasting assembly) such that the vane propels media as the wheel is rotated (0001-0003), the vane comprising: a body (see annotated Fig. 7 above) radially extending between a first vane end and a second vane end (see annotated Fig. 6 above), between a first flange and a second flange (see annotated Fig. 7 above), and having opposing vane side surfaces (see annotated Fig. 7 above); and an attachment portion (Fig. 7 element 22) integral with the second flange (see annotated Fig. 7 above), the attachment portion configured to be received into the slot (0054), the attachment portion having a first vane end retaining surface and a second vane end retaining surface (see annotated Fig. 6 above, where the combination of the first and second vane end retaining surfaces make up element 37) that abut the second slot end (Fig. 9, 0060); wherein the first vane end retaining surface and the second vane end retaining surface are adjacent to each other (see annotated Fig. 6 above), the second vane end retaining surface is concave (see annotated Fig. 6 and annotated Fig. 6’’ above, where the surface defined between the edges shown in annotated Fig. 6’’ defines a fillet which corresponds to a second vane end retaining surface which is concave).
Panzenhagen fails to disclose the first vane end retaining surface is convex.
Asch is also concerned with a blasting assembly and teaches the first vane end retaining surface (Fig. 1 element 30) is convex (Fig. 1, 0010 and 0023). It 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 to modify the blasting assembly of Panzenhagen to make the first vane end retaining surface be convex, as taught by Asch, because Asch teaches that making the first vane end retaining surface convex provides "a point or Line contact can be provided between the end face of the wedge and the carrier disc, so that even after prolonged operation there is no undesirable jamming in the area of the stop, which would hinder the release of the throwing blade" (0010).
Examiner notes that in order to make the modification to the Vane, as described above, modification of the mating surface (Fig. 9 element 34) of Panzenhagen is also being modified to correspond in shape to the first vane end retaining surface in order for the mating surface (34) to maintain the intended function of mating with the first and second vane end retaining surfaces as described in paragraph 0060 of Panzenhagen.
Regarding claims 13-21, examiner notes that the same rejection is used as the rejection of claims 13-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Panzenhagen, in view of Asch, and in further view of Nesteroff, as described above. Therefore, those rejections will not be repeated here.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that modifying Panzenhagen with the teachings of either Nesteroff or Asch to meet the “concave” and “convex” limitations is improper as Panzenhagen provides no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the blades. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that Asch teaches that making the first vane end retaining surface convex provides "a point or Line contact can be provided between the end face of the wedge and the carrier disc, so that even after prolonged operation there is no undesirable jamming in the area of the stop, which would hinder the release of the throwing blade" (0010) and Nesteroff teaches that providing a fillet (which creates a concave surface) between two elements (such as the second flange and the attachment portion) reduces stress (0016 and 0027). Therefore, motivation for the modifications are found in Nesteroff and Asch. Applicant has not argued the motivations of Nesteroff and Asch provided by examiner and therefore examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that modifying Panzenhagen with the teachings of either Nesteroff or Asch to meet the “concave” and “convex” limitations is improper because Panzenhagen teaches away from the modifications asserted by examiner because Panzenhagen teaches the blades having “a tapered ‘ellipse’ shaped in the cross section”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that Applicant has not provided any reasoning as to why making the first vane end retaining surface be convex and the second vane end retaining surface be concave teaches away from the blades of Panzenhagen. Examiner finds that the modifications to the first and second vane end retaining surfaces would not destroy the function of the blades of Panzenhagen and would not even change the cross-sectional shape of the blades(i.e. the cross-section will still be an ellipse) which Panzenhagen discusses. Examiner further finds that even if the modifications did change the overall shape of the blades, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of weighing the pros and cons of modifying the first and second vane end retaining surfaces and found that the benefits, taught by Nesteroff and Asch, outweighed the cons based on the intended use of the blades.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CALEB A HOLIZNA whose telephone number is (571)272-5659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-4:30.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/C.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3723 /MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723