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 .
Response to Amendment
The response filed 03/10/2026 have been entered. Accordingly, claims 1, 4, and 6-12 are currently pending and have been examined. The examiner acknowledges the amendments of claims 1, 4, 6-7, and 9-10. Claims 2-3 and 5 are cancelled by applicant. Claims 11-12 are newly presented. The previous drawing objection is withdrawn due to cancelled limitation as amended in claim 6. The previous specification objection is withdrawn due to the newly submitted and accepted “Abstract” dated 03/10/2026. The previous claim objection is withdrawn due to the amendments of claim 6. The previous 112 rejections are withdrawn due to claims 2-3 being cancelled. The previous 102/103 rejections have been modified due to applicant’s amendments. For the reason(s) set forth below, applicant’s arguments have not been found persuasive. The action is Final.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6-7, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayashi (US Pub. No. 2009/0084502).
Regarding claim 1, Hayashi discloses: a segment (Figures 1-13 and see also paragraph 0046) of a fixture (figure 2) comprising a plurality of segments (see figure 2 annotated below Detail A) arranged to form a fixture ring (element 200), the segment comprising:
a carrier segment (element 240); and
a cap segment (element 250),
wherein the carrier segment comprises an outer segment (elements 244) and an inner segment (element 242) which, when assembled together, form a portion of an outer ring and an inner ring of the fixture ring (via the outer segments and inner segment when assembled (figure 2)),
wherein the outer segment is profiled for bases of turbine vanes to be placed thereon, and the inner segment is profiled so as to shield tips of the turbine vanes (The examiner indicates that the turbine vanes and any associated structure (bases and tips of the turbine vanes) has not been positively recited as part of the invention (segment). Therefore giving that the prior art discloses the segment comprising the outer segment (element 244) and the inner segment (element 242) supporting a plurality of different portions of a workpiece (220), and giving that there is no additional structure or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having the outer segment profiled for bases of turbine vanes to be placed thereon, and the inner segment is profiled so as to shield tips of the turbine vanes, as recited.), and
wherein the inner segment has radial extensions (element 243/246) formed to abut the tips of the turbine vanes for protection (see paragraph 0095 and see also figure 2 showing a portion (element 243) of the radial extensions abuts a portion of the workpiece), the radial extensions extending radially outward from the inner segment in a direction towards the outer segment (see figure 3 showing a portion (element 246) of the radial extensions extends radially outward from the inner segment (element 244) in a direction towards the outer segment (element 244).
PNG
media_image1.png
769
1075
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Hayashi discloses: the segment of claim 1, wherein the outer segment comprises lower socket spacings (element 245) formed between spacer sections (see figure 3 annotated below Detail A) and/or the cap segment comprises upper socket spacings (element 255) formed between spacer sections (see figure 3 annotated below Detail B), the lower and upper socket spacings formed to hold and shield the bases of the turbine vanes (The examiner indicates that the turbine vanes and any associated structure (basis) has not been positively recited as part of the invention (segment). Therefore giving that the prior art discloses the segment comprising the outer segment (element 244) having lower socket spacings (element 245) formed by spacer sections (Detail A) and the cap segment (element 250) having upper socket spacings (element 255) formed by spacer sections (Detail B) supporting a plurality of different portions of a workpiece (220), and giving that there is no additional structure or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having the lower and upper socket spacings formed to hold and shield the bases of the turbine vanes, as recited.).
PNG
media_image2.png
610
788
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
739
984
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Hayashi discloses: the segment of claim 1, wherein the radial extensions are formed to match a shape and a curvature of the turbine vanes mounted in the segment (The examiner indicates that the turbine vanes and any associated structure (curvature) has not been positively recited as part of the invention (segment). Therefore giving that the prior art discloses the radial extensions having a portion (element 243) operably supporting different portions of a workpiece (220), and giving that there is no additional structure or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having wherein the radial extensions are formed to match a shape and a curvature of the turbine vanes mounted in the segment, as recited.).
Regarding claim 7, Hayashi discloses: a segment (Figures 1-13 and see also paragraph 0046) of a fixture (figure 2) comprising a plurality of segments (see figure 2 annotated below Detail A) arranged to form a fixture ring (element 200), the segment comprising:
a carrier segment (element 240) that comprises an outer segment (elements 244) and an inner segment (element 242) which, when assembled together, form a portion of an outer ring and an inner ring of the fixture ring (via the outer segments and inner segment when assembled (figure 2)), the outer segment being profiled for bases of turbine vanes to be placed thereon, and the inner segment being profiled so as to shield tips of the turbine vanes (The examiner indicates that the turbine vanes and any associated structure (bases and tips of the turbine vanes) has not been positively recited as part of the invention (segment). Therefore giving that the prior art discloses the segment comprising the outer segment (element 244) and the inner segment (element 242) supporting a plurality of different portions of a workpiece (220), and giving that there is no additional structure or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having the outer segment profiled for bases of turbine vanes to be placed thereon, and the inner segment is profiled so as to shield tips of the turbine vanes, as recited.);
a cap segment (element 250); and
an outside segment (element 248) arranged radially outward of the outer segment (see figure 2),
wherein the outer segment is profiled such that the bases of the turbine vanes are adapted to be placed on the outer segment with some of the turbine vanes extending radially outward and other turbine vanes extending radially inward, wherein the inner segment shields the tips of the turbine vanes that extend radially inward and the outside segment shields the tips of the turbine vanes that extend radially outward (The examiner indicates that the turbine vanes and any associated structure (bases and tips of the turbine vanes) has not been positively recited as part of the invention (segment). Therefore giving that the prior art discloses the segment comprising the outer segment (element 244), the inner segment (element 242), the outside segment (element 248) having portions receiving and shielding the workpiece (element 220), and giving that there is no additional structure or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having wherein the outer segment is profiled such that the bases of the turbine vanes are adapted to be placed on the outer segment with some of the turbine vanes extending radially outward and other turbine vanes extending radially inward, wherein the inner segment shields the tips of the turbine vanes that extend radially inward and the outside segment shields the tips of the turbine vanes that extend radially outward, as recited.).
PNG
media_image1.png
769
1075
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Hayashi discloses: the segment of claim 1, wherein the radial extensions extend over a portion of a distance (see figure 3 annotated below Detail A) between the inner segment and the outer segment in a radial direction (see figure 3 annotated below Detail B).
PNG
media_image4.png
493
666
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Hayashi discloses: the segment of claim 1, wherein the segment is discrete from remaining segments of the plurality of segments that are arranged to form the fixture ring (see figure 2 annotated above on page 4 showing the fixture ring (element 200) assembled and each segment of the plurality of segments (Detail A) comprising both the carrier segment (element 240) and the cap segment (element 250), see figure 3 annotated below showing the fixture ring dissembled and having top portions of each segment (Detail B) being discrete from bottom portions of each segment (Detail B), thus the top portion of the segment indicated in circle box 1 would necessarily be discrete from a bottom portion of the remaining segments of the plurality of segments indicated in circle boxes 2-6).
PNG
media_image5.png
593
583
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US Pub. No. 2009/0084502).
Regarding claim 8, Hayashi discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claim 1, but appears to be silent wherein the segment is made of a thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) material or a derivative thereof.
However, it would have been it would have been to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hayashi to provide wherein the segment is made of a thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) material or a derivative thereof, since selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for an intended use involves only routine skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having the segment comprise a desired material including thermoplastic polyurethane would necessarily provide a flexible durable segment in order to prevent the segment from easily breaking and being damaged during operations (See MPEP 2144.07). Lastly, the applicant has placed no criticality on the claimed material, indicating simply that the segments “may be” manufactured from a strong but still elastic material such as thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) material and derivatives (see specification paragraph 00056).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertrand (US Pub. No. 2015/0075428) in view of Hayashi (US Pub. No. 2009/0084502).
Regarding claim 9, Bertrand discloses: a fixture ring (see figure 6 annotated below Detail A) formed by at least two of the segment (elements 2100-2500/2101-2501).
Furthermore, Bertrand utilizes a different segment in order to form the fixture ring, but appears to be silent wherein the segment is the segment according to claim 1.
Hayashi teaches it was known in the art to have a segment (Figures 1-13 and see also paragraph 0046) comprising the segment according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 on pages 3-4 above).
It would have been it would have been to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bertrand to incorporate the teaches of Hayashi to provide the segment according to claim 1. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that providing the segment with the added features of the carrier segment having an outer segment, an inner segment, and radially extensions operably supporting various different portions of the workpiece would necessarily provide the predictable result of securing the workpiece during operations, thus preventing the workpiece from falling off and being damaged.
Regarding claim 10, Bertrand modified discloses: a cylindrical stack of fixture rings (element 200) comprising at least two fixture rings according to claim 9 according to claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 above (pages 12-15)), wherein the at least two fixture rings are stacked (see figure 6).
However, Bertrand modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least two fixture rings are releasably fixed to each other.
However, it would have been it would have been to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bertrand to provide wherein the at least two fixture rings are releasably fixed to each other, since separating parts that were once integral involves only routine skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that making the fixture rings releasably fixed with each other would necessarily allow the user to interchange damaged fixture rings without having to replace the entire cylindrical stack of fixture rings, thus reducing cost (See MPEP 2144.04 (V)(C)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 8, of the “Remarks”, applicant argues the rejection of amended claim 1, specifically:
As an initial matter, Applicant submits that the rings of Hayashi are not formed by individual segments. In other words, the arbitrary dashed lines provided by the Examiner in the annotated version of Fig. 2 of Hayashi, shown on pg. 6 of the Office Action, does not result in the rings being actual segments that together form a fixture ring, as recited in claim 1. As such, Applicant submits that claim 1 is patentable over Hayashi for at least this reason.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in the rejection above, the prior art shows a portion/section (i.e. segment) of the fixture (figure 2) which comprises a plurality of segments (see figure 2 annotated above detail A) which necessarily forms a fixture ring (element 200). The claim does not require that the segments are separable from one another and are each out together in order to form the fixture ring. Thus, arguments are found unpersuasive.
The applicant further argues on page 8 of the “Remarks”, the incorporated subject matter of claim 5 into the independent claim 1, specifically:
Furthermore, with regard to the above-noted features of claim 1, the Examiner maintains that element 242 of Hayashi discloses the claimed inner segment and element 244 discloses the claimed outer segment of the alleged carrier segment 240. With regard to the claimed radial extensions (originally recited in claim 5), the Examiner cites to elements 243 and 246 of Hayashi.
Applicant traverses the Examiner's assertion. As shown in Fig. 3 of Hayashi, the alleged radial extensions 243 (i.e., the side walls that form grooves 243) extend in the axial direction from the bottom surface of the alleged inner segment 242 (and thus do not extend radially outward from the alleged inner segment 242, as now clarified in claim 1). With regard to the other alleged radial extensions, i.e., elements 246, Applicant submits that such alleged radial extensions 246 do not about any portion of the vanes 220, as required by claim 1. Rather, the ends, i.e., tips, of the vanes 220 are provided so as to rest inside the grooves 243. The alleged radial extensions 246 of Hayashi are merely provided to link the alleged outer segment 244 with the alleged inner segment 242.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As indicated in the rejection above, the prior art discloses wherein the inner segment has radial extensions (elements 243/246), and wherein a portion (element 243) of the radial extensions abuts a portion of the workpiece (element 220 and see also paragraph 0095) and as best shown in figure 3, a portion (element 246) of the radial extensions extends radially outward from the inner segment (element 244) in a direction towards the outer segment (element 24), thus meeting the claim limitation. Therefore, arguments are found unpersuasive.
Lastly, the applicant argues on page 9-10 of the “Remarks”, the now rewritten independent claim 7 features, specifically:
Applicant traverses the Examiner's assertion. The alleged outside segment 248 of Hayashi is merely a side plate that encloses the alleged outer segment 244 on the outside thereof (see para. {0093]). Since the alleged outside segment 248 is merely a side plate that forms an outer wall, Hayashi clearly cannot accommodate vanes 220 that extend radially outward from the alleged outer segment 244, as required by amended claim 7. In particular, as shown in Fig. 3 of Hayashi, only one set of vanes 220 can be accommodated in the ring, i.e., the vanes 220 that extend radially inward from the alleged outer segment 244 to the alleged inner segment 242. An additional set of vanes 220 that extend radially outward from the alleged outer segment 244 to the alleged outside segment 248 would not be possible since the alleged outside segment 248 directly abuts the alleged outer segment 244 to close the outer grooves 245 (see Fig. 3).
In response to applicant's argument that the outside segment shields tips of the turbine vanes that extend radially outwards, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Furthermore, the prior art discloses an outside segment (element 248) arranged radially outward of the outer segment (see figure 2) which as best shown in figure 2, would necessarily encloses the openings and thereby shielding portions of the workpiece (element 220). Thus, giving that the prior art discloses the structure of the outside segment in structural relationship with the outer segment and there is no additional structure provided to structurally distinguish the instant application with the prior art, the prior art would necessarily be capable of shielding tips of the turbine vanes including those that extend radially outward. Therefore, arguments are found unpersuasive.
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 ALBERTO SAENZ whose telephone number is (313)446-6610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30PM 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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights