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. DETAILED ACTION Response to Election 1. This action is in response to the election f iled November 25 , 20 25 . (Group I) Claims 1-1 1 were elected rendering (Group II) Claims 12-20 to a non-elected invention . RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION 2. Applicant's election with traverse of method of fabricating a ceramic matrix composite seal (Group II) is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that ‘if the search and examination of an entire application can be made without serious burden, the examiner must examine it on the merits, even though it includes claims distinct or independent inventions.' M.P.E.P. 803. Additionally, ‘not only must the art be searched within which the invention is claimed, but also all analogous arts' M.P.E.P. 904.01(c). The search of the 2 classes and subclasses would entail the requisite serious burden as the search for method of making is not the same as the article search. Additionally, the steps used in the method claims would not be expected to appear in the class/subclass of the product claims. Every ceramic matrix composite seal is not made using the same method steps . The species restriction is withdrawn due to Applicant’s arguments. The requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL . Information Disclosure Statement 3. The references disclosed within the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 10, 2024, and October 30, 2023 , ha ve been considered and initialed by the Examiner . Claim Rejections – 35 USC 112 4. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. 5. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. In claim 1, the phrase, “ a thickness of the seal is less than about twice the thickness of the coating ” is indefinite. It is unclear what is meant by this phrase. For examination purposes, the thickness of the seal is considered to be thicker than the thickness of the coating, as shown in Figure 2 of the instant Application. Claims 2-11 are rejected as being dependent on instant claim 1. Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103 6 . 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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made. 7 . Claims 1 , 4 -5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitzpatrick et al. ( EP 3141701 ). Fitzpatrick discloses a sealing assembly that includes a first static gas turbine wall (a first component) and a second static gas turbine wall (a second component) And a seal disposed between the first static gas turbine wall and the second static gas turbine wall , where the seal comprises a first and second seal layer (abstract and claim 1) where at least one of the seal layers can be considered a coating. Fitzpatrick discloses the sealing layers can have different thicknesses (paragraph 25). Although Fitzpatrick does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the seal and coating layers as claimed, thickness modifications involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and therefore obvious. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) See MPEP 2144.04 , as in claim 1. Concerning claim 4, Figure 8 of Fitzpatrick show the seal has first and second opposed sides, and wherein the coating is on at least one of the first and second opposed sides. Concerning claim 5, Fitzpatrick discloses the sealing assembly can comprise a top seal layer, bottom seal layer and middle seal layer, where the top and bottom seal layer can be considered the coating layer on both sides of the seal layer. Concerning claims 7-8, Fitzpatrick does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the coating; however , thickness modifications involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and therefore obvious. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) See MPEP 2144.04 . Concerning claim 9 , Fitzpatrick does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the seal ; however, thickness modifications involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and therefore obvious. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) See MPEP 2144.04 Conclusion 8 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lawrence Ferguson whose telephone number is 571-272-1522. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 9:00 AM – 5:30PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Frank Vineis, can be reached on 571-270 - 1547 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /LAWRENCE D FERGUSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 1781