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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 08 May 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-2 are amended. Claims 1-5 are pending.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 08 May 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by He et al. (CN 102287401) have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, the amended claims appear to be introducing new matter, see 112(a) rejection below.
Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite “wherein the stepped configuration includes at least one stepped surface positioned proximate to the tip portion and distal the root portion, such that a length of the first section is less than 1/3 of a length of the blade”. While examiner agrees this would overcome He et al., there does not appear to be support for this limitation in the original disclosure. Applicant contended “Fig. 1 as clearly showing a length of the first section 129 is significantly shorter than that of the second section 130, and is preferably less than 1/3 of the blade's length. The length of the second section 130 is more than twice the length of the first section 129, and as seen in Fig. 1, it should exceed 2/3 of the blade's length.”
Examiner does not agree. Applicant’s specification does not appear to teach this relationship to one of ordinary skill in the art. The specific values of “1/3 of a length of the blade” is not present in the original disclosure. Furthermore, applicant does not disclose the drawings are to scale, thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to arrive at the limitation “wherein the stepped configuration includes at least one stepped surface positioned proximate to the tip portion and distal the root portion, such that a length of the first section is less than 1/3 of a length of the blade” merely from looking at the drawings. Therefore claim 1 is rejected under 112(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “the stepped configuration includes at least one stepped surface positioned proximate to the tip portion and distal the root portion, such that a length of the first section is less than 1/3 of a length of the blade.” There is no language in the specification for a length of the first section is less than 1/3 of a length of the blade.
All other claims are rejected due to their dependence on one of the above rejected claims.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See cited references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW BUI whose telephone number is (571) 272-0685. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Courtney Heinle can be reached on (571) 270-3508. 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).
/ANDREW THANH BUI/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745