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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/01/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 8/13/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the prior drawing objections, Applicant’s amendments overcome all prior objections.
Regarding the prior art rejection of claim 1, in paragraph 4 of page 6 through paragraph 3 of page 8 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant’s arguments are directed to that the prior art fails to disclose, teach, or suggest features of Applicant’s invention.
The arguments are not persuasive because each limitation is mapped to the same prior art of the previous office action. Please see mapping of amended limitations to prior art below for details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 (line 19) recites the limitation “a direction opposite the direction of rotation” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this references the same direction opposite the direction of rotation previously identified in claim 1 or a different direction. If this term references the same direction, then it is suggested the limitation be rewritten as -- the direction opposite the direction of rotation --, if this term references a different direction, then it is suggested the two terms at issue be rewritten as -- a first direction opposite the direction of rotation -- and -- a second direction opposite the direction of rotation -- respectively.
Claim(s) 3-7, 17-18 is/are also rejected by virtue of dependency.
In view of the 112(b) rejections set forth above, the claims are rejected below as best understood.
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(s) 1, 3-7, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6499942 B1 (hereinafter Nonaka).
Regarding claim 1, Nonaka discloses:
A turbomolecular pump bladed disc, comprising:
a central hub (64; Fig 2) configured to be rotated in a direction of rotation about an axis, the axis defining an axial direction (Fig 1 shows all this);
and one or more blades (63; Fig 2) radially extending from the central hub;
wherein each of the one or more blades has a cross-section in a shape (Fig 8B) that:
tapers (a broadest reasonable interpretation of “taper” may be “to reduce gradually” per https://www.dictionary.com/browse/taper or “to become gradually narrower at one end” per https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/taper) to a first point (Annotated Fig 8B_a) in a first direction (Annotated Fig 8B_a) (the direction of the taper comprises a component which is in the first direction),
the first direction being parallel with the axial direction (e.g. Fig 1 combined with Figs 2 and 8B shows this);
tapers to a second point (Annotated Fig 8B_a) in a second direction (Annotated Fig 8B_a),
the second direction being parallel with the axial direction and opposite to the first direction;
has a third side (Annotated Fig 8B_a) extending from the first point wherein the third side partially faces in the direction of rotation and partially faces in the second direction;
has a second side (Annotated Fig 8B_a) extending from an end of the third side to the second point wherein the second side partially faces in the direction of rotation and partially faces in the second direction;
has a fourth side (Annotated Fig 8B_a) extending from the second point and partially facing in a direction opposite the direction of rotation;
and has a first side (Annotated Fig 8B_a) extending from the first point to an end of the fourth side (504) and partially facing in a direction opposite the direction of rotation;
and for each of the one or more blades, the cross-section of that blade is an intersection of that blade with a plane perpendicular to a radial direction in which that blade extends from the central hub (Fig 2 combined with Fig 8B shows this).
Nonaka may not explicitly disclose:
the shape is a parallelogram
However, Nonaka does identify that his shape is a polygon, and courts have established that a change in shape will not sustain a patent and is not inventive, rather is a practice requiring only ordinary skill and hence is considered a routine expedient and obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In other words, it is not inventive to merely change the prior art’s shape from a polygon to a parallelogram. See MPEP 2144.04(IV). Furthermore, it is noted that Applicant’s disclosure identifies different polygon shapes (e.g. para 0009, Figs 5-7, Figs 9-11) which indicates that merely specifying a particular type of polygon shape is not critical to the invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
406
653
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 8B_a
Regarding claim 3, Nonaka as modified above discloses:
for each of the one or more blades the cross-section of that blade is at or proximate to a tip of that blade (e.g. Figs 2 and 8B shows this as one having ordinary skill would reasonably understand).
Regarding claim 4, Nonaka as modified above discloses:
for each of the one or more blades, the cross-section is at one radial position along a length of the blade
and each other radial position along the length of the blade has a respective radial-position cross-section that tapers to a respective radial-position first point in the first direction,
wherein the length of the blade is defined in the radial direction from the central hub (e.g. Figs 2 and 8B shows this as one having ordinary skill would reasonably understand).
Regarding claim 5, Nonaka as modified above discloses:
for each of the one or more blades, the length of the blade comprises an entire extent of the blade in the radial direction (e.g. Figs 2 and 8B shows this as one having ordinary skill would reasonably understand).
Regarding claim 6, Nonaka as modified above discloses:
for each of the one or more blades, the cross-section is at one radial position along a length of the blade
and each other radial position along the length of the blade has a respective radial-position cross-section that tapers to a respective radial-position second point in the second direction,
wherein the length of the blade is defined in the radial direction (e.g. Figs 2 and 8B shows this as one having ordinary skill would reasonably understand).
Regarding claim 7, Nonaka as modified above discloses:
for each of the one or more blades, the length of the blade comprises an entire extent of the blade in the radial direction (e.g. Figs 2 and 8B shows this as one having ordinary skill would reasonably understand).
Regarding claim 17, Nonaka as modified above discloses
for each of the one or more blades, the length of the blade comprises a majority of an entire extent of the blade in the radial direction (e.g. Figs 2 and 8B shows this as one having ordinary skill would reasonably understand).
Regarding claim 18, Nonaka as modified above discloses
for each of the one or more blades, the length of the blade comprises a majority of an entire extent of the blade in the radial direction (e.g. Figs 2 and 8B shows this as one having ordinary skill would reasonably understand).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Art Golik whose telephone number is (571)272-6211. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at 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 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.
/Art Golik/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
