Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/708,873

TURBOMOLECULAR PUMP BLADED DISC

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
May 09, 2024
Examiner
GOLIK, ARTHUR PAUL
Art Unit
3745
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Edwards Limited
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
70%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 70% — above average
70%
Career Allow Rate
57 granted / 81 resolved
At TC average
Strong +46% interview lift
Without
With
+46.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
120
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
39.9%
-0.1% vs TC avg
§102
20.5%
-19.5% vs TC avg
§112
38.0%
-2.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 81 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/29/2025 has been entered. Response to Arguments Applicant's remarks filed 9/9/2025 have been fully considered. Regarding the prior 112(b) rejections, Applicant’s amendments overcome all prior rejections. Regarding the prior art rejection of claim 1, in paragraph 6 of page 6 through paragraph 1 of page 7 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant’s arguments are directed to that the prior art fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the amended limitations of amended claim 1. Applicant’s arguments are persuasive. Therefore, the pervious prior art rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as identified below; please see the action below for details of new rejections. Claim Objections The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17 recites the limitation “an entire extent the blade” which is grammatically incorrect and should be rewritten as -- an entire extent of the blade --. Claim 18 recites the limitation “an entire extent the blade” which is grammatically incorrect and should be rewritten as -- an entire extent of the blade --. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20040037695 A1 (hereinafter Beyer). Regarding claim 1, Beyer discloses: A turbomolecular pump bladed disc, comprising: a central hub (7; Fig 1) configured to be rotated in a direction of rotation (10; Fig 5) about an axis (Fig 1 shows this), the axis defining an axial direction (Fig 1 shows this); and one or more blades (6; Fig 1) radially extending from the central hub (Fig 1 shows this); wherein each of the one or more blades has a cross-section (Fig 3 shows this) that: tapers to a first point (8; Fig 5) in a first direction (annotated Fig 5a, wherein there is a taper to a first point and the first point exists in a first direction with respect to something), the first direction being parallel with the axial direction (Figs 1 and 5 show this); tapers to a second point (9; Fig 5) in a second direction (annotated Fig 5a, wherein there is a taper to a second point and the second point exists in a second direction with respect to something), the second direction being parallel with the axial direction and opposite to the first direction (Figs 1 and 5 show this); has a first side (generally at 15 in Fig 5; para 0017) extending from the first point wherein the first side partially faces in the direction of rotation and partially faces in the second direction (Fig 5 shows this, wherein a surface normal of the first side comprises a component in the direction of rotation and a component in the second direction, which is consistent with Applicant’s facing); has a second side (generally at 16 in Fig 5; para 0017) extending from an end of the first side (interface of 15 and 16; Fig 5) to the second point wherein the second side partially faces in the direction of rotation and partially faces in the second direction (Fig 5 shows this); has a third side (generally at 14 in Fig 5) extending from the second point and partially facing in a direction opposite the direction of rotation (Fig 5 shows this); 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 5 shows this). PNG media_image1.png 460 750 media_image1.png Greyscale Annotated Fig 5a Regarding claim 3, Beyer 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 (Figs 1 and 5 shows this as one having ordinary skill would reasonably understand). Regarding claim 4, Beyer 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 (Figs 1 and 5 shows this as one having ordinary skill would reasonably understand). Regarding claim 5, Beyer 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 (Figs 1 and 5 shows this as one having ordinary skill would reasonably understand). Regarding claim 6, Beyer 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 (Figs 1 and 5 shows this as one having ordinary skill would reasonably understand). Regarding claim 7, Beyer 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 (Figs 1 and 5 shows this as one having ordinary skill would reasonably understand). Regarding claim 17, Beyer discloses for each of the one or more blades, the length of the blade comprises a majority of an entire extent the blade in the radial direction (Figs 1 and 5 shows this as one having ordinary skill would reasonably understand). Regarding claim 18, Beyer discloses for each of the one or more blades, the length of the blade comprises a majority of an entire extent the blade in the radial direction (Figs 1 and 5 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 8:30-5:00. 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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at 571-272-8648. 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 /NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 09, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 07, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
May 07, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 07, 2025
Final Rejection — §102
Sep 09, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 29, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 04, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12577883
BLADE TIP CLEARANCE CONTROL USING MATERIAL WITH NEGATIVE THERMAL EXPANSION COEFFICIENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12553417
ROTOR DRIVE SYSTEM ASSISTED DISENGAGEMENT OF THE ROTOR-LOCK MECHANISM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12504043
STRESS REDUCING FASTENER ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 23, 2025
Patent 12497894
GAS TURBINE ENGINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 16, 2025
Patent 12497946
SERVICE BRAKE FOR A WIND TURBINE YAW MOTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 16, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
70%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+46.1%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 81 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month