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 Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 5/18/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the prior claim objections, Applicant’s amendments overcome all prior objections.
Regarding the prior art rejection of claim 1, in paragraphs 4-5 of page 6 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant’s arguments are directed to that the prior art reference Beyer fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the amended limitations of amended claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments are moot in light of the new rejections; please see the action below for details of the new rejections which are necessitated by Applicant's amendment.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
“has a first side (501) extending from the first point (510) wherein the first side (501) partially faces in the direction of rotation and partially faces in the second direction (512);” identified in claim 1 line 10. Note that Fig 5 does not show side 501 configured as such.
“has a second side (502) extending from an end of the first side (501) to the second point (514) wherein the second side (502) partially faces in the direction of rotation and partially faces in the second direction (512);” identified in claim 1 line 12. Note that Fig 5 does not show side 502 configured as such relative to side 501.
“has a third side (503) extending from the second point (514) and partially facing in a direction opposite the direction of rotation;” identified in claim 1 line 15. Note that Fig 5 does not show side 503 configured as such.
Note that 35 U.S.C. 113 identifies the requirement for drawings to be generally provided (“The applicant shall furnish a drawing where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented.”) and 37 CFR 1.83(a) identifies requirements for what those drawings must show (“The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box)”).
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 first side (Annotated Fig 8B_a) extending from the first point wherein the first 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 first 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 third side (Annotated Fig 8B_a) extending from the second point 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
405
652
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
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.
Contact Information
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
Prosecution Insights