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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on June 20, 2026.
Applicant’s arguments directed to claim 7 being generic and not limited to species b is persuasive. As a result, claim 7 is removed from species b.
Applicants’ arguments in last paragraph of page 6 are not considered persuasive based on the lack of specifics provided by Applicant’s Representative.
Applicant’s arguments in page 7, first paragraph are not persuasive. Claim 9 is considered a subcombination based on the claim language of claim 9 directed to a system for applying a protective coating or stream of grit. Claim 1 is considered a combination based on this claim reciting a masking system and a support system.
Additionally, applicants statement that the Office fails to consider that claim 9 depends from claim 1. Applicant’s statement is incorrect. Under the current claim language, claim 9 has only two elements that recites from claim 1. As a result, claim 9 does not appear to be in proper dependent form.
Applicant’s arguments in page 7, second paragraph are not persuasive based on the claim language recited above.
Applicant’s arguments in page 7, third paragraph are not persuasive based on the lack of evidence and specifics to supports statements by the Applicant’s Representative.
Applicant’s arguments in page 7, fourth paragraph are not persuasive reciting a need of evidence. Species a. angled side walls, species. b. male and female components, f. nozzle for protective coating, g. nozzle for grit blasting particles. are different structures requiring different search. The different search is required based on the different structures which are not considered to be obvious variants by a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant’s arguments in page 8, second paragraph are not persuasive based on the reason that the search can be made without serious burden. As mentioned with respect to the species election, above different structures require different search in different areas and different consideration in the examination process for patentability. Additionally, Restriction between Groups I and II is supported by having different classifications between Groups I and II.
Applicant’s arguments in page 9, fourth paragraph are not persuasive reciting a need of evidence for the following reasons:
1/Species a. angled side walls is structurally different from species. b. male and female components,
2/Species f. nozzle for protective coating is different from species g. nozzle for grit blasting particles.
3/ Groups I and II have different classifications.
4/ There is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct groups and species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
(e) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
In response to first paragraph on page 8, the restriction has previously indicated the Groups I and II have different classifications.
Additionally, different field of search is required based on claims 1 and 9 reciting different elements. For example, claim 9 recites nozzle structure not found in claim 1. Search for this structure would require a different field of search in B24C1/04 the coating area B05B, B05C,and B05D for Group II where Group I would have a different field for search based on its classification in B23Q3/06.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would not be an undue search burden in examining the claims together. This is not found persuasive because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct and there would be a serious search and examination burden if restriction were not required due to the independent and distinct nature of the two groups.
Each invention has attained recognition in the art as a separate subject for inventive effort. Further, different considerations are used in considering the independent and distinct inventions. There is also a burden because it is necessary to search for one of the independent and distinct inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to all of the elements of the other independent and distinct invention.
The independent and distinct inventions include elements which require search outside of the same classification. There is also a burden because it is necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to all of the elements of the other invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretation
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “securing members” in claim 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pat Pub Num. 20060141158 A1 to Das et al (hereinafter Das).
Regarding claim 1, Das teaches a masking and support system for a turbine component (202, 204, 206), the masking and support system comprising:
a first resiliently flexible boot (224) configured to cover a first portion (206) of the turbine component, the first resiliently flexible boot comprising a concave outer surface (226) and a convex inner surface (236) opposite the outer surface and configured to engage the first portion (206) of the turbine component ; and
a second resiliently flexible boot (214) configured to cover a second portion (204) of the turbine component, the second resiliently flexible boot (214) comprising a convex outer surface and a concave inner surface opposite the outer surface and configured to engage the second portion (204) of the turbine component. (See Das, Abstract, paragraphs 21-24 and Figs. 1-2. )
Regarding claim 2, Das teaches the first resiliently flexible boot is configured to cover a plurality of cooling openings (opening in 206 in Fig. 2 near 226) in the turbine component (206). (See Das, Abstract, paragraphs 21-24 and Figs. 1-2. )
Regarding claim 4, Das teaches the first resiliently flexible boot (224) comprises a pair of securing members (232, 236) on opposite sides of the convex inner surface, each of the securing members being configured to wrap around a portion of the turbine component (206) . (See Das, Abstract, paragraphs 21-24 and Figs. 1-2. )
Regarding claim 5, Das teaches the pair of securing members are flexible flanges (232, 236) . (See Das, Abstract, paragraphs 21-24 and Figs. 1-2. )
Regarding claim 6, Das teaches the first (224) and second resiliently flexible boots (214) are configured to support the turbine component at a predetermined height. (See Das, Abstract, paragraphs 21-24, 27 and Figs. 1-2. )
Regarding claim 7, Das teaches the first (224) and second (214) resiliently flexible boots are configured so that when the first and second resiliently flexible boots are secured to the turbine component (202, 204, 206), the concave outer surface (surface of 224 facing inside the circle) of the first resiliently flexible boot (224) faces a first direction (towards inside of circle) and the convex outer surface (outside surface of 216) of the second resiliently flexible boot faces a second direction (towards outside of circle in Fig. 2 ) opposite the first direction. (See Das, Abstract, paragraphs 21-24, 27 and Figs. 1-2. )
Regarding claim 8, Das teaches the radius of curvature of the concave outer surface ( surface of 224 facing inside the circle) of the first resiliently flexible boot (224) is smaller than the radius of curvature of the convex outer surface of the second resiliently flexible boot (214).(See Das, Abstract, paragraphs 21-24, 27 and Figs. 1-2. )
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Pub Num. 20060141158 A1 to Das et al (hereinafter Das) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of WO 2004013368 A1 to Minoru Ohara (hereainfter Ohara1) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20110293836 A1 to Minoru Ohara (hereinafter Ohara2).
Regarding claim 3, Das does not explicitly teach the first and second resiliently flexible boots are made of silicone.
Ohara1 teaches silicone can be used in place of graphite in certain masking applications. (See Ohara1, Abstract, page 3, paragraph 8; page 5, 1st paragraph, paragraph 4; page 7, third paragraph; page 13, paragraph 8 of Machine Translation.)
Ohara2 teaches silicone in masking has the following: advantages elasticity, heat resistance, easy stripping ability, and superior adherence ability and wetness. (See Ohara2, Abstract, paragraph 28 and Fig. 1.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the first and second resiliently flexible boots are made of silicone, because silicone can allow a satisfactory coating to be formed by using a masking material with superior adhering ability. (See Ohara2, paragraphs 28, 110-111 and Fig. 1.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Examiner called Applicant’s Representative to suggest a proposed amendment. However, Applicant’s Representative was not able to accept the proposed amendment in the time period.
An updated version of the amendment appears below.
1.(Currently Amended) A masking and support system for a turbine component, the masking and support system comprising:
a plurality of first boots, each [[a]] first each first
a plurality of second boots, each second each second the first boot and the second boot are resiliently flexible;
the turbine component has an inner platform and an outer platform, said turbine component is assembled with other turbine components in a circular structure, such that an inner platform faces in a second direction toward a center of the circular structure and the outer platform faces in a first direction away from the circular structure;
each first boot has an engagement face located between a first lateral wall and a second lateral wall of the first boot, each first boot has a concave inner surface that abuts a convex surface of an inner rim, each second boot has an engagement face located between a first lateral wall and a second lateral wall of the second boot, each second boot has a convex outer surface that abuts a concave surface of an outer rim,
each first boot supports a first side adjacent first boot on a first side and an opposite side adjacent first boot on an opposite side forming a first circular structure;
each second boot supports a first side adjacent second boot on a first side and an opposite side adjacent second boot on an opposite side forming a second circular structure;
said masking and support system further comprises a platform with a receiving area bound by the inner rim and the outer rim, wherein the inner rim and the outer rim form concentric circles, wherein the radius of curvature of the concave inner surface of the first circular structure formed by the plurality of first boots is substantially the same as the radius of curvature of the concave surface of the inner rim, wherein the radius of curvature of the convex outer surface of the second circular structure formed by the plurality of second boots is substantially the same as the radius of curvature of the concave surface of the outer rim,
wherein the first boot and the second boot are configured so that when the first boot and the second boot are secured to the turbine component, the concave outer surface of the first boot faces the first direction and the convex outer surface of the second boot faces the second direction opposite the first direction;
the first boot comprises a pair of securing members on opposite sides of the convex inner surface, each of the securing members being configured to wrap around edges of the inner platform of the turbine component to engage a rear side of the inner platform.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARL V KURPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 PM.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at (571) 272-1295. 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.
/KARL KURPLE/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights