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 .
The Applicant’s amendment filed on July 30, 2026 was received. Claims 1 and 3 were amended, and claims 2 and 6 were cancelled.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action issued February 18, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Wheat et al. (US 2002/0098284) on claims 1 and 7-9 are withdrawn because Applicant amended claim 1 to include subject matter from now-cancelled claims 2 and 6, as well as other limitations.
Claims 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brauer et al. (US 5,735,671).
Regarding claim 1: Brauer et al. discloses a disk post (26) which is an interspacer provided between adjacent turbine blades (28) in the dovetail slots (24), the area of the posts (26) having a height which can be considered to be equal to a height around area of the dovetail slots (24), the posts (26) having a shape with a lower portion which has a double frusto-elliptical cross section with a first end and second end, an upper portion above the lower portion which has a projecting member extending beyond the second end of the lower portion and away from the first end of the lower portion, with a curved part and an angled part on the projecting member (col. 3 lines 14-59, figure 2, annotated figure 2.1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
426
394
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2.1
Regarding claim 3: Brauer et al. shows that the angled portion of the projecting member is above the curved portion (see annotated figure 2.1 above).
Regarding claim 4: Brauer et al. shows that the lower end extends non-perpendicularly (i.e. along an inward curve) from the bottom side of the lower portion (see annotated figure 2.1 above).
Regarding claim 5: Brauer et al. shows that the lower portion includes two curved sides, making up the double frusto-elliptical shape (see annotated figure 2.1 above).
Regarding claim 7: Brauer et al. shows that the upper portion has a top side and the lower portion has a bottom side, the top and bottom sides are parallel to each other (see annotated figure 2.2 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
426
394
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2.2
Regarding claim 8: Brauer et al. shows that the width of the posts (26) is equal to the width of the dovetail slot (24) (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 9: Brauer et al. fails to explicitly disclose that the post (26) is additively manufactured, however this is a product-by-process claim, and it is noted that “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP § 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed (process) and given that the post (26) of Brauer et al. meets the requirements of the claimed structure, Brauer et al. clearly meets the requirements of present claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Wheat et al. in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2017/0284221) and Wheat et al. in view of Brauer et al. on claims 2-3 and 4-6 respectively are withdrawn because Applicant amended claim 1 to include subject matter better aligning to the teachings of Brauer et al. alone, no longer requiring the teachings of Wheat et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues that Wheat et al. in view of Watanabe et al. and Brauer et al. cannot read on claim 1 as amended, that they are both non-analogous art, and that Brauer et al. does not teach an interspacer with a double frusto-elliptical portion.
In response:
Regarding the 103 rejections and arguments of non-analogous art, Applicant’s arguments are moot because they do not apply to the new 102 rejections over Brauer et al. alone. Arguments about non-analogous art are not germane to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 (see MPEP 2131.05).
Regarding Brauer et al., figure 2 quite clearly shows the disk posts (26) of Brauer et al. having a double “frusto-ellpitical” portion in the same exact way as seen in figures 10-11 of the instant invention. Applicant has not adequately explained how the post (26) feature of Brauer et al. fails to match this language- further, nothing in the instant specification or any similar art has defined “frusto-elliptical” in any way other than how it is seen in the instant figures, as well as figure 2 of Brauer et al. Nothing in the claims require the interspacer to not be formed integrally with a rotor disk, and any such limitation would amount to a negative new matter limitation. As it currently stands, the posts (26) of Brauer et al. match the instant claim language perfectly, and as such Brauer et al. anticipates each and every claim, as Applicant has not adequately explained how it is in any way different from the claimed language. Applicant is reminded that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN A KITT whose telephone number is (571)270-7681. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
/S.A.K/
Stephen KittExaminer, Art Unit 1717
8/4/2026
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights