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 .
Claims 1-10 are currently pending. Claims 1-8 are allowed. Claims 9-10 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 5-7 of the response, filed December 18, 2025, with respect to the objections of Claims 1-10, rejections of Claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), rejections of Claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and rejection of Claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of amendments. The objections of Claims 1-10, rejections of Claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), rejections of Claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and rejection of Claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) have been withdrawn.
As noted by Applicant, the amendment to Claim 1 to recite “annular piece” instead of “means” is considered sufficient structure. Therefore, 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is no longer invoked.
Note that the 35 U.S.C. 112(d) issue with Claim 9 has not been resolved. For proper dependency, the claim must clearly incorporate all of, i.e. the assembly, of Claim 1. As currently recited, Claim 9 only appears to require the stop piece of the assembly. Applicant is encouraged to reach out to Examiner if they need further explanation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding Claim 9, Lines 3-4 recite “installing one of the stop pieces of the assembly according to claim 1”. This only incorporates the stop piece. Meanwhile, Claim 1 is with respect to a turbomachine rotor assembly that comprises stop pieces. Therefore, Claim 9 is rejected for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends, since it only incorporates a stop piece instead of the whole assembly of Claim 1.
Claim 10 is subsequently rejected for its dependency upon a previously rejected claim.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-8 are allowed.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant’s amendments sufficiently overcome the previously set forth written description issues. Therefore, Claim 1 is considered allowable for the same reasons set forth in the comments on Pg. 8-9 of the Non-Final Rejection filed September 24, 2025.
Claims 2-8 subsequently depend upon Claim 1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ELTON K WONG whose telephone number is (408)918-7626. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM - 5:00PM PST.
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, Court 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.
/ELTON K WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745