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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 11/28/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of the full statutory term of prior patent 12,173,615 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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.
Claims 1-10, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukamoto et al. (U.S. PGPub 2003/0143074, cited in IDS) in view of Shah et al. (U.S. Patent 10,005,125, cited in IDS), and optionally Lequeu et al. (U.S. PGPub 2007/0259200).
Claim 1: Tsukamoto discloses a method (with particular reference to “Embodiment 1 in paragraphs 34-44 and Figs. 1-4) for manufacturing a turbine engine element (turbine blade 1 - e.g. title), the element having an airfoil (21 - paragraph 25), the method comprising: casting a first cast portion (2) of the airfoil and a second cast portion (6) of the airfoil (paragraphs 37-38); assembling the first cast portion and second cast portion to each other (paragraph 39); applying a load across the assembly of the first cast portion and the second cast portion (via pressing mechanism 15 - Id.); and applying current across a junction of the first cast portion and the second cast portion to fuse the second cast portion to the first cast portion (by power supply 10 - Id.), wherein: the casting comprises: casting a precursor (both members are preferably cast as an integral member - paragraph 38); and cutting (cropping) the first cast portion and the second cast portion or precursors thereof from the cast precursor (paragraph 38); the casting of the precursor leaves: a first alloy in a region for forming the first portion (2) and a second alloy in a region for forming the second portion (6 - both regions, which may be different alloy, e.g. paragraph 20, which generally states that members may be from the same or different alloys; paragraph 41, which suggests the joined members in Embodiment 1 may have different materials and mechanical or thermal properties such as tensile strength and fusion temperature; and paragraph 61, which generally refers to exemplary combinations of materials of the primary and tip portions of the airfoil based on considerations such as design strength, production efficiency, and cost); and cutting (Id.) to separate the portions therefrom.
Tsukamoto does not explicitly disclose that the casting of the precursor also leaves a transition region between the first alloy and the second alloy, and the cutting at least partially removes the transition region. However, Shah discloses a method of casting an integral member of two alloys resulting in a transition region between the two (mixed-alloy boundary zone - column 6, lines 16-52). Based on this, the examiner submits that the similarly manufactured integral member of Tsukamoto would also possess a transition region by virtue of similarly co-casting different alloys. Furthermore, because the cropping/machining operation to separate the two portions of different alloys would necessarily remove material (e.g. in the form of chips, swarf, etc.), and the separation occurs between the portions (2, 6) of the respective alloys (the transition region also being between them), then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least partially removed the transition region by virtue of cropping/machining through the transition region to define the parts 2 and 6.
Alternatively, with regard to at least partially removing the transition region, Tsukamoto describes cropping by machining (implicitly at the transition region) without further detail. However, Lequeu teaches a method of cropping a transition region from the remainder of a co-cast billet by making cuts to separate the billet into distinct pieces (e.g. paragraphs 43-45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have cropped the Tsukamoto precursor using a similar technique depending on the amount of material desired for cropping.
Tsukamoto does not disclose manufacturing a plurality of such turbine engine elements (e.g. blades) involving casting a plurality of precursors, cutting each precursor, etc. However, the examiner submits that turbine blades are required in numbers more than one to function in a turbine, and manufacturing processes are typically used to manufacture plural items, and so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have simply repeated the process cited above for the purpose of manufacturing the desired number of blades.
Claim 2: The method further comprises supplemental heating of the first cast portion of the airfoil and the second cast portion of the airfoil (paragraph 40).
Claim 3: The element is a blade having an attachment root (dovetail 22); and the second cast portion (6) is rootward of the first cast portion (evident in Figs. 1-2).
Claim 4: While the ratio of first and second portions 2 and 6 appears to be such that they each form at least 20% of a span of the airfoil (e.g. Fig. 1), the ratio is not explicitly disclosed. However, Shah discloses that an airfoil made of different alloys may be such that the ratio is 30%/70%, for example, but either piece could also be anywhere from 1-99% (column 5, line 50 - column 6, line 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the portions in the claimed percentages depending on the desired material properties and locations thereof in the airfoil, based on the different alloys used in the respective portions.
Claim 5: The second cast portion (6) forms a portion of the airfoil and at least a portion of the attachment root (Fig. 2).
Claims 6-7: The first cast portion and the second cast portion are of different alloys, and specifically different nickel-based alloys (paragraphs 20, 61).
Claim 8: The first cast portion and the second cast portion are of single crystal structure (paragraph 35).
Claim 9: The applying of the load and the applying of the current are simultaneous (paragraphs 13 and 39).
Claim 10: The method further comprises supplemental heating via induction heating (paragraph 40).
Claim 17: Tsukamoto discloses a method for manufacturing a component (a turbine blade 1), the method comprising: casting a component precursor (an integral member comprising future parts 2 and 6 - paragraph 38) having a region of a first alloy and a region of a second alloy (the two portions 2 and 6 may be different alloys - e.g. paragraph 20, which generally states that members may be from the same or different alloys; paragraph 41, which suggests the joined members in Embodiment 1 may have different materials and mechanical or thermal properties such as tensile strength and fusion temperature; and paragraph 61, which generally refers to exemplary combinations of materials of the primary and tip portions of the airfoil based on considerations such as design strength, production efficiency, and cost), cutting (cropping) the precursor into a first piece, comprising the first alloy, and a second piece comprising the second alloy (paragraph 38); and fusing the first piece to the second piece (paragraph 39).
Tsukamoto does not teach the precursor having a transition region in between the first and second portions, and cutting a transition piece comprising the transition region. However, Shah discloses a method of casting an integral member of two alloys resulting in a transition region between the two (mixed-alloy boundary zone - column 6, lines 16-52). Based on this, the examiner submits that the similarly manufactured integral member of Tsukamoto would also possess a transition region by virtue of similarly co-casting different alloys. Furthermore, because the machining operation is used to “crop” the two portions (2, 6) of different alloys (paragraph 20) from the integral member, and the first and second portions of the respective alloys are on either side of the transition region between them, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have cut a “transition piece” comprising the transition region, in order to have isolated the desired portions of first and second alloys from the integral member. It is noted that "a transition region" is broad and could refer to any portion of the integral member having both metals, and any piece, large or small (including a piece of swarf or a chip) formed by a cutting or machining operation, could be broadly construed as a "transition piece".
Alternatively, with regard to a transition piece comprising the transition region, Tsukamoto describes cropping by machining (implicitly at the transition region) without further detail. However, Lequeu teaches a method of cropping a transition region from the remainder of a co-cast billet by making cuts to separate the billet into distinct pieces (e.g. paragraphs 43-45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have cropped the Tsukamoto precursor using a similar technique depending on the amount of material desired for cropping.
Tsukamoto does not disclose manufacturing a plurality of such components (e.g. blades) involving casting a plurality of precursors, cutting each precursor, etc. However, the examiner submits that turbine blades are required in numbers more than one to function in a turbine, and manufacturing processes are typically used to manufacture plural items, and so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have simply repeated the process cited above for the purpose of manufacturing the desired number of blades.
Claim 18: Referring to Tsukamoto, the fusing comprises: applying pressure and current (paragraph 39).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukamoto et al., Shah et al., and optionally Lequeu et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nicholas et al. (WO2020039165, cited in IDS).
Claim 11: Tsukamoto further discloses using a pulsed power (pulsed voltage - paragraph 39) and generally controlling the heating temperature (paragraph 41), but not specifically applying pulsed DC power; and varying the pulsed DC power via temperature feedback control. However, Nicholas teaches a pressure welding method wherein a temperature sensor (37) is used to provide feedback control to a heating unit (34) for applying a pulsed DC power (page 8, line 25 - page 9, line 2; page 9, lines 16-17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied pulsed DC power and varied the pulsed DC power via temperature feedback control in order to have precisely controlled the temperature in the joined region.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukamoto et al., Shah et al., and optionally Lequeu et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nicholas et al. and Harville et al. (U.S. Patent 5,814,783, cited in IDS).
Tsukamoto further discloses using a pulsed power (pulsed voltage - paragraph 39) and generally controlling the heating temperature (paragraph 41), but not specifically varying the current via temperature feedback control. However, Nicholas teaches a pressure welding method wherein a temperature sensor (37) is used to provide feedback control to a heating unit (34) for applying a pulsed DC power and controlling current (page 8, line 25 - page 9, line 2; page 9, lines 16-17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have varied the current via temperature feedback control in order to have precisely controlled the temperature in the joined region.
Tsukamoto also generally discloses controlling the applied load (paragraph 41), but not specifically by applying load via a hydraulic powered ram and feedback control of the applied load via a load cell. However, Harville discloses a pressure welding method wherein a hydraulic cylinder is controlled via a load cell in a feedback loop (column 7, lines 47-50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied load via a hydraulic powered ram with feedback control of the applied load via a load cell in order to have more precisely maintained the desired joining force.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukamoto et al., Shah et al., and alternatively also Lequeu et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Marcin, Jr. et al. (U.S. Patent 9,802,248, cited in the IDS).
Claim 14: Tsukamoto further discloses cooling channels (11) in at least one of the portions (paragraph 35), but does not specifically disclose casting passageways. However, Marcin teaches that features such as cooling passages (90) may be provided using casting (e.g. column 2, lines 40-49; column 4, line 64 - column 5, line 16; column 5, lines 27-41). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have cast cooling channels since it is a recognized technique for providing such passageways in a co-cast turbine blade.
Claim 15: Marcin further teaches that the passageways extend through a transition region of the blade (spanning between two regions as cited above). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the passageways extending through a transition region of the blade depending upon where cooling is required.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukamoto et al., Shah et al. (and optionally Lequeu et al.), and Marcin, Jr. et al. as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Hattori (U.S. Patent 6,033,619).
Tsukamoto further discloses some options for machining additional cooling geometry into at least one cut surface (paragraph 60), but not necessarily machining cooling channels into cut surfaces of the first cut portion and second cut portion. However, Hattori teaches a method of making a turbine blade from two pieces comprising machining cooling channels (11 - e.g. column 2, lines 33-40) into surfaces of a first portion (8) and second portion (9), for example wherein the cooling channels form outlet passageways (12) upon the fusing (see Figs. 7-9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed outlet passageways in a similar manner in the blade of Tsukamoto in order to have provided adequate cooling holes for cooling the component and assuring higher reliabilities (e.g. Hattori, column 1, lines 23).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukamoto et al. in view of Lequeu et al.
Claim 21: Tsukamoto discloses a method for manufacturing a turbine engine element (turbine blade 1 - e.g. title), the element having an airfoil (21 - paragraph 25), the method comprising: casting a first cast portion (2) of the airfoil and a second cast portion (6) of the airfoil (paragraphs 37-38); assembling the first cast portion and second cast portion to each other (paragraph 39); applying a load across the assembly of the first cast portion and the second cast portion (via pressing mechanism 15 - Id.); and applying current across a junction of the first cast portion and the second cast portion to fuse the second cast portion to the first cast portion (by power supply 10 - Id.), wherein the casting comprises casting a precursor (integral member); and from the cast precursor, cutting (cropping) the first cast portion and the second cast portion or precursors thereof from the cast precursor (paragraph 38).
Tsukamoto “crops” the portions 2 and 6 from the integral casting (paragraph 19), leaving what appears to be a non-trivial portion of material behind (Fig. 3), but does not disclose that the cutting comprises a pair of spaced-apart cuts. However, Lequeu teaches a method of cropping a transition region from the remainder of a co-cast billet by making spaced apart saw cuts to separate the billet into distinct pieces (e.g. paragraphs 43-45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have cropped the Tsukamoto precursor using a similar technique depending on the amount of material desired for cropping.
Tsukamoto does not disclose manufacturing a plurality of such turbine engine elements (e.g. blades) involving casting a plurality of precursors, cutting each precursor, etc. However, the examiner submits that turbine blades are required in numbers more than one to function in a turbine, and manufacturing processes are typically used to manufacture plural items, and so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have simply repeated the process cited above for the purpose of manufacturing the desired number of blades.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukamoto et al. and Lequeu et al. as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Shah et al.
Tsukamoto does not explicitly disclose that the casting of the precursor also leaves a transition region between the first alloy and the second alloy, and the cutting at least partially removes the transition region. However, Shah discloses a method of casting an integral member of two alloys resulting in a transition region between the two (mixed-alloy boundary zone - column 6, lines 16-52). Based on this, the examiner submits that the similarly manufactured integral member of Tsukamoto would also possess a transition region by virtue of similarly co-casting different alloys. Furthermore, because the cropping/machining operation to separate the two portions of different alloys would necessarily remove material (e.g. in the form of chips, swarf, etc., or else as a distinct piece as taught by Lequeu), and the separation occurs between the portions (2, 6) of the respective alloys (the transition region also being between them), then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least partially removed the transition region (or generally some portion thereof which can be considered a “compositional transition region”) by virtue of cropping/machining through the transition region to define the parts 2 and 6.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
132 Affidavit
The affidavit filed 11/28/2025 is admittedly recycled from the parent application, but the examiner nevertheless addresses it herein as if it were directed at the instant application to the extent it is technically filed in such a capacity.
The issue Applicant must ultimately argue is whether the cited prior art reads on the claimed invention. Ultimately, Tsukamoto explicitly recites the steps of co-casting (integrally casting) two portions 2 and 6, cutting the casting into said portions, and re-joining by current and pressure as claimed, while also contemplating the possibility in numerous passages that the portions 2 and 6 may be different alloys. Any questions in the Affidavit as to "why" Tsukamoto performs these steps or for what reason (e.g. 12c, 13, 16-17) are irrelevant as the steps are indeed performed nevertheless. See also MPEP 2123: "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). Furthermore, “Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments”. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant refers to several unclaimed features. For example, arguments pertaining to casting cores (e.g. 11, 12, 14-17, 26-27, 37), tip holes (e.g. 12.), and “a tip piece…having substantial spanwise/radial extent” (28, 37) are irrelevant as these features are not claimed. 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).
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to embodiments other than Embodiment 1 of Tsukamoto as cited are not relevant as the examiner relied solely on Embodiment 1.
Applicant’s imagined hypothetical STEM drilling method (e.g. 18-19) is neither disclosed in the reference nor relevant to the claimed invention.
Regarding e.g. (20.), Tsukamoto suggests in several places that two alloys may be used, as previously cited. Furthermore, Fig. 3 is schematic, exemplary, and not necessarily representative of all options contemplated, and so Fig. 3 alone is not evidence against a dual alloy embodiment.
Regarding (21.-24., 39.), Applicant suggests the cuts are "close" consistent with a single cut, while the examiner submits they are shown substantially spaced. Regardless, the cited prior art Lequeu equates "cropping" in an analogous context to making parallel saw cuts to separate a transition region from the remainder of the cast material. In other words, one of ordinary skill would or could have recognized "crop" as meaning two cuts as evidenced by Lequeu. The affidavit is silent regarding Lequeu and thus fails to fully address the rejection. Any arguments pertaining to spaced cuts or cropping are inadequate without considering Lequeu.
Regarding (25.), the examiner established the claimed ratio appeared to be met by Tsukamoto, but that choosing the claimed ratio would be obvious to achieve properties in view of Shah. There is clear motivation for this ratio, and this does not just involve a “hypothesized shifting of the junction of the Tsukamoto et al. tip piece and main portion of the Airfoil”.
Regarding (29.-30.), it is unclear where the examiner has made the alleged citations or references in the instant rejection. Applicant cites and argues a point made in a prior Office Action in (31.-32.) which does not appear to be relevant to the instant claims and rejection.
Regarding point (32.), is Applicant suggesting a transition region would not be produced by a co-casting of different alloys, contrary to what is evidenced by Shah?
Regarding point (34.), Applicant has ignored at least paragraph 41 of Tsukamoto, which is directly related to Embodiment 1, where Embodiment 1 preferably co-casts the parts. General or "offhanded" mentions of different alloys are presumed to apply to all embodiments unless clearly disclosed otherwise.
Regarding Shah (37.-39.), Shah is merely cited to show evidence that co-casted alloys of differing composition would form a transition zone at their juncture. It is unclear why Applicant refers to cutting off and removing a tip portion when Tsukamoto clearly discloses separating and re-joining portions 2 and 6.
Regarding Roberge (40-43), the examiner has not relied on Roberge in the instant rejection.
Regarding Hattori (44-45), Applicant has not claimed what passageways/channels are formed by what technique in claim 16 for which Hattori was relied upon, so the examiner need not either. Hattori is merely cited to teach that cooling passages (presumably of any kind) might be machined into cut surfaces of a turbine blade.
Remarks
Applicant’s arguments are generally difficult to follow as they rely on questioning aspects of the prior art which are disclosed relatively clearly, question the “why” behind features which are anticipated by the prior art, mischaracterize certain aspects of the rejection, reference unclaimed features, prior art not relied upon, and arguments from different applications, and overcomplicate various aspects of the prior art disclosure. Many arguments make reference to and are congruent with those of the affidavit addressed above and so are not substantially repeated. The examiner addresses remaining points below.
Regarding “mixing embodiments”, The examiner has consistently and unambiguously relied upon Embodiment 1 of Tsukamoto as clearly cited in the rejection. Tsukamoto is kind enough to clearly label the embodiments in the disclosure such that there should be little confusion.
Regarding there allegedly being no disclosure of dual alloys in combination with cutting/rejoining, the examiner has cited several portions of Tsukamoto which support dual alloy configuration. The examiner is unclear why Applicant appears to rely solely on the claims of Tsukamoto to support these arguments when anyone involved in patent prosecution knows that claimed embodiments do not necessarily represent the full scope of the disclosure. Even paragraph 64 of Tsukamoto affirms as much. Just because the claims may omit a particular embodiment or combination of features does not mean the overall disclosure lacks the same.
As noted above, Shah is merely cited as evidence that co-casted alloys of differing composition would form a transition zone at their juncture. The examiner agrees with Applicant that “[t]his has no particular relevance to the apparent use of Tsukamoto et al. in avoiding a casting core” (page 9), but then again, casting cores have nothing to do with the claimed invention as also discussed above. The examiner is not “hypothesizing casting Shah et al. without a core, cutting off the tip, machining passageways, and then reattaching the tip”. The examiner frankly has no idea what Applicant is referring to here. Tsukamoto is the base reference being modified and not the other way around.
On page 9, Applicant argues “Without basis or explanation, the examiner assumes that the cut would be made in the transition region. Why?” The examiner clearly articulated the rationale for this assumption in the rejection so it is hardly without basis or explanation.
On page 9, Applicant argues “What is the relevance of chips and swarf?” Chips and swarf represent material removal inherent to cutting/machining operations as disclosed in Tsukamoto, which is pertinent to the limitation “the cutting at least partially removes the transition region” of claim 1, for example.
Lequeu teaches “cropping” by sawing a transition zone out from a bi-cast casting. In this case the transition zone is the keeper piece and the ends are the discard pieces, but it pertains to the same essential concept and generally teaches “cropping” using two parallel saw cuts to separate a transition zone from the ends of the casting, regardless of the purpose. Lequeu serves as evidence of how one of ordinary skill could or would interpret and execute “cropping” in the art of cutting around transition zones in castings.
(Page 12) Paragraph 3 of Tsukamoto does not teach away from casting cooling passages but rather critiques how remaining holes would be covered. Paragraph 3 is also not one of the disclosed embodiments of Tsukamoto as implied by Applicant but rather a background discussion. Applicant then proposes a “dilemma” as “[e]ither there is massive teaching away. Or there is something else going on that the examiner does not analyze. Something that would contradict the examiner's positions”. Applicant’s argument trails off here and never actually concludes what error the examiner has allegedly made before moving to the next claim.
On page 13, Applicant again alleges confusion regarding which embodiment the examiner has relied upon (such confusion is unwarranted as noted previously) and asks “why the examiner is then cutting that transition region”. First, it is not the examiner who is proposing cutting. Tsukamoto discloses cutting at the junction between portions 2 and 6, where a transition region would be expected to be per Shah as already discussed.
As with the affidavit, it is unclear why Applicant makes any mention of Roberge when Roberge was not relied upon in the rejection in question.
Hattori is relied upon to generally teach that it is known to machine cooling channels in cut surfaces of a turbine blade, which is all that is essentially recited in claim 16. Does the examiner really need to articulate which embodiment is being imagined here, especially given that, as mentioned numerous times, only Embodiment 1 of Tsukamoto is relied upon? The co-cast parts 2 and 6 are separated during manufacture as disclosed. Tsukamoto even contemplates machining cooling passages into some cut surfaces. In view of Hattori, one can imagine cutting cooling passages on the exposed surfaces of both cut portions prior to reassembly. This to the examiner is relatively straight-forward and requires no further explanation beyond what is proposed in the rejection.
Applicant makes further arguments regarding 21 and Lequeu which are believed to be adequately addressed above given the similar rejection rationale.
On page 17, Applicant asserts “Yet the examiner continues to imagine Shah et al. suggesting cuts in the transition region (which it does not).” This is a misrepresentation of the rejection. Tsukamoto already establishes cutting along a junction between cast portions 2 and 6. Shah merely provides evidence that a transition region in the area would be expected for a dual-alloy cast situation (something also contemplated by Tsukamoto as cited multiple times).
The double patenting rejections are withdrawn in view of the Terminal Disclaimer filed 11/28/2025.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW P TRAVERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3218. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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, Sunil K. Singh can be reached on 571-272-3460. 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.
/Matthew P Travers/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726