DETAILED ACTION
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 plurality of main valves in the hollow turbine shaft must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: “its axis of rotation” is believed to be in error for --an axis of rotation of the turbine shaft--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: “receiving a paint tube” is believed to be in error for --receiving the paint tube--; “mmm” is believed to be in error for --mm--; “the shaping air nozzle ring” is believed to be in error for --the at least one annular shaping air nozzle ring--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the individual brake air nozzles” is believed to be in error for --each of the plurality of brake air nozzles--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the turbine shaft at its distal shaft section” is believed to be in error for --a distal shaft section of the turbine shaft--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 32 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the coating agent” is believed to be in error for --a coating agent--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 33 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a needle valve with a displaceable valve needle” is believed to be in error for --a displaceable valve needle--; and “its position” is believed to be in error for --a position of the displaceable valve needle--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 34 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the turbine shaft has at its distal end” is believed to be in error for --a distal end of the turbine shaft--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-26, 29-31 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “a paint tube of the rotary atomizer”, and claim 18, upon which claim 21 depends, recites “A drive turbine for a rotary atomizer”. It is unclear whether the paint tube is part of the rotary atomizer, which is not positively recited in the claim, or the paint tube is part of the drive turbine, which is positively recited, rendering the claim vague and indefinite.
Claims 22-24 are rejected based upon their dependency upon claim 21.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “the proximal shaft section”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 25 depends upon claim 18; however, “the proximal shaft section” is recited in claims 19 and 20, making the dependency of claim 25 unclear.
Claim 26 recites the limitations "the paint tube", “the paint tube outer diameter” and “the proximal shaft section”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 26 depends upon claim 18; however, “a paint tube” and “a paint tube outer diameter are recited in claim 21, and “the proximal shaft section” is recited in claims 19 and 20, making the dependency of claim 26 unclear.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 29 recites the broad recitation “at least two”, and the claim also recites “at least three” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the radial bearing". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the limitation is supposed to be “a radial bearing” and depend from claim 18 as claimed, or the claim is supposed to depend from either claim 25 or claim 28, which recite “a radial bearing”, rendering the claim vague and indefinite.
Claim 31 recites the limitation “the proximal shaft section”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 31 depends upon claim 18; however, “the proximal shaft section” is recited in claims 19 and 20, making the dependency of claim 31 unclear.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 34 recites the broad recitation “a fastening device”, and the claim also recites “in particular a screw thread” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation, and further recites the even narrower limitation “in particular as an external thread or as an internal thread”. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 18-20, 26 and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takayama 6,050,499.
In regards to Independent Claim 18, Takayama teaches (particularly in figure 1) a drive turbine (10 and 11) for a rotary atomizer (1), comprising: a) a turbine rotor (10) with a rotatably mounted turbine shaft (11), b) wherein the turbine shaft is stepped along its axis of rotation with different shaft diameters, including different inner diameters and/or different external diameters (11 comprises different diameters along both an inner and outer diameter of shaft as shown in figure 1).
Regarding Dependent Claims 19 and 20, Takayama teaches the turbine shaft (11) has a larger shaft diameter in a proximal shaft section than in a distal shaft section (inner diameter of 11 is greater at end with turbine 10 than at end with cup 12).
Regarding Dependent Claim 26, Takayama teaches the turbine shaft is hollow and contains the paint tube with the paint tube outer diameter inside (paint tube 23 is within 11), and b) there is a ratio between the inner diameter of the turbine shaft in the proximal shaft section on the one hand and the paint tube outer diameter on the other hand, which is in the range from 1.005:1 to 1.5:1 in order to generate a suitable pressure gradient (outer diameter of 23 within the inner diameter of 11 in figure 2 falls within the ratio of ranges of 1.005:1 to 1.5:1, wherein the inner diameter of 11 is larger than the outer diameter of 23). Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972).
Regarding Dependent Claim 34, Takayama teaches a) the turbine shaft has only two different shaft diameters (11 as shown in figure 1 only comprises two inner shaft diameters), namely the larger shaft diameter in the proximal shaft section (11 comprises a larger inner diameter at turbine 10) and the smaller shaft diameter in the distal shaft section (end of 11 at 12 in figure 1), and b) the drive turbine has a turbine housing (9) and the turbine shaft projects with the distal shaft section in the axial distal direction out of the turbine housing (11 extend from 9 at end with 12 in figure 1), and c) the turbine shaft has at its distal end a fastening device for fastening a bell cup (12 threaded upon 11, Col. 8, ll. 33-38), in particular a screw thread for screwing the bell cup onto the turbine shaft, in particular as an external thread or as an internal thread (12 threaded upon 11, Col. 8, ll. 33-38), and d) the transition between the different shaft diameters of the turbine shaft takes place abruptly or continuously (abrupt changes to inner diameter of 11 as shown in figure 1), and e) the drive turbine is an axial turbine or a radial turbine (10 shown as a radial turbine in figure 1 with a turbine chamber 9B radially outside the turbine).
Regarding Dependent Claim 35, Takayama teaches a rotary atomizer (1) comprising a drive turbine (10 and 11) according to claim 18 (see rejection of claim 18 above).
In regards to Independent Claim 36, Takayama teaches a turbine shaft (11) adapted for a drive turbine (10) of a rotary atomizer (1), wherein the turbine shaft is stepped along its axis of rotation with different shaft diameters (11 comprises two different inner diameters with a step between the two different shaft diameters as shown in figure 1).
Claims 18, 19, 25 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baumann 2013/0017068.
In regards to Independent Claim 18, Baumann teaches a drive turbine (1) for a rotary atomizer (38), comprising: a) a turbine rotor (rotors 25-27) with a rotatably mounted turbine shaft (2, 17), b) wherein the turbine shaft is stepped along its axis of rotation with different shaft diameters (external diameter of 30 is less than diameter of 17 at turbine rotors 25-27), including different inner diameters and/or different external diameters (internal diameter of 17 is less at end with 30 in figure 4).
Regarding Dependent Claim 19, Baumann teaches the turbine shaft has a larger shaft diameter in a proximal shaft section than in a distal shaft section (outer diameter at 25-27 is greater than diameter at 30 in figure 4).
Regarding Dependent Claim 25, Baumann teaches a) a radial bearing (13) for mounting the turbine shaft in a bearing section (13 surrounds 17) within the proximal shaft section, b) a ratio of at most 1.3:1 (using outer parameters results in ratios of 1.27:1 and 1.09:1) between the outer diameter of the turbine shaft (24-28 mm, paragraph [0080]) in the bearing section on the one hand and the inside diameter of the turbine shaft in the bearing section (18-22 mm, claim 47) on the other hand, in order to achieve a low moment of inertia of the turbine shaft (desired result of size of turbine shaft 17).
Regarding Dependent Claim 32, Baumann teaches a) the turbine shaft is hollow (17 shown as hollow in figure 3), b) the hollow turbine shaft includes a plurality of main valves to control the coating agent dispensing of the rotary atomizer, with no further valve downstream of the main valves (first and second main needle valves (paragraph [0051]).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi JP 2013113179 A.
In regards to Independent Claim 18, Takahashi teaches a drive turbine for a rotary atomizer, comprising: a) a turbine rotor (turbine with blades 20) with a rotatably mounted turbine shaft (2), b) wherein the turbine shaft is stepped along its axis of rotation with different shaft diameters (smaller diameter portion 5 and larger diameter portion 4 in figure 1), including different inner diameters and/or different external diameters (different inner and outer diameters at 5 and 4 in figure 1).
Regarding Dependent Claim 19, Takahashi teaches the turbine shaft has a larger shaft diameter (diameter at 4) in a proximal shaft section (4 proximal 20 in figure 1) than in a distal shaft section (5).
Claims 18 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamada JP 2010284637 A.
In regards to Independent Claim 18, Yamada teaches a drive turbine (10 and 11) for a rotary atomizer (1), comprising: a) a turbine rotor (11) with a rotatably mounted turbine shaft (10), b) wherein the turbine shaft is stepped along its axis of rotation with different shaft diameters (diameters along 10 are less at 10A then end at 11), including different inner diameters and/or different external diameters (different outer diameters at 10A and 11).
Regarding Dependent Claim 27, Yamada teaches a) the drive turbine has an axial bearing with a rotating bearing disk for mounting the turbine shaft (thrust air bearing 15), b) the drive turbine has a speed sensor (22) with a rotating sensor disk for speed detection (probe 23 and mark 26 on rotating disk), c) the drive turbine has a wheel (disk-like body, with a plurality of turbine blades 11A, page 2, paragraph 3) and d) the bearing disk, the sensor disk and the wheel are integrated in one component (all components on 11 in figure 1).
Claims 18 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lind 5,584,435.
In regards to Independent Claim 18, Lind teaches a drive turbine (9 and 12) for a rotary atomizer (figure 1), comprising: a) a turbine rotor (12) with a rotatably mounted turbine shaft (9), b) wherein the turbine shaft is stepped along its axis of rotation with different shaft diameters (9 does not have a constant diameter as shown in figure 1), including different inner diameters and/or different external diameters (different outer diameters of 9 as shown in figure 1).
Regarding Dependent Claim 29, Lind teaches a) the turbine rotor has at least one wheel with a plurality of turbine blades (plurality of blades 12 as shown in figure 5), b) the drive turbine has at least one drive air nozzle for blowing on the turbine blades in a drive direction of rotation for driving the turbine rotor (nozzles 13 in figure 5), c) the drive turbine has a plurality of brake air nozzles for blowing on the turbine blades against the direction of drive rotation in order to brake the turbine rotor (brake nozzles 32), d) the brake air nozzles are distributed around the circumference (at least two nozzles 32 shown in figure 5), e) the individual brake air nozzles each flow onto at least two or at least three of the turbine blades at different flow angles (the nozzles 32 will blow upon at least two turbine blades based upon spacing about central axis of turbine, and will flow at different angles relative to a reference point), f) the turbine blades are all of the same design without an additional, differently shaped turbine blade for braking the drive turbine (turbine blades 12 are shown as same in figure 5 and not described as having different shaped blades).
Claim(s) 18 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by van der Steur 2014/0374506.
In regards to Independent Claim 18, van der Steur teaches a drive turbine (44 and 26) for a rotary atomizer (10), comprising: a) a turbine rotor (26) with a rotatably mounted turbine shaft (44), b) wherein the turbine shaft is stepped along its axis of rotation with different shaft diameters, including different inner diameters and/or different external diameters (44 comprises different internal diameters between end at 44 and end at 26 in figure 2).
Regarding Dependent Claim 31, van der Steur teaches a) the turbine shaft is rotatably mounted in a radial bearing (30), b) the radial bearing extends in the axial direction over a certain bearing section which lies within the proximal shaft section (30 is at section of 44 proximal to 30), c) the radial bearing has a specific bearing gap in the radial direction (0.0007”, paragraph [0037]), and d) the ratio between the axial length of the bearing section (4 porous segments at 0.125” and 5 nonporous segments at 0.5”, results in a length of 3 inches, paragraph [0032]) on the one hand and the radial bearing gap of the radial bearing on the other hand is in the range from 1000:1 to 8000:1, in order to achieve sufficient stability and a low bearing loss performance of the radial bearing (3 / 0.0007 = ratio of 4,285:1).
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 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takayama as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Baumann 2013/0017068.
Regarding Dependent Claim 21, Takayama teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Takayama further teaches a) the turbine shaft has an outer diameter in the proximal shaft section (outer diameter of 11 at 10), wherein the turbine shaft in the proximal shaft section al) carries at least one wheel with several turbine blades (turbine rotor 10 on 11) and a2) contains a paint tube with a paint tube outer diameter (23, which comprises an outer diameter), b) the turbine shaft for receiving a paint tube of the rotary atomizer is hollow and has an inner diameter in the proximal shaft section (23 passes through hollow portion of 11 in figure 1), c) the drive turbine has at least one annular shaping air nozzle ring with a plurality of shaping air nozzles (ring of air shaping holes 4 as shown in figure 1), the shaping air nozzle ring having a diameter (diameter between holes 4 as shown in figure 1), and d) the turbine shaft has an external diameter in the distal shaft section and has a mounting interface (distal end of 11 has a diameter and is mounted to 12), in order to mount a bell cup (12) on the turbine shaft (as shown in figure 1). However, Takayama does not teach that the inner diameter of the proximal shaft section is between 25 to 35 mm. Baumann teaches that the internal diameter of the turbine shaft of a rotary mixer determines the number of main needle valves that can pass through the shaft (paragraph [0051]). Therefore, the internal diameter of a turbine shaft is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that increasing the internal diameter of the turbine shaft allows more main needle valves to be used in the rotary atomizer. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the internal diameter of the turbine shaft can be increased, was disclosed in the prior art by Baumann, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to provide an internal turbine shaft diameter of Takayama of 25 to 35 mm in order to accommodate a plurality of main needle valves. It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding Dependent Claim 22, Takayama in view of Baumann teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Takayama further teaches a) the outer diameter of the turbine shaft in the proximal shaft section is larger than the outer diameter of the turbine shaft in the distal shaft section (diameter of 11 is greater at end adjacent 10 than diameter at 12 in figure 1), in order to combine a maximum installation space in the proximal shaft section with a minimum mass moment of inertia of the turbine shaft (desired result of the selected diameters), and b) there is a ratio between the outer diameter of the turbine shaft in the proximal shaft section on the one hand and the outer diameter of the turbine shaft in the distal shaft section on the other hand, which is in the range from 1.1:1 to 1.6:1 (as best shown in figure 2, the diameter of 11 at its maximum to the right side of the figure is about 1.25 times greater than the diameter at its minimum diameter at 12, where the relative dimensions shown in the drawings fall well within the broad range of ratios claimed). Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). In the instant case, the figures of Takayama, particularly figure 2, disclose a ratio within the broad range of ratios claimed.
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Baumann and van der Steur 9,375,734.
Regarding Dependent Claim 21, Takahashi teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Takahashi further teaches a) the turbine shaft has an outer diameter in the proximal shaft section (outer diameter of 4 in figure 1), wherein the turbine shaft in the proximal shaft section al) carries at least one wheel with several turbine blades (turbine blades 20) and a2) contains a paint tube with a paint tube outer diameter (paint tube may be placed through hollow of 4 and 5, page 3 paragraph [0006]), b) the turbine shaft for receiving a paint tube of the rotary atomizer is hollow and has an inner diameter in the proximal shaft section (4 and 5 shown as hollow in figure 1), and d) the turbine shaft has an external diameter in the distal shaft section and has a mounting interface (distal end 5 has a diameter and is mounted to 17), in order to mount a bell cup (17) on the turbine shaft (as shown in figure 1). However, Takahashi does not teach that the inner diameter of the proximal shaft section is between 25 to 35 mm, or using annular shaping air nozzle ring with air nozzles. Baumann teaches a rotary atomizer with that the internal diameter of the turbine shaft of a rotary mixer determines the number of main needle valves that can pass through the shaft (paragraph [0051]). Van der Steur teaches using a shaping air ring for a rotary atomizer (figure 6) with a plurality of nozzles (36). Therefore, the internal diameter of a turbine shaft is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that increasing the internal diameter of the turbine shaft allows more main needle valves to be used in the rotary atomizer. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the internal diameter of the turbine shaft can be increased, was disclosed in the prior art by Baumann, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to provide an internal turbine shaft diameter of Takahashi of 25 to 35 mm in order to accommodate a plurality of main needle valves. It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to use the shaping air nozzle ring of van der Steur on the atomizer of Takahashi in view of Baumann, in order to control the diameter of the applied coating by the atomizer (Col. 1, ll. 6-14 of van der Steur).
Regarding Dependent Claim 23, Takahashi in view of Baumann and van der Steur teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Takahashi further teaches a) the inside diameter of the turbine shaft in the proximal shaft section is larger than the outer diameter of the turbine shaft in the distal shaft section (inner diameter of 4 is greater than outer diameter of 5 as shown in figure 1), in order to combine a maximum installation space in the proximal shaft section with a minimum mass moment of inertia of the turbine shaft (desired result of the structure), and b) there is a ratio between the inside diameter of the turbine shaft in the proximal shaft section on the one hand and the outer diameter of the turbine shaft in the distal shaft section on the other hand which is in the range from 1.05:1 to 1.4:1 (inner diameter of 4 is about 30 percent greater than the outer diameter of 5, falling well within the broad range of ratios claimed). Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takayama in view of Baumann as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of van der Steur 9,375,734.
Regarding Dependent Claim 24, Takayama in view of Baumann teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Takayama further teaches a) the diameter of the shaping air nozzle ring (diameter at holes 4 from center) is greater than the outer diameter of the turbine shaft in the distal shaft section (ring 3 is greater diameter than 11 at 12 in figure 1), and b) there is a ratio between the diameter of the shaping air nozzle ring on the one hand and the outer diameter of the turbine shaft in the distal shaft section on the other hand (ratio of diameter of holes 4 and distal end of 11). However, Takayama in view of Baumann does not teach that the range of ratios if from 1.1:1 to 1.9:1. Van der Steur teaches that the diameter of the shaping air ring controls the diameter of the applied coating from the rotary atomizer (Col. 1, ll. 6-14). Therefore, the diameter of the shaping air ring relative to the turbine shaft is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that increasing the diameter of the shaping air ring increases the diameter of an applied coating. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the diameter of the shaping air ring, was disclosed in the prior art by van der Steur, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to provide a shaping air ring diameter of Takayama in view of Baumann of 1.1 to 1.9 times the outer diameter of the distal turbine shaft, in order to control the diameter of the applied coating. It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumann as applied to claim 32 above.
Regarding Dependent Claim 33, Baumann teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Baumann further teaches that each valve actuates a valve seat (valves must be seated against a structure to close, paragraph [0051]). However, Baumann does not teach that there are more than two main valves. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to increase the number of main valves of Baumann from two to more than two, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)). MPEP 2144.04 VI B.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 28 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 30 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: prior art fails to teach, in combination with the other limitations of dependent claim 28, combining exhaust air from the radial and axial bearings with turbine exhaust air to increase the temperature of the turbine exhaust air; and prior art fails to teach, in combination with the other limitations of dependent claim 30, that the discharge device from a seal that seals the radial bearing from the environment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN M SUTHERLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-1902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571) 270 - 1814. 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.
/STEVEN M SUTHERLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
