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 .
Status
This Final Office Action is in response to the amendment/request for reconsideration dated 15 December 2025 (hereinafter “Reply”).
Claim(s) 2-3 are canceled.
Claim(s) 4-19 are new.
Claim(s) 1, 4-19 is/are pending.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Knauer, the applicant(s) submit the following remark(s)/argument(s):
(A) At page 8 of the submitted Reply:
The cited art fails to disclose the following feature(s) of claim 1: a diameter of the first pin is smaller than a width of the first hole, so that the first pin is movable in the first hole in a radial direction intersecting the rotation axis, and the diameter of the first pin is uniform along the axial direction and larger than a diameter of the second pin. Rather, Knauer discloses the diameter of the first pin 149’’ is matched to the hole so as not to move in the radial direction, and the diameter of the first pin 149’’ is the same as the second pin 149’.
In reply, the Office respectfully considers this argument persuasive. Therefore, the rejection(s) is/are withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayashi, the applicant(s) submit the following remark(s)/argument(s):
(A) At page 9 of the submitted Reply:
The cited art fails to disclose the following feature(s) of claim 1: a diameter of the first pin is smaller than a width of the first hole, so that the first pin is movable in the first hole in a radial direction intersecting the rotation axis, and the diameter of the first pin is uniform along the axial direction and larger than a diameter of the second pin. Rather, Hayashi discloses the diameter of the first pin is matched to the hole so as not to move in the radial direction, and the diameter of the first pin is the same as the second pin.
In reply, the Office respectfully considers this argument persuasive. Therefore, the rejection(s) is/are withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection of claim(s) 2, now canceled and incorporated into present claim 1, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knauer in view of Ihli, the applicant(s) submit the following remark(s)/argument(s):
(A) At page 10 of the submitted Reply:
The cited art fails to teach or suggest the following features of claim 1: a diameter of the first pin is smaller than a width of the first hole, so that the first pin is movable in the first hole in a radial direction intersecting the rotation axis, and the diameter of the first pin is uniform along the axial direction and larger than a diameter of the second pin. Rather, Ihli teaches a bolt 32 without a flange, first pin, and second pin. Thus, due to the bolt structure of Ihli not corresponding to the claimed structure for at least one restricting member, Ihli is non-analogous to the claimed invention and there is no teaching of the claimed axial-diameter relationship between the first and second pins.
In reply, the Office respectfully considers this argument persuasive. Therefore, the rejection(s) is/are withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection of claim(s) 3, now canceled and incorporated into present claim 1, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knauer in view of Severin, the applicant(s) submit the following remark(s)/argument(s):
(A) At page 11 of the submitted Reply:
The cited art fails to teach or suggest the following features of claim 1: a diameter of the first pin is smaller than a width of the first hole, so that the first pin is movable in the first hole in a radial direction intersecting the rotation axis, and the diameter of the first pin is uniform along the axial direction and larger than a diameter of the second pin. Rather, Severin teaches the maximum diameter of the first pin 222 matches the diameter of the first hole, such that the fin is not movable in the radially direction. Further, the diameter of the first pin is not uniform along its axial extent.
In reply, the Office respectfully considers this argument persuasive. Therefore, the rejection(s) is/are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 6 is/are objected to because of the following informality(ies):
(A) At line 3: “an axial direction of the rotation” is suggested to be: [[an]]the axial direction of the rotation. See claim 1 for antecedent basis at the third to last line for “an axial direction of the rotation axis.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 19 is/are objected to because of the following informality(ies):
(A) At line 6: “are unaligned being offset from each other” is suggested to be: are unaligned, being offset from each other. 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 12-13 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.
(A) Regarding Claim(s) 12:
Claim(s) 12 recite(s): a restricting surface of the flange part is separated from the first surface. The most relevant portion(s) of the specification and/or drawings, found by the Office, at paragraph 0040 discloses a restricting surface 41a of the flange part 41 is in contact with the first surface 32d. No portion of the specification discloses the restricting surface is in contact with the first surface, except for claim 12. Thus, claim(s) 12 is/are rendered indefinite because the meaning and/or scope of the claim is unclear. Specifically, the claimed relationship of the restricting surface to the first surface (i.e. being separated) contradicts the disclosed relationship (i.e. being in contact). As a result, it is unclear if the claimed restricting surface is the same as or different from the disclosed restricting surface. Therefore, the language of the claim is such that one of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably ascertain the metes and bounds of the claims, when construed in light of the specification, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For the purposes of examination, the Office will consider a prior art reference disclosing, teaching or suggesting a restricting surface separated from the first surface to be pertinent to the relevant claim limitation(s).
(B) Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected due to inheriting the deficiency(ies) raised with regard to claim 1.
Cited Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 4643640 teaches a pin for coupling a linkage member to a unison ring, wherein the pin has a first side that is non-uniform along the axial length and the first side has a larger diameter than the second side. US 4804316, US 7001142, and US 7396204 teach a pin four coupling the variable nozzle ring to the center housing, wherein the pin is uniform along the length and the first side is the same diameter as the second side.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1 is/are allowed.
Claim(s) 4-11, 14-19 is/are allowed due to dependence from claim 1.
Claim(s) 12 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.
Claim(s) 13 depend(s) from claim 12.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
(A) Regarding Claim(s) 1:
Claim(s) 1 is/are deemed novel and nonobvious over the cited art due to the inclusion of the limitation “a diameter of the first pin is smaller than a width of the first hole, so that the first pin is movable in the first hole in a radial direction…the diameter of the first pin is uniform along the axial direction and larger than a diameter of the second pin” which, in combination with the other requirements of the claim(s), is neither taught nor suggested by the cited prior art as a whole, either alone or in combination. Specifically, the cited art teaches a pin having a first end with a larger diameter than a second end; however, the first end is not uniform, being radially expanded to provided compliance for thermal deformations (e.g. see pin 220, Fig. 8 of Severin 2010/00316490). Thus, it would not be obvious to modify Knauer to include a larger diameter first pin because it would result in the pin having a diameter matching the first hole to provide compliance and this would render the first pin un-movable in the first hole in a radial direction. Furthermore, the cited art teaches a pin having a first end uniform along the axial direction and larger than a diameter of the second end; however, the first end is not in a first hole, being on a stepped surface of the nozzle mount (e.g. see pin 22, Fig. 1 of Jinnai et al. 2008/0223956). Thus, it would not be obvious to modify Knauer to have the first end formed uniform and of larger diameter than the second end because the first pin would be located outside of the first hole and on a stepped surface of the nozzle ring.
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 NATHANIEL EDWARD WIEHE whose telephone number is (571)272-8648. The examiner can normally be reached M-F approx. 7-4:30 EST.
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, Alford Kindred can be reached at (571) 272-4037. 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.
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745