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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 17, the limitation “transferring, via the electrical system, electrical power generated from both the first spool and the second spool of the first gas turbine engine by the first and second electric machines of the first gas turbine engine at ground idle to one or both of the first and second electric machines of the second gas turbine engine… wherein the first spool and the second spool of the first gas turbine engine do not individually generate sufficient electrical power at ground idle to drive rotation of the one or both of the first and second spools of the second gas turbine engine…” is not supported in the original disclosure. The specification states “at lower power conditions, for example ground idle, the amount of power available from one spool of the first engine is much smaller, and in many cases may not be enough to start the second engine.” Additionally, the specification states “by using a dc distribution system, power can be sourced from multiple spools of a multi-spool engine, allowing the second engine to be started using power generated from the first engine even at lower power conditions such as ground idle”. While the specification appears to state that one of the power spools may not provide sufficient power at ground idle to start the second engine, the specification does not state that the controller is configured to transfer electrical power as claimed at ground idle, such that the first spool and the second spool do not individually generate sufficient electrical power at ground idle to drive rotation of the one or both of the first and second spools of the second engine. Such a limitation is considered a structural feature of the engine since the ground idle speed and power generation attached to that speed are characteristics of both the gas turbine engine and the generator attached thereto. The relevant statements to do clearly indicate that both spools of the first engine are sized such that at ground idle insufficient power is generated to start one or both of the spools of the second engine or further that the controller is configured to operate the engine as such. When determining an amendment complies with the new matter requirements of Section 112, the Examiner looks for express, inherent or implied support in the original disclosure as a whole. Here, there is no clear express support and the Examiner agrees with the applicant’s arguments that the prior art does not teach the amendments. Thus, the Applicant concedes there is no inherent support for the amendments. When looking at the disclosure as a whole, the Examiner finds that the specification does not imply the amendment such that an ordinary skilled worker would understand that the Applicant had possession of the amended claims. Rather, the Applicant states that at ground idle, the power from one of the spools may not be great enough to start the whole second engine. This does not imply that both of the spools of the first engine do not provide sufficient power at ground idle to drive rotation of the one or both of the spools of the second engine. In fact, the statement “by using a dc power distribution system, power can be sourced from multiple spools of a multi-spool engine, allowing the second engine to be started using power generated from the first engine even at lower power conditions such as ground idle” directly contradicts the claim amendment. Since power from both of the spools of the first engine is used to start the second engine, the sum of the power from both of the spools of the first engine must be great enough to start both of the spools of the second engine. Thus, if one of the spools produces insufficient power to start one or both of the spools of the second engine, the other spool must provide the balance of power necessary to start the engine. Additionally, the specification does not discuss the controller being configured to operate in this manner, even if the engine were appropriately structurally sized. Likewise, the specification is silent to the corresponding method steps in claim 17.
Claims dependent thereon are rejected for the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4-21 would otherwise be allowed pending resolution of the issues identified above.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record is silent to both the apparatus and method where the engine is configured to operate or operates at ground idle, such that the first and second spools of the first gas turbine engine do not individually generate sufficient electrical power at ground idle to drive rotation of the one or both of the first and second spools of the second gas turbine engine. At best the prior art is silent to the sizing of the structure of the engines and the operational condition.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the limitation identified above is supported in the original specification under the implicit or inherent standards. The Applicant argues that the correct standard for evaluating new matter is whether the term is expressly, inherently, or implicitly supported in the original specification.1 The Applicant argues that the natural or logical reading of the relevant paraph beginning at page 3, line 27 inherently requires or implies that the one spool means all the engine spools, and that no single spool has enough power to starter the other engine. This is because there would be no need for combining power from multiple spools to start the other engine if any single one of the spools had enough power to start the engine. The Examiner disagrees.
The language recited states that the amount of power available from one spool is smaller and may not be enough to start the second engine. This recitation is the only discussion of the claimed limitation. The claims recite that the first spool and the second spool of the first gas turbine engine do not individually generate sufficient electrical power at ground idle which requires a relative sizing of the engine spools and generators such that when the engine is at ground idle, each spool is not individually capable of providing enough power to drive rotation of at least one of the spools of the second gas turbine. The cited recitation states that one of the spools of the first engine may not be capable of starting the entire second engine. Contrary, the claims recite that neither of the first and second spools of the first engine is capable of providing sufficient power to drive rotation of one or more spools of the second engine. The Examiner further notes that the limitation is clearly not inherent from the recited paragraph. Even if one spool was incapable of providing sufficient electrical energy to start the second spool, it is not inherent that the second spool be incapable of providing enough power also. For instance, the other spool may be capable of providing sufficient energy to start the second engine, but is instead used for other loads such as ECS or the like. As identified above, whether the limitation is supported in the original specification turns on whether the limitation is implicitly supported. The Examiner finds that the limitation is not implicitly supported. In a light most favorable to the Applicant, at a minimum, the specification states that either spool of the first engine is incapable of starting the second gas turbine engine. However, the claimed limitation states that the first and second spools of the first engine are incapable of driving rotation of the one or both of the first and second spools of the second gas turbine engine. Thus, the claimed limitation requires the sizing of the engine to be incapable of even driving rotation of a single spool. Thus, this limitation is not found to be supported in the original specification and the Applicant’s arguments are not found convincing.
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 GERALD LUTHER SUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3765. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 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, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571)272-7118. 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.
/GERALD L SUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
1 See Non-Final Rejection filed 6/23/2025 at page 4.
Prosecution Insights