FINAL 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 .
This is the sixth office action on the merits. This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 03/10/2026. Applicant has amended claim 5 and canceled claim 12. Claims 5-7 are pending and examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orosa (US 10,473,118), in view of Schwarz (US 9,897,001 B2).
Regarding claim 5, Orosa teaches (Figs. 1-2) a high-pressure compressor (12) for a compression system for an aircraft gas turbine (14 – Fig. 1; also preamble, see below), comprising:
a high-pressure compressor flow duct (Fig. 2: duct formed by inner and outer boundaries 16, 18) having a flow path (10), which extends from an inlet cross-sectional area at a vane assembly inlet position (Fig. 2: at x = -04) of an inlet guide vane assembly (Fig. 1: vanes where 58 is pointing to) of the high-pressure compressor (12) over a high-pressure compressor flow duct length (Fig. 2: x-axis ranging from -04 to 16) extending in an axial direction (left/right direction) of the high-pressure compressor (12) to an outlet cross-sectional area (Fig. 2: at x = 16) of an outlet guide vane assembly (Fig. 1: vanes where 59 is pointing to) of the high-pressure compressor (12),
wherein
the high-pressure compressor flow duct (10) is delimited radially inwardly by a duct inner wall (16 – Fig. 2), defining a duct inner wall radius (measured from y-value of duct inner wall 16 to y-value of 0) of the high-pressure compressor (12) and radially outwardly by a duct outer wall (18 – Fig. 2) of the high-pressure compressor (12), the duct inner wall radius increasing along the high-pressure compressor flow duct length in a direction of the flow path (as shown by Fig. 2, the y-value of duct inner wall 16 increases as the x-value increases),
wherein the high-pressure compressor flow duct (10) comprises cross-sectional areas (shown in Fig. 2) that are aligned perpendicular to the axial direction along the high-pressure compressor flow duct length (length of 10) and have the respective predetermined sizes.
However, Orosa does not teach the inlet cross-sectional area of the inlet guide vane assembly of the high-pressure compressor has a size that is 4.8 to 5.6 times a size of the outlet cross-sectional area,
wherein a cross-sectional area arranged at a distance of 11 % of the high-pressure compressor flow duct length from the inlet cross-sectional area of the high-pressure compressor has a size that is 3.8 to 4.4 times the size of the outlet cross-sectional area, and
wherein a cross-sectional area arranged at a distance of 17 % of the high-pressure compressor flow duct length from the inlet cross-sectional area of the high-pressure compressor has a size that is 3.3 to 3.8 times the size of the outlet cross-sectional area.
It is noted that the cross-sectional area arranged at a distance x of the high-pressure compressor flow duct length from the inlet cross-sectional area can be calculated using the graph in Fig. 2 of Orosa, such that
Ax = Area of outer circle – Area of inner circle = πRouter2 – πRinner2 = π(Router2 – Rinner2),
and the outlet cross-sectional area (at x = 16) can be calculated using
Ao = π(Router2 – Rinner2) = π(10.82 – 9.12) = 106.3.
Table 1 below shows that Orosa teaches:
the inlet cross-sectional area of the inlet guide vane assembly of the high-pressure compressor has a size that is 3.41 times a size of the outlet cross-sectional area, which is not within the claimed range of 4.8 to 5.6,
wherein a cross-sectional area arranged at a distance of 11 % of the high-pressure compressor flow duct length from the inlet cross-sectional area of the high-pressure compressor has a size that is 3.26 times the size of the outlet cross-sectional area, which is not within the claimed range of 3.8 to 4.4, and
wherein a cross-sectional area arranged at a distance of 17 % of the high-pressure compressor flow duct length from the inlet cross-sectional area of the high-pressure compressor has a size that is 3.26 times the size of the outlet cross-sectional area, which is not within the claimed range of 3.3 to 3.8.
Table 1:
Claimed Distance (%)
Corresponding position on x-axis
y-value at inner duct wall (Rinner)
y-value at outer duct wall (Router)
Cross-sectional area of flow duct (Ax)
Ratio of area at x-distance to area at outlet
(Ax / Ao)
0 (inlet)
-4
6.2
12.4
362.3
3.41
11
-1.8
6.2
12.2
346.8
3.26
17
-0.6
6.2
12.2
346.8
3.26
It should be emphasized that Orosa provides in Fig. 2 a compressor flowpath that is drawn to scale. In other words, Orosa provides a compressor flowpath having specific cross-sectional area measurements along the compressor flow duct length, in order to achieve a specific purpose. In this case, the purpose is to provide a controlled convergence compressor flowpath such that the flowpath increases convergence adjacent to the roots of the airfoil, and more specifically, immediately aft of a point of maximum thickness of the airfoil to help prevent flow separation there, which results in better distribution of the limited flowpath area convergence of compressors (col. 3, ll. 1-11). Therefore, it can be inferred that Orosa experimented by varying the compressor flowpath measurements to the ones disclosed in order to optimize for better distribution of the limited flowpath area convergence of compressors.
Schwarz teaches (single figure) a high-pressure compressor (46) comprising a high-pressure compressor flow duct (between 48 and 49), wherein an upstream most blade row (50) defines a flow cross-sectional area B within said high-pressure compressor flow duct, and a downstream most exit vane row (52) defines a flow cross-sectional area C within said high-pressure compressor flow duct.
Schwarz further teaches “fuel burn improvements can be achieved by providing a very high overall pressure ratio. Further, the high-pressure compressor rotor 46 operates quite efficiently as does the compressor rotor 36. All of this is achieved by preferred ratios of the several flow areas as disclosed” (col. 4, ll. 1-6). Therefore, the ratio of flow area B to flow area C 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 the ratio of flow area B to flow area C can be varied in a design stage in order to provide for a specific overall pressure ratio, and thus a fuel burn improvement (col. 4, ll. 1-6).
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the ratio of flow area B to flow area C can be varied in a design stage to provide a specific overall pressure ratio, were disclosed in the prior art by Schwarz, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary the ratios of the flow area at specific distances (in this case, at the inlet, at 11%, and at 17% of the distance from the inlet – see *Note below) from the inlet cross-sectional area to the flow area at the outlet cross-sectional area to provide the claimed ranges/values of said ratios, as taught by Schwarz, in order to provide a specific overall pressure ratio or a specific fuel burn improvement for the gas turbine. 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).
Furthermore, it is additionally noted that "[I]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
*Note: while Schwarz teaches that flow cross-sectional area B is taken at an upstream most blade row 50 (i.e., at the inlet of compressor 46) and flow cross-sectional area C is taken at a downstream most exit vane row 52 (i.e., at the outlet of compressor 46), it would have been obvious to also vary the flow cross-sectional areas along the flow duct length (in this case, at 11% and at 17% of the distance from the inlet) in order to arrive at the desired flow cross-sectional area at the outlet of compressor 46.
It is noted that the recited limitation of “for an aircraft gas turbine” is intended use, in other words the environment in which the high-pressure compressor is used, and is given little patentable weight. (see MPEP 2111.02(II)). If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Regarding claim 6, Orosa, in view of Schwarz, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 5, and Orosa further teaches (Figs. 1-2) a cross-sectional area arranged at a distance of 22 % of the high-pressure compressor flow duct length from the inlet cross-sectional area of the high-pressure compressor has a size that is 2.8 to 3.3 times the size of the outlet cross-sectional area (this limitation is taught by Table 2), and/or (see *Note below)
a cross-sectional area arranged at a distance of 33 % of the high-pressure compressor flow duct length from the inlet cross-sectional area of the high-pressure compressor has a size that is 2.1 to 2.4 times the size of the outlet cross-sectional area, and/or(see *Note below)
a cross-sectional area arranged at a distance of 39 % of the high-pressure compressor flow duct length from the inlet cross-sectional area of the high-pressure compressor has a size that is 1.9 to 2.1 times the size of the outlet cross-sectional area, and/or (see *Note below)
a cross-sectional area arranged at a distance of 50 % of the high-pressure compressor flow duct length from the inlet cross-sectional area of the high-pressure compressor has a size that is 1.6 to 1.7 times the size of the outlet cross-sectional area, and/or(see *Note below)
a cross-sectional area arranged at a distance of 61 % of the high-pressure compressor flow duct length from the inlet cross-sectional area of the high-pressure compressor has a size that is 1.4 to 1.5 times the size of the outlet cross-sectional area, and/or (see *Note below)
a cross-sectional area arranged at a distance of 72 % of the high-pressure compressor flow duct length from the inlet cross-sectional area of the high-pressure compressor has a size that is 1.2 to 1.3 times the size of the outlet cross-sectional area, and/or(see *Note below)
a cross-sectional area arranged at a distance of 83 % of the high-pressure compressor flow duct length from the inlet cross-sectional area of the high-pressure compressor has a size that is 1.1 times the size of the outlet cross-sectional area, and/or(see *Note below)
a cross-sectional area arranged at a distance of 89 % of the high-pressure compressor flow duct length from the inlet cross-sectional area of the high-pressure compressor) has a size that is 1.1 times the size of the outlet cross-sectional area.
Table 2:
Claimed Distance (%)
Corresponding position on x-axis
y-value at inner duct wall (Rinner)
y-value at outer duct wall (Router)
Cross-sectional area of flow duct (Ax)
Ratio of area at x-distance to area at outlet
(Ax / Ao)
22
0.4
6.2
12.2
346.8
3.26
33
2.6
6.6
12.1
323.1
3.04
39
3.8
6.8
12
307.1
2.89
50
6
7.5
11.7
253.3
2.38
61
8.2
8.1
11.6
216.6
2.04
72
10.4
8.6
11.3
168.8
1.59
83
12.6
8.9
11.1
138.2
1.30
89
13.8
9
11
125.7
1.18
For a claimed distance of 22%, the calculated ratio in the last column of Table 2 is inside the claimed range as recited in claim 6. Therefore, Orosa anticipates the claimed ranges as recited in claim 6.
Furthermore, as discussed in the rejection of claim 5 above, the ratio of the flow area at a specific distance from the inlet cross-sectional area to the flow area at the outlet cross-sectional area is a result-effective variable.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary the ratios of the flow area at specific distances from the inlet cross-sectional area to the flow area at the outlet cross-sectional area to provide the claimed ranges/values of said ratios, as taught by Schwarz, in order to provide a specific overall pressure ratio or a specific fuel burn improvement for the gas turbine. 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).
*Note: the recitation “and/or” indicates that the subsequent limitation is an alternative. Since there are seven instances of “and/or” linking eight different limitations, only one out of the eight limitations is required to be taught by the prior art for the claim to be anticipated.
Regarding claim 7, Orosa, in view of Schwarz, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 5, and Orosa further teaches (Figs. 1-2) a compression system (12) for an aircraft gas turbine (14 – Fig. 1; also preamble, see below), comprising at least one high-pressure compressor (12) according to claim 5.
It is noted that the recited limitation of “for an aircraft gas turbine” is intended use, in other words the environment in which the high-pressure compressor is used, and is given little patentable weight. (see MPEP 2111.02(II)). If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orosa (US 10,473,118), in view of Schwarz (US 9,897,001 B2) and Kimura (US 2016/0245305 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Orosa teaches (Figs. 1-2) a high-pressure compressor (12) for a compression system for an aircraft gas turbine (14 – Fig. 1; also preamble, see below), comprising:
a high-pressure compressor flow duct (Fig. 2: duct formed by inner and outer boundaries 16, 18) having a flow path (10), which extends from an inlet cross-sectional area at a vane assembly inlet position (Fig. 2: at x = -04) of an inlet guide vane assembly (Fig. 1: vanes where 58 is pointing to) of the high-pressure compressor (12) over a high-pressure compressor flow duct length (Fig. 2: x-axis ranging from -04 to 16) extending in an axial direction (left/right direction) of the high-pressure compressor (12) to an outlet cross-sectional area (Fig. 2: at x = 16) of an outlet guide vane assembly (Fig. 1: vanes where 59 is pointing to) of the high-pressure compressor (12),
wherein
the high-pressure compressor flow duct (10) is delimited radially inwardly by a duct inner wall (16 – Fig. 2), defining a duct inner wall radius (measured from y-value of duct inner wall 16 to y-value of 0) of the high-pressure compressor (12) and radially outwardly by a duct outer wall (18 – Fig. 2) of the high-pressure compressor (12), the duct inner wall radius increasing along the high-pressure compressor flow duct length in a direction of the flow path (as shown by Fig. 2, the y-value of duct inner wall 16 increases as the x-value increases),
wherein the high-pressure compressor flow duct (10) comprises cross-sectional areas (shown in Fig. 2) that are aligned perpendicular to the axial direction along the high-pressure compressor flow duct length (length of 10) and have the respective predetermined sizes.
However, Orosa does not teach the inlet cross-sectional area of the inlet guide vane assembly of the high-pressure compressor has a size that is 4.8 to 5.6 times a size of the outlet cross-sectional area.
It is noted that the cross-sectional area arranged at a distance x of the high-pressure compressor flow duct length from the inlet cross-sectional area can be calculated using the graph in Fig. 2 of Orosa, such that
Ax = Area of outer circle – Area of inner circle = πRouter2 – πRinner2 = π(Router2 – Rinner2),
and the outlet cross-sectional area (at x = 16) can be calculated using
Ao = π(Router2 – Rinner2) = π(10.82 – 9.12) = 106.3.
Table 3 below shows that Orosa teaches:
the inlet cross-sectional area of the inlet guide vane assembly of the high-pressure compressor has a size that is 3.41 times a size of the outlet cross-sectional area, which is not within the claimed range of 4.8 to 5.6.
Table 3:
Claimed Distance (%)
Corresponding position on x-axis
y-value at inner duct wall (Rinner)
y-value at outer duct wall (Router)
Cross-sectional area of flow duct (Ax)
Ratio of area at x-distance to area at outlet
(Ax / Ao)
0 (inlet)
-4
6.2
12.4
362.3
3.41
Schwarz teaches (single figure) a high-pressure compressor (46) comprising a high-pressure compressor flow duct (between 48 and 49), wherein an upstream most blade row (50) defines a flow cross-sectional area B within said high-pressure compressor flow duct, and a downstream most exit vane row (52) defines a flow cross-sectional area C within said high-pressure compressor flow duct.
Schwarz further teaches “fuel burn improvements can be achieved by providing a very high overall pressure ratio. Further, the high-pressure compressor rotor 46 operates quite efficiently as does the compressor rotor 36. All of this is achieved by preferred ratios of the several flow areas as disclosed” (col. 4, ll. 1-6). Therefore, the ratio of flow area B to flow area C 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 the ratio of flow area B to flow area C can be varied in a design stage in order to provide for a specific overall pressure ratio, and thus a fuel burn improvement (col. 4, ll. 1-6). Note that flow area B would be located at the inlet of high-pressure compressor 46.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the ratio of flow area B to flow area C can be varied in a design stage to provide a specific overall pressure ratio, were disclosed in the prior art by Schwarz, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary the ratio of the flow area at the inlet cross-sectional area to the flow area at the outlet cross-sectional area to provide the claimed range/value of said ratio, as taught by Schwarz, in order to provide a specific overall pressure ratio or a specific fuel burn improvement for the gas turbine. 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).
However, Orosa, in view of Schwarz, does not teach a cross-sectional area arranged at a distance of 11 % of the high-pressure compressor flow duct length from the inlet cross-sectional area of the high-pressure compressor has a size that is 3.8 to 4.4 times the size of the outlet cross-sectional area,
wherein a cross-sectional area arranged at a distance of 17 % of the high-pressure compressor flow duct length from the inlet cross-sectional area of the high-pressure compressor has a size that is 3.3 to 3.8 times the size of the outlet cross-sectional area.
Table 4 below shows that Orosa teaches:
a cross-sectional area arranged at a distance of 11 % of the high-pressure compressor flow duct length from the inlet cross-sectional area of the high-pressure compressor has a size that is 3.26 times the size of the outlet cross-sectional area, which is not within the claimed range of 3.8 to 4.4, and
wherein a cross-sectional area arranged at a distance of 17 % of the high-pressure compressor flow duct length from the inlet cross-sectional area of the high-pressure compressor has a size that is 3.26 times the size of the outlet cross-sectional area, which is not within the claimed range of 3.3 to 3.8.
Table 4:
Claimed Distance (%)
Corresponding position on x-axis
y-value at inner duct wall (Rinner)
y-value at outer duct wall (Router)
Cross-sectional area of flow duct (Ax)
Ratio of area at x-distance to area at outlet
(Ax / Ao)
11
-1.8
6.2
12.2
346.8
3.26
17
-0.6
6.2
12.2
346.8
3.26
It should be emphasized that Orosa provides in Fig. 2 a compressor flowpath that is drawn to scale. In other words, Orosa provides a compressor flowpath having specific cross-sectional area measurements along the compressor flow duct length, in order to achieve a specific purpose. In this case, the purpose is to provide a controlled convergence compressor flowpath such that the flowpath increases convergence adjacent to the roots of the airfoil, and more specifically, immediately aft of a point of maximum thickness of the airfoil to help prevent flow separation there, which results in better distribution of the limited flowpath area convergence of compressors (col. 3, ll. 1-11). Therefore, it can be inferred that Orosa experimented by varying the compressor flowpath measurements to the ones disclosed in order to optimize for better distribution of the limited flowpath area convergence of compressors.
Kimura teaches (Figs. 1-2) a compressor (38), wherein the annulus area of each stage from the initial stage to the final stage are determined based on the compressor flow rate and the compression ratio (¶ [0056], ll. 1-4).
Kimura further teaches “In a compressor, a relationship indicated by the following expression (1) generally holds among the annulus area A, the compression flow rate m, the density ρ of the fluid, and the axial velocity C of the fluid:
m=ρCA (1)” (¶ [0056]). Therefore, the annulus area at a specific stage 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 the annulus area at a specific stage can be varied in a design stage in order to provide for a specific compression flow rate and compression ratio. Kimura specifically teaches that a decrease in the annulus area of the compressor channel reduces the compressor flow rate, which may be desired in order to accommodate (i.e., offset) for an increase in turbine flow rate (¶ [0006]).
Note that the annulus at a specific stage of the compressor is equivalent to the flow area at a specific distance from the inlet of the compressor, and the annulus area at the outlet of the compressor is a fixed value. Therefore, the ratio of a flow area at a specific distance from the inlet of the compressor to the outlet cross-sectional area is also a result-effective variable.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the annulus area at a specific stage of the compressor can be varied in a design stage in order to provide for a specific compression flow rate and compression ratio, were disclosed in the prior art by Kimura, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary the ratio of the flow area at a specific distance (in this case, at 11% and at 17% of the high-pressure compressor flow duct length) from the inlet cross-sectional area to the flow area at the outlet cross-sectional area to provide the claimed range/value of said ratio, as taught by Kimura, in order to provide a desired compression flow rate and a desired compression ratio. 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).
Furthermore, it is additionally noted that "[I]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
It is noted that the recited limitation of “for an aircraft gas turbine” is intended use, in other words the environment in which the high-pressure compressor is used, and is given little patentable weight. (see MPEP 2111.02(II)). If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Regarding claim 6, Orosa, in view of Schwarz and Kimura, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 5, and Orosa further teaches (Figs. 1-2) a cross-sectional area arranged at a distance of 22 % of the high-pressure compressor flow duct length from the inlet cross-sectional area of the high-pressure compressor has a size that is 2.8 to 3.3 times the size of the outlet cross-sectional area (this limitation is taught by Table 5), and/or (see *Note below)
a cross-sectional area arranged at a distance of 33 % of the high-pressure compressor flow duct length from the inlet cross-sectional area of the high-pressure compressor has a size that is 2.1 to 2.4 times the size of the outlet cross-sectional area, and/or(see *Note below)
a cross-sectional area arranged at a distance of 39 % of the high-pressure compressor flow duct length from the inlet cross-sectional area of the high-pressure compressor has a size that is 1.9 to 2.1 times the size of the outlet cross-sectional area, and/or (see *Note below)
a cross-sectional area arranged at a distance of 50 % of the high-pressure compressor flow duct length from the inlet cross-sectional area of the high-pressure compressor has a size that is 1.6 to 1.7 times the size of the outlet cross-sectional area, and/or(see *Note below)
a cross-sectional area arranged at a distance of 61 % of the high-pressure compressor flow duct length from the inlet cross-sectional area of the high-pressure compressor has a size that is 1.4 to 1.5 times the size of the outlet cross-sectional area, and/or (see *Note below)
a cross-sectional area arranged at a distance of 72 % of the high-pressure compressor flow duct length from the inlet cross-sectional area of the high-pressure compressor has a size that is 1.2 to 1.3 times the size of the outlet cross-sectional area, and/or(see *Note below)
a cross-sectional area arranged at a distance of 83 % of the high-pressure compressor flow duct length from the inlet cross-sectional area of the high-pressure compressor has a size that is 1.1 times the size of the outlet cross-sectional area, and/or(see *Note below)
a cross-sectional area arranged at a distance of 89 % of the high-pressure compressor flow duct length from the inlet cross-sectional area of the high-pressure compressor) has a size that is 1.1 times the size of the outlet cross-sectional area.
Table 5:
Claimed Distance (%)
Corresponding position on x-axis
y-value at inner duct wall (Rinner)
y-value at outer duct wall (Router)
Cross-sectional area of flow duct (Ax)
Ratio of area at x-distance to area at outlet
(Ax / Ao)
22
0.4
6.2
12.2
346.8
3.26
33
2.6
6.6
12.1
323.1
3.04
39
3.8
6.8
12
307.1
2.89
50
6
7.5
11.7
253.3
2.38
61
8.2
8.1
11.6
216.6
2.04
72
10.4
8.6
11.3
168.8
1.59
83
12.6
8.9
11.1
138.2
1.30
89
13.8
9
11
125.7
1.18
For a claimed distance of 22%, the calculated ratio in the last column of Table 5 is inside the claimed range as recited in claim 6. Therefore, Orosa anticipates the claimed ranges as recited in claim 6.
Furthermore, as discussed in the rejection of claim 5 above, the ratio of the flow area at a specific distance from the inlet cross-sectional area to the flow area at the outlet cross-sectional area is a result-effective variable.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary the ratios of the flow area at specific distances from the inlet cross-sectional area to the flow area at the outlet cross-sectional area to provide the claimed ranges/values of said ratios, as taught by Kimura, in order to provide a desired compression flow rate and a desired compression ratio. 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).
*Note: the recitation “and/or” indicates that the subsequent limitation is an alternative. Since there are seven instances of “and/or” linking eight different limitations, only one out of the eight limitations is required to be taught by the prior art for the claim to be anticipated.
Regarding claim 7, Orosa, in view of Schwarz and Kimura, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 5, and Orosa further teaches (Figs. 1-2) a compression system (12) for an aircraft gas turbine (14 – Fig. 1; also preamble, see below), comprising at least one high-pressure compressor (12) according to claim 5.
It is noted that the recited limitation of “for an aircraft gas turbine” is intended use, in other words the environment in which the high-pressure compressor is used, and is given little patentable weight. (see MPEP 2111.02(II)). If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment to claim 5 overcomes the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection. Therefore, this rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. After careful review of the record, the Examiner disagrees with each of Applicant’s arguments for the following reasons as outlined below:
Applicant’s reference (pg. 9, 2nd para. of REMARKS) to criticality in the specification does not prevent an obviousness rejection based on routine optimization. The obviousness rejection is not based on “design choice”. Rather, it is based on optimization of a result effective variable, the teachings of which must be found in a prior art reference. In this case, Schwarz and Kimura provide the teachings of optimizing the flow area ratios, in order to achieve a recognized result, and are then applied to the primary reference (Orosa). One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to optimize the specific flow area ratios of the Orosa’s compressor flowpath, in order to achieve a specific purpose. Furthermore, the fact that Orosa provides specific measurements for the compressor flowpath shows that these measurements were optimized in order to provide better distribution of the limited flowpath area convergence of compressors (as discussed in pgs. 5 and 14 of this office action).
Regarding Applicant’s argument (pg. 11, 1st para.) that “the Examiner has failed to identify any teaching in the prior art that would lead a skilled artisan to select the specific combination of cross-sectional area ratios claimed–at 0%, 11%, and (now) 17% positions–from among the infinite possible configurations”, the rejections above did identify the teachings from Schwarz and Kimura. Specifically Schwarz teaches that doing so provides “a specific overall pressure ratio or a specific fuel burn improvement for the gas turbine”, and Kimura teaches that doing so provides “a desired compression flow rate and a desired compression ratio”.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (pg. 11, 2st para.) that “Second, "routine experimentation" requires that the prior art provide a finite number of identified, predictable solutions that a person of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue. See In re O'Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903 (Fed. Cir. 1988)”, the MPEP (see section 2144.05(II)) does not state that routine optimization requires the prior art to provide a finite number of identified, predictable solutions. Rather, the MPEP states (section 2144.05(II)(B)) “in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), the Supreme Court held that "obvious to try" was a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a "design need" or "market demand" and there are a "finite number" of solutions”. The obviousness rejections based on optimization in this office action do not rely on “obvious to try”. Rather, the prior art (Schwarz and Kimura) provide specific reasons for optimizing the flow areas (as stated in the previous paragraph).
Regarding Applicant’s argument (pg. 11, 3rd para.) that “The prior art must do more than identify a parameter as relevant–it must point toward the claimed values”, for a valid obviousness rejection based on optimization, the prior art does not need to provide specific numerical values. The prior art only needs to show that a specific variable achieves a recognized result, which both Schwarz and Kimura show.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (pg. 12, 2nd para.) that “The cross-sectional area ratios at the 0%, 11%, and 17% positions are not independent variables that can be optimized in isolation; rather, they define a coordinated geometry that achieves unexpected improvements in compressor efficiency. This interdependence distinguishes the present invention from simple optimization scenarios”, neither of the prior art reference considers the 0%, 11%, and 17% positions as independent variables that can be optimized in isolation. Each of Orosa, Schwarz, and Kimura presents their own compressor flowduct having a compressor flow duct length. In order achieve the specific improvements from their inventions, the compressor flowduct of each of Orosa, Schwarz, and Kimura must be considered as an interdependent whole, not as individual discrete components. For example, Orosa teaches a compressor flowpath drawn to scale in Fig. 2. The entire flowpath length of the compressor has been optimized to achieve better distribution of the limited flowpath area convergence of compressors. The compressor flowduct requires the entire flowpath length to function properly. Therefore, Orosa would not have optimized each position in isolation without considering the entire length of the compressor flowpath.
Applicant’s argument (pg. 12, 3rd para.) regarding criticality of the claimed ranges has already been addressed above.
Applicant’s argument (pg. 12, 4th para.) regarding hindsight construction was addressed in the previous office action. Specifically, the reasoning is not hindsight construction because the prior art teachings that enable one to vary the flow cross-sectional area provide strong motivations to do so (as explained above and in the rejections themselves).
Regarding Applicant’s argument (pg. 14, 1st para.) that “But Kimura is devoid of actual values or ranges that are pertinent to the present invention…it is a further giant leap to state that it would be obvious to select a particular value”, as stated above, Kimura does not need to provide specific values or ranges in order to use its teaching for optimization. Rather, Kimura is only required to show that a specific variable achieves a recognized result, which it does.
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 HENRY NG whose telephone number is (571)272-2318. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM.
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.
/HENRY NG/Examiner, Art Unit 3741 /DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights