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 .
This is the seventh office action on the merits. This office action is in response to the request for continued examination filed on 07/13/2026. Applicant has amended claim 5 and added claims 13-16. Claims 5-7 and 13-16 are pending and examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 13, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16, line 4: the claim is missing a period (.) after “cross-sectional area”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 13-16 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),
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 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.
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
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 2 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 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)
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)” (¶ [0057]). 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 3), 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 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)
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 3 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).
Regarding claim 13, 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),
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 4 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 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)
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.
Table 5 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.
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)
11
-1.8
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)” (¶ [0057]). 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% 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 14, Orosa, in view of Schwarz and Kimura, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 13, 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 6), 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 6:
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 6 is inside the claimed range as recited in claim 14. Therefore, Orosa anticipates the claimed ranges as recited in claim 14.
Furthermore, as discussed in the rejection of claim 13 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 15, Orosa, in view of Schwarz and Kimura, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 13, 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 13.
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 16, Orosa, in view of Schwarz and Kimura, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 13, except for 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 7 below shows that Orosa teaches:
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 7:
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)
17
-0.6
6.2
12.2
346.8
3.26
As discussed in the rejection of claim 13 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 a specific distance (in this case, 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 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).
Response to Arguments
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. Note that some arguments have been repeated from previous Applicant remarks, and the responses to these arguments will be carried over from the previous office action.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are now based on the combination of Orosa, Schwartz, and Kimura, rather than just Orosa and Schwartz. In regards to Applicant’s argument (pg. 10, 3rd para. of REMARKS) that “Applicant submits that the examiner has improperly treated the claimed cross-sectional area ratios at the 0%, 11%, and 17% positions as independently optimizable result-effective variables, when in fact they define a coordinated, interdependent geometry”, Kimura teaches varying the annulus area of each stage of a compressor, thereby showing that the cross-sectional area at specific distances along the compressor flow duct length is a result-effective variable.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (pg, 10, last para.) that “It should be further noted that the preamble “for an aircraft gas turbine” has a meaningful structural limitation, not mere intended use, particularly if the specification demonstrates that the claimed geometry is specifically tailored for aircraft gas turbine compressor performance”, Applicant has not demonstrated how the gas turbine of Orosa differs structurally from the claimed “aircraft gas turbine”. There is nothing in Orosa that prevents Orosa’s gas turbine to be used in an aircraft setting.
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 (beginning on pg. 11, near end of last para.) that “The claimed cross-sectional area ratios at specific positions are not independent variables that can be optimized in isolation or in a vacuum; 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, 1st para.) regarding criticality of the claimed ranges does not prevent an obviousness rejection based on routine optimization.
Applicant’s argument (pg. 12, 1st para.) regarding hindsight construction was addressed in a 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 of Kimura (beginning on pg. 12, last para.) that “Kimura is devoid of the actual claimed values or ranges that are pertinent to the present invention. However, the examiner assumes, based on the faulty obviousness logic discussed above, that Kimura renders the specific claimed values obvious under Section 103”, for a valid obviousness rejection based on optimization, 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
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/ /GERALD L SUNG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741 Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights