DETAILED ACTION
Status of Submission
This Office action is responsive to applicant’s response filed on December 18, 2025, which has been entered.
Continuation Reissue Application
The instant reissue application is a continuation reissue of earlier reissue Application No. 17/011,472 and, thus, is a second application for reissue of US Patent No. 10,119,400 B2. See MPEP 1451, 35 USC 251(b), and 37 CFR 1.177.
Earlier reissue Application No. 17/011,472 was concluded with the issuance of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E on January 24, 2023.
Maintenance Fees Up to Date
MPEP 2504 explains that, for maintenance fees due on or after January 16, 2018, separate maintenance fees must be paid in:
Each reissued patent in force on (i.e., issued before) the maintenance fee due date. This includes all reissued patents that replace the same original patent.
An original patent that is not surrendered because one or more applications for reissue of that original patent are still pending on the maintenance fee due date.
USPTO records show that the 4-year maintenance fee has been timely filed and, thus, maintenance fee payments are up to date for original US Patent No. 10,119,400 B2. For both US Patent No. 10,119,400 B2 and US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E, the 8-year maintenance fee is due by November 6, 2026 (surcharge starts on May 7, 2026).
Other Proceedings and Evidence Considered
The patent for which reissue is sought (i.e., US Patent No. 10,119,400 B2) issued from Application No. 13/713,257, which was the subject of Appeal 2017-006700 before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The examiner has taken into consideration the prior findings of the PTAB as set forth in its decision rendered June 4, 2018.
The patent for which reissue is sought was the subject of a prior petition for inter partes review before the PTAB, which was assigned proceeding number IPR2020-00346. The examiner has taken into consideration the prior findings of the PTAB as set forth in its decision denying institution of IPR rendered June 23, 2020.
The prior petition for IPR included the sworn Declaration of Reza Abhari, Ph.D. (hereafter, “Abhari Declaration”), a copy of which was included in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed in this reissue application on January 16, 2023. The examiner has considered the evidence presented in the Abhari Declaration.
Patent Claims Not Subject to Examination in Reissue
In response to the prior petition for IPR, and prior to the June 23, 2020 decision of the PTAB, the patent owner filed a statutory disclaimer of claims 1, 2, 10, 16, 19 and 20 of Patent No. 10,119,400 B2. See the disclaimer entered in the electronic file wrapper of Application No. 13/713,257 on April 15, 2020, which disclaimer was published in the Official Gazette on February 8, 2022.
Since claims 1, 2, 10, 16, 19 and 20 of Patent No. 10,119,400 B2 have been disclaimed, these claims are not subject to examination in this reissue application.
Claims Subject to Examination
New reissue claims 22, 23, 25-27, 30, 33 and 36-43 are subject to examination. Patent claims 1, 2, 10, 16, 19 and 20 were previously disclaimed, patent claims 3-9, 11-15, 17, 18 and 21 have been canceled, and reissue claims 24, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34 and 35 have been canceled.
Objections to Amendments
The specification amendments filed on December 18, 2025 are objected to because they fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)(1), (d) and (g). Changes to the specification must be made by submission of the entire text of any new or rewritten paragraph, with all amendments made relative to the patent specification, which was in effect as of the date of filing the reissue application. Matter to be omitted must be enclosed in single brackets. Matter to be added must be underlined. The use of strikethrough is not permitted in reissue. The precise point in the specification where any new or rewritten paragraph is located must be identified.
The specification amendments are improper because:
In the 2nd line of the rewritten first paragraph of the specification, “13/713,257), which [This” should read “13/713,257), which [This” in order to properly show the changes made.
The instruction to “replace the paragraph at column 3, line 40” fails to identify the precise point in the specification where the rewritten paragraph is located. The paragraph should be identified as being located at column 3, lines 40-51 (or as beginning at column 3, line 40).
The claim amendments filed on December 18, 2025 are objected to because they fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)(2). Specifically, the presentation of claim 30 is improper because the status identifier “(New, Amended)” is inaccurate. No changes are made to claim 30 relative to the previous version of this claim.
The amendments must be placed into compliance with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g) in response to this Office action.
Listing of Prior Art
The following is a listing of the prior art cited in this Office action together with the shorthand reference used for each document (listed alphabetically):
“Adams et al.”
US Publication No. 2012/0291449 A1
“Alvanos et al.”
US Publication No. 2007/0059158 A1
“Alver et al.”
A. S. Alver et al., “Improved Turbine Disk Design to Increase Reliability of Aircraft Jet Engines”, NASA Technical Report No. NASA CR-134985, dated October 1975, 64 pages.
“Conrad et al.”
US Patent No. 6,183,641 B1
“Fledderjohn”
Karl R. Fledderjohn, “The TFE731-5: Evolution of a Decade of Business Jet Service”, SAE 1983 Transactions, Section 3, Volume 92, © 1984, Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., pp. 3.146-3.157.
“Golinkin et al.”
US Publication No. 2006/0216152 A1
“Guo”
US Publication No. 2009/0214351 A1
“Howe et al.”
D. C. Howe et al., “Energy Efficient Engine: High-Pressure Compressor Test Hardware Detailed Design Report”, NASA Technical Report No. NASA-CR-180850, dated March 1988, 233 pages.
“Hull”
US Patent No. 5,632,600
“Klassen et al.”
US Patent No. 4,595,340
“Klutz”
US Publication No. 2007/0258813 A1
“Kohlenberg et al.”
US Publication No. 2009/0053058 A1
“Lysholm”
US Patent No. 2,080,425
“Moreman, III”
US Patent No. 5,067,876
“Phipps”
US Patent No. 6,893,226 B2
“Siga et al.”
US Patent No. 4,850,187
“Tomeo et al.”
US Publication No. 2014/0056713 A1
“Tsunoda et al.”
JP Publication No. S61-234207 A (with translation)
Claim Construction
During examination, the pending claims are normally interpreted according to the broadest reasonable interpretation standard (hereinafter, the “BRI standard”). That is, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP 2111 et seq.
An exception to the BRI standard occurs when the applicant acts as their own lexicographer. For this exception to apply, the applicant must clearly set forth a special definition of a claim term in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess. See MPEP 2111.01, subsection IV.
Another exception or special case occurs when a claim recites a means-plus-function limitation that must be interpreted in accordance with 35 USC 112 ¶ 6, or 35 USC 112(f). See MPEP 2181. According to the guidance provided by Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc), 35 USC 112 ¶ 6 applies when the claim term fails to recite (i) sufficiently definite structure, and/or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function.
The following claim term is construed by the examiner to aid in reexamination:
Claim Term:
Speed change device
Examiner’s Construction:
This term invokes 35 USC 112(f) because “device” is a generic placeholder for structure, and the claims do not recite sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. Thus, “speed change device” is synonymous with “means for changing speed”. According to the patent specification, the corresponding structure is an epicyclical gear train, such as a planetary gear system, star gear system or other known gear system.
Examiner’s Explanation:
The patent specification describes an embodiment in which the low speed spool enables the low pressure turbine to drive the fan via a gearbox. See col. 3, ll. 25-28. The specification also describes an embodiment in which the inner shaft 40 (of the low speed spool 30) drives the fan 42 through a speed change device, such as a geared architecture 48, to drive the fan 42 at a lower speed than the low speed spool 30. See col. 3, ll. 43-46. The specification further identifies the geared architecture 48 as an epicyclical gear train, such as a planetary gear system, star gear system or other known gear system, with a gear reduction ratio of greater than about 2.3. See col. 4, ll. 25-28.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
GROUND 1: Claims 37, 38, 42 and 43 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Lysholm in view of Klassen et al. and Golinkin et al.
Lysholm discloses a gas turbine engine having a compressor section A and a turbine section B. See Fig. 1; p. 1, left column, ll. 1-7; p. 1, left column, l. 54 to p. 1, right column, l. 2. Lysholm explains that the diameter of the first row of turbine blades, as well as the diameters of the adjacent rows, are kept as small as possible because these turbine blades are subjected to very high temperatures. See p. 1, right column, ll. 39-50. Further, the radial dimension x (see Figs. 1 and 4) of these turbine blades is long in comparison with the mean diameter of the blade row, e.g., about 20% of the mean diameter. See p. 1, right column, l. 50 to p. 2, left column, l. 2.
In the embodiment of Figs. 1-3, the radial dimension x’ (see Fig. 1) of the last row of turbine blades is only a little longer than the radial dimension x of the first row of turbine blades, and consequently the ratio of the radial blade dimension to the mean row diameter decreases in a stepwise manner from row to row between the turbine’s inlet and outlet. See p. 2, left column, ll. 3-27; p. 2, left column l. 73 to p. 2, right column, l. 4. In this embodiment, the turbine blades 80 are carried by rotor disks 78. See Figs. 1 and 3; p. 2, right column, ll. 22-40.
In the embodiment of Figs. 4-8, the radial dimension x’ (see Fig. 4) of the last row of turbine blades is significantly longer than the radial dimension x of the first row of turbine blades, and consequently the ratio of the radial blade dimension to the mean row diameter remains substantially the same from row to row between the turbine’s inlet and outlet. See p. 3, left column, ll. 36-48. In this embodiment, the turbine blades 208 are secured to rotor disks 188 by dovetail connections 230, and the rotor disks 188 have shouldered inner bores receiving turbine shaft 186. See Figs. 4 and 6-8; p. 3, right column, l. 39 to p. 4, right column, l. 2. As shown in Fig. 7, the dovetail connections 230 include projections (or lugs) that extend radially outward from the rotor disks 188 to receive respective blades 208.
In both the embodiment of Figs. 1-3 and the embodiment of Figs. 4-8, the mean diameter of each blade row increases progressively from the turbine’s inlet to its outlet. See p. 4, right column, ll. 3-30. Lysholm explains that this construction provides definite advantages, including high thermodynamic efficiency obtained by multiple stage expansion of the motive fluid, gradual and relatively uniform heat drop from the turbine’s inlet to its outlet, compensation for the extreme temperature stresses in the inlet through the use of relatively small diameter blade rows adjacent the inlet, minimal amount of fluid leakage past the turbine blades adjacent the inlet, and provision for a relatively great amount of fluid expansion without causing destructive stresses in the turbine structure. See p. 4, right column, ll. 8-12; p. 4, right column, l. 30 to p. 5, left column, l. 45.
As shown in Figs. 4 and 6, the rotor disks 188 have inner bore diameters that differ only slightly, and both outer diameters and live rim diameters that increase progressively and significantly from the turbine’s inlet to its outlet—which contributes to the desired progressive increase in blade row diameter. Thus, Lysholm teaches the skilled artisan that it is desirable to provide a gas turbine engine with rotor disks 188 having ratios of inner bore diameter to outer diameter that differ significantly between the turbine’s inlet and outlet.
With respect to claim 37, the embodiment of Figs. 4-8 includes two disks (identified below) that are drawn as having a ratio (OD/D) of the outer diameter to the inner bore diameter equal to about 3.0 and about 3.2, respectively. That is, taking measurements from the drawing figure yields a ratio (OD/D) of about 3.0 and about 3.2, respectively. Thus, in a first interpretation, Lysholm is considered to teach a turbine rotor disk having the ratio required by claim 37.
PNG
media_image1.png
452
673
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In an alternative interpretation, Lysholm is considered to fail to teach the specific ratio required by claim 37. However, as already explained above, Lysholm teaches the skilled artisan that it is desirable to provide turbine rotor disks having ratios of inner bore diameter to outer diameter that differ significantly between the turbine’s inlet and outlet.
Klassen et al. is directed to rotor blades for gas turbine engines, especially for fan and compressor sections of such engines. See col. 1, ll. 9-12. Klassen et al. explains that:
It is desirable to have replaceable blades to facilitate repairs needed due to foreign object damage. See col. 1, ll. 35-38.
Reduced radius ratios improve aerodynamic performance but require a reduction in the outer perimeter (i.e., outer diameter) of the disk, which limits the space available for attaching the blades to the disk. See col. 1, ll. 49-58.
Klassen et al. teaches a compressor 10 of a gas turbine engine, comprising: rotor blades 18 having an inner radius R1 and an outer radius R2 measured from a longitudinal centerline 16, with the ratio R1/ R2 being a reduced value of less than about 0.5; a rotor disk 20 having an outer radius R3 (and, thus, an outer diameter of 2R3) measured from the longitudinal centerline 16, with the disk outer radius R3 being less than the blade inner radius R1; dovetails 40 formed on shanks 38 extending from the roots 26 of the blades 18; and slots 42 in an outer perimeter 44 of the disk 20, with the slots 42 being complementary in shape to the dovetails 40 and receiving the dovetails 40 for attaching the blades 18 to the disk 20. See Fig. 1; col. 2, ll. 56-67; col. 3, ll. 8-27 and 43-53. The dimensions of blades 18 and disk 20 and the construction of the dovetails 40 and slots 42 produce the desired improvement of the aerodynamic performance while allowing for individual blade removal. See col. 3, ll. 53-58.
In Fig. 1 of Klassen et al., the disk 20 is drawn as having:
A ratio (OD/D) of the outer diameter to the inner bore diameter (which is equivalent to R3/R4 in annotated Fig. 1 below) equal to about 3.0. That is, taking measurements from the drawing figure yields a ratio (OD/D) of about 3.0.
A ratio (d/D) of the live rim diameter to the inner bore diameter (which is equivalent to R5/R4 in annotated Fig. 1 below) equal to about 2.6. That is, taking measurements from the drawing figure yields a ratio (d/D) of about 2.6.
A ratio (D/W) of the inner bore diameter to the bore width (which is equivalent to (2R4)/W in annotated Fig. 1 below) equal to about 2.4. That is, taking measurements from the drawing figure yields a ratio (OD/D) of about 2.4.
PNG
media_image2.png
570
524
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Given the teachings of Lysholm and Klassen et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to select a particular outer diameter that yields a ratio (OD/D) between 3.04 and 3.20 in order to produce the progressive stepwise increase in blade row diameter taught by Lysholm, thereby achieving the specific advantages taught by Lysholm (e.g., high thermodynamic efficiency obtained by multiple stage expansion, gradual and relatively uniform heat drop, compensation for the extreme temperature stresses in the inlet, minimal amount of fluid leakage adjacent the inlet, and a relatively great amount of fluid expansion without causing destructive stresses) and Klassen et al. (improved aerodynamic performance) for a given application. Further, the selection of a particular outer diameter that yields the claimed ratio is consistent with the exemplary disks illustrated in the embodiment of Figs. 4-8 of Lysholm together with the general principles taught by the reference. It is also consistent with the exemplary disk illustrated in Fig. 1 of Klassen et al. In addition, a modification involving a mere change in relative size (e.g., a slight change from a ratio (OD/D) of about 3.0 to a ratio (OD/D) of about 3.05 or 3.10) is generally considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Lysholm lacks the disk recesses required by claim 37. Instead, Lysholm’s dovetail connections 230 include projections (or lugs) that (i) extend radially outward from the rotor disks 188, and (ii) are received within recesses formed in respective blades 208. See Fig. 7.
As explained above, Klassen et al. establishes that it was well-known in the art, at the time the invention was made, to provide a disk 20 with recesses (i.e., slots) 42 that are complementary in shape to dovetails 40 on blades 18 and receive the dovetails 40 for attaching the blades 18 to the disk 20. Klassen et al. explains that this construction achieves the desired goal of replaceable blades to facilitate repairs needed due to foreign object damage.
Golinkin et al. also establishes that the disk recesses required by claim 37 were well-known in the art at the time the invention was made. Specifically, Golinkin et al. discusses the prior art use of:
Axial blade attachments in which a rotor disk 2 is provided with axial recesses (i.e., grooves) 4 that are complementary in shape to roots 8 on blades 6a-6c and receive the roots 8 for attaching the blades 6a-6c to the disk 2. See Fig. 1; ¶ 0003. As shown in Fig. 1, the recesses 4 and roots 8 have a conventional firtree shape.
Radial/circumferential blade attachments in which a rotor disk 14 is provided with a circumferential recess (i.e., groove) 16 that is complementary in shape to roots 20 on blades 18a-18b and receive the roots 20 for attaching the blades 18a-18b to the disk 14. See Fig. 2; ¶ 0004. The recess 16 and roots 20 can have conventional firtree shapes (as shown in Fig. 2) or T shapes. See ¶ 0004.
Radial/circumferential blade attachments in which a rotor disk 24 is provided with a circumferential T-shaped projection 26 that is complementary in shape to T-shaped recesses 32 in roots of blades 30a-30b and are received in the recesses 32 for attaching the blades 30a-30b to the disk 24. See Fig. 3; ¶ 0005.
Like Klassen et al., each of the prior art blade attachments explained by Golinkin et al. provide the advantage of replaceable blades to facilitate repairs needed due to foreign object damage. Further, the radial/circumferential blade attachments explained by Golinkin et al. are similar in construction to the blade attachment of Lysholm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify Lysholm by replacing the blade attachment used by Lysholm with one of the blade attachments taught by Klassen et al. and Golinkin et al. in order to provide the advantage of replaceable blades to facilitate repairs needed due to foreign object damage. Further, the substitution of one well-known construction (i.e., one of the blade attachments taught by Klassen et al. and Golinkin et al.) for another well-known construction (i.e., the blade attachment of Lysholm) is recognized to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art when, as here, the substitution yields only a predictable result.
With respect to claim 38, Lysholm is considered to fail to teach the specific ratio required. However, as already explained above, Lysholm teaches the skilled artisan that it is desirable to provide turbine rotor disks having ratios of inner bore diameter to outer diameter that differ significantly between the turbine’s inlet and outlet, and Klassen et al. teaches that reduced radius ratios improve aerodynamic performance. Given these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to select a particular outer diameter that yields a ratio (OD/D) of 3.15 in order to produce the progressive stepwise increase in blade row diameter taught by Lysholm, thereby achieving the specific advantages taught by Lysholm (e.g., high thermodynamic efficiency obtained by multiple stage expansion, gradual and relatively uniform heat drop, compensation for the extreme temperature stresses in the inlet, minimal amount of fluid leakage adjacent the inlet, and a relatively great amount of fluid expansion without causing destructive stresses) and Klassen et al. (improved aerodynamic performance) for a given application. Further, the selection of a particular outer diameter that yields the claimed ratio is consistent with the exemplary disks illustrated in the embodiment of Figs. 4-8 of Lysholm together with the general principles taught by the reference. It is also consistent with the exemplary disk illustrated in Fig. 1 of Klassen et al. In addition, a modification involving a mere change in relative size (e.g., a slight change from a ratio (OD/D) of about 3.0 to a ratio (OD/D) of about 3.15) is generally considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claims 42 and 43, see the explanation above with respect to the claimed ratio (OD/D) and the claimed disk recesses. Further, Lysholm is considered to fail to teach the specific ratio (d/D) required by claims 42 and 43. For the 9th row/stage disk of Lysholm, taking measurements from the drawing figure yields a ratio (d/D) of about 2.8, which is very close to the claimed ratio. Further, as already explained above, Lysholm teaches the skilled artisan that it is desirable to provide turbine rotor disks having ratios of inner bore diameter to outer diameter that differ significantly between the turbine’s inlet and outlet. Fig. 4 of Lysholm shows that the live rim diameter also increases progressively along with the outer diameter. In addition, as explained above, Klassen et al. teaches a ratio (d/D) of about 2.6. Given these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to select a particular live rim diameter that yields a ratio (d/D) between 2.50 and 2.75, or a ratio of 2.69, in order to produce the progressive stepwise increase in blade row diameter taught by Lysholm, thereby achieving the specific advantages taught by Lysholm and Klassen et al. for a given application. Further, the selection of a particular live rim diameter that yields the claimed ratio is consistent with the exemplary disks illustrated in the embodiment of Figs. 4-8 of Lysholm together with the general principles taught by the reference. It is also consistent with the exemplary disk illustrated in Fig. 1 of Klassen et al. In addition, a modification involving a mere change in relative size (e.g., a slight change from a ratio (d/D) of about 2.8 to a ratio (d/D) of about 2.75 or 2.69) is generally considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
GROUND 2: Claims 22, 37 and 39-41 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Tsunoda et al., or, in the alternative, under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Tsunoda et al. in view of Klassen et al. and Golinkin et al.
Tsunoda et al. is directed to a turbine rotor. See Fig. 8; ¶ 00011. Turbine blades 3, 7 are secured to rotor disks 1 by fir-tree-type connections (see Figs. 3-6 and 10), and the rotor disks 1 have inner bores (see Figs. 8 and 9) receiving turbine shaft 14. See Figs. 3-10; ¶ 0001. As shown in Figs. 3-6 and 10, the fir-tree-type connections include projections (or lugs) that extend radially outward from the rotor disks 1 to receive respective blades 3, 7.
With respect to claims 37 and 39, the turbine rotor of Fig. 8 includes a disk (identified below) that is drawn as having a ratio (OD/D) of the outer diameter to the inner bore diameter equal to about 3.0, and a ratio (D/W) of the inner bore diameter to the bore width equal to about 1.4. That is, taking measurements from the drawing figure yields a ratio (OD/D) of about 3.0, and a ratio (D/W) of about 1.4. Thus, in a first interpretation, Tsunoda et al. is considered to teach a turbine rotor disk having the ratios required by claims 37 and 39. The intended use “for a gas turbine engine” cannot stand alone in differentiating the claims from the prior art.
PNG
media_image3.png
333
548
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In an alternative interpretation, Tsunoda et al. is considered to fail to teach the specific ratios required by claims 37 and 39. However:
Fig. 8 of Tsunoda et al. clearly shows rotor disks having differing ratios of inner bore diameter to bore width. That is, both the inner bore diameters (i.e., D) and the bore widths (i.e., W) are shown as varying along the length of the rotor such that the rotor disks have different ratios (D/W) along the length of the rotor.
Fig. 8 of Tsunoda et al. clearly shows both rotor disks and rotor blades having outer diameters that vary progressively along the length of the rotor. Thus, Fig. 8 shows disks whose outer diameters (i.e., OD) vary progressively along the length of the rotor, and further shows such disks as having different ratios (OD/D) along the length of the rotor.
The turbine rotor of Fig. 8 includes a disk (identified above) that is drawn as having a ratio (OD/D) equal to about 3.0, and a ratio (D/W) equal to about 1.4. The other disks are shown in Fig. 8 as having different ratios (OD/D and D/W).
From these teachings, the skilled artisan would have recognized the possibility and/or desirability of providing turbine rotor disks having varying ratios of each of (OD/D) and (D/W).
See the detailed discussion of Klassen et al. in GROUND 1.
Given the teachings of Tsunoda et al. and Klassen et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to select a particular outer diameter that yields a ratio (OD/D) between 3.04 and 3.20 in order to achieve an improvement in aerodynamic performance for a given application, as taught as desirable by Klassen et al. Further, the selection of a particular outer diameter that yields the ratio of claim 37 is consistent with the exemplary disks illustrated in Figs. 3-10 of Tsunoda et al. together with the general principles taught by the reference. It is also consistent with the exemplary disk illustrated in Fig. 1 of Klassen et al. In addition, a modification involving a mere change in relative size (e.g., a slight change from a ratio (OD/D) of about 3.0 to a ratio (OD/D) of about 3.05 or 3.10) is generally considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Given the teachings of Tsunoda et al. and Klassen et al., it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to select a particular inner bore diameter and width that yields a ratio (D/W) between 1.25 and 1.65 in order to achieve the reduced radius ratio(s) taught as desirable by Klassen et al. while also providing the disk with sufficient strength to withstand the stresses imposed on it. Further, the selection of a particular inner bore diameter and width that yields the ratio of claim 39 is consistent with the exemplary disks illustrated in Figs. 3-10 of Tsunoda et al. together with the general principles taught by the reference. In addition, a modification involving a mere change in relative size (e.g., a slight change in the ratio (D/W) compared to that taught by Tsunoda et al.) is generally considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Tsunoda et al. lacks the disk recesses required by claims 37 and 39. Instead, the fir-tree-type connections of Tsunoda et al. include projections (or lugs) that (i) extend radially outward from the rotor disks 1, and (ii) are received within recesses formed in respective blades 3, 7. See Figs. 6 and 10.
As explained in GROUND 1, Klassen et al. and Golinkin et al. both teach prior art blade attachments that provide the advantage of replaceable blades to facilitate repairs needed due to foreign object damage. Further, the radial/circumferential blade attachments explained by Golinkin et al. are similar in construction to the blade attachment of Tsunoda et al.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify Tsunoda et al. by replacing the blade attachment used by Tsunoda et al. with one of the blade attachments taught by Klassen et al. and Golinkin et al. in order to provide the advantage of replaceable blades to facilitate repairs needed due to foreign object damage. Further, the substitution of one well-known construction (i.e., one of the blade attachments taught by Klassen et al. and Golinkin et al.) for another well-known construction (i.e., the blade attachment of Tsunoda et al.) is recognized to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art when, as here, the substitution yields only a predictable result.
With respect to claims 40 and 41, Tsunoda et al. is considered to fail to teach the specific ratios required. However, Fig. 8 of Tsunoda et al. clearly shows both rotor disks and rotor blades having outer diameters that vary progressively along the length of the rotor. Further, Fig. 8 clearly shows rotor disks having differing ratios of inner bore diameter to bore width. From these teachings, the skilled artisan would have recognized the possibility and/or desirability of providing turbine rotor disks having varying ratios of each of (OD/D), (d/D) and (D/W). Further, given these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to select a particular inner bore diameter and width that yields a ratio (D/W) between 1.53 and 1.55 or a ratio (D/W) of 1.45 in order to achieve a desired degree of staged fluid expansion, and in order to provide for such fluid expansion without causing destructive stresses to the turbine structure. Further, the selection of a particular inner bore diameter and width that yields the ratio of claims 40 and 41 is consistent with the exemplary disks illustrated in Figs. 3-10 of Tsunoda et al. together with the general principles taught by the reference. In addition, a modification involving a mere change in relative size (e.g., a slight change from a ratio (D/W) of about 1.4 to a ratio (D/W) of about 1.45 or 1.53) is generally considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 22, Tsunoda et al. is considered to fail to teach the specific ratio required. However, as explained above, based on the teachings of Tsunoda et al., the skilled artisan would have recognized the possibility and/or desirability of providing turbine rotor disks having varying ratios of each of (OD/D), (d/D) and (D/W). In addition, as explained above, Klassen et al. teaches a ratio (d/D) of about 2.6. Given these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to select a particular live rim diameter that yields a ratio (d/D) between 2.25 and 3.0 in order to achieve an improvement in aerodynamic performance for a given application, as taught as desirable by Klassen et al. Further, the selection of a particular live rim diameter that yields the ratio of claim 22 is consistent with the exemplary disks illustrated in Figs. 3-10 of Tsunoda et al. together with the general principles taught by the reference. It is also consistent with the exemplary disk illustrated in Fig. 1 of Klassen et al. In addition, a modification involving a mere change in relative size (e.g., a slight change the ratio (d/D)) is generally considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
GROUND 3: Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Alver et al. in view of Adams et al. and Kohlenberg et al.
Alver et al. is directed to a new turbine disk design for replacing the 1st stage turbine disk of the Pratt & Whitney JT8D-17 turbofan aircraft engine. See the Summary on p. 1; sections 1.1 and 1.2 on pp. 2-3; section 2.0 on p. 4.
The new design included moving the disk bore radius outward 0.25 cm (0.10 inch), thereby changing the minimum bore diameter from 11.43 cm (4.50 inches) to 12.0 cm (4.70 inches), in order to minimize pressure losses associated with the flow of cooling air in the annular passage between the disk bore and the engine shaft. See section 2.1 on p. 5. Further, the bore thickness (i.e., width) was increased from 6.35 cm (2.5 inches) to 7.19 cm (2.83 inches) in order to improve the life of the disk bore by reducing hoop stress. See section 3.3 on p. 15. Thus, Alver et al. teaches a turbine disk with a ratio (D/W) of 1.67 (12.0 cm ÷ 7.19 cm) or 1.66 (4.7 inches ÷ 2.83 inches).
In the examples shown Fig. 6 (p. 28) and Fig. 23 (p. 47), the turbine disk is illustrated with:
A bore thickness (i.e., width) of 7.49 cm (2.95 inches).
A bore radius of 6.0 cm (2.35 inches), which equates to a bore diameter of 12.0 cm (4.7 inches).
A live rim radius of 21.6 cm (8.5 inches), which equates to a live rim diameter of 43.2 cm (17.0 inches).
Further, based on the drawing scale of Figs. 6 and 23, the turbine disk has an outer radius of about 23.9 cm (9.41 inches), which equates to an outer diameter of about 47.8 cm (18.82 inches).
Thus, in the examples of Figs. 6 and 23, Alver et al. teaches a turbine disk with:
A ratio (D/W) of 1.60 (12.0 cm ÷ 7.49 cm) or 1.59 (4.7 inches ÷ 2.95 inches).
A ratio (d/D) of 3.60 (43.2 cm ÷ 12.0 cm) or 3.62 (17.0 inches ÷ 4.7 inches).
A ratio (OD/D) of about 3.98 (47.8 cm ÷ 12.0 cm) or 4.00 (18.82 inches ÷ 4.7 inches).
In the example shown Fig. 27 (p. 51), the turbine disk is illustrated with:
A bore thickness (i.e., width) of 3.130±0.005 inches.
A bore diameter of 4.700±0.005 inches.
Thus, in the example of Fig. 27, Alver et al. teaches a turbine disk with a ratio (D/W) of 1.50 (4.700 inches ÷ 3.130 inches).
In summary, Alver et al. teaches a turbine disk with a ratio (D/W) of either 1.67, or 1.60, or 1.59, or 1.50. From these teachings of Alver et al., the skilled artisan would recognize that variations in the ratio (D/W) are possible while still achieving the stated goals (including improving the life of the disk bore by reducing hoop stress, and minimizing pressure losses associated with the flow of cooling air). In addition, the skill artisan would appreciate that a slight increase in bore thickness/width (W) would provide greater strength and contribute to the goal of reduced stress. Such a slight increase in bore thickness/width (W), e.g., from the disclosed value of 3.130 inches to a value of 3.240 inches, would result in a ratio (D/W) of 1.45 (4.700 inches ÷ 3.240 inches). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify Alver et al. by providing the ratio required by claim 36.
In addition, Adams et al. is directed to turbine disk design intended to produce a desirable radial compactness. See ¶¶ 0037-0041. Adams et al. further teaches that, in one approach to achieving the desired radial compactness, “the designer can choose to make low pressure turbine section disk bores much thicker relative to prior art turbine bores and the bores may be at a much smaller radius RB” (¶ 0043). Thus, Adams et al. teaches the use of a reduced value for the bore diameter (D), and an increased value for the bore thickness/width (W), which results in a reduced value for the ratio (D/W) in order to achieve radial compactness. Accordingly, the skilled artisan would appreciate that the ratio (D/W) is subject to the designer’s intended degree of radial compactness—as well as other design criteria. Accordingly, the teachings of Adams et al. support the conclusion that it would have been obvious to modify Alver et al. by providing a reduced ratio (D/W) of 1.45.
With respect to most of the gas turbine engine structure (high pressure compressor driven by high pressure turbine, low pressure compressor driven by low pressure turbine via low speed shaft, combustor in communication with the compressor and turbine sections, fan section driven by low pressure turbine via low speed shaft) required by claim 36, the Pratt & Whitney JT8D-17 turbofan aircraft engine used by Alver et al. is considered to inherently possess this conventional engine structure. Further, assuming Alver et al. is considered to fail to teach some component of this conventional structure, Kohlenberg et al. is relied upon to establish that such structure is indeed conventional.
With respect to the speed change device required by claim 36, Kohlenberg et al. teaches a low speed shaft 14 coupling a low pressure turbine 18 to a low pressure compressor 16, and a fan section 20 coupled to an epicyclical gear train 22, wherein the low pressure turbine 18 drives the fan section 20 through the epicyclical gear train 22 at a lower speed than the low speed shaft 14. See Fig. 1A; ¶¶ 0023-0024.
Thus, based on the teachings of Kohlenberg et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify Alver et al. to include a high pressure compressor driven by a high pressure turbine, a low pressure compressor driven by a low pressure turbine, a fan driven by the low pressure turbine via a speed change device (i.e., epicyclical gear train) driving the fan at a lower speed than the low speed shaft, and a combustor in communication with the compressor and turbine sections. The skilled artisan would appreciate that such structure is both a necessary and beneficial part of a turbofan aircraft engine.
GROUND 4: Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Alver et al. in view of Kohlenberg et al. and Alvanos et al.
See the detailed discussion of Alver et al. in GROUND 3 above.
With respect to most of the gas turbine engine structure (high pressure compressor driven by high pressure turbine, low pressure compressor driven by low pressure turbine, combustor in communication with the compressor and turbine sections, fan section in communication with the compressor section, fan section driven by low pressure turbine via low speed shaft) required by claim 27, the Pratt & Whitney JT8D-17 turbofan aircraft engine used by Alver et al. is considered to inherently possess this conventional engine structure. Further, assuming Alver et al. is considered to fail to teach some component of this conventional structure, Kohlenberg et al. and Alvanos et al. are relied upon to establish that such structure is indeed conventional.
With respect to the fan section required by claim 27, see the fan section 20 of Kohlenberg et al., which is disclosed as being designed for a flight condition of 0.8 Mach and 35,000 feet. See Figs. 1A and 2A-2B; ¶¶ 0023, 0025, 0028. It is within the level of ordinary skill in the art to select a particular low fan pressure ratio (e.g., less 1.45) and a particular low corrected fan tip speed (e.g., less than 1,150 ft/s) in order to adapt the engine to a particular application and particular design criteria.
With respect to the two-stage turbine required by claim 27, Alvanos et al. teaches such a two-stage turbine having 1st stage blades 74 mounted on a 1st stage disk 54, and 2nd stage blades 76 mounted on a 2nd stage disk 56. See Figs. 1, 2 and 4; ¶¶ 0026-0027.
With respect to the speed change device required by claim 27, Kohlenberg et al. teaches a low speed shaft 14 coupling a low pressure turbine 18 to a low pressure compressor 16, and a fan section 20 coupled to an epicyclical gear train 22, wherein the low pressure turbine 18 drives the fan section 20 through the epicyclical gear train 22 at a lower speed than the low speed shaft 14. See Fig. 1A; ¶¶ 0023-0024.
With respect to the bypass ratio required by claim 27, Kohlenberg et al. teaches a bypass ratio greater than 10:1. See ¶ 0024.
Thus, based on the teachings of Kohlenberg et al. and Alvanos et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify Alver et al. to include a high pressure compressor driven by a two-stage high pressure turbine, a low pressure compressor driven by a low pressure turbine, a fan driven by the low pressure turbine via a speed change device (i.e., epicyclical gear train) driving the fan at a lower speed than the low speed shaft, and a combustor in communication with the compressor and turbine sections. The skilled artisan would appreciate that such structure is a necessary and/or beneficial part of a turbofan aircraft engine.
GROUND 5: Claims 30 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Howe et al. in view of Kohlenberg et al.
The Abhari Declaration provides a persuasive showing that Howe et al. teaches a gas turbine engine comprising a high pressure compressor disk having:
A ratio (OD/D) of 2.99, which fails within the range required by claim 30.
A ratio (d/D) of 2.85, which fails within the range required by claim 33.
With respect to most of the gas turbine engine structure (high pressure compressor driven by high pressure turbine, low pressure compressor driven by low pressure turbine, combustor in communication with the compressor and turbine sections, fan section in communication with the compressor section, fan section driven by low pressure turbine via low speed shaft) required by claims 30 and 33, the Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7A turbofan aircraft engine used by Howe et al. is considered to inherently possess this conventional engine structure. Further, assuming Howe et al. is considered to fail to teach some component of this conventional structure, Kohlenberg et al. is relied upon to establish that such structure is indeed conventional.
With respect to the fan section required by claims 30 and 33, see the fan section 20 of Kohlenberg et al., which is disclosed as being designed for a flight condition of 0.8 Mach and 35,000 feet. See Figs. 1A and 2A-2B; ¶¶ 0023, 0025, 0028. It is within the level of ordinary skill in the art to select a particular low fan pressure ratio (e.g., less 1.45) and a particular low corrected fan tip speed (e.g., less than 1,150 ft/s) in order to adapt the engine to a particular application and particular design criteria.
With respect to the speed change device required by claims 30 and 33, Kohlenberg et al. teaches a low speed shaft 14 coupling a low pressure turbine 18 to a low pressure compressor 16, and a fan section 20 coupled to an epicyclical gear train 22, wherein the low pressure turbine 18 drives the fan section 20 through the epicyclical gear train 22 at a lower speed than the low speed shaft 14. See Fig. 1A; ¶¶ 0023-0024.
With respect to the bypass ratio required by claims 30 and 33, Kohlenberg et al. teaches a bypass ratio greater than 10:1. See ¶ 0024.
Thus, based on the teachings of Kohlenberg et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify Howe et al. to include a high pressure compressor driven by a two-stage high pressure turbine, a low pressure compressor driven by a low pressure turbine, a fan driven by the low pressure turbine via a speed change device (i.e., epicyclical gear train) driving the fan at a lower speed than the low speed shaft, and a combustor in communication with the compressor and turbine sections. The skilled artisan would appreciate that such structure is a necessary and/or beneficial part of a turbofan aircraft engine.
Double Patenting – Nonstatutory
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
GROUND 6: Claim 36 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 23, 25 and 30 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E in view of Kohlenberg et al.
Claim 36 of the instant application is a broader version of each of claims 23 and 25 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E because claim 36 of the instant application recites the same limitations as claims 23 and 25 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E except for the OD/D ratio required by claim 23 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E, and the d/D ratio required by claim 25 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E. Claim 36 of the instant application differs from claims 23 and 25 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E because claim 36 recites additional conventional gas turbine engine components (low pressure turbine drives fan through speed change device at lower speed than low speed shaft). These conventional components are taught by Kohlenberg et al. for the reasons explained above.
Claim 36 of the instant application is also a broader version of claim 30 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E because claim 36 of the instant application recites many of the same limitations as claim 30 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E, but claim 36 of the instant application does not recite the OD/D ratio required by claim 30 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E. Claim 36 of the instant application differs from claim 30 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E because claim 36 recites additional conventional gas turbine engine components (low pressure compressor, combustor). These conventional components are taught by Kohlenberg et al. for the reasons explained above.
The omission of a limitation (i.e., the OD/D ratio required by claims 23 and 30 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E, or the d/D ratio required by claim 25 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E) with the consequent loss of its function is recognized to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify claims 23, 25 and 30 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E to include the additional conventional components required by claim 36 of the instant application and taught by Kohlenberg et al. The skilled artisan would appreciate that such structure is a necessary and/or beneficial part of a turbofan aircraft engine. Accordingly, claim 36 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 23, 25 and 30 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E in view of Kohlenberg et al.
GROUND 7: Claims 37 and 38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5 and 6 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E in view of Klassen et al. and Golinkin et al.
Claims 37 and 38 of the instant application are broader versions of claims 5 and 6 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E because claims 37 and 38 of the instant application require a rotor disk for a gas turbine engine having a OD/D ratio between 3.04 and 3.20 (claim 37) and a OD/D ratio of 3.15 (claim 38) whereas claims 5 and 6 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E require a gas turbine engine comprising a rotor disk with the same OD/D ratios. Claims 37 and 38 of the instant application differ from claims 5 and 6 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E because claims 37 and 38 of the instant application recite additional conventional gas turbine engine components (rotor disk having disk recesses each receiving a blade). These conventional components are taught by Klassen et al. and Golinkin et al. for the reasons explained above.
The omission of limitations (i.e., the gas turbine engine comprising a compressor section, combustor, and turbine section required by claims 5 and 6 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E) with the consequent loss of their function is recognized to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify claims 5 and 6 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E to include the additional conventional components required by claims 37 and 38 of the instant application and taught by Klassen et al. and Golinkin et al. The skilled artisan would appreciate that such structure is a beneficial part of a turbofan aircraft engine. Accordingly, claims 37 and 38 of the instant application are not patentably distinct from claims 5 and 6 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E in view of Klassen et al. and Golinkin et al.
GROUND 8: Claims 39-41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4, 22 and 23 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E in view of Klassen et al. and Golinkin et al.
Claims 39-41 of the instant application are broader versions of claims 4, 22 and 23 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E because claims 39-41 of the instant application require a rotor disk for a gas turbine engine having a OD/D ratio between 2.95 and 3.25 (claim 39), a D/W ratio between 1.53 and 1.55 (claim 40), and a D/W ratio of 1.45 (claim 41) whereas claims 4, 22 and 23 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E require a gas turbine engine comprising a rotor disk with essentially the same OD/D and D/W ratios. Claims 39-41 of the instant application differ from claims 4, 22 and 23 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E because claims 39-41 of the instant application recite additional conventional gas turbine engine components (rotor disk having disk recesses each receiving a blade). These conventional components are taught by Klassen et al. and Golinkin et al. for the reasons explained above.
The omission of limitations (i.e., the gas turbine engine comprising a compressor section, combustor, and turbine section required by claims 4, 22 and 23 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E; also part of the range of the ratio D/W required by claim 22 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E) with the consequent loss of their function is recognized to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify claims 4, 22 and 23 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E to include the additional conventional components required by claims 39-41 of the instant application and taught by Klassen et al. and Golinkin et al. The skilled artisan would appreciate that such structure is a beneficial part of a turbofan aircraft engine. Accordingly, claims 39-41 of the instant application are not patentably distinct from claims 4, 22 and 23 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E in view of Klassen et al. and Golinkin et al.
GROUND 9: Claim 22 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E in view of Klassen et al. and Golinkin et al. (see GROUND 8), and further in view of Tsunoda et al.
Claim 22 depends from claim 39, which is addressed in GROUND 8.
Claim 22 of the instant application is, in one sense, a broader version of claim 4 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E because claim 22 of the instant application requires a rotor disk for a gas turbine engine having a OD/D ratio between 2.95 and 3.25 whereas claim 4 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E requires a gas turbine engine comprising a rotor disk with the same OD/D ratio. The omission of limitations (i.e., the gas turbine engine comprising a compressor section, combustor, and turbine section required by claim 4 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E) with the consequent loss of their function is recognized to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 22 of the instant application differs from claim 4 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E because claim 22 of the instant application requires a d/D ratio between 2.25 and 3.00. For the reasons given in GROUND 2, given the teachings of Tsunoda et al. and Klassen et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to select a particular live rim diameter that yields a ratio (d/D) between 2.25 and 3.0 in order to achieve an improvement in aerodynamic performance for a given application, as taught as desirable by Klassen et al. Further, the selection of a particular live rim diameter that yields the ratio of claim 22 is consistent with the exemplary disks illustrated in Figs. 3-10 of Tsunoda et al. together with the general principles taught by the reference. It is also consistent with the exemplary disk illustrated in Fig. 1 of Klassen et al. In addition, a modification involving a mere change in relative size (e.g., a slight change the ratio (d/D)) is generally considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Accordingly, claim 22 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 4 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E in view of Klassen et al. and Golinkin et al. and further in view of Tsunoda et al.
GROUND 10: Claims 42 and 43 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8 and 9 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E in view of Lysholm, Klassen et al. and Golinkin et al.
Claims 42 and 43 of the instant application are, in one sense, broader versions of claims 8 and 9 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E because claims 17 and 18 of the instant application require a rotor disk for a gas turbine engine having a d/D ratio between 2.50 and 2.75 (claim 42) and a d/D ratio of 2.69 (claim 43) whereas claims 8 and 9 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E require a gas turbine engine comprising a rotor disk with the same d/D ratios. The omission of limitations (i.e., the gas turbine engine comprising a compressor section, combustor, and turbine section required by claims 8 and 9 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E) with the consequent loss of their function is recognized to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 42 and 43 of the instant application differ from claims 8 and 9 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E because claim 42 of the instant application requires a OD/D ratio between 2.95 and 3.25. For the reasons given in GROUND 1, given the teachings of Lysholm and Klassen et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to select a particular outer diameter that yields a ratio (OD/D) between 2.95 and 3.25 in order to produce the progressive stepwise increase in blade row diameter taught by Lysholm, thereby achieving the specific advantages taught by Lysholm (e.g., high thermodynamic efficiency obtained by multiple stage expansion, gradual and relatively uniform heat drop, compensation for the extreme temperature stresses in the inlet, minimal amount of fluid leakage adjacent the inlet, and a relatively great amount of fluid expansion without causing destructive stresses) and Klassen et al. (improved aerodynamic performance) for a given application. Further, the selection of a particular outer diameter that yields the claimed ratio is consistent with the exemplary disks illustrated in the embodiment of Figs. 4-8 of Lysholm together with the general principles taught by the reference. It is also consistent with the exemplary disk illustrated in Fig. 1 of Klassen et al. In addition, a modification involving a mere change in relative size (e.g., a slight change in the ratio (OD/D)) is generally considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 42 and 43 of the instant application also differ from claims 8 and 9 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E because claims 42 and 43 recite additional conventional gas turbine engine components (rotor disk having disk recesses each receiving a blade). These conventional components are taught by Klassen et al. and Golinkin et al. for the reasons explained above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify claims 8 and 9 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E to include the additional conventional components required by claims 42 and 43 of the instant application and taught by Klassen et al. and Golinkin et al. The skilled artisan would appreciate that such structure is a beneficial part of a turbofan aircraft engine.
Accordingly, claims 42 and 43 of the instant application are not patentably distinct from claims 8 and 9 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E in view of Lysholm, Klassen et al. and Golinkin et al.
GROUND 11: Claims 23, 25 and 26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 26 and 27 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E in view of Kohlenberg et al. and Alvanos et al.
Claims 23, 25 and 26 of the instant application recite essentially the same gas turbine engine required by claims 26 and 27 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E. Claims 23, 25 and 26 of the instant application differ from claims 26 and 27 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E because claims 23, 25 and 26 of the instant application require a two-stage turbine (claim 23) and a bypass ratio greater than 10 (claim 25).
As explained above:
Alvanos et al. teaches a two-stage turbine having 1st stage blades 74 mounted on a 1st stage disk 54, and 2nd stage blades 76 mounted on a 2nd stage disk 56. See Figs. 1, 2 and 4; ¶¶ 0026-0027.
Kohlenberg et al. teaches a bypass ratio greater than 10:1. See ¶ 0024.
Based on the teachings of Kohlenberg et al. and Alvanos et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify claims 26 and 27 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E to include a two-stage turbine and a bypass ratio greater than 10 since the skilled artisan would appreciate that such structure is a necessary and/or beneficial part of a turbofan aircraft engine. Accordingly, claims 23, 25 and 26 of the instant application are not patentably distinct from claims 26 and 27 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E in view of Kohlenberg et al. and Alvanos et al.
GROUND 12: Claims 27 and 30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E in view of Kohlenberg et al. and Alvanos et al.
Claims 27 and 30 of the instant application recite a gas turbine engine comprising essentially the same components as the gas turbine engine required by claim 4 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E. Claims 27 and 30 of the instant application differ from claim 4 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E because claims 27 and 30 of the instant application require a particular low fan pressure ratio (claims 27 and 30), a particular low corrected fan tip speed (claims 27 and 30), a two-stage turbine (claim 27), a speed change device (claims 27 and 30), and a bypass ratio greater than 10 (claims 27 and 30).
As explained above:
The fan section 20 of Kohlenberg et al. is disclosed as being designed for a flight condition of 0.8 Mach and 35,000 feet. See Figs. 1A and 2A-2B; ¶¶ 0023, 0025, 0028. It is within the level of ordinary skill in the art to select a particular low fan pressure ratio (e.g., less 1.45) and a particular low corrected fan tip speed (e.g., less than 1,150 ft/s) in order to adapt the engine to a particular application and particular design criteria.
Alvanos et al. teaches a two-stage turbine having 1st stage blades 74 mounted on a 1st stage disk 54, and 2nd stage blades 76 mounted on a 2nd stage disk 56. See Figs. 1, 2 and 4; ¶¶ 0026-0027.
Kohlenberg et al. teaches an epicyclical gear train (i.e., speed changer) 22. See Fig. 1A; ¶¶ 0023-0024.
Kohlenberg et al. teaches a bypass ratio greater than 10:1. See ¶ 0024.
Based on the teachings of Kohlenberg et al. and Alvanos et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify claim 4 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E to include the gas turbine engine structure required by claims 27 and 30 of the instant application since the skilled artisan would appreciate that such structure is a necessary and/or beneficial part of a turbofan aircraft engine. Accordingly, claims 27 and 30 of the instant application are not patentably distinct from claim 4 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E in view of Kohlenberg et al. and Alvanos et al.
GROUND 13: Claim 33 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E in view of Kohlenberg et al.
Claim 33 of the instant application recites a gas turbine engine comprising essentially the same components as the gas turbine engine required by claim 7 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E. Claim 33 of the instant application differs from claim 7 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E because claim 33 of the instant application requires a particular low fan pressure ratio, a particular low corrected fan tip speed, a speed change device, and a bypass ratio greater than 10.
As explained above:
The fan section 20 of Kohlenberg et al. is disclosed as being designed for a flight condition of 0.8 Mach and 35,000 feet. See Figs. 1A and 2A-2B; ¶¶ 0023, 0025, 0028. It is within the level of ordinary skill in the art to select a particular low fan pressure ratio (e.g., less 1.45) and a particular low corrected fan tip speed (e.g., less than 1,150 ft/s) in order to adapt the engine to a particular application and particular design criteria.
Kohlenberg et al. teaches an epicyclical gear train (i.e., speed changer) 22. See Fig. 1A; ¶¶ 0023-0024.
Kohlenberg et al. teaches a bypass ratio greater than 10:1. See ¶ 0024.
Based on the teachings of Kohlenberg et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify claim 7 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E to include the gas turbine engine structure required by claim 33 of the instant application since the skilled artisan would appreciate that such structure is a necessary and/or beneficial part of a turbofan aircraft engine. Accordingly, claim 33 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 7 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,382 E in view of Kohlenberg et al.
Terminal Disclaimer – Disapproved
The terminal disclaimer filed on December 18, 2025 has been disapproved. See the following explanation provided in the terminal disclaimer decision entered in the image file wrapper on January 11, 2026:
PNG
media_image4.png
312
688
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
GROUND 14: Claims 22, 27, 30, 33 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 22 depends from canceled claim 13, which renders claim 22 indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, claim 22 will be considered to depend from claim 39.
In each of claims 27, 30 and 33, the recitation “the low pressure turbine is configured to drive the fan through the speed change device at a lower speed than a low speed shaft” (claim 27, ll. 17-18; claim 30, ll. 16-17; claim 33, ll. 16-17) renders the claim indefinite because it introduces a low speed shaft, but the claim fails to define any relationship between the recited low speed shaft and the other structure of the gas turbine engine. As a result, it is unclear what particular low speed shaft(s) is encompassed by the claim, and which low speed shaft(s) are excluded therefrom. That is, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined with a reasonable degree of certainty since the claim language encompasses any and all possible low speed shafts.
The examiner suggests:
In claim 27, at line 18, change “a low speed shaft” to “a low speed shaft which couples the low pressure turbine to the low pressure compressor”.
In claim 30, at line 17, change “a low speed shaft” to “a low speed shaft which couples the low pressure turbine to the low pressure compressor”.
In claim 33, at line 17, change “a low speed shaft” to “a low speed shaft which couples the low pressure turbine to the low pressure compressor”.
Claim 38 depends from canceled claim 11, which renders claim 38 indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, claim 38 will be considered to depend from claim 37.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
GROUND 15: Claims 22 and 38 are rejected under 35 USC 112(d) as being an improper dependent claim.
Claim 22 depends from canceled claim 13, which does not comply with 35 USC 112(d). For the purposes of this Office action, claim 22 will be considered to depend from claim 39.
Claim 38 depends from canceled claim 11, which does not comply with 35 USC 112(d). For the purposes of this Office action, claim 38 will be considered to depend from claim 37.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Conrad et al. is directed to a class of fluid turbines known as prandtl layer turbines (i.e., bladeless turbines using boundary layer effect rather than fluid impinging upon blades) . See Figs. 1-2; col. 1, ll. 11-50. Such turbines can operate as a motor. See col. 1, ll. 51-59. The fluid used with such turbines can be either a liquid or gas. See col. 7, ll. 49-50.
Conrad et al. specifically discloses a turbine disk 12 having a central opening (i.e., bore) 22 defining an inner (i.e., bore) diameter and an outer edge 42 defining an outer diameter. See Fig. 3; col. 5, ll. 23-32. The surface area of the disk 12 that is acted upon by fluid can be varied by varying one or both of the inner (i.e., bore) diameter and the outer diameter of the disk 12. See col. 9, ll. 31-53.
In each of the embodiments shown in Figs. 5-7, Figs. 8-9, and Figs. 10-11 of Conrad et al., the turbine device includes a series of disks 12 having the same outer diameter but differing inner (i.e., bore) diameters. See col. 9, l. 54 to col. 11, l. 28. Varying the size of the inner (i.e., bore) diameters enables the designer to control the amount of fluid that passes through the turbine per unit of time. See col. 10, ll. 6-36. The amount of difference between the size of the central openings 22 of any to adjacent spaced apart members 12 may vary by any desired amount See col. 10, ll. 56-59.
The embodiment of Figs. 10-11 includes a disk (identified below) that is drawn as having a ratio (OD/D) of the outer diameter to the inner (i.e., bore) diameter equal to about 3.1. That is, taking measurements from the drawing figure yields a ratio (OD/D) of about 3.1. Further, since Conrad et al. teaches that the inner (i.e., bore) diameter can be changed by any desired amount to produce the desired amount of fluid passing therethrough, the skilled artisan would be able to select a particular inner (i.e., bore) diameter that yields a ratio (OD/D) between 3.04 and 3.20 in order to produce a desired amount of fluid throughput for a given application. Further, the selection of a particular inner (i.e., bore) diameter that yields the claimed ratio is consistent with the exemplary disks illustrated in the embodiments of Figs. 5-7, Figs. 8-9, and Figs. 10-11 of Conrad et al. together with the general principles taught by the reference.
PNG
media_image5.png
282
458
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fledderjohn is discussed in the Abhari Declaration.
Guo explains that gas turbine engines generally include turbine rotors having a plurality of removable turbine blades. See ¶ 0002. In the prior art construction shown in Figs. 1A-1B, recess-like structures 48 (which Guo calls “straight slots”, and which correspond to applicant’s recess-like “disk lugs”) extend inward from the outer circumference of a rotor disk 46. See ¶ 0003. Fig. 1A shows that the recess-like structures 48 have fir-tree-shaped profiles for receiving the roots of the removable turbine blades. In the embodiment shown in Fig. 2, the turbines 20, 21 each include turbine blades 24 removably mounted on rotors 22. See ¶ 0026. As shown in Fig. 3, the removable turbine blades 24 include projection-like structures (i.e., roots) 44 that extend radially inward and that are provided with grooves 23 and fingers 25 defining a fir-tree-shaped profile. See ¶ 0027. Fig. 4A shows that the rotor disk 50 includes recess-like structures 52 (which Guo calls “curved blade retention slots”, and which correspond to applicant’s recess-like “disk lugs”) having fir-tree-shaped profiles for receiving the roots 44 of the removable turbine blades 24. See ¶¶ 0028-0029. Thus, Guo establishes that it was conventional in the art to provide rotor disks with recess-like structures having fir-tree-shaped profiles for receiving the roots of the turbine blades in order to enable the turbine blades to be removable from the rotor disks. Further, Guo teaches that the use of curved recess-like structures reduces the stresses on the blade attachment, increases the retention capability, and reduces size, weight and cost. See ¶ 0037.
Hull teaches a rotor disk having a larger bore diameter D2 and a smaller diameter difference D1-D2 in comparison to conventional rotor disks. See Fig. 1; col. 3, ll. 54-62.
Klutz teaches a compressor rotor including disks having differing ratios (D/W). See Figs. 1 and 3. As drawn, the disks appear to have a ratio (OD/D) of about 4.0, a ratio (d/D) of about 3.8, and a ratio (D/W) of either 1.1 or 1.5.
Moreman, III teaches a rotor including a disk assembly 12. See Fig. 1; col. 3, ll. 16-25. As drawn, the disks appear to have a ratio (D/W) of about 1.43.
Phipps teaches projection-like structures 46 (which Phipps calls “attachment lugs”) extending outward from the outer circumference of a rotor disk 42, with adjacent projection-like structures 46 defining fir-tree-shaped attachment recesses 52 (which correspond to applicant’s recess-like “disk lugs”) therebetween for receiving and mounting root portions 36 of respective turbine blades 30. See Fig. 3; col. 3, ll. 29-44. A similar prior art structure is shown in Fig. 2 and described at col. 3, ll. 8-21. Phipps explains that this construction allows for the main body of the rotor disk 42 to be made of a lower specification (i.e., less strong and less heat resistant) material while making the more critical projection-like structures 46 of a very high specification material in order to achieve cost or integrity benefits while providing a strength comparable to a unitary construction. See col. 1, ll. 20-42; col. 2, ll. 3-7; col. 3, l. 52 to col. 4, l. 27. Phipps further teaches that this construction is suitable to both turbine rotor disks and compressor rotor disks. See col. 4, ll. 27-31.
Siga et al. teaches a two-stage turbine comprising turbine disks 10 having a ratio (t/D)2 of maximum thickness/width to outer diameter equal to 0.19 for the 1st stage and 0.205 for the 2nd stage. More broadly, the ratio (t/D) is between 0.15 and 0.3. See Figs. 1, 6 and 7; col. 3, ll. 32-40; col. 14, ll. 62-65.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23, 25 and 26 would be patentable if a terminal disclaimer is filed to overcome the double patenting rejection.
Claim 23 is considered to recite patentable subject matter because the cited prior art fails to teach a gas turbine engine, having the structure required by claim 23, wherein:
A rotor disk of a two-stage turbine attached to the high speed shaft has a first bore diameter (D1) related to a first bore width (W1) according to a ratio (D1/W1) between 1.25 and 1.65.
A rotor disk of a compressor attached to the high speed shaft has an outer diameter (OD2) related to a second bore diameter (D2) according to a ratio (OD2/D2) that is between 2.95 and 3.25.
While individual elements of the claims are taught by the prior art, the prior art does not teach the particular combination of elements required by claim 23.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on December 18, 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that all objections have been overcome. This argument fails for the reasons explained above.
Applicant argues that the double patenting rejections have been overcome by the filing of a terminal disclaimer. However, the terminal disclaimer has been disapproved for the reasons explained above.
With respect to GROUNDS 1-5, applicant argues that the rejections fail to properly establish that the claimed ratios are known result effective variables.
With respect to GROUND 1, this argument is not persuasive because the examiner has identified specific teachings in Lysholm and Klassen et al. that show that it was known in the art to vary/change the claimed ratios to produce desired advantages, which supports the conclusion that the rejected claims are obvious in view of these references.
With respect to GROUND 2, this argument is not persuasive because the examiner has identified specific teachings in Tsunoda et al. that show that it was known in the art to vary/change the claimed ratios, and has further identified specific teachings in Klassen et al. that show that it was known in the art to vary/change the claimed ratios to produce desired advantages, which supports the conclusion that the rejected claims are obvious in view of these references.
With respect to GROUND 3, this argument is not persuasive because the examiner has identified specific teachings in Alver et al. that show that it was known in the art to vary/change the claimed ratio, and has further identified specific teachings in Adams et al. that show that it was known in the art to vary/change the claimed ratio to produce desired advantages, which supports the conclusion that the rejected claim is obvious in view of these references.
With respect to GROUND 4, this argument is not persuasive because the rejection explains why Alver et al. teaches the claimed ratio. Further, the examiner has identified specific teachings in Alver et al. that show that it was known in the art to vary/change the claimed ratio, which supports the conclusion that the rejected claim is obvious in view of the references relied on.
With respect to GROUND 5, this argument is not persuasive because the Abhari Declaration provides a persuasive showing that Howe et al. teaches the claimed ratios.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to GROUNDS 1 and 2 are also not persuasive because:
The examiner is not relying upon the drawings of Lysholm, Tsunoda et al. and Klassen et al. to show precise proportions or particular sizes, i.e., exact dimensions. Rather, the examiner is relying upon the drawings to show relative relationships. As explained in MPEP 2125:
Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed.
It does not matter that the feature shown in a prior art drawing is unintended or unexplained in the specification of that prior art.
The description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art.
The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to the skilled artisan.
In this case, the subject matter is relatively simple since the claims are directed to a rotor disk for a gas turbine engine. The basic structure of such rotor disks is notoriously old, and the conventional features of such rotor disks can be easily understood from drawings even if those features are not specifically discussed in a prior art document’s written description. In this case, the examiner has shown what the prior art drawings would reasonably disclose and suggest to the skilled artisan.
The rejections are not based solely on relative relationships taken from the drawings of Lysholm, Tsunoda et al. and Klassen et al. Rather, the examiner has identified specific teachings in Lysholm, Tsunoda et al. and Klassen et al. that support the conclusions that the rejected claims areobvious in view of these references.
Applicant’s arguments do not address GROUNDS 14 and 15 (modification of which was necessitated by applicant’s amendments).
Final Action
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a).
Response Period
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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.
Amendments in Reissue Applications
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification, claims or drawings must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g).
Failure to fully comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g) will generally result in a notification to applicant that an amendment before final rejection is not completely responsive. Such an amendment after final rejection will not be entered.
Disclosure Obligations
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which the patent for which reissue is sought is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation. Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation. These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Filing and Contact Information
All correspondence relating to this reissue application should be directed:
By Patent Center3: Registered users may submit via the Patent Center at: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
By Mail4 to: Commissioner for Patents
United States Patent & Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
By FAX to: (571) 273-8300
By hand: Customer Service Window
Knox Building
501 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter English whose telephone number is (571)272-6671. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (8:00 am - 6:00 pm EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s the examiner’s supervisor, Eileen Lillis, can be reached at 571-272-6928.
/PETER C ENGLISH/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
Conferees:/WILLIAM C DOERRLER/ Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
/EILEEN D LILLIS/SPRS, Art Unit 3993
1 All citations are to the English translation.
2 Equivalent to the inverse of applicant’s ratio (D/W).
3 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).
4 Mail Stop REISSUE should only be used for the initial filing of reissue applications, and should not be used for any subsequently filed correspondence in reissue applications. See MPEP 1410.