DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the application filed on December 27, 2022. Claims 1, 4-8, 11-15, 18-20 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/28/2025 has been entered.
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 .
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 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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on application IN202221005901. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the IN202221005901 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: the equations for relative flow coefficient appears to be struck-through, at least in part rather than underlined. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4-8, 11-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention without undue experimentation. In accordance with MPEP § 2164.01(a), when determining whether any necessary experimentation is “undue”, a conclusion is reached by weighing at least the following factual considerations.
(A) The breadth of the claims MPEP § 2164.08
(B) The nature of the invention MPEP § 2164.05(a)
(C) The state of the prior art MPEP § 2164.05(a)
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill MPEP § 2164.05(b)
(E) The level of predictability in the art MPEP § 2164.03
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor MPEP § 2164.03
(G) The existence of working examples MPEP § 2164.02
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or
use the invention based on the content of the disclosure MPEP § 2164.06
As to Claims 1, 8 and 15, one of ordinary skill could not determine relative pressure coefficient for the first stage based on the relative flow coefficient using one or more non-dimensional characteristics plots and the one or more pre-determined gas turbine tuning parameters as claimed in Claims 1, 8 and 15 without undue experimentation. (A) concerning the breadth of the claims, it is noted that the pre-determined tuning parameters may be any tuning parameter of a gas turbine. (B) Concerning the nature of the invention, the optimization/modeling of a gas turbine engine is extremely complex, as it involves, inter alia, fluid mechanics, combustion dynamics, heat transfer, statics, material sciences, and oscillatory phenomena. (C and E) Concerning the state of the prior art and the level of predictability in the art, gas turbine engine optimization has a particularly low level of predictability, illustrated by the fact that engines require lengthy testing, tuning, validation and certification. (F and G) Concerning the amount of direction provided by the inventor and the existence of working examples, Applicant provides one incomplete example, but this example fails to clarify how/if the pre-determined gas turbine tuning parameters are related to function P and how they relate to determining relative pressure coefficient. Therefore, critical information needed to achieve the particular results in this example is omitted. One of ordinary skill would not know how to determine relative pressure coefficient based on the relative flow coefficient using one or more non-dimensional characteristics plots and the one or more pre-determined gas turbine tuning parameters as claimed without more information as to how the tuning parameters are used and what function P is and how it is used. The relative pressure coefficient is merely said to be determined by a function P, that is a function that ‘relates’ relative flow coefficient and relative pressure coefficient but the specification is entirely silent to what that function P is, and how/if the predetermined gas turbine tuning parameters are involved in the function or otherwise. However, sufficient detail/explanation as to understand function P and how relative pressure coefficient is being obtained is not provided. It is not clear how/if shape factor, inlet Mach number and tangential velocity are included in this determination. As such, one of ordinary skill would not be able to determine a relative pressure coefficient for the first stage based on the relative flow coefficient using one or more non-dimensional characteristics plots and the one or more pre-determined gas turbine tuning parameters as claimed. Therefore, (H) based on the content of the disclosure, the quantity of experimentation needed to make and/or use the claimed invention would be undue. Further, an adequate disclosure is not provided that would permit one of ordinary skill in the art to make the invention perform the various subsequent functions relying on this pressure coefficient.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to Claims 1, 8 and 15, the claims fail to comply with the written description requirement because the specification fails to adequately describe how to determine relative pressure coefficient for the first stage based on the relative flow coefficient using one or more non-dimensional characteristics plots and the one or more pre-determined gas turbine tuning parameters. The specification is completely silent to how to determine relative pressure coefficient based on the relative flow coefficient using one or more non-dimensional characteristics plots and the one or more pre-determined gas turbine tuning parameters as claimed. The relative pressure coefficient is merely said to be determined by a function P that is a function that relates relative flow coefficient and relative pressure coefficient but is entirely silent to what that function P is, and how/which predetermined gas turbine tuning parameters are involved and to what the non-dimensional characteristic plots specifically represent. It is broadly stated the plots are “compressor plots” “for showing relations obtained between one or more non-dimensional parameters comprising flow coefficient, pressure coefficient and efficiency coefficient”, this fails to adequately explain how relative pressure coefficient is actually obtained in particular with respect to how the pre-determined tuning parameters are involved (e.g., with respect to the plots and/or function P). The above was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1, 4-8, 11-15, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As to Claims 1, 8 and 15, in Claim 1 the recitation “wherein the specific heat constant ratio is determined based on the inlet temperature… determining the specific heat constant ratio ʏ using the equation ʏ = Cp / (Cp - R)” renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear how specific heat constant ratio is to be determined based on the inlet temperature when it is also said to be determined according to the equation ʏ = Cp / (Cp - R). The specification at pages 56-57 indicates real gas constant R is determined from a database (¶0082) and that specific heat constant Cp is at constant pressure. While the Mach number calculation formula includes inlet temperature Tt, this is not said to be part of the specific heat constant ratio equation. Thus, it is not clear how specific heat constant ratio is being determined based on the inlet temperature when the above equation is also utilized. Claims 8 and 15 recite analogous respective limitations that render the respective claim indefinite for the same reasons.
As to Claims 1, 8 and 15, Claim 1 has been amended such that it recites the formula
PNG
media_image1.png
300
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claim already includes “input data”, namely “compressor associated input data”, that is generated by the GTPOS. This input data includes inlet mass flow rate, inlet temperature, inlet pressure and inlet guide vane angle. The claim language raises question as to whether or not the claim is requiring, in the above formula, that the inlet mass flow rate, IGV angle, inlet temperature and inlet pressure be the corresponding input data generated by the GTPOS that is previously recited in the claim or different values for these variables. As such, it is not clear if the equation relies on the aforementioned input data and the metes and bounds covered by the claim are not clear. Claims 8 and 15 recite analogous respective limitations that render the respective claim indefinite for the same reasons.
As to Claims 1, 8 and 15, Claim 1 recites “one or more pre-determined gas turbine tuning parameters” (page 4) and also recites “the one or more pre-determined gas tuning parameters comprising shape factor, inlet Mach number, and tangential velocity”. The recitation “the one or more pre-determined gas tuning parameters” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. It is not clear if the aforementioned “pre-determined gas turbine tuning parameters” (emphasis added) must include shape factor, inlet Mach number, and tangential velocity. As a result, the claim creates ambiguity as to whether the subsequent recitations of “the one or more pre-determined gas turbine tuning parameters” include zero, one of, or all of the shape factor, the inlet Mach number, and the tangential velocity, rendering the metes and bounds covered by the claim unclear. Claims 8 and 15 recite analogous respective limitations that render the respective claim indefinite for the same reasons.
As to Claims 1, 8 and 15, the claims recite the relative pressure coefficient (Ψ*) “at current stage” or “at a current stage”. It is unclear if these recitations refer to the aforementioned first stage or another stage, and if another stage what “current stage” refers to. What constitutes a “current” stage is ambiguous and requires subjective judgment.
As to Claims 1, 8 and 15, Claim 1 recites (with annotations added for emphasis):
PNG
media_image2.png
790
876
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Notably, the one or more pre-determined gas turbine tuning parameters (shape factor, inlet Mach number and tangential velocity) are all absent from the equation that “the relative flow coefficient” is said to be calculated by. As such, it is not clear if, nor how the relative flow coefficient for the first stage is based, at least in part on, the one or more pre-determined gas turbine tuning parameters ((shape factor, inlet Mach number and tangential velocity). Claims 8 and 15 recite analogous respective limitations that render the respective claim indefinite for the same reasons.
As to Claims 1, 8 and 15, “N represents the rotation speed” renders the claim indefinite because “the rotation speed” lacks sufficient antecedent basis raises question as to whether it refers to the aforementioned “shaft rotational speed” or another rotation speed.
As to Claims 1, 8 and 15, Applicant’s amendment recites an equation for calculating relative flow coefficient and in relation thereto states that ‘ref’ indicates references conditions, and that said reference conditions comprise “reference cross section area (A), properties, such as reference real gas constant (R), reference specific heat constant at constant pressure (Cp), reference specific heat constant ratio (ʏ), reference coolant flow rates and reference efficiencies.
Some of these variables are not included in the equation at all (e.g., coolant flow rates, efficiencies, real gas constant, area) while others are included, but are not said to be at the ref conditions when included in the equation (e.g., ʏ in the denominator). As such, it is not clear how Applicant’s definition of reference conditions limit the equation and by extension the claims. Therefore, metes and bounds of the claim are not clear.
As to Claims 1, 8 and 15, “wherein estimating outlet pressure of the first stage is based, at least in part, on the determined relative pressure coefficient, the specific heat constant at constant pressure, the inlet pressure, the inlet temperature and the shaft rotational speed using a predefined pressure coefficient equation” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what the “predefined pressure coefficient equation” refers to in view of the specification and whether it is different from the relation Ψ* = P (ϕ) as set forth previously in the claim. Moreover, it is unclear if this referenced specific heat constant at constant pressure, the inlet pressure, the inlet temperature and the shaft rotational speed respectively refer to: (1) the aforementioned variables at the reference conditions as set forth in relation to the relative flow coefficient equation or the aforementioned variables as set forth earlier in the claim that are not said to be at reference conditions.
Claims 4-7, 11-14, and 18-20 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, an indefinite claim.
Prior Art Rejections Not Made in view of Indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C 112(b)
As to Claims 1, 4-8, 11-15, 18-20, the cumulative/compounding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) discussed above result in is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claims. As such, it would not be proper to reject claims 1-20 on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. To the extent these claims could be understood, a search was performed. In an effort to give applicant a better appreciation for the relevant prior art if the claims are redrafted to avoid the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections, a discussion of pertinent art is provided in the section “Pertinent Art” below.
Pertinent Art
The following issued US Patents and/or Patent Application Publications are deemed pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
US PATENT or PUBLICATION NUMBER
PERTINENCE
US-20200234165-A1
Predictive modeling of gas turbine engine parameters, including preprocessing data and a gas turbine performance optimization system
US-20110153295-A1
Inputting condition parameter data and engine output parameter data into a gas turbine engine model that includes a physics-based engine model to produce estimated engine output parameter data, utilizing physic-based model, empirical database, performance estimation, data partitioning
US-20130073170-A1
Simulation of a gas turbine compressor using a model and error correction and parameter turning utilizing compressor map to correlate pressure ratio and mass flow for a given state.
US-20080178600-A1
Gas turbine engine model predictive control and state estimator with model tuning
US-20130066615-A1
Predicted compressor pressure ratio and a predicted compressor mass flow may be determined using the gas turbine model, including fine tune the model to provide a more accurate representation of the operation of the compressor
US-20050193739-A1
Gas turbine performance optimization uses system state parameters from a state estimator are transmitted to a model-based predictive control module which uses the state parameters to perform an optimization to determine commands for the actuators of the gas turbine engine.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/28/2025 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
As to the enablement rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and Applicant’s remarks at pages 21-25, Applicant indicates the enablement rejection has been obviated by amendment to include relative flow coefficient. The claim requires that relative pressure coefficient for the first stage is determined based on the relative flow coefficient using one or more non-dimensional characteristics plots and the one or more pre-determined gas turbine tuning parameters. However, Applicant’s amendment only serves to further define claimed relative flow coefficient according to an equality already set forth in the specification, and which was previously considered in making the rejection and which does not explain how relative pressure coefficient is determined based on the one or more pre-determined gas turbine tuning parameters. Applicant’s specification provides one incomplete example, but this example fails to clarify how/if the pre-determined gas turbine tuning parameters are related to function P [said to determine relative pressure coefficient from flow coefficient] and how they relate to determining relative pressure coefficient. Therefore, critical information needed to achieve the particular results in this example is omitted. Applicant’s remarks also fail to explain this. One of ordinary skill would not know how to determine relative pressure coefficient based on the relative flow coefficient using one or more non-dimensional characteristics plots and the one or more pre-determined gas turbine tuning parameters as claimed without more information as to how the tuning parameter(s) are used and what function P is in this particular case, which apparently relies on Applicant’s one or more pre-determined gas turbine tuning parameters. Applicant asserts “non-dimensional characteristics plots” are already existed in the art. This fact is not in dispute. Non-dimensional compressor characteristics plots do exist; however, this fails to bridge the gap as to how relative pressure coefficient is tobe determined using one or more non-dimensional characteristics plots and the one or more pre-determined gas turbine tuning parameters set forth in Applicant’s invention. Nothing in paragraph 0033, 0062, 0081 or elsewhere in the specification adequately explains how function P and/or how relative pressure coefficient is being obtained based on the one or more pre-determined gas turbine tuning parameters (e.g., shape factor, inlet Mach number, tangential velocity) where Ψ= P (ϕ). It is not clear what is meant Applicant’s argument “The compressor characteristics were tuned using the available experiment data to meet the desired characteristics by changing the tuning parameters i.e., shape factor (SF), Mach number inlet at design condition which decides the flow coefficient at design condition and the tangential velocity at design point to match the Inlet Guide Vane (IGV) and Variable Stator Vanes (VSV) effect.” and this would not make clear how relative pressure coefficient is determined based on the tuning parameters; nor does there appear to be an adequate explanation in the specification that would relate this statement to a determined pressure coefficient based on the one or more pre-determined gas turbine tuning parameters. Applicant’s “simplified representation” at page 25 does not appear to include such pre-determined gas turbine tuning parameters and as such does not explain or correct the issue at hand. As such, the rejection is repeated at section 7 above.
Applicant’s arguments do not appear to address the prior rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) written description, as only the text of the enablement rejection is repeated in Applicant’s reply. To the extent that Applicant may attempt to address both rejections simultaneously, the rejections are not persuasive for the reasons discussed above. As such, the rejection is repeated at section 8 above.
Applicant’s remarks at pages 26-28, appearing to address two different indefiniteness rejections (repeated on page 26) together are not persuasive.
The basis of the first rejection, repeated at Section 11 above, is that the claim recites specific heat constant ratio is to be determined based on the inlet temperature and also claimed to be determined according to the equation ʏ = Cp / (Cp - R), i.e., an equation that does not include inlet temperature. The fact that this specific heat constant ratio is later input into the equation referenced by Applicant that is used to determine Mach Number and which also includes an inlet temperature is not the same as specific heat constant ratio being determined based on the inlet temperature. As Applicant notes, the processors determine Mach number M from this equation (not specific heat constant ratio).
The basis of the second rejection, repeated at Section 12 above, is that it is not clear if the claim is requiring, in the claimed formula, that the inlet mass flow rate, IGV angle, inlet temperature and inlet pressure be the corresponding input data that is already previously recited in the claim that is generated by the GTPOS or different values for these variables. Applicant’s remarks do not appear to clarify this as this input data is distinct from that which Applicant addresses on page 28.
The antecedent basis issues discussed at page 28 (last paragraph) to page 29 first paragraph have not been resolved. The claim still recites “one or more pre-determined gas turbine tuning parameters” (emphasis added) and separately recites “the one or more pre-determined gas tuning parameters”. As such, the metes and bounds are still ambiguous and the rejection is repeated at Section 13 above.
Applicant’s amendment attempted to correct the previous 112(b) rejections concerning “current stage” (Remarks page 29). The claims remain indefinite as discussed at Section 14 above.
Applicant’s amendment overcame the antecedent basis rejections concerning “the knowledge database” and “combusted output data” “objective functions” and “constraint functions” (Remarks pages 29-31).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON H DUGER whose telephone number is (313) 446-6536. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30a to 4:30p EST Monday & Tuesday and 8:00a to 2:00p Wednesday, and is OFF Thursday and Friday.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian, can be reached on (571) 270-5426. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JASON H DUGER
PRIMARY EXAMINER, ART UNIT 3741
PHONE (313) 446 6536
FAX (571) 270 9083
DATE
June 26, 2026
/JASON H DUGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights