DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 13, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed April 16, 2026 have been fully considered.
The 35 U.S.C 112(a) rejection of claim 3 is withdrawn based on the amendments. New 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections are added in the section below.
The arguments against the 35 U.S.C 103 rejections are moot because a new ground of rejection is presented. The new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 13 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “in proximity” in claims 1 and 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “in proximity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In proximity means that something is near, but there is no clear metes and bounds of how close this actually requires. Even in the specific contexts of the claims, there is no clear requirement.
Claim 1 recites, “wherein the sidewall and the radially inward surface define a volume of the internal cavity” and “the anti-ice air is flowed through the volume of the internal cavity over an entirety of the tip region exposed in the flow path”. The specification never describes this “volume”.
Dependent claims from the claims discussed above are also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tunkin et al. (RU2173410) hereinafter Tunkin in view of Gardiner (U.S Patent 2,862,654) hereinafter Gardiner and Appukuttan et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20160061056) hereinafter Appukuttan.
PNG
media_image1.png
587
649
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Tunkin discloses:
An anti-ice system to provide anti-ice air to a compressor section of a gas turbine engine {[0009], [0012]},
the anti-ice system comprising:
a flow path defined in the compressor section of the gas turbine engine {Annotated Figure 1, a flow path is defined in the compressor section between (13) and (I); [0009},
the flow path defined between an inner flow surface and an outer flow surface {Annotated Figure 1, a flow path is defined in the compressor section between (13) and (I)},
the flow path structured to convey a working fluid {[0012], the compressor implicitly has a working fluid that the guide vane (2) acts on, see MPEP 2112};
a plurality of guide vanes arranged in a row {Figure 1 (2) implicitly has a plurality of instances arranged in a row as the figure is just sectional view of an axisymmetric system, see MPEP 2112, note that features such as (24) are a ring}
each guide vane of the plurality of guide vanes extending from a root region to a tip region across the flow path {Annotated Figure 1 (2) is arranged in the flow path and extends from a root region (VI) to a tip region (VII)},
the root region and the tip region located in the flow path {Figure 1 (VI) and (VII) are in the flow path},
the plurality of guide vanes each having an internal cavity and an anti-ice flow passage located at the tip region between the internal cavity and an outer surface of each respective guide vane of the plurality of guide vanes {Figure 1 (2) is the same in each instance which has (IIa) an internal cavity and an anti-ice flow passage (IIb) located at the tip region between the internal cavity and an outer surface of each guide vane (12); [0011]-[0012]},
the anti-ice flow passage having a flow port structured to eject a flow of the anti-ice air {Annotated Figure 1 (III), [0011]-[0012]},
the anti-ice flow passage oriented in a direction having a radial component and the anti-ice air is flowed in a substantially radial direction through the internal cavity over an entirety of the tip region exposed in the flow path {Annotated Figure 1, (IIa), (IIb), and are (III) are substantially radial}.
Tunkin does not disclose:
the internal cavity being defined by a radially inward surface and a sidewall extending radially from the radially inward surface,
wherein the sidewall and the radially inward surface define a volume of the internal cavity,
wherein the radially inward surface is in proximity to the anti-ice flow passage,
the radially inward surface having a width greater than a width of the anti-ice flow passage
the anti-ice air is flowed through the volume of the internal cavity over an entirety of the tip region exposed in the flow path
Tunkin also does not explicitly disclose where the guide vane is in the compressor and does not disclose explicitly other features in the gas turbine engine.
PNG
media_image2.png
724
499
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Gardiner pertains to anti-ice systems in compressor vanes of gas turbine engines. Gardiner teaches:
the internal cavity being defined by a radially inward surface and a sidewall extending radially from the radially inward surface {Annotated Figure 2, the internal cavity (104) is defined by radially inward surface (VII) and sidewall (VIII) extending radially from the radially inward surface},
wherein the sidewall and the radially inward surface define a volume of the internal cavity {Annotated Figure 2, (VII) and (VIII) are part of the surfaces that define the volume of the entire cavity (104)},
wherein the radially inward surface is in proximity to the anti-ice flow passage {Annotated Figure 2 (VII) is in proximity to the anti-ice flow passage (IX/106). (106) is labeled in Figure 3 but not Figure 2},
the radially inward surface having a width greater than a width of the anti-ice flow passage {Annotated Figure 2, (VII) has a greater width than (IX/106)}
the anti-ice air is flowed through the volume of the internal cavity over an entirety of the tip region exposed in the flow path {Figures 2/3, anti-ice air is flowed through the entire tip region exposed in the flow path based on (104)/(106), this air is flowed through the volume of (104)}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Tunkin have an internal cavity shape that extends for the majority of volume of the airfoil as taught by Gardiner that results in claimed geometry. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as this configuration allows for air used to de-ice the vane to interact with most of the blade rather than a small region {Gardiner Column 3 lines 38-50}. Additionally, this change is a simple substitution as both geometries are known for de-icing cavities, a person of ordinary skill in the art could easily have substituted the geometry of one cavity for another, and the results would be predictable {See MPEP 2143 I. B}
Appukattan teaches:
a plurality of compressor blades arranged in a row and disposed in the flow path {Figure 2, (14) has multiple rows of compressors blades which each have a plurality of compressor blades arranged in the flow path, [0004]},
the plurality of compressor blades configured to rotate to compress the working fluid {Figure 2 (14), [0004]}; and
the guide vane is disposed in the flow path upstream of the plurality of compressor blades {Figure 2 (32) is in the flow path upstream of the compressor blades of (14), [0004]}.
Since Tunkin does not disclose where the guide vane is in the compressor and other features in the gas turbine engine, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose which guide vane would have the anti-icing structure of Tunkin as well as other details of the gas turbine engine. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have guide vane of the combination of Tunkin and Gardiner with anti-icing features be the first stator at the inlet to the core (inlet to the low pressure compressor) as taught by Appukattan which is upstream of the compressor blades of (14). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as anti-icing systems are typically used at the inlet of the compressor to prevent ice build-up which can deteriorate performance or cause damage to downstream rotors if pieces of ice were to break off {Appukattan [0004]}.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Tunkin, Gardiner, and Appukattan further teaches:
wherein the internal cavity extends from the root region of each guide vane of the plurality of guide vanes to a respective tip region of the guide vane {Tunkin Annotated Figure 1 (IIa) extends from the root region (VI) to the tip region (VII) for each guide vane. It also noted that the modification based on Gardiner does not change this as Gardiner (104) also extends from the root region to tip region}, and
wherein the anti-ice air is conveyed from the root region to the tip region by the internal cavity {Tunkin Annotated Figure 1, the anti-ice air is conveyed from the root region (VI) to the tip region (VII) via the internal cavity (IIa). It also noted that the modification based on Gardiner does not change this as Gardiner (104) also conveys from the root region to the tip region}.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Tunkin, Gardiner, and Appukattan further teaches:
wherein each guide vane of the plurality of guide vanes includes a leading edge, a trailing edge {Tunkin Figure 1, guide vane (2) has a leading edge on the left and a trailing edge on the right}, and
a tip edge having a contour sized to match a contour of an adjacent portion of the inner flow surface of the flow path {Tunkin Figure 1, (12) is at a tip edge and has a contour sized to match the adjacent portion of the inner flow surface of (13) just radially inward of (12)},
the flow port oriented to impinge the anti-ice air against the adjacent portion of the inner flow surface {Tunkin Figure 1 (12) is the flow port as impinges the anti-air ice against the adjacent portion of the inner flow surface (13)},
wherein the leading edge and the trailing edge are in proximity to the sidewall of the internal cavity {Gardiner Figure 2, the leading edge on the left of (34) is in proximity to the left end of (104). The trailing edge on the right of (34) is in proximity to the right end of (104). See the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection above regarding “proximity”}, and
the tip edge is in proximity to the radially inward surface of the internal cavity {Gardiner Annotated Figure 2, the tip edge on the radially inner portion of (34) is in proximity to (VII). See the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection above regarding “proximity”}
Regarding claim 13, Tunkin further teaches:
wherein each guide vane of the plurality of guide vanes are pivotable from a first angular flow position to a second angular flow position {Figure 1, the vane is pivotable about (6) and the axis which it defines; this ability to rotate allows it go from a first angular flow position to a second angular flow position by being driven by (4); [0011]}.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL K. REITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1387. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 a.m. -5:30 p.m.
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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at 5712703508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL K. REITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
