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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 30, 2026 have been fully considered. The amendments to the claims result in the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections being withdrawn.
The applicant argues that the examiner maps the claim elements inconsistently with the teachings of Hicks. The applicant finds that Hicks (250) is not a cavity (unfilled space within a mass / hollowed-out space) as claimed but is rather a connecting passageway. The examiner disagrees as Hick shows/describes (250) as part of a series of internal passages of the vane assembly (200) that conveys bleed air, see paragraph [0079]/[0088]. The vane is clearly a mass and the passages that convey bleed air are unfilled with solid material and are within the airfoil. Additionally, it can be said these internal passages are hollowed out spaces inside of a vane assembly. It is noted that the gas turbine engines vanes have internal passages that are also commonly called cavities interchangeably, see Liang (U.S Patent 7,568,887) as a simple example. It is unclear to the examiner what the applicant believes is the distinction from an internal passageway and a cavity. The applicant may be trying to imply that a cavity is more spacious whereas a passageway is narrower/tighter. There is no distinction between these terms in this context especially under a broadest reasonable definition, and there is no clear demarcation between when an empty space could transition from being considered a cavity to a passageway.
It is also noted that (VII) in Annotated Figure 2, which the examiner maps to the radially inner surface of the cavity, points to the surface of the airfoil that defines the radially inner surface of (250) and not to (250) itself.
Based on the above, the examiner maintains the rejection of claim 1. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(a) based on the amendments. Therefore, the changes to the rejections are necessitated by the amendments and are made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
Claim 3 recites, “wherein the leading edge, the trailing edge, and the tip edge define the internal cavity”. There is no written support for this language in the specification; therefore the applicant presumably relies upon the drawings. The application discloses the leading edge as (208), the trailing edge as (210), and the tip edge as (220) in Figure 3. These edges do not define the internal cavity which is unlabeled in Figure 3. The edges/surfaces that do define the internal cavity are the set of lines which are inwardly offset to (208), (210), and (220). The claimed limitation does not appropriately reference the edges/surfaces that actually define the internal cavity. It is also noted that the applicant’s drawings reflect the accurate definition of leading and trailing edges in the art. These concepts are mostly used in reference to the external profile of the airfoil that actually interacts with the airflow.
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 Hicks et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20230184165) hereinafter Hicks 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 defining a radially inward surface 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
Tunkin also does not 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
662
677
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hicks pertains to anti-ice systems in vanes of gas turbine engines. Hicks teaches:
the internal cavity defining a radially inward surface in proximity to the anti-ice flow passage {Annotated Figure 2 (VII) is a radially inward surface of the internal cavity (230) that is in proximity to the anti-ice flow passage (234)},
the radially inward surface having a width greater than a width of the anti-ice flow passage {Annotated Figure 2, radially inward surface (VII) has a width (VIII) that is wider than a width of the anti-ice flow passage (IX)}
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 a an anti-ice passage and internal cavity with a radially inward surface with widths as claimed as taught by Hicks. 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 be sent not only through the leading edge but other portions of the vane as well {[0079], [0095]}.
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 Hicks 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, Tunkin 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 {Annotated Figure 1 (IIa) extends from the root region (VI) to the tip region (VII) for each guide vane}, and
wherein the anti-ice air is conveyed from the root region to the tip region by the internal cavity {Annotated Figure 1, the anti-ice air is conveyed from the root region (VI) to the tip region (VII) via the internal cavity (IIa)}.
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
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). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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