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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment submitted 06/17/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 7-14, and 16-21 remain pending. Claims 4-6 and 15 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/17/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 21 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but were not found persuasive.
The Applicant argues Applicant’s disclosure as originally filed supports the amendment requiring “subsonic flow therethrough” and therefore puts the claims in condition for allowance. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant discloses “the diffuser leads to a reduction in the exit velocity” however this description is insufficient support for requiring subsonic flow. For example, in previously cited CN 113775416 to Yang, Yang teaches within an expansion portion where airflow velocity experiences “an increase in the velocity loss” (Pg 5 Lns 41-42) which matches Applicant’s description of a reduction in velocity but is still supersonic flow.
The amendments to the claims have changed the scope of the claims necessitating new grounds of rejection. Please see new grounds of rejection below.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-14, 16-21 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.
Claims 1 and 21 recite “configured for subsonic flow therethrough” however Applicant’s disclosure as originally filed makes no description of any subsonic flow. Applicant has suggested that support for the subject limitation may be found in paragraphs [0007], [0039], and [0042] however said paragraphs merely describe that the velocity is reduced in the diffuser region however this description is insufficient support for requiring subsonic flow. For example, in previously cited CN 113775416 to Yang, Yang teaches within a diffuser region where airflow velocity experiences “an increase in the velocity loss” (Pg 5 Lns 41-42) which matches Applicant’s description of a reduction in velocity but is still supersonic flow. For the reasons above, Applicant’s disclosure as originally filed would not disclose to one of ordinary skill in the art that the Applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claims 2-3, 7-14, and 16-20 depend from claim 1 and inherit all deficiencies of the parent claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-14, 16-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4456427 to Evans in view of US 20080057848 to Gray.
(a) Regarding claim 1:
(i) Evans discloses a pre-swirl nozzle system in a turbine stage of a gas turbine (see abstract), comprising:
a stationary stator (structure comprising air injector nozzles 64, Fig 2);
a rotatable rotor (rotating disk 43, Fig 2) positioned adjacent the stator (Fig 2) and configured for rotation about a main axis of the gas turbine (axis of rotation of hollow shaft 30, Fig 2);
at least one pre-swirl nozzle (injector nozzles 64, Fig 2), directly formed in the stator (Fig 2), through which cooling air is directed in a flow direction toward the rotor (Col 4 Lns 59-61, Fig 2),
the at least one pre-swirl nozzle being inclined away from the main axis in the flow direction (angle α, Fig 3, Col 5 Ln 47; Col 6 Lns 10-14),
wherein the at least one pre-swirl nozzle is configured for subsonic flow therethrough (“approximately Mach 1” includes subsonic flow, Col 6 Lns 17-18);
wherein the at least one pre-swirl nozzle has an upstream first region positioned away from the rotor (upstream region of injector nozzles 64, Fig 2) and having a first cross section (must exist) and
a downstream second region (downstream region of injector nozzles 64, Fig 2) positioned toward the rotor and flow connected to the first region to receive the cooling air from the first region (Fig 2), the second region having a second cross section (must exist).
(ii) Evans does not disclose:
wherein the first cross section converges in the flow direction and
the second cross section expanding in the flow direction to form a diffuser configured to reduce an exit velocity of the cooling air through the at least one pre-swirl nozzle;
wherein the expanding of the second cross section to form the diffuser takes place partially or entirely in a linear manner in the flow direction to form a conical diffuser wall region;
wherein the conical diffuser wall region of the at least one pre-swirl nozzle has an angle of between 1 and 6° to a center line of the second region.
(iii) Gray teaches:
a nozzle (valve 130, Fig 3),
wherein the nozzle has an upstream first region (inlet 301, Fig 3) having a first cross section converging in the flow direction (towards throat area 302, Fig 3) and
a downstream second region (portion at and downstream of throat 302, Fig 3) flow connected to the first region to receive fluid from the first region (Fig 3),
the second region having a second cross section expanding in the flow direction to form a diffuser (diffuser 306, Fig 3; alternatively also including diffuser 314, Fig 4);
wherein the expanding of the second cross section to form the diffuser takes place partially or entirely in a linear manner in the flow direction (reasonably disclosed in Fig 3) to form a conical diffuser wall region (wall of “conical shaped” diffuser 306, Par 0028);
wherein the conical diffuser wall region of the nozzle has an angle of between 1 and 6° to a center line of the second region (3.5 degrees, Par 0028).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the at least one pre-swirl nozzle as disclosed by Evans with the above aforementioned first and second regions as taught by Gray for the purpose of limiting flow (Par 0026) and minimizing flow separation while maximizing pressure recover (Par 0028).
(v) The Examiner notes “to reduce an exit velocity of the cooling air through the at least one pre-swirl nozzle” is a functional limitation and since the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim it can perform the claimed function.
(b) Regarding claim 2:
(i) Evans as modified by Gray teaches the pre-swirl nozzle system according to claim 1.
(ii) Gray further teaches wherein the first cross section and/or the second cross section have/has a circular shape (“circular arc geometry”, Par 0025, Fig 3) or an elliptical shape (“2:1 ellipse”, Par 0025, Fig 3).
(c) Regarding claim 3:
(i) Evans as modified by Gray teaches the pre-swirl nozzle system according to claim 1.
(ii) Gray further teaches wherein a center line of the first cross section and a center line of the second cross section are in alignment in the flow direction (Fig 3).
(d) Regarding claim 7:
(i) Evans as modified by Gray teaches the pre-swirl nozzle system according to claim 1.
(ii) Gray further teaches wherein the expanding of the second cross section to form the diffuser takes place partially or entirely in a non-linear manner in the flow direction (upstream portion of diffuser 306 reasonably disclosed as being rounded in Fig 3).
(e) Regarding claim 8:
(i) Evans as modified by Gray teaches the pre-swirl nozzle system according to claim 7.
(ii) Gray further teaches wherein the non-linear widening of the second cross section forms a diffusor wall region which expands exponentially in the flow direction (due to curvature near throat 302, Fig 3).
(f) Regarding claim 9:
(i) Evans as modified by Gray teaches the pre-swirl nozzle system according to claim 1.
(ii) Gray further teaches wherein the expanding of the second cross section takes place partially in a linear manner (reasonably disclosed in Fig 3) and partially in a non-linear matter (due to curvature of diffuser 306 near throat 302, Fig 3).
(g) Regarding claim 10:
(i) Evans as modified by Gray teaches the pre-swirl nozzle system according to claim 1.
(ii) Gray further teaches wherein a transition between the first region and the second region has a sharp edge or a rounding (reasonably disclosed as being rounded in Fig 3).
(h) Regarding claims 11 and 18:
(i) Evans as modified by Gray teaches the pre-swirl nozzle system according to claim 1.
(ii) Evans as modified by Gray do not teach:
wherein a maximum diameter of the first cross section of the at least one pre-swirl nozzle is between 1 and 12 mm; nor
wherein the maximum diameter of the first cross section of the at least one pre-swirl nozzle is 5 mm.
(iii) Evans further teaches:
an upstream region with a first cross section (restrictor channel 100, Fig 6),
a downstream region with a second cross section (channel 102, Fig 6) larger than the first cross section (Fig 6),
wherein the sizes of the first and second cross section may be adjusted to provide a proper flow rate and air velocity (Col 6 Lns 45-48).
Therefore, Evans teaches that the maximum diameter of the first cross section is a result effective variable. Routine optimization of a result effective variable requires only ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.05(II).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the maximum diameter of the first cross section of the pre-swirl nozzle as taught by Evans as modified by Gray to be within the range as claimed through routine optimization of a result effective variable, see MPEP 2144.05(II).
(i) Regarding claim 12:
(i) Evans as modified by Gray teaches the pre-swirl nozzle system according to claim 1.
(ii) Gray further teaches wherein a maximum diameter of the second cross section of the at least one pre-swirl nozzle is greater than the first cross section (reasonably disclosed in Fig 3).
(iii) Evans as modified by Gray does not explicitly teach wherein the maximum diameter of the second cross section is between 2 and 13 mm.
(iv) Evans further teaches:
a region with a first cross section (restrictor channel 100, Fig 6),
a downstream region with a second cross section (channel 102, Fig 6) larger than the first cross section (Fig 6),
wherein the sizes of the first and second cross section may be adjusted to provide a proper flow rate and air velocity (Col 6 Lns 45-48).
Therefore, Evans teaches that the maximum diameter of the second cross section is a result effective variable. Routine optimization of a result effective variable requires only ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.05(II).
(v) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the maximum diameter of the second cross section of the pre-swirl nozzle as taught by Evans as modified by Gray to be within the range as claimed through routine optimization of a result effective variable, see MPEP 2144.05(II).
(j) Regarding claims 13 and 20:
(i) Evans as modified by Gray teaches the pre-swirl nozzle system according to claim 1.
(ii) Evans as modified by Gray does not teach:
wherein a ratio of a length of the first region to a length of the second region is between 0.1 and 0.5; nor
wherein the ratio of the length of the first region to the length of the second region is 0.3
(iii) Evans further teaches:
a first region (restrictor channel 100, Fig 6),
a second region (channel 102, Fig 6),
wherein the lengths of the first and second cross regions may be adjusted to provide a proper flow rate and air velocity (Col 6 Lns 45-48).
Therefore, Evans teaches that both of the lengths of the first and second regions and therefore ratio between them is a result effective variable. Routine optimization of a result effective variable requires only ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.05(II).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lengths of the first and second regions as taught by Evans as modified by Gray such that a ratio of the length of the region of the first cross section to the length of the region with the second cross section is within the range as claimed through routine optimization of a result effective variable, see MPEP 2144.05(II).
(k) Regarding claim 14:
(i) Evans as modified by Gray teaches the pre-swirl nozzle system according to claim 1.
(ii) Evans further discloses wherein a direction of an outlet opening of the at least one pre-swirl nozzle is aligned with a direction of an inlet opening of the rotor (see abstract; “a predetermined angle from said nozzles … angular misalignment represented by the difference between said predetermined angle and said angle of said channel is substantially zero in magnitude”, Claim 1).
(l) Regarding claim 16:
(i) Evans as modified by Gray teaches the pre-swirl nozzle system according to claim 1.
(ii) Evans suggests (engine is a turbofan engine to provide “thrust beyond that available from core engine 12 alone”, Col 3 Lns 18-24) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the gas turbine is an aircraft engine.
(iii) The Examiner is taking official notice that the use of gas turbine engines in aircraft is well known in the art.
(m) Regarding claim 17:
(i) Evans as modified by Gray teaches the pre-swirl nozzle system according to claim 1.
(ii) Evans as modified by Gray do not teach wherein the angle is 2.5⁰, to the center line.
(iii) Gray further teaches wherein the angle of a wall region of the conical diffuser determines pressure recovery and whether flow separates (Par 0028), thereby making it a result effective variable. Routine optimization of a result effective variable requires only ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.05(II).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the angle of the conical diffuser wall region as taught by Evans as modified by Gray to the value as claimed through routine optimization of a result effective variable, see MPEP 2144.05(II).
(n) Regarding claim 19:
(i) Evans as modified by Gray teaches the pre-swirl nozzle system according to claim 12.
(ii) Evans as modified by Gray does not teach wherein the maximum diameter of the second cross section of the at least one pre-swirl nozzle is 6 mm.
(iii) Evans further teaches:
a region with a first cross section (restrictor channel 100, Fig 6),
a downstream region with a second cross section (channel 102, Fig 6) larger than the first cross section (Fig 6),
wherein the sizes of the first and second cross section may be adjusted to provide a proper flow rate and air velocity (Col 6 Lns 45-48).
Therefore, Evans teaches that the maximum diameter of the second cross section is a result effective variable. Routine optimization of a result effective variable requires only ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.05(II).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the maximum diameter of the second cross section of the pre-swirl nozzle as taught by Evans as modified by Gray to be the value as claimed through routine optimization of a result effective variable, see MPEP 2144.05(II).
(o) Regarding claim 21:
(i) Evans discloses a pre-swirl nozzle system in a turbine stage of a gas turbine (see abstract), comprising:
a stationary stator (structure comprising air injector nozzles 64, Fig 2);
a rotatable rotor (rotating disk 43, Fig 2) positioned adjacent the stator (Fig 2) and configured for rotation about a main axis of the gas turbine (axis of rotation of hollow shaft 30, Fig 2);
at least one pre-swirl nozzle (injector nozzles 64, Fig 2), directly formed in the stator (Fig 2), through which cooling air is directed in a flow direction toward the rotor (Col 4 Lns 59-61, Fig 2),
the at least one pre-swirl nozzle being inclined away from the main axis in the flow direction (angle α, Fig 3, Col 5 Ln 47);
wherein the at least one pre-swirl nozzle is configured for subsonic flow therethrough (“approximately Mach 1” includes subsonic flow, Col 6 Lns 17-18) and
wherein the at least one pre-swirl nozzle has an upstream first region positioned away from the rotor (upstream region of injector nozzles 64, Fig 2) and having a first cross section (must exist) and
a downstream second region (downstream region of injector nozzles 64, Fig 2) positioned toward the rotor and flow connected to the first region to receive the cooling air from the first region (Fig 2),
the second region having a second cross section (must exist).
(ii) Evans does not disclose:
the second cross section expanding in the flow direction to form a diffuser configured to reduce an exit velocity of the cooling air through the at least one pre-swirl nozzle;
wherein the expanding of the second cross section to form the diffuser takes place partially or entirely in a linear manner in the flow direction;
wherein the conical diffuser wall region of the at least one pre-swirl nozzle has an angle of between 1 and 6° to a center line of the second region;
wherein a center line of the first cross section and a center line of the second cross section are angled with respect to one another in the flow direction to form a conical diffuser wall region.
(iii) Gray teaches:
a nozzle (valve 130, Fig 3),
wherein the nozzle has an upstream first region (inlet 301, Fig 3) having a first cross section converging in the flow direction (towards throat area 302, Fig 3) and
a downstream second region (portion at and downstream of throat 302, Fig 3) flow connected to the first region to receive fluid from the first region (Fig 3),
the second region having a second cross section expanding in the flow direction to form a diffuser (diffuser 306, Fig 3; alternatively also including diffuser 314, Fig 4);
wherein the expanding of the second cross section to form the diffuser takes place partially or entirely in a linear manner in the flow direction (reasonably disclosed in Fig 3) to form a conical diffuser wall region (wall of “conical shaped” diffuser 306, Par 0028);
wherein the conical diffuser wall region of the nozzle has an angle of between 1 and 6° to a center line of the second region (3.5 degrees, Par 0028).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the at least one pre-swirl nozzle as disclosed by Evans with the above aforementioned first and second regions as taught by Gray for the purpose of limiting flow (Par 0026) and minimizing flow separation while maximizing pressure recover (Par 0028).
(v) Evans as modified by Gray does not teach wherein a center line of the first cross section and a center line of the second cross section are angled with respect to one another in the flow direction.
(vi) The Applicant has disclosed no criticality, nor any new or unexpected results, from having the center lines of the first and second cross sections being angled and the prior art would perform the same having center lines of the first and second cross sections being angled. Mere changes in shape support a prima facie obviousness determination, see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
(vii) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the center lines of the first and second cross sections as taught by the combined teachings of Evans as modified by Gray to be angled as claimed as an obvious matter of design choice, see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin A Pruitt whose telephone number is (571)272-8383. The examiner can normally be reached T-F 8:30am - 6:30pm.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JUSTIN A PRUITT/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights