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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 17, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered.
The applicant states that the amendments do not contain any new matter, but no support is listed for the substantial amendments to claim 1 in particular. The examiner presents a 35 U.S.C 112(a) rejection of claims 1, 3-9, and 19-24 below. The 35 U.S.C 112(b) and 35 U.S.C 103 rejections are withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments are therefore moot.
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, 3-9, and 19-24 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.
The applicant states that the amendments do not contain any new matter, but no support is listed for the substantial amendments to claim 1 in particular. The amendments to claim 1 change the claim such that a second blade angle (previously non-optimal blade angle) is always calculated rather the second blade angle (previously non-optimal blade angle) being calculated being contingent on one the limits/constraints being violated. Specifically, the new limitation being “determining a second blade angel value based on the required thrust …” compared to the previous claim 1 of August 29, 2025, “when any one the limits is violated determining a non-optimal blade angle …”.
The examiner finds that there is no support for a claim where a second blade angle is always calculated and is not contingent on the first blade angle (previously optimal blade angle) violating a limit or constraint. The elected Figure 3 (and also Figure 4) clearly show a contingent relationship for the step of (320) being performed being contingent on the condition of (316). If the constraints are not violated, then step (320) is not performed. There is no discussion in the specification that is different than what is shown in the flow chart of the figures, see [0008] and [0047].
The applicant’s amendment removing the contingent aspect of the claim changes the scope of the claim. The examiner finds the change in scope of the claim is narrowing based on MPEP 2111.04 II. Making a step mandatory is more narrow than if a step is only mandatory if certain conditions are met. Therefore, the amendments narrow the claim in a manner which is impermissible, see MPEP 2163.05 II.
Claims that depend from claim 1 are also rejected.
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