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 .
Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Pg. 9-12 of the remarks, filed October 15, 2025, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103, respectively, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has titled a section of the response under 35 U.S.C. 102 (Pg. 9), but provided no arguments. It is believed Applicant intended to argue the points made below in the 35 U.S.C. 103 section, since a portion of that specifically refers to Claim 18.
Regarding Claims 1 and 18, as best understood, Applicant asserts that Hall (US 2023/0066627 A1) and Ress (US 2012/0163960 A1) fail to teach the amended limitations. The Office respectfully disagrees. Referring to Figure 8 of Hall, portions (235) and (248) satisfy the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed shafts extending in directions along (233) and (253) that are in parallel to one another (Hall, [0108]).
Applicant refers to Claim 5. It is unclear if Applicant is arguing against the rejection of Claim 5 or merely referring to Claim 5 for purposes of discussing Claims 1 and 18. Regardless, Applicant alleges the mechanism of Hall to be fundamentally different from and more complicated than the claimed invention. As will be detailed in the rejection below, the Office believes the art of record to still satisfy the broadest reasonable interpretation of what is required of the claims. The allegation of being fundamentally different does not appear to be commensurate with the scope of the claims. Applicant is reminded that although claims are to be interpreted in light of the Specification, it would be improper to import limitations which are not recited in the claims. The alleged fundamental differences should be defined in the claim language. Regarding the particular statement that (248) is perpendicular to (235), this is unclear. Being perpendicular requires a 90° angle between the two. However, both (248) and (235) are arranged vertically with respect to the view of Figure 8 and are in parallel.
Regarding Claim 12, as best understood, Applicant argues Hall and Ress do not expressly teach the amended limitations of “wherein the apparatus defines a first air flow path bypassing the compressor and a second air flow path passing through the compressor, and wherein the stub-tandem variable inlet guide vanes are positioned only along the second air flow path”. Applicant argues the broad recitation of Ress as being part of the compressor system would fail to overcome the deficiencies of Hall. The Office respectfully disagrees. There is no evidence of record the modification of Ress would specifically exclude the claimed location, since the claimed location is part of the compressor system (14) set forth in Ress. Note the rejection pointed out how the interpretation of the claim of being between the fan and compressor, as set forth in the claim, is met.
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 3, 9-11, and 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 3 and 9, Line 3 of the claims recite “a radial direction defined by the gas turbine engine”. It is unclear if this is the same radial direction recited in Claim 1 or not. For purposes of examination, it is believed to be the same direction.
Regarding Claim 20, Line 3 recites “a radial direction that defines the height of the flow path”. It is unclear if this is the same radial direction recited in Claim 18 or not. For purposes of examination, it is believed to be the same direction.
Claims 10-11 are subsequently rejected for their dependencies upon a previously rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hall et al. (US 2023/0066627 A1), hereinafter Hall.
Regarding Claim 18, Figure 8 of Hall discloses an apparatus comprising: a first variable inlet guide vane (232), the first variable inlet guide vane (232) comprising a first shaft (235, the one labeled under 243) extending along a first direction (along 233), the first variable inlet guide vane (232) being rotatable about the first shaft (235), the first variable inlet guide vane (232) including a first inner radial edge (238) and a first outer radial edge (239), wherein a first distance from the first inner radial edge (238) to the first outer radial edge (239) defines a height of a flow path; and a second variable inlet guide vane (252) downstream of the first variable inlet guide vane (232) in the flow path, the second variable inlet guide vane (252) comprising a second shaft (248) extending a long a second direction (along 253), the second variable inlet guide vane (252) being rotatable about the second shaft (248), the second direction (along 253) being parallel to the first direction (along 233), wherein the second variable inlet guide vane (252) includes a second inner radial edge (bottom of 252 in Figure 8) and a second outer radial edge (top of 252 in Figure 8), and wherein a second distance from the second inner radial edge to the second outer radial edge is less than the first distance, and wherein each of the first shaft (235) and the second shaft (248) extends along a radial direction (vertically in Figure 8) [0100-0102, 0108, 0110]. Paragraph [0102] describes (248) as a single hinge rod, thus it satisfies the broadest reasonable interpretation of a shaft as it is an elongated object which provides rotation. Paragraph [0108] describes the rotation of vanes (232, 252) about the axes of (233, 253), respectively, in parallel. Paragraph [0110] describes the rotation of the first variable inlet guide vane (232) about the shaft (235) along the axis (233), with shaft (235) described as extending radially. Therefore, the axes (233, 253) and respective shafts (235, 248) are parallel and radial in view of paragraphs [0108, 0110].
Regarding Claim 19, Hall discloses the apparatus as set forth in Claim 18.
Figure 8 of Hall discloses wherein the first variable inlet guide vane (232) includes a first leading edge (234) and a first trailing edge (240, appears to be mislabeled 238 in the text), and wherein the second variable inlet guide vane (252) includes a second leading edge (254) positioned downstream of the first leading edge (234) and upstream of the first trailing edge (240) in the flow path [0103-0104].
Regarding Claim 20, as far as it is definite and understood, Hall discloses the apparatus as set forth in Claim 18.
Hall discloses wherein the first variable inlet guide vane (232) includes a third outer radial edge positioned between the first inner radial edge (238) and the second outer radial edge (top of 252) in a radial direction that defines the height of the flow path. Paragraph [0105] notes that rather than what is shown in Figure 8, the second inlet guide vane (252) can be arranged such that the outer radial end of (252) is aligned with the outer radial end (239) of the whole of (231). This results in the third outer radial edge being right below part-span vane (252), thus between the first inner radial edge (238) and the second outer radial edge (top of 252) with respect to the view similar to that shown in Figure 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall in view of Ress, Jr. et al. (US 2012/0163960 A1), hereinafter Ress.
Regarding Claim 1, Figures 1-2 and 8 of Hall disclose a gas turbine engine comprising: a compressor (14); a variable guide vane (30 or 50 in Figures 1-2, 232 in detailed embodiment in Figure 8), the variable guide vane comprising a first shaft (235, labeled under 243 in Figure 8) extending along a radial direction; and a part-span vane (252) positioned between at least a portion of the variable guide vane (232) and the compressor (14) in an axial direction (horizontal in Figure 1) defined by the gas turbine engine, the part-span vane (252) comprising a second shaft (248) extending along the radial direction, the second shaft (248) being parallel with the first shaft (235) [0044, 0100-0102, 0108, 0110]. Paragraph [0102] describes (248) as a single hinge rod, thus it satisfies the broadest reasonable interpretation of a shaft. Paragraph [0108] describes the rotation of vanes (232, 252) about the axes of (233, 253), respectively, that are parallel. Paragraph [0110] describes the rotation of the first variable inlet guide vane (232) about the shaft (235) along the axis (233), with shaft (235) described as extending radially. Therefore, the axes (233, 253) and respective shafts (235, 248) are parallel and radial in view of paragraphs [0108, 0110].
Hall does not expressly teach the guide vane being an inlet guide vane upstream of the compressor as claimed. However, being an inlet guide vane would have been obvious in view of Ress.
Figure 3 of Ress teaches a variable guide vane assembly (42) for a gas turbine engine (see Figure 1, abstract). Ress explains that the teachings are not only applicable to variable inlet/outlet guide vanes for fans, but also as part of the compressor system (14) [0015]. Thus, Ress acknowledges that there is a need for variable inlet/outlet guide vane technology for compressors and one of ordinary skill would apply those for fans to compressors as well. The benefits would include a minimization of flow losses such as discussed in paragraph [0006] of Hall. Note that when applying the modification to Hall, it results in a variable inlet guide vane for the compressor where the portion of the compressor downstream of the inlet guide vane is interpreted as the ”compressor” for purposes of applying to the claim interpretation, i.e. “compressor” is merely a matter of labeling of where the “variable inlet guide vane” would end.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gas turbine engine taught by Hall such that the variable guide vane is a variable inlet guide vane upstream of the compressor as suggested by Ress, to provide the benefit applying the advantages of variable guide vane assemblies to the compressor section of the gas turbine engine.
Regarding Claim 2, Hall and Ress teach gas turbine engine as set forth in Claim 1.
Figure 8 of Hall teaches wherein the part-span vane (252) includes a first portion (portion closer to 254) and a second portion (portion closer to 255) downstream of the first portion, wherein the first portion overlaps with the variable inlet guide vane (232) in the axial direction.
Hall does not expressly teach wherein the second portion is aft of the variable inlet guide vane in the axial direction.
However, the courts have held various practices to be routine expedients, requiring only ordinary skill in the art. One such practice includes a change in relative dimensions. Where the only difference between prior art and claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP 2144.04, IV, A). There is currently no evidence of record of the patentable distinction from making the part-span vane slightly longer, resulting in a second portion aft of the variable inlet guide vane in the axial direction as required by the claims. Paragraph [0104] of Hall appears to merely state the alignment of the part-span vane as a matter of being present in the illustrative embodiment rather than as a feature which is required. Thus, having the part-span vane be longer to meet the claim appears to be an obvious matter of design choice.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gas turbine engine taught by Hall-Ress such that the second portion is aft of the variable inlet guide vane in the axial direction, since matters of relative dimension are an obvious matter of deign choice.
Regarding Claim 3, as far as it is definite and understood, Hall and Ress teach the gas turbine engine as set forth in Claim 1.
Figure 8 of Hall teaches wherein the variable inlet guide vane (232) includes an upstream portion and a downstream portion, wherein the upstream portion spans a greater distance than the downstream portion in a radial direction defined by the gas turbine engine. See also annotated Figure 8’ below.
PNG
media_image1.png
740
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Hall and Ress teach the gas turbine engine as set forth in Claim 1.
Figure 8 of Hall teaches wherein the part-span vane (252) is a variable part-span vane [0102].
Regarding Claim 5, Hall and Ress teach gas turbine engine as set forth in Claim 4.
Figure 8 of Hall teaches wherein the first shaft (labeled 235 under 243) is coupled to at least one actuator (274, 284), wherein the second shaft (248) is coupled to the at least one actuator (274, 284), and wherein the second shaft (248) is positioned aft of the first shaft (235) [0108, 0112-0113].
Regarding Claim 6, Hall and Ress teach gas turbine engine as set forth in Claim 4.
Hall teaches wherein the variable part-span vane (252) rotates in a first direction when the variable inlet guide vane (232) rotates in a second direction opposite the first direction [0109]. Hall discusses (232) directing airflow in a first direction and (252) directing airflow in a second direction different, in other words they are rotated oppositely to direct oppositely.
Regarding Claim 7, Hall and Ress teach the gas turbine engine as set forth in Claim 4.
Hall teaches the turbine is capable of the function of wherein the variable part-span vane (252) rotates in a first direction when the variable inlet guide vane (232) rotates in the first direction. Paragraphs [0109, 0118] evidence that the two portions (232, 252) are capable of rotating independently of one another. The manner of operation does not differentiate a claimed apparatus from prior art (see MPEP 2114, II). Since the actuation system is configured to rotate the two portions (232, 252) individually, it has the capability to rotate them in the same directions. The claimed limitation of rotating in the first direction is merely a manner of operating the claimed structure.
Regarding Claim 8, Hall and Ress teach gas turbine engine as set forth in Claim 1.
Figure 8 of Hall teaches wherein the variable inlet guide vane (232) and the part-span vane (252) are positioned in a flow path defined between an inner radial surface and an outer radial surface (see 30, 50 in Figure 3 bound at inner and outer radial surfaces at 38, 58 and 39, 59, respectively), wherein the variable inlet guide vane (232) includes a first inner radial edge (238) at the inner radial surface and a second outer radial edge (239) at the outer radial surface [0105].
Regarding Claim 9, as far as it is definite and understood, Hall and Ress teach gas turbine engine as set forth in Claim 8.
Hall teaches wherein the variable inlet guide vane (232) includes a first outer radial edge positioned between the first inner radial edge (238) and the second outer radial edge (239) in a radial direction defined by the gas turbine engine. Paragraph [0105] notes that rather than what is shown in Figure 8, the part-span vane (252) can be arranged such that the outer radial end of (252) is aligned with the outer radial end (239) of the whole of (231). This results in the first outer radial edge being right below part-span vane (252) with respect to the view similar to that shown in Figure 8.
Regarding Claim 10, as far as it is definite and understood, Hall and Ress teach gas turbine engine as set forth in Claim 9.
Hall teaches wherein the first outer radial edge is downstream of the second outer radial edge (239). As explained above in Claim 9, paragraph [0105] notes that rather than what is shown in Figure 8, the part-span vane (252) can be arranged such that the outer radial end of (252) is aligned with the outer radial end (239) of the whole of (231). Thus, (239) would be shorter and end earlier than what is illustrated in Figure 8 to compensate for the presence of (252), making an arrangement where first outer radial edge (would be under 252) is downstream of the second outer radial edge (239).
Regarding Claim 11, as far as it is definite and understood, Hall and Ress teach the gas turbine engine as set forth in Claim 10.
Hall teaches wherein the part-span vane (252) overlaps the first outer radial edge in the axial direction (horizontal with respect to Figure 8). The presence of the first outer radial edge is explained in Claims 9-10 above. An axial overlap similar to how part-span vane (252) axially overlaps the portion of (232) illustrated in Figure 8 well be present in such an arrangement.
Regarding Claim 12, Figures 1-2 and 8 of Hall teach an apparatus comprising: a fan (12); a compressor (14) downstream of the fan (12); and stub-tandem variable inlet guide vanes (30, 50 in Figures 1-2, 228 in detailed embodiment of Figure 8) positioned between the fan (12) and the compressor (14), the stub-tandem variable inlet guide vanes including: a first variable inlet guide vane (232); and a second variable inlet guide vane (252) downstream of at least a portion of the first variable inlet guide vane (232), wherein the apparatus defines a first air flow path (15) bypassing the compressor (14) and a second air flow path (radially inwards of 23) passing through the compressor (14).
Hall does not expressly teach the guide vanes upstream of the compressor, wherein the stub-tandem variable inlet guide vanes are positioned only along the second air flow path as claimed. However, being upstream of the compressor would have been obvious in view of Ress.
Figure 3 of Ress teaches a variable guide vane assembly (42) for a gas turbine engine (see Figure 1, abstract). Ress explains that the teachings are not only applicable to variable inlet/outlet guide vanes for fans, but also as part of the compressor system (14) [0015]. Thus, Ress acknowledges that there is a need for variable inlet/outlet guide vane technology for compressors, which is the area only along the second air flow path, and one of ordinary skill would apply those for fans to compressors as well. The benefits would include a minimization of flow losses such as discussed in paragraph [0006] of Hall. Note that when applying the modification to Hall, it results in the guide vanes upstream of the compressor where the portion of the compressor downstream of the guide vanes is interpreted as the ”compressor” for purposes of applying to the claim interpretation, i.e. “compressor” is merely a matter of labeling of where the “guide vane” would end.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus taught by Hall such that the variable guide vanes are upstream of the compressor, wherein the stub-tandem variable inlet guide vanes are positioned only along the second air flow path as suggested by Ress, to provide the benefit applying the advantages of variable guide vane assemblies to the compressor section of the gas turbine engine.
Regarding Claim 13, Hall and Ress teach the apparatus as set forth in Claim 12.
Figure 8 of Hall teaches wherein the second variable pitch airfoil (252) spans only a portion of a radial height of a flow path between the fan (12) and the compressor (14). Being in the flow path is a result of relocation in the modification in Claim 12 noted above.
Regarding Claim 14, Hall and Ress teach the apparatus as set forth in Claim 12.
Figure 8 of Hall teaches wherein the second variable inlet guide vane (252) is cantilevered (note only around 254).
Regarding Claim 15, Hall and Ress teach the apparatus as set forth in Claim 12.
Hall teaches wherein the first variable inlet guide vane (232) has a first pitch, and wherein the second variable inlet guide vane (252) has a second pitch different from the first pitch. Paragraph [0109] of Hall discusses (232) directing airflow in a first direction and (252) directing airflow in a second direction different, in other words they are pitched differently to direct oppositely.
Regarding Claim 16, Hall and Ress teach the apparatus as set forth in Claim 12.
Figure 8 of Hall teaches wherein an aft portion of the first variable inlet guide vane (232) contacts a forward portion of the second variable inlet guide vane (252) (see aft portion of 232 and forward portion of 252 at 254).
Regarding Claim 17, Hall and Ress teach the apparatus as set forth in Claim 16.
Figure 8 of Hall further including an actuator (272) operatively coupled to the first variable inlet guide vane (232), wherein the actuator (272) is to cause the first variable inlet guide vane (232) to rotate, and wherein the second variable inlet guide vane (252) rotates in an opposite direction from the first variable inlet guide vane (232) when the actuator (272) causes the first variable inlet guide vane (232) to rotate [0109]. Hall discusses (232) directing airflow in a first direction and (252) directing airflow in a second direction different, in other words they are rotated oppositely to direct oppositely.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Loudet (US 7,264,441 B2) and Grieb (US 4,874,287 A) are cited as relevant examples of how else the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims may be met.
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 ELTON K WONG whose telephone number is (408)918-7626. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM - 5:00PM PST.
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, Court Heinle can be reached at (571)270-3508. 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.
/ELTON K WONG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745