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 .
Status
This Final Office Action is in response to the amendment/request for reconsideration dated 21 January 2026 (hereinafter “Reply”).
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 21 January 2026 was/were filed after the mailing date of the first action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has/have been considered.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claim(s) 2, 4 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is/are withdrawn after consideration of the submitted amendment(s).
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection of claim(s) 1 and 3-14 as provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over co-pending Application No. 18/654,444 in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,249,666 to Wood et al., the applicant(s) submit the following remark(s)/argument(s):
(A) At page 9, fourth paragraph of the submitted Reply:
A terminal disclaimer has been filed in the co-pending application to obviate the double patenting rejection.
However, this response does not overcome the double patenting rejection because ff a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection is the only rejection remaining in an application, and that application has the later patent term filing date, the rejection should be maintained until applicant overcomes the rejection. Since, the present application has a later filing date from the co-pending application, the present application requires a terminal disclaimer or amendment to the claims to overcome the rejection. See MPEP 1490 (VI.D.2(c)). Thus, the double patenting rejection is maintained.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 3-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11-13, and 27 of co-pending Application No. 18/654,444 (hereinafter “Reference ‘444”) in view of United States Patent No. 9,249,666 to Wood et al. (hereinafter “WOOD”).
(A) Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Reference Application ‘444.
Reference ‘444 teaches the turbomachine of claim 1; however, does not explicitly teach an airfoil comprising: a first side and a second side coupled together at a leading edge and a trailing edge, and a plurality of first chord sections defining at least one first chord length and a plurality of second chord sections defining at least one second chord length, the plurality of first chord sections and second chord sections defining a waveform along the leading edge of the airfoil. WOOD teaches an airfoil comprising: a first side and a second side coupled together at a leading edge and a trailing edge, and a plurality of first chord sections defining at least one first chord length and a plurality of second chord sections defining at least one second chord length, the plurality of first chord sections and second chord sections defining a waveform along the leading edge of the airfoil (see WOOD claim 1). Therefore, 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 blade of Reference ‘444 by having an airfoil comprising: a first side and a second side coupled together at a leading edge and a trailing edge, and a plurality of first chord sections defining at least one first chord length and a plurality of second chord sections defining at least one second chord length, the plurality of first chord sections and second chord sections defining a waveform along the leading edge of the airfoil, as taught by WOOD, in order to reduce the magnitude of the airfoil unsteady pressure response to wakes and vortices impinging on the leading edge and thereby achieve the predictable result of reducing the noise and aeromechanical loading (WOOD col. 13, ll. 25-33).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
(B) Claim 3 is provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of Reference Application ‘444.
Reference ‘444 teaches the turbomachine of claim 3; however, does not explicitly teach an airfoil comprising: a first side and a second side coupled together at a leading edge and a trailing edge, and a plurality of first chord sections defining at least one first chord length and a plurality of second chord sections defining at least one second chord length, the plurality of first chord sections and second chord sections defining a waveform along the leading edge of the airfoil. WOOD teaches an airfoil comprising: a first side and a second side coupled together at a leading edge and a trailing edge, and a plurality of first chord sections defining at least one first chord length and a plurality of second chord sections defining at least one second chord length, the plurality of first chord sections and second chord sections defining a waveform along the leading edge of the airfoil (see WOOD claim 1). Therefore, 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 blade of Reference ‘444 by having an airfoil comprising: a first side and a second side coupled together at a leading edge and a trailing edge, and a plurality of first chord sections defining at least one first chord length and a plurality of second chord sections defining at least one second chord length, the plurality of first chord sections and second chord sections defining a waveform along the leading edge of the airfoil, as taught by WOOD, in order to reduce the magnitude of the airfoil unsteady pressure response to wakes and vortices impinging on the leading edge and thereby achieve the predictable result of reducing the noise and aeromechanical loading (WOOD col. 13, ll. 25-33).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
(C) Claim 4 is provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of Reference Application ‘444.
Reference ‘444 teaches the turbomachine of claim 4; however, does not explicitly teach an airfoil comprising: a first side and a second side coupled together at a leading edge and a trailing edge, and a plurality of first chord sections defining at least one first chord length and a plurality of second chord sections defining at least one second chord length, the plurality of first chord sections and second chord sections defining a waveform along the leading edge of the airfoil. WOOD teaches an airfoil comprising: a first side and a second side coupled together at a leading edge and a trailing edge, and a plurality of first chord sections defining at least one first chord length and a plurality of second chord sections defining at least one second chord length, the plurality of first chord sections and second chord sections defining a waveform along the leading edge of the airfoil (see WOOD claim 1). Therefore, 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 blade of Reference ‘444 by having an airfoil comprising: a first side and a second side coupled together at a leading edge and a trailing edge, and a plurality of first chord sections defining at least one first chord length and a plurality of second chord sections defining at least one second chord length, the plurality of first chord sections and second chord sections defining a waveform along the leading edge of the airfoil, as taught by WOOD, in order to reduce the magnitude of the airfoil unsteady pressure response to wakes and vortices impinging on the leading edge and thereby achieve the predictable result of reducing the noise and aeromechanical loading (WOOD col. 13, ll. 25-33).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
(D) Claim 5 is provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Reference Application ‘444.
Reference ‘444 teaches all the turbomachine of claim 5; however, does not explicitly teach the leading edge features, chord section features and airfoil features of claim 5. WOOD teaches the leading edge features, chord section features and airfoil features of claim 5 (see WOOD claim 1). Therefore, 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 blade of Reference ‘444 by having leading edge features, chord section features and airfoil features, as taught by WOOD, in order to reduce the magnitude of the airfoil unsteady pressure response to wakes and vortices impinging on the leading edge and thereby achieve the predictable result of reducing the noise and aeromechanical loading (WOOD col. 13, ll. 25-33).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
(E) Claim 6 is provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Reference Application ‘444.
Reference ‘444 teaches all the turbomachine of claim 6; however, does not explicitly teach the spaced-apart wave-shaped projection feature(s) of claim 6. WOOD teaches the spaced-apart wave-shaped projection feature(s) of claim 6 (see WOOD claim 6). Therefore, 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 blade of Reference ‘444 by having the spaced-apart wave-shaped projection feature(s), as taught by WOOD, in order to reduce the magnitude of the airfoil unsteady pressure response to wakes and vortices impinging on the leading edge and thereby achieve the predictable result of reducing the noise and aeromechanical loading (WOOD col. 13, ll. 25-33).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
(F) Claim 7 is provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Reference Application ‘444.
Reference ‘444 teaches all the turbomachine of claim 7; however, does not explicitly teach the spaced-apart wave-shaped projection feature(s) of claim 7. WOOD teaches the spaced-apart wave-shaped projection feature(s) of claim 7 (see WOOD claim 7). Therefore, 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 blade of Reference ‘444 by having the spaced-apart wave-shaped projection feature(s), as taught by WOOD, in order to reduce the magnitude of the airfoil unsteady pressure response to wakes and vortices impinging on the leading edge and thereby achieve the predictable result of reducing the noise and aeromechanical loading (WOOD col. 13, ll. 25-33).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
(G) Claim 8 is provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Reference Application ‘444.
Reference ‘444 teaches all the turbomachine of claim 8; however, does not explicitly teach the spaced-apart wave-shaped projection feature(s) of claim 8. WOOD teaches the spaced-apart wave-shaped projection feature(s) of claim 8 (see WOOD claim 8). Therefore, 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 blade of Reference ‘444 by having the spaced-apart wave-shaped projection feature(s), as taught by WOOD, in order to reduce the magnitude of the airfoil unsteady pressure response to wakes and vortices impinging on the leading edge and thereby achieve the predictable result of reducing the noise and aeromechanical loading (WOOD col. 13, ll. 25-33).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
(H) Claim 9 is provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Reference Application ‘444.
Reference ‘444 teaches all the turbomachine of claim 9; however, does not explicitly teach the spaced-apart wave-shaped projection feature(s) of claim 9. WOOD teaches the spaced-apart wave-shaped projection feature(s) of claim 9 (see WOOD claim 9). Therefore, 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 blade of Reference ‘444 by having the spaced-apart wave-shaped projection feature(s), as taught by WOOD, in order to reduce the magnitude of the airfoil unsteady pressure response to wakes and vortices impinging on the leading edge and thereby achieve the predictable result of reducing the noise and aeromechanical loading (WOOD col. 13, ll. 25-33).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
(I) Claim 10 is provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Reference Application ‘444.
Reference ‘444 teaches all the turbomachine of claim 10; however, does not explicitly teach the spaced-apart wave-shaped projection feature(s) of claim 10. WOOD teaches the spaced-apart wave-shaped projection feature(s) of claim 10 (see WOOD claim 10). Therefore, 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 blade of Reference ‘444 by having the spaced-apart wave-shaped projection feature(s), as taught by WOOD, in order to reduce the magnitude of the airfoil unsteady pressure response to wakes and vortices impinging on the leading edge and thereby achieve the predictable result of reducing the noise and aeromechanical loading (WOOD col. 13, ll. 25-33).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
(J) Claim 11 is provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Reference Application ‘444.
Reference ‘444 teaches all the turbomachine of claim 11; however, does not explicitly teach the airfoil feature(s) of claim 11. WOOD teaches the airfoil feature(s) of claim 11 (see WOOD claim 3). Therefore, 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 blade of Reference ‘444 by having the airfoil feature(s), as taught by WOOD, in order to reduce the magnitude of the airfoil unsteady pressure response to wakes and vortices impinging on the leading edge and thereby achieve the predictable result of reducing the noise and aeromechanical loading (WOOD col. 13, ll. 25-33).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
(K) Claim 12 is provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Reference Application ‘444.
Reference ‘444 teaches all the turbomachine of claim 12; however, does not explicitly teach the chord section feature(s) of claim 12. WOOD teaches the chord section feature(s) of claim 12 (see WOOD claim 4). Therefore, 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 blade of Reference ‘444 by having the chord section feature(s), as taught by WOOD, in order to reduce the magnitude of the airfoil unsteady pressure response to wakes and vortices impinging on the leading edge and thereby achieve the predictable result of reducing the noise and aeromechanical loading (WOOD col. 13, ll. 25-33).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
(L) Claim 13 is provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Reference Application ‘444.
Reference ‘444 teaches all the turbomachine of claim 13; however, does not explicitly teach the chord section feature(s) of claim 13. WOOD teaches the chord section feature(s) of claim 13 (see WOOD claim 5). Therefore, 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 blade of Reference ‘444 by having the chord section feature(s), as taught by WOOD, in order to reduce the magnitude of the airfoil unsteady pressure response to wakes and vortices impinging on the leading edge and thereby achieve the predictable result of reducing the noise and aeromechanical loading (WOOD col. 13, ll. 25-33).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
(M) Claim 14 is provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of Reference Application ‘444.
Reference ‘444 teaches all turbomachine of claim 14; however, does not explicitly teach an airfoil comprising: a first side and a second side coupled together at a leading edge and a trailing edge, and a plurality of first chord sections defining at least one first chord length and a plurality of second chord sections defining at least one second chord length, the plurality of first chord sections and second chord sections defining a waveform along the leading edge of the airfoil. WOOD teaches an airfoil comprising: a first side and a second side coupled together at a leading edge and a trailing edge, and a plurality of first chord sections defining at least one first chord length and a plurality of second chord sections defining at least one second chord length, the plurality of first chord sections and second chord sections defining a waveform along the leading edge of the airfoil (see WOOD claim 1). Therefore, 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 blade of Reference ‘444 by having an airfoil comprising: a first side and a second side coupled together at a leading edge and a trailing edge, and a plurality of first chord sections defining at least one first chord length and a plurality of second chord sections defining at least one second chord length, the plurality of first chord sections and second chord sections defining a waveform along the leading edge of the airfoil, as taught by WOOD, in order to reduce the magnitude of the airfoil unsteady pressure response to wakes and vortices impinging on the leading edge and thereby achieve the predictable result of reducing the noise and aeromechanical loading (WOOD col. 13, ll. 25-33).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
(N) Claim 16 is provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 27 of Reference Application ‘444.
Reference ‘444 teaches all turbomachine of claim 16; however, does not explicitly teach an airfoil comprising: a first side and a second side coupled together at a leading edge and a trailing edge, and a plurality of first chord sections defining at least one first chord length and a plurality of second chord sections defining at least one second chord length, the plurality of first chord sections and second chord sections defining a waveform along the leading edge of the airfoil. WOOD teaches an airfoil comprising: a first side and a second side coupled together at a leading edge and a trailing edge, and a plurality of first chord sections defining at least one first chord length and a plurality of second chord sections defining at least one second chord length, the plurality of first chord sections and second chord sections defining a waveform along the leading edge of the airfoil (see WOOD claim 13). Therefore, 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 blade of Reference ‘444 by having an airfoil comprising: a first side and a second side coupled together at a leading edge and a trailing edge, and a plurality of first chord sections defining at least one first chord length and a plurality of second chord sections defining at least one second chord length, the plurality of first chord sections and second chord sections defining a waveform along the leading edge of the airfoil, as taught by WOOD, in order to reduce the magnitude of the airfoil unsteady pressure response to wakes and vortices impinging on the leading edge and thereby achieve the predictable result of reducing the noise and aeromechanical loading (WOOD col. 13, ll. 25-33).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
(O) Claim 18 is provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 27 of Reference Application ‘444.
Reference ‘444 teaches all the turbomachine of claim 18; however, does not explicitly teach the leading edge, chord section, and airfoil feature(s) of claim 18. WOOD teaches the leading edge, chord section, and airfoil feature(s) of claim 18 (see WOOD claim 13). Therefore, 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 blade of Reference ‘444 by having the leading edge, chord section, and airfoil feature(s), as taught by WOOD, in order to reduce the magnitude of the airfoil unsteady pressure response to wakes and vortices impinging on the leading edge and thereby achieve the predictable result of reducing the noise and aeromechanical loading (WOOD col. 13, ll. 25-33).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
(P) Claim 19 is provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 27 of Reference Application ‘444.
Reference ‘444 teaches all the turbomachine of claim 19; however, does not explicitly teach the spaced-apart wave-shaped projection feature(s) of claim 19. WOOD teaches the spaced-apart wave-shaped projection feature(s) of claim 19 (see WOOD claim 15). Therefore, 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 blade of Reference ‘444 by having the spaced-apart wave-shaped projection feature(s), as taught by WOOD, in order to reduce the magnitude of the airfoil unsteady pressure response to wakes and vortices impinging on the leading edge and thereby achieve the predictable result of reducing the noise and aeromechanical loading (WOOD col. 13, ll. 25-33).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
(Q) Claim 20 is provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 27 of Reference Application ‘444.
Reference ‘444 teaches all the turbomachine of claim 20; however, does not explicitly teach the airfoil feature(s) of claim 20. WOOD teaches the airfoil feature(s) of claim 20 (see WOOD claim 14). Therefore, 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 blade of Reference ‘444 by having the airfoil feature(s), as taught by WOOD, in order to reduce the magnitude of the airfoil unsteady pressure response to wakes and vortices impinging on the leading edge and thereby achieve the predictable result of reducing the noise and aeromechanical loading (WOOD col. 13, ll. 25-33).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KAYLA M MCCAFFREY whose telephone number is (571)272-3438. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (excluding Wednesday) 10AM - 2 PM EST.
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 on 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.
KAYLA M. MCCAFFREY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/Kayla McCaffrey/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights