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 remarks filed 3/10/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the prior 112(b) rejections, Applicant’s amendments overcome some prior rejections.
Regarding the prior 112(a) rejection, in paragraph 6 of page 10 through paragraph 1 of page 11 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant’s arguments are directed to that the limitations at issue are supported by the original disclosure because:
The z-axis (Z) in Fig 55A is the axis of rotation 5510 (Examiner agrees the disclosure supports this),
and the reference line 5501 in Fig 55B is also the axis of rotation.
Discussion regarding point 2 above follows.
Nowhere does the disclosure clearly identify or plainly state that reference line 5501 in Fig 55B is also the axis of rotation 5510 (aka the Z-axis) in Fig 55A.
Instead, Applicant asserts, with direction towards para 0155 and Fig 55B, that the horizontal axis (M-Prime aka reference line 5501) corresponds to a meridional direction. And Applicant asserts that, to one having ordinary skill in the art, the meridional direction is the direction of flow and, for a vaneaxial blower system, the direction of flow corresponds to the axis of rotation. Thus, presumably, reference line 5501 is the axis of rotation.
Applicant’s arguments refer to “meridional direction” while para 0155 references “meridional location” and “meridional length”. “Meridional direction” is a term found nowhere in the disclosure. The terms in Applicant’s arguments and in para 0155 are not the same and Applicant’s arguments are thus not commensurate with what para 0155 identifies.
Furthermore, as one having ordinary skill in the art would understand, the direction of flow across blades of an axial turbomachine is not purely along the axis of rotation rather comprises radial components due to pressures (e.g. section 2.1 of NPL “Design and Simulation of Very Low Head Axial Hydraulic Turbine with Variation of Swirl Velocity Criterion”) and dynamics. This is further supported by Applicant’s own scope of disclosure, e.g. para 0004, which identifies that flow across blades of axial turbomachines exhibits pressures, turbulence, buffeting, and even flow reversal.
For the reasons discussed above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the related rejection is maintained.
Regarding the prior 112(b) rejection regarding a “slice” (addressed in paragraph 2 of page 11 through paragraph 1 of page 12 of Applicant’s Remarks), the limitation has been amended in scope such that the previously formulated rejection of the previous office action no longer applies. The action below addresses the amended limitation.
In paragraph 3 of page 12 through paragraph 1 of page 13 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant’s remarks are directed to that, in defining Theta, “the x-axis is defined in a single orientation, directly with respect to a physical feature of the leading edge of the stator blade.”
Applicant’s remark is incorrect, false. Applicant’s x-axis is not defined directly with a physical feature of the leading edge. In the amendment filed on 3/10/2026, the x-axis is defined by an angle (which is not a physical feature) between a radius (which is not a physical feature, rather an imaginary line merely pointing toward a leading edge from an imaginary axis of rotation) and the x-axis (which is not a physical feature). None of this equates to the x-axis being defined directly with a physical feature.
Direct means “without intervening factors or intermediaries” (https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/law/law/direct) and Applicant’s defined x-axis relies on multiple intervening factors as discussed above.
If, for example, the x-axis were aligned to extend from a leading edge to a trailing edge as a chord line then the x-axis would be directly aligned with physical features of the blade.
But such is not the case with Applicant’s x-axis.
In paragraphs 2-3 of page 13 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant’s remarks are directed to that, Pritesh, in commenting in the 3/4/2026 interview that the disclosure has hidden information from the reader of the patent, was explaining that the angle of the x-axis with respect to the leading edge of the stator blade is in the range as recited in claim 1.
It is noted that Pritesh identified in the 3/4/2026 interview that the disclosure was written to “hide” certain information “from the reader of the patent” regarding the orientation of the x-axis, and that an attempt to intentionally hide any information from the reader of the patent regarding the inventive concept is explicitly at conflict with the whole point of writing a disclosure for a patent application, which is to clearly convey the concept to the reader of the patent. It is unclear how hiding information from the reader of the patent supports, as Applicant’s remarks appear to imply, a clear explanation that the angle of the x-axis is in a range.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
“an angle” identified in claim 1 line 21. It is not clear which angle exactly this is referencing. This element is also recited in claims 9 and 15.
Note that 35 U.S.C. 113 identifies the requirement for drawings to be generally provided (“The applicant shall furnish a drawing where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented.”) and 37 CFR 1.83(a) identifies requirements for what those drawings must show (“The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box)”).
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
Reference characters “θ” (e.g. Fig 55A) and “Theta” (e.g. Fig 55B) are both used to designate the same element across Fig 55A and Fig55B. In the 3/9/2026 interview Applicant’s attorney identified explicitly that the element "Theta" in Fig 55B is the same element "θ" in Fig 55A, responding with “yes” to Examiner’s question if these two references were the same element. The same part of an invention appearing in more than one view of the drawing must always be designated by the same reference character.
For each of the drawing objections above, corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because:
In Figs 58, 60, 62, 64, 66, 68, it is not clear what is shown. For example, in Fig 58, how can 502 be the leading edge and 500 be the trailing edge if they are adjacent (side by side) to each other? For example, in Fig 58, it is not clear which element/edge of the blade is directly attached to the shroud. For example, in Fig 60, why does the feature at the leader line of reference character 500 appear to be missing a dimension/line?
In Figs 55A, 55B, it is not clear what is shown. For example, why does the hub 5508 appear to wrap around two sides of the blade, comprising the entire bottom portion and entire the right portion of Fig 55A? For example, what is the viewing direction for Fig 55B relative to Fig 55A?
It is not clear how the blades 5500 of Figs 55A, 55B relate to the blades 112/116 of other figures, thus an understanding is not clear. For example, why do the blades in Figs 55A, 55B not resemble those shown in either Figs 58 or 64?
For each of the drawing objections above, corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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(s) 1-20 is/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.
Claim 1 identifies, in defining Beta, that “the reference line (5501) being a z-axis (Z)” (line 9) and “wherein the z-axis (Z) of the 3D Cartesian coordinate system is the axis of rotation (5510)” (line 17, in defining Theta) whereas the original disclosure does not identify such, that Beta is defined by a reference line 5501 which is a z-axis (Z) which is the axis of rotation 5510 which also defines Theta.
Claims 9 and 15 are similarly written, suffering from the same deficiency, thus are similarly rejected.
Claim 1 (line 9) recites the limitation “wherein coordinates of a slice (S1) of the first stator blade in a three-dimensional (3D) Cartesian coordinate system are converted to coordinates of the slice (s1) of the first stator blade in the second coordinate system by translating the slice (S1) of the first stator blade to a flat surface (Y-Z) without distorting angles or lengths of the slice (S1), the slice taken at the span of the location by revolving a mean streamline about the axis of rotation (5501) and intersecting the first stator blade, the flat surface (Y-Z) being the y-z plane, the slice including the camber line (5514)” whereas the original disclosure does not identify such.
Para 0155, for example, identifies that “M-prime coordinates are converted from Cartesian coordinates in x, y, z format by taking a slice S1” and that “The slice S1 is translated to a flat surface without distorting angles or lengths, as shown in FIG. 55B, to convert the Cartesian coordinates in x, y, z format to M coordinates (m,s).” This does not equate to, as claimed: coordinates of a slice (S1) in a 3D system are converted to coordinates of the slice in the second coordinate system by translating the slice to a flat surface.
Claims 9 and 15 are similarly written, suffering from the same deficiency, thus are similarly rejected.
Claim 1 (line 20) recites the limitation:
the x-axis of the 3D Cartesian coordinate system is selected such that at the stator hub, an angle between
i) a radius at the leading edge along the radial direction relative to the axis of rotation
and ii) the x-axis
is in the range of 8 degrees to -32 degrees,
whereas the original disclosure does not identify such.
There is no support in the original disclosure for the limitation(s) as claimed.
Therefore, the limitation(s) add(s) new matter and fail(s) to comply with the written description requirement wherein it appears this invention has not been described with sufficient particularity in the original disclosure such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claim(s) 2-8, 10-14, 16-20 is/are also rejected by virtue of their dependency.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/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.
Claim 1 (line 9) recites the limitation “wherein coordinates of a slice (S1) of the first stator blade in a three-dimensional (3D) Cartesian coordinate system are converted to coordinates of the slice (s1) of the first stator blade in the second coordinate system by translating the slice (S1) of the first stator blade to a flat surface (Y-Z) without distorting angles or lengths of the slice (S1), the slice taken at the span of the location by revolving a mean streamline about the axis of rotation (5501) and intersecting the first stator blade, the flat surface (Y-Z) being the y-z plane, the slice including the camber line (5514)” which renders the claim indefinite because the concept is unclear.
For example, how exactly are the coordinates of the slice converted?
The claim identifies “by translating” but the concept is not clear as “translated” can mean “to transform or convert”, “to move or carry from one place or position to another”, “to transfer from one place to another” (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/translated).
It is not clear how any transformation/conversion can be done without “distorting angles or lengths of the slice”, and it is not clear how any coordinates can be converted between systems if the slice is merely “moved” (Applicant’s remarks in para 1 of page 12 filed 3/10/2026 appear to indicate that the slice is physically “moved”).
Claims 9 and 15 are similarly written, suffering from the same deficiency, thus are similarly rejected.
Claims 2-8, 10-14, 16-20 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency.
In view of the 112(b) rejections set forth above, the claims are rejected below as best understood.
Examiner’s note: Due to the nature of the 35 U.S.C. §112 rejections above, the scope of the claims are generally indefinite, and the claims are not meaningfully understood to apply prior art at this time. Particularly, it is not clear what Beta and/or Theta is. This inhibits effective examination.
As a result, regarding claims 1-20 which have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112, where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claims, it would not be proper to reject such claims on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation regarding the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claim.
Therefore, at this time, prior art rejections are not made for claims 1-20.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Art Golik whose telephone number is (571)272-6211. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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 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.
/Art Golik/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights