Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/793,480

PROPELLER CONTROL SYSTEM FOR AN AIRCRAFT

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Aug 02, 2024
Examiner
LEGENDRE, CHRISTOPHER RYAN
Art Unit
3711
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
General Electric Company
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
613 granted / 815 resolved
+5.2% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+26.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
842
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.9%
-38.1% vs TC avg
§103
36.5%
-3.5% vs TC avg
§102
21.9%
-18.1% vs TC avg
§112
35.9%
-4.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 815 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 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. 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. Internet/E-mail Communication In order to permit communication regarding the instant application via email, Applicant is invited to file form PTO/SB/439 (Authorization for Internet Communications) or include the following statement in a separately filed document (see MPEP 502.03 II): Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file. If such authorization is provided, please include an email address in the remarks of a filed response. The examiner’s e-mail address is CHRISTOPHER.LEGENDRE@USPTO.GOV. 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 01 December 2025 has been entered. Response to Amendment Applicant’s amendments filed 01 December 2025 with respect to the claims have been fully considered. Any claim objections and/or 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections not repeated herein are considered to be overcome by the amendments. Response to Remarks/Arguments Applicant’s remarks/arguments filed 01 December 2025 stating “The Office Action dated October 3, 2025, p. 8. The Office Action notes that "after a predetermined time" is assigned to the valve and not the controller. Id. The specification as originally filed describes that "The protective control valve is communicatively coupled with a controller that includes overspeed and feathering logic modules the controller sends one or more signals to the protective control valve such that the protective control valve selectively allows an amount of hydraulic fluid to flow to or from a pitch actuation assembly" The Instant Application, p. 8. Accordingly, the specification teaches that "after a predetermined time" can be assigned to either the valve or the controller” have been fully considered and they are persuasive. Accordingly, the previous corresponding 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection(s) is/are withdrawn. Applicant's remarks/arguments filed 01 December 2025 stating that the amendments directed towards addition of “control the ground beta enable valve…” overcome the previous prior art rejections have been fully considered and they are persuasive. Accordingly, the previous prior art rejections are withdrawn. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 1-8 and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In claim 1, the limitation recited as “after a predetermined time” renders the claim indefinite since there is no reference state(s) established for understanding when such time occurs. Furthermore, the disclosure does not clearly define the start and end points of such “predetermined time”, resulting in an ambiguity. To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests changing this to --when the condition of the gas turbine engine is determined as a failure condition,-- (in light of par. [0071]) to remove the ambiguity and, in response to this change, deleting “based on the condition of the gas turbine engine” (claim 1, last two lines)(notes: “based on the condition of the gas turbine engine” does not establish a reference state for “time” and/or is superfluous in light of the above suggested change). Due to an identical instance, this rejection also applies to claim 11. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claims 2-8 and 12-18. Examiner’s Comment Claims 1-8 and 11-18 would be allowable if amended (as suggested above) to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections set forth above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RYAN LEGENDRE whose telephone is (571)270-3364 and email is christopher.legendre@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM ET. 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 Eugene Kim can be reached at 571-272-4463. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /CHRISTOPHER R LEGENDRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 02, 2024
Application Filed
May 09, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Aug 13, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 01, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Dec 01, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 02, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 15, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12590567
CONTROL METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR WIND TURBINE GENERATOR SET, AND DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12553348
AIRFOIL WITH ARCED BAFFLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12553363
FUSED ROTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12540549
INSERT ASSEMBLY FOR A ROTARY APPARATUS, RELATED APPARATUS AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12535035
MULTI-RING SPACER FOR GAS TURBINE ENGINE ROTOR STACK ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+26.2%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 815 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month