DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication(s) filed on 27 July 2026.
Claims 1-16 are currently pending.
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 Remarks
The arguments in response to the claims rejection under 35 U.S.C § 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are not found persuasive for the following reasons.
The remarks pertaining to Charbonnier are not found persuasive for the following reasons:
The specification cannot be read into the claims, and the claim language does not require the row of vanes to axially overlap. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The remarks stating the elements 48 are not stator blades are not found persuasive, since the shape of the element 48 shown in FIG. 4 clearly depicts an airfoil, and [0054] discloses the arms 48 deflect airflow from their trailing edges.
The remarks pertaining to Northall are not found persuasive for the following reasons:
The Applicant’s remarks pertaining to FIG. 3 not showing the vanes extending substantially perpendicularly to the axis are not found persuasive since FIG. 2 clearly depicts the vanes 220/240 being perpendicular to the axis.
The Applicant’s remarks pertaining to the guide surface not being inclined at the cited vane row and the second blades don’t extend at the inclined guide surface are not found persuasive since they are not commensurate with the scope of the claim language.
The remarks pertaining to Ramakrishnan are not found persuasive for the following reasons:
The Applicant’s remarks pertain to FIG. 2 are not found persuasive since the Applicant has failed to address the rejection of record. The rejection of record identified the wall as depicted in FIG. 1 and states that [0018] discloses the arrangement depicted in FIG. 2 may be applied anywhere in the turbine shown in FIG. 1. More specifically, the rejection of record specifically chooses the swan-neck vanes shown in FIG. 1 as placement for the embodiment depicted in FIG. 2. For clarity, see the annotated FIG.1 of Ramakrishnan below.
PNG
media_image1.png
965
1142
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As seen in the above annotated figure, the second to the last swan-neck vane arrangement 46, 48 is shown to be substantially perpendicular to the axis of the turbine. Furthermore, the last swan-vane arrangement 44 is shown to be substantially perpendicular to the guide surface.
The Applicant’s remarks pertaining to the second blade extending perpendicularly to “the inclined guide surface” are not found persuasive since the arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim language.
The Examiner notes with respect to all of the references, at least a portion of the guide surface is inclined with respect to the axis, and in some instances at least a portion of the guide surface is perpendicular to the axis.
The original(s) rejection is/are included in this Office Action, with some additional clarity/emphasis added in some instances.
Note, the Applicant has not provided arguments pertaining to the dependent claims, and thus the rejection(s) are upheld.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Examiner note: no 112(f) invocations have been identified by the Office.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 13, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Charbonnier et al (US 20170298741), hereafter referred to as Charbonnier.
Regarding Claim 1, Charbonnier discloses the following:
An assembly for a turbomachine, comprising;
a wall (62, 64) including a guide surface for an airflow and a row of stator blades (44, 48, 56) extending from the wall (62, 64) and arranged annularly around an axis,
said guide surface being inclined with respect to the axis (as seen in FIG. 5-7),
wherein the row of stator blades (44, 48, 56) comprises first blades (44) extending substantially perpendicularly to the axis and second blades (56) extending substantially perpendicularly to the guide surface.
Regarding Claim 3, Charbonnier discloses the following:
The assembly according to claim 1,
wherein the row of the stator blades (44, 48, 56) is formed by groups of the first blades (44) and by groups of the second blades (56), said groups of first and second blades (56) alternating circumferentially.
Regarding Claim 4, Charbonnier discloses the following:
The assembly according to claim 3,
wherein each of the groups of first blades (44) comprises between 3 and 8 blades (four of 44 are shown, see FIG. 4).
Regarding Claim 5, Charbonnier discloses the following:
The assembly according to-claim 3,
wherein each of the groups of second blades (56) comprises between 4 and 10 blades (five of 56 are shown, see FIG. 4).
Regarding Claim 6, Charbonnier discloses the following:
The assembly according to claim 1,
wherein the row of the stator blades (44, 48, 56) further comprises a plurality of third blades (48; FIG. 4) circumferentially regularly arranged between the first blades (44) and the second blades (56),
said third blades (48; FIG. 4) having a respective orientation that is, excluding boundaries, between the perpendicular orientation to the axis of the first blades (44) and the perpendicular orientation to the guide surface of the second blades (56).
Regarding Claim 13, Charbonnier discloses the following:
The assembly according to claim 1,
wherein the guide surface for the airflow forms an inclination angle with the axis between 10° and 60°.
Regarding Claim 15, Charbonnier discloses the following:
The assembly according to claim 4,
wherein each of the groups of first blades (44) comprises 4 blades (as seen in FIG. 4).
Regarding Claim 16, Charbonnier discloses the following:
The assembly according to claim 5,
wherein each of the groups of second blades (56) comprises 5 blades (as seen in FIG. 4).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Northall et al (US 10697471), hereafter referred to as Northall.
For clarity see Examiner Annotated FIG. 3 of Northall below.
PNG
media_image2.png
556
631
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, Northall discloses the following:
An assembly for a turbomachine, comprising;
a wall (walls of duct 100; FIG. 2) including a guide surface for an airflow and a row of stator blades (220; FIG. 3) extending from the wall (walls of duct 100; FIG. 2) and arranged annularly around an axis,
said guide surface being inclined with respect to the axis (as seen in FIG. 3),
wherein the row of stator blades (220; FIG. 3) comprises first blades (A; Examiner Annotated FIG. 3) extending substantially perpendicularly to the axis and second blades (B; Examiner Annotated FIG. 3) extending substantially perpendicularly to the guide surface (as seen in FIG. 2-3).
Regarding Claim 3, Northall discloses the following:
The assembly according to claim 1,
wherein the row of the stator blades (220; FIG. 3) is formed by groups of the first blades (A; Examiner Annotated FIG. 3) and by groups of the second blades (B; Examiner Annotated FIG. 3), said groups of first and second blades (B; Examiner Annotated FIG. 3) alternating circumferentially.
Regarding Claim 6, Northall discloses the following:
The assembly according to claim 1,
wherein the row of the stator blades (220; FIG. 3) further comprises a plurality of third blades (C; Examiner Annotated FIG. 3) circumferentially regularly arranged between the first blades (A; Examiner Annotated FIG. 3) and the second blades (B; Examiner Annotated FIG. 3),
said third blades (C; Examiner Annotated FIG. 3) having a respective orientation that is, excluding boundaries, between the perpendicular orientation to the axis of the first blades (A; Examiner Annotated FIG. 3) and the perpendicular orientation to the guide surface of the second blades (B; Examiner Annotated FIG. 3).
Regarding Claim 12, Northall discloses the following:
The assembly according to claim 6,
wherein the first blades (A; Examiner Annotated FIG. 3), the second blades (B; Examiner Annotated FIG. 3), and the third blades (C; Examiner Annotated FIG. 3) all have a same chord length.
Regarding Claim 14, Northall discloses the following:
An axial turbomachine, comprising;
a low-pressure compressor (14; FIG. 1),
a high-pressure compressor (15; FIG. 1), and
a swan-neck vein (240; FIG. 2) arranged axially between the low-pressure compressor and the high-pressure compressor,
wherein the swan-neck vein contains the assembly according to claim 1 (as shown above).
Claim(s) 1-2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ramakrishnan et al (US 20120328432), hereafter referred to as Ramakrishnan.
For clarity, see Examiner annotated FIG. 1 of Ramakrishnan below.
PNG
media_image1.png
965
1142
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, Ramakrishnan discloses the following:
An assembly for a turbomachine, comprising;
a wall (FIG. 1) including a guide surface for an airflow and a row of stator blades (46, 48; FIG. 2) extending from the wall (FIG. 1) and arranged annularly around an axis,
said guide surface being inclined with respect to the axis (as seen in FIG. 1),
wherein the row of stator blades (46, 48; FIG. 2) comprises first blades (46; FIG. 2) extending substantially perpendicularly to the axis and second blades (48; FIG. 2) extending substantially perpendicularly to the guide surface (it is noted, [0018] discloses the embodiment of FIG. 2 may be located in the compressor of the turbine, thus the embodiment is applied to the swan-neck vanes between the low and high pressure compressors of FIG. 1, the second to last of the swan-neck vanes being the 46, 48 set and the last swan-neck vane being the downstream row 44; see Examiner annotated FIG. 1 above for clarity).
Regarding Claim 2, Ramakrishnan discloses the following:
The assembly according to claim 1,
further comprising structural arms (44; FIG. 2) axially arranged directly downstream of the row of the stator blades (46, 48; FIG. 2),
inter-arm spaces being defined between two circumferentially adjacent structural arms (44; FIG. 2),
the first blades (46; FIG. 2) circumferentially overlapping the structural arms (44; FIG. 2) and the second blades (48; FIG. 2) circumferentially overlapping the inter-arm spaces (as seen in FIG. 2).
Regarding Claim 11, Ramakrishnan discloses the following:
The assembly according to claim 2,
wherein the trailing edge of the first blades (46; FIG. 2) defines a first distance in the direction of the airflow with a leading edge of the structural arms (44; FIG. 2) axially arranged directly downstream of the row of the stator blades (46, 48; FIG. 2), and
the trailing edge of the second blades (48; FIG. 2) defines a second distance in the direction of the airflow with the leading edge of the structural arms (44; FIG. 2),
said first distance being greater than the second distance (as seen in FIG. 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 would appear to be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
In combination with the other structures required by the independent claims, the inclusion of:
Regarding Claim 7:
wherein the respective orientation of the third blades varies progressively in accordance with the circumferential position of the third blades relative to the first and second blades,
the third blades having an orientation closer to that of the first blades the closer they are circumferentially to them, and the third blades having an orientation closer to that of the second blades the closer they are circumferentially to them;
Regarding Claims 8-10:
Claims 8-10 are ultimately dependent upon claim 7.
was not found or fairly taught by prior art and differentiated the claims from the closest prior art to Charbonnier et al (US 20170298741), Taylor et al (US 20060034689), Northall et al (US 10697471), or Ramakrishnan et al (US 20120328432).
The Examiner notes Charbonnier is considered the closest prior art and does not teach the limitations as described above. Further, it appears there would be no reason to modify the prior art without the benefit of Applicant's disclosure and impermissible hindsight.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 BRIAN C DELRUE whose telephone number is (313)446-6567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Eastern).
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, Nathaniel E. Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/BRIAN CHRISTOPHER DELRUE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights