Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species II (FIG. 4B), Option I (FIG. 5A), and Category I (fan blade), corresponding to claims 1-20 in the reply filed on 23 March 2026 is acknowledged.
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 23 March 2026.
Claims 1-20 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted was/were considered by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The term inversely disposed circumferential positions introduced in claim 5 is interpreted to mean the airfoils are located at opposite sides of a circle across the diameter of the circle, based on the explanation in paragraph [0100] of the specification.
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 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) 1-6 and 9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Acton et al (US 4967550), hereafter referred to as Acton.
Regarding Claim 1, Acton discloses the following:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising computer- executable instructions (note, the controller is inherently programmed with instructions to perform the method below), which when executed by a processor associated with an electronic controller for an aeronautical gas turbine engine, cause the electronic controller to perform a method of controlling the aeronautical gas turbine engine, the method comprising:
determining, with the electronic controller (synonymous with control system, see for example Col. 4, lines 5-20), an airfoil pitch control command (synonymous with the processing means that continuously acts to counter the sensed blade flutter; see Col. 4, lines 35-50) for at least one of a plurality of airfoils (fan blades 1002 and/or variable guide vanes 1114; see Col. 32, lines 35-58) of the aeronautical gas turbine engine based at least in part on an excitation load (synonymous with blade flutter; see Col. 32, lines 35-58) acting upon the aeronautical gas turbine engine; and
outputting, with the electronic controller (see Col. 32, lines 35-45), the airfoil pitch control command to one or more actuators (1016 and/or 1116) actuatable to change a pitch angle of the at least one of the plurality of airfoils (fan blades 1002 and/or variable guide vanes 1114; see Col. 32, lines 35-58), wherein the airfoil pitch control command is configured to augment and/or compensate for the excitation load (synonymous with blade flutter; see Col. 32, lines 35-58) acting upon the aeronautical gas turbine engine.
Regarding Claim 2, Acton discloses the following:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1,
wherein the plurality of airfoils comprises a plurality of fan blades (1002; FIG. 10A; see Col. 32, lines 35-58), and wherein the airfoil pitch control command is configured to change a pitch angle of at least one of the plurality of fan blades (1002; FIG. 10A; see Col. 32, lines 35-58);
and/or wherein the plurality of airfoils comprises a plurality of guide vanes (1114; FIG. 11; see Col. 32, lines 35-58), and wherein the airfoil pitch control command is configured to change a pitch angle of at least one of the plurality of guide vanes (see Col. 32, lines 35-58).
Regarding Claim 3, Acton discloses the following:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1,
wherein the plurality of airfoils (1002 and/or 1114; FIG. 10A,B, 11) comprises a plurality of fan blades (1002; FIG. 10B; see Col. 32, lines 35-58) and a plurality of guide vanes (1114; FIG. 11; see Col. 32, lines 35-58), and wherein the excitation load (synonymous with blade flutter; see Col. 32, lines 35-58) acting upon the aeronautical gas turbine engine comprises an excitation load (synonymous with blade flutter; see Col. 32, lines 35-58) acting upon one or more of the plurality of fan blades (1002; FIG. 10B; see Col. 32, lines 35-58), and wherein the airfoil pitch control command is configured to change a pitch angle of at least one of the plurality of guide vanes (1114; FIG. 11; see Col. 32, lines 35-58).
Regarding Claim 4, Acton discloses the following:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1,
wherein the excitation load (synonymous with blade flutter; see Col. 32, lines 35-58) comprises an asymmetric load (synonymous with blade flutter; since flutter is between one or more of the airfoils) corresponding to one or more circumferential positions of respective ones of the plurality of airfoils (1002 and/or 1114; FIG. 10A,B, 11), and wherein the airfoil pitch control command is configured to at least partially offset the asymmetric load (see Col. 32, lines 35-58).
Regarding Claim 5, Acton discloses the following:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1,
wherein the airfoil pitch control command for the at least one of the plurality of airfoils (1002 and/or 1114; FIG. 10A,B, 11) comprises one or more airfoil pitch control commands configured to change a first pitch angle of a first one of the plurality of airfoils (1002 and/or 1114; FIG. 10A,B, 11) and a second pitch angle of a second one of the plurality of airfoils (1002 and/or 1114; FIG. 10A,B, 11); and
wherein the first one of the plurality of airfoils (1002 and/or 1114; FIG. 10A,B, 11) and the second one of the plurality of airfoils (1002 and/or 1114; FIG. 10A,B, 11) are located at inversely disposed circumferential positions (note: Col. 6, lines 2-50 discloses the row of variable stator vanes may be varied as a whole or independently variable).
Regarding Claim 6, Acton discloses the following:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 5,
wherein the one or more airfoil pitch control commands comprises:
a first airfoil pitch control command configured to change the first pitch angle of the first one of the plurality of airfoils (1002 and/or 1114; FIG. 10A,B, 11); and
a second airfoil pitch control command configured to change the second pitch angle of the second one of the plurality of airfoils (1002 and/or 1114; FIG. 10A,B, 11). (Note: Col. 6, lines 2-50 discloses the row of variable stator vanes may be independently variable, thus the vanes would each receive their own control signal.)
Regarding Claim 9, Acton discloses the following:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1,
comprising further computer-executable instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the electronic controller to further perform the method of controlling the aeronautical gas turbine engine, including:
determining, with the electronic controller, the excitation load (synonymous with blade flutter; see Col. 32, lines 35-58) acting upon the aeronautical gas turbine engine, wherein the excitation load (synonymous with blade flutter; see Col. 32, lines 35-58) is determined based at least in part on sensor data from one or more sensors (see Col. 31, lines 15-20).
Regarding Claim 10, Acton discloses the following:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 9,
wherein the excitation load (synonymous with blade flutter; see Col. 32, lines 35-58) acts upon the aeronautical gas turbine engine as a result of, or in relation to, one or more airfoil excitation phenomenon, the one or more airfoil excitation phenomenon comprising at least one of: a cyclic excitation and an autogenous excitation (synonymous with fan blade flutter).
Regarding Claim 11, Acton discloses the following:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 9,
wherein determining the excitation load (synonymous with blade flutter; see Col. 32, lines 35-58) comprises determining a variation in sensor values indicative of an autogenous excitation (synonymous with fan blade flutter).
Regarding Claim 12, Acton discloses the following:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11,
wherein determining the excitation load (synonymous with blade flutter; see Col. 32, lines 35-58) comprises at least one of:
determining an amplitude (see claim 1; amplitude relationship with at least one mode is synonymous with amplitude relationship with sensed blade flutter) of the sensor values and/or a slope of the amplitude of the sensor values; and/or determining a frequency of the sensor values and/or a slope of the frequency of the sensor values (see for example claim 4; variations in the frequency of the mode of unsteady motion is synonymous with variations in the frequency of sensed blade flutter; also see Col. 13, lines 15-25).
Regarding Claim 13, Acton discloses the following:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1,
wherein determining the airfoil pitch control command comprises:
determining a baseline schedule (since the control system is actively controlling the vanes based on sensed blade flutter, the baseline schedule is synonymous with a command made from the controller at a particular chosen time) for the pitch angle of respective ones of the plurality of airfoils (1002 and/or 1114; FIG. 10A,B, 11); and
determining one or more changes (since the control system is actively controlling the vanes based on sensed blade flutter, changes are continuously being made to the baseline schedule) to the baseline schedule (since the control system is actively controlling the vanes based on sensed blade flutter, the baseline schedule is synonymous with a command made from the controller at a particular chosen time) the one or more changes to the baseline schedule configured to change the pitch angle of one or more of the plurality of airfoils (1002 and/or 1114; FIG. 10A,B, 11).
Regarding Claim 14, Acton discloses the following:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1,
wherein determining the airfoil pitch control command comprises:
determining a first airfoil pitch control command configured to actuate an ensemble actuator to collectively change (note: Col. 6, lines 2-50 discloses the row of variable stator vanes may be varied as a whole or independently variable) the pitch angle of respective ones of the plurality of airfoils (1002 and/or 1114; FIG. 10A,B, 11); and
determining a second airfoil pitch control command configured to actuate one or more unitary actuators respectively configured to individually change (note: Col. 6, lines 2-50 discloses the row of variable stator vanes may be varied as a whole or independently variable) the pitch angle of a respective one of the plurality of airfoils (1002 and/or 1114; FIG. 10A,B, 11).
Regarding Claim 15, Acton discloses the following:
An excitation load (synonymous with blade flutter; see Col. 32, lines 35-58) control system for an aeronautical gas turbine engine, the excitation load (synonymous with blade flutter; see Col. 32, lines 35-58) control system comprising:
one or more sensors (strain gauges for measuring flutter; see Col. 7, lines 5-10) configured to provide sensor data indicative of an excitation load (synonymous with blade flutter; see Col. 32, lines 35-58) acting upon the aeronautical gas turbine engine;
a pitch change assembly comprising one or more actuators (1016, FIG. 10A and/or 1116, FIG. 11) actuatable to individually and/or collectively change (note: Col. 6, lines 2-50 discloses the row of variable stator vanes may be varied as a whole or independently variable) a pitch angle of respective ones of a plurality of airfoils (1002 and/or 1114; FIG. 10A,B, 11) of the aeronautical gas turbine engine; and
an electronic controller configured to perform a method comprising: determining the excitation load (synonymous with blade flutter; see Col. 32, lines 35-58) acting upon the aeronautical gas turbine engine based at least in part on the sensor data (see Col. 32, lines 35-58);
determining an airfoil pitch control command (synonymous with the processing means that continuously acts to counter the sensed blade flutter; see Col. 4, lines 35-50) based at least in part on the excitation load (synonymous with blade flutter; see Col. 32, lines 35-58); and
outputting the airfoil pitch control command (see Col. 4, lines 35-50) to the one or more actuators (1016, FIG. 10A and/or 1116, FIG. 11), wherein the airfoil pitch control command is configured to augment and/or compensate for the excitation load (synonymous with blade flutter; see Col. 32, lines 35-58).
Regarding Claim 16, Acton discloses the following:
The excitation load (synonymous with blade flutter; see Col. 32, lines 35-58) control system of claim 15,
wherein the one or more sensors comprise at least one of:
one or more strain gauges (strain gauges for measuring flutter; see Col. 7, lines 5-10).
Regarding Claim 17, Acton discloses the following:
The excitation load (synonymous with blade flutter; see Col. 32, lines 35-58) control system of claim 16, comprising:
one or more position indicators configured to determine a circumferential position at least one of the plurality of airfoils (1002 and/or 1114; FIG. 10A,B, 11), and/or one or more pitch angle indicators respectively configured to determine a pitch angle of at least one of the plurality of airfoils (1002 and/or 1114; FIG. 10A,B, 11).
Regarding Claim 18, Acton discloses the following:
The excitation load (synonymous with blade flutter; see Col. 32, lines 35-58) control system of claim 15,
wherein the plurality of airfoils (1002 and/or 1114; FIG. 10A,B, 11) comprises at least one of: a plurality of fan blades (1002; FIG. 10B; see Col. 32, lines 35-58), and a plurality of guide vanes (1114; FIG. 11; see Col. 32, lines 35-58).
Regarding Claim 19, Acton discloses the following:
The excitation load (synonymous with blade flutter; see Col. 32, lines 35-58) control system of claim 15,
wherein the aeronautical gas turbine engine comprises an open rotor aeronautical gas turbine engine.
Regarding Claim 20, Acton discloses the following:
A method of controlling an aeronautical gas turbine engine, the method comprising:
determining, with an electronic controller, an airfoil pitch control command (synonymous with the processing means that continuously acts to counter the sensed blade flutter; see Col. 4, lines 35-50) for at least one of a plurality of airfoils (1002 and/or 1114; FIG. 10A,B, 11) of the aeronautical gas turbine engine based at least in part on an excitation load (synonymous with blade flutter; see Col. 32, lines 35-58) acting upon the aeronautical gas turbine engine; and
outputting, with the electronic controller (see Col. 32, lines 35-45), the airfoil pitch control command to one or more actuators (1016, FIG. 10A and/or 1116, FIG. 11) actuatable to change a pitch angle of the at least one of the plurality of airfoils (1002 and/or 1114; FIG. 10A,B, 11), wherein the airfoil pitch control command is configured to augment and/or compensate (see Col. 32, lines 35-45) for the excitation load (synonymous with blade flutter; see Col. 32, lines 35-58) acting upon the aeronautical gas turbine engine (also see, for example Col. 20, lines 0-20).
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.
Claims 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Acton et al (US 4967550), hereafter referred to as Acton, in view of design choice.
Regarding Claims 7 and 8, Acton discloses the following:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 5, (and claim 7 respectively)
Acton does not explicitly disclose the following:
wherein the one or more airfoil pitch control commands are configured to change at least one of: the first pitch angle of the first one of the plurality of airfoils at a circumferential position corresponding to a horizontally leftward orientation, and the second pitch angle of the second one of the plurality of airfoils at a circumferential position corresponding to a horizontally rightward orientation (claim 7); wherein the circumferential position corresponding to the horizontally leftward orientation is from a seven o'clock position to an eleven o'clock position; and/or wherein the circumferential position corresponding to the horizontally rightward orientation is from a one o'clock position to a five o'clock position (claim 8);
However the Examiner notes the following:
MOTIVATION STATEMENT
Acton discloses a variable vane control system that is capable of independently actuating variable guide vanes to correct blade flutter but falls short of disclosing: wherein the one or more airfoil pitch control commands are configured to change at least one of: the first pitch angle of the first one of the plurality of airfoils at a circumferential position corresponding to a horizontally leftward orientation, and the second pitch angle of the second one of the plurality of airfoils at a circumferential position corresponding to a horizontally rightward orientation (claim 7); wherein the circumferential position corresponding to the horizontally leftward orientation is from a seven o'clock position to an eleven o'clock position; and/or wherein the circumferential position corresponding to the horizontally rightward orientation is from a one o'clock position to a five o'clock position (claim 8). In other words, Acton discloses the exact same structure and method as the Instant Application, except for the relative dimensions claimed. The Instant Application has not disclosed the limitation(s) of Claims 7 and 8; provides any criticality. Note that the mere existence of these relative dimensions themselves in the claim cannot impart criticality as any independently actuated variable vane assembly could be described in such a way. Therefore without explicit support for the relative dimensions of the claim(s) providing a critical result beyond merely selecting possible vane position combinations that may arise during the actuation of the vanes to combat flutter, it appears Acton would perform equally well with the relative values as claimed by Applicant. Since the courts have held that, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was 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 was not patentably distinct from the prior art device,” 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 independently actuated and controlled vanes, as disclosed by Acton, by utilizing the specific value(s) (relative dimensions) as described above, with the reasonable expectation of successfully combating blade flutter (see Acton, Col. 20, lines 0-20) (see MPEP 2144.04, IV, A).
Prior Art
See form No. 892 for other references pertinent to the application that may not have been cited within the Office Action.
For references which show similar control systems see Pages 1-2.
Fadlun et al (US 20150027212) discloses using Artificial Intelligence to determine an output command based off a sensed condition that is determined to be in a degradation state.
Conclusion
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 on (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