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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “gas engine” in line 1 should be “gas turbine engine” consistent with the remaining dependent claim preambles. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5, 7 of U.S. Patent No. 10,287,917 in view of Morin US 8,246,292.
Regarding claims 1, 3, ‘917 discloses all elements all elements including a more specific propulsor, i.e. fan, a compressor, a turbine, a geared architecture as claimed, and the PTP as claimed. ‘917 does not expressly state the compressor has a first and second compressor, a turbine having a first and second turbine, a reduction gear ratio of 2.3 and a compressor inlet passage as claimed.
Morin discloses a compressor with a first and second compressor 44, 52, a turbine having a first and second turbine, 54, 46, a geared reduction ratio of 2.3, and a compressor inlet passage disposed annularly about the geared architecture, the compressor inlet passage establishing a flow path between the propulsor section and the compressor section, the compressor inlet passage including an inlet at a splitter adjacent to the propulsor section and an outlet adjacent to the compressor section. See the sole figure at the curved arrow by the bypass B.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled worker to provide the gas turbine structure of Morin to claim 5 of ‘917 in order to provide an engine that produces less noise. See Morin abstract.
Regarding claim 4, ‘917, in view of Morin, discloses a gas turbine engine produces more than 15k lbf which overlaps the range of 21-35.3k lbf as claimed.
Regarding claim 5, ‘917, in view of Morin, discloses the epicyclic gear system as claimed in claim 5. See col. 3, line 65-col. 4, line 20.
Regarding claims 11-13, ‘917, in view of Morin, discloses a planetary gear assembly as claimed, the hub to tip diameter as claimed, and the fan with the bypass ratio characteristics as claimed. See claim 1 of ‘917; Morin col. 3, line 65-col. 4, line 39.
Claims 20-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,053,816. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 15 contains all elements of claims 20-1 and more, where the omission of the additional elements is considered obvious.
Claims 1-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 11,053,816 in view of Morin US 8,246,292.
Regarding claim 1, ‘816 discloses all elements of claim 1 and more except for the compressor inlet passage with the splitter as claimed.
Morin teaches the splitter as claimed and discussed in ‘917 above.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled worker to provide the splitter of Morin in the claims of ‘816 to provide an engine that produces less noise. See Morin abstract.
Regarding claim 2, claim 10 of ‘816 discloses all elements.
Regarding claim 3, claim 1 of ‘816 discloses all elements.
Regarding claim 4, claim 6 of ‘816 discloses all elements.
Regarding claim 5, claim 2 of ‘816 discloses all elements.
Regarding claim 6, claims 1 and 12 of ‘816 discloses all elements.
Regarding claim 7, claim 12 of ‘816 discloses all elements.
Regarding claim 8, claim 1 of ‘816 discloses all elements.
Regarding claim 9, claim 22 of ‘816 discloses all elements.
Regarding claim 10, claim 1 of ‘816 discloses all elements.
Regarding claim 11, claim 3 of ‘816 discloses all elements.
Regarding claim 12, claim 20 of ‘816 discloses all elements.
Regarding claim 13, claim 1 of ‘816 discloses all elements.
Regarding claim 14, claim 19 of ‘816 discloses all elements.
Regarding claim 15, claim 12 of ‘816 discloses all elements.
Regarding claim 16, claim 17 of ‘816 discloses all elements.
Regarding claims 17-22, all claims of ‘816 disclose all elements.
Claims 1-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 12,247,493 in view of Morin US 8,246,292.
Regarding claims 1-22, claims 1-30 of ‘493 discloses all elements except for the splitter as claimed.
Morin discloses the splitter as claimed and discussed ‘493 above.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled worker to provide the splitter of Morin in the claims of ‘493 to provide an engine that produces less noise. See Morin abstract.
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.
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.
Claims 1-19 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the fan hub” renders the claim indefinite because its unclear if this is referring to the propulsor hub previously claimed, the hub previously claimed or something different. It is unclear if a propulsor is required to be the fan as well. Additionally, the hub at line 2 raises an ambiguity because of the fan hub and the propulsor hub. The applicant should take care to recite a limitation and consistently refer to the limitation throughout the claims.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “the fan hub” further compounds the ambiguity of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “the fan hub” raises a similar issue to claims 1 and 8. Claim 11 recites that the elements of the propulsor is specifically a fan but fails to recite the propulsor hub is a fan hub. Thus its unclear if the fan hub is the same as the propulsor hub in this specific claim.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “the first turbine” lacks antecedent basis and its unclear if this is referring to the first turbine section or not.
Regarding claim 20, the limitation “the propulsor” at line 5 lacks antecedent basis.
Claims dependent thereon are rejected for the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-22 are otherwise allowable pending resolution of the issues above.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Notwithstanding the issues identified above, the independent claims adopt combinations of previously allowed subject matter which are not taught or fairly suggested in the prior art of record.
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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERALD LUTHER SUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3765. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 PST.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571)272-7118. 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.
/GERALD L SUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights