Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 19/041,520

GAS TURBINE ENGINE HAVING A HEAT EXCHANGER LOCATED IN AN ANNULAR DUCT

Non-Final OA §DOUBLEPATENT
Filed
Jan 30, 2025
Priority
Jan 27, 2023 — CIP of 11/927,134 +2 more
Examiner
KIM, CRAIG SANG
Art Unit
3741
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
General Electric Company
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
1y 6m
Est. Remaining
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allowance Rate
673 granted / 781 resolved
+16.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+9.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
21 currently pending
Career history
810
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
68.2%
+28.2% vs TC avg
§102
18.2%
-21.8% vs TC avg
§112
9.0%
-31.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 781 resolved cases

Office Action

§DOUBLEPATENT
DETAILED ACTION This is a final rejection in response to amendment filed 9/16/25. Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, filed 9/16/25, with respect to 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive in combination with the amendments to the claims. The rejections of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn. Applicant's arguments filed 9/16/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regards to the Double Patenting rejection. No terminal disclaimer has been filed. 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. Claim 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, respectively, of copending Application No.18436275 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the 18436275 reference include all of the limitations of the present application but also include additional limitations. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3 and 9-20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 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 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 CRAIG SANG KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1418. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM. 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. /CRAIG KIM/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 3741
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 30, 2025
Application Filed
May 16, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DOUBLEPATENT
Sep 16, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 28, 2025
Final Rejection mailed — §DOUBLEPATENT
Jan 28, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 05, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 17, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 14, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DOUBLEPATENT (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12680503
FUEL CHARACTERISTIC
2y 0m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12674416
GEARBOX ASSEMBLY WITH LUBRICANT EXTRACTION VOLUME RATIO
1y 1m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12650079
TURBINE ENGINE AIRFOIL
1y 3m to grant Granted Jun 09, 2026
Patent 12650114
METHOD OF VECTORING ROCKET THRUST USING AN ELECTRIC FIELD
1y 1m to grant Granted Jun 09, 2026
Patent 12623787
ENGINE ARRANGEMENT FOR AN AIRCRAFT, AND AIRCRAFT
1y 2m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
86%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+9.9%)
3y 0m (~1y 6m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 781 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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