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 .
This is the third office action on the merits. This office action is in response to the request for continued examination filed on 05/18/2026. Applicant has amended claims 1, 8, 14-15, and 23 and canceled claim 21. Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-20, and 22-23 are pending and examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 18, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 20: “the ratio of a fan inlet temperature to a combustor outlet temperature” is believed to be in error for --the ratio of the fan inlet temperature to the combustor outlet temperature-- (see claim 1, lines 15-16)
Claim 8, line 29: “a generator mode” is believed to be in error for --the generator mode-- (see claim 8, lines 6-7)
Claim 8, line 30: “a motor mode” is believed to be in error for --the motor mode-- (see claim 8, line 7)
Claim 15, line 29: “a generator mode” is believed to be in error for --the generator mode-- (see claim 15, lines 4-5)
Claim 15, line 30: “a motor mode” is believed to be in error for --the motor mode-- (see claim 15, line 5)
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-20, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly for claims 8 and 15), the limitation “the controller is configured to:…command the high spool motor-generator to push power to the low spool motor-generator in response to determining the ratio of a fan inlet temperature to a combustor outlet temperature is less than the threshold fan-inlet-temperature-to-combustor-outlet-temperature ratio” lacks written description because the specification fails to provide enough detail to reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter. Regarding the limitation, the only support provided in the specification is found in paragraphs [0010], [0016], [0026], [0048], [0050], and [0055]. Paragraphs [0010], [0016], [0026], and [0055] merely repeat the claim limitation verbatim. Paragraph [0048] provides: “For example, at an increased fan inlet temperature and/or a decreased ratio of the fan inlet temperature to the combustor outlet temperature, controller 116 may command high spool motor-generator 78 to push power to low spool motor-generator 76.” Paragraph [0055] merely provides that the fan inlet temperature to combustor outlet ratio is one of various engine operating conditions that would cause the controller to push power from the low spool motor-generator to the high spool motor-generator, or vice versa.
There is no information on what exactly the “threshold fan-inlet-temperature-to-combustor-outlet-temperature ratio” is or what it entails. For example, the specification does not provide any example numerical values for this ratio. The specification also does not relate this threshold ratio to any operating conditions of the engine (e.g., a high power condition, a low power condition, etc.). Furthermore, there is no information regarding what happens in the event that the ratio of the fan inlet temperature to a combustor outlet temperature is greater than the threshold ratio. One cannot assume that the low spool motor-generator will push power to the high spool motor-generator if the actual ratio is greater than the threshold ratio. The specification does not provide any algorithms or flowcharts to properly illustrate how the claimed invention will work.
The limitation is overly broad, and the specification does not provide any quantitative (e.g., numerical values) or qualitative (e.g., engine conditions) details regarding the “threshold fan-inlet-temperature-to combustor-outlet-temperature ratio”. The limitation would cover every engine in existence because the “threshold” is undefined. For example, an engine sitting idle at an airport would qualify having a fan inlet temperature to a combustor outlet temperature being less than said “threshold” because the threshold could be set at any value slightly above 1. An engine sitting idle at an airport would meet easily meet the limitation because the combustor outlet temperature would be approximately the fan inlet temperature (i.e., both would be at atmospheric temperature), thus the ratio of these two quantities would be less than a value slightly above 1 (assuming units are in Kelvin, however, the specification does not specify which units are to be used). Likewise, an engine performing a high power maneuver (such as takeoff) would also qualify having a fan inlet temperature to a combustor outlet temperature being less than a threshold of slightly above 1 (since the combustor outlet temperature will be much greater than the fan inlet temperature, the ratio will be a fraction less than 1, assuming units are in Kelvin).
Additionally, the units of the fan inlet temperature and the combustor outlet temperature are unknown. This poses an issue when the ratio of these two temperatures are computed. For example, a first temperature in Celsius divided by a second temperature in Celsius does not produce the same value as the first temperature in Kelvin divided by the second temperature in Kelvin. The specification does not specify whether the ratio is based on division of temperatures in Fahrenheit, Celsius, or Kelvin.
For computer-implemented functional claim limitations, MPEP 2161.01(I), 6th paragraph, provides the following: “Similarly, original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient)”.
The specification does not provide any algorithms or steps for performing the computer-implemented function, and the specification merely restates the function recited in the claim (that a fan inlet temperature to a combustor outlet temperature being less than said “threshold”). For these reasons, the claim lacks written description.
Claims 3-7, 10-14, 17-20, and 22-23 are also rejected for the same reasons and because they depend on either claim 1, 8, or 15.
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, 3-8, 10-15, 17-20, and 22-23 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 (and similarly for claims 8 and 15), the limitation “the controller is configured to:…command the high spool motor-generator to push power to the low spool motor-generator in response to determining the ratio of a fan inlet temperature to a combustor outlet temperature is less than the threshold fan-inlet-temperature-to-combustor-outlet-temperature ratio” is indefinite because the “threshold fan-inlet-temperature-to-combustor-outlet-temperature ratio” is not well-defined. The specification does not provide any numerical values for this threshold ratio, nor does it describe the engine conditions that this threshold ratio entails. Furthermore, it is not understood what happens in the event that the ratio of the fan inlet temperature to a combustor outlet temperature is greater than the threshold ratio. The specification does not provide any algorithms or flowcharts to properly illustrate how the claimed invention will work.
As stated in the above 35 U.S.C. 112(a) section, the limitation is overly broad and would cover every engine in existence because the “threshold” is undefined in both quantitative and qualitative terms.
Additionally, the limitation is indefinite because the units of the fan inlet temperature and the combustor outlet temperature are unknown. A computation involving division of temperatures in Celsius produces a result that is different that division of the same temperatures in Kelvin. It is not known whether comparing the ratio of the fan inlet temperature to the combustor outlet temperature to the threshold is based on computing the ratio in units of Fahrenheit, Celsius, or Kelvin.
Regarding claims 11-14 and 18-20, these claims recite additional conditional limitations that may possibly conflict with the conditional limitation of claims 8 and 15. For example, claim 11 (which depends on claim 8) requires “the controller is configured to command the low spool motor-generator to operate in the push power mode in response to determining the velocity of the change in throttle position is greater than the threshold throttle change velocity”, which could be interpreted as a high power event. However, the claim 8 limitation requires “the controller is configured to command the high spool motor-generator to operate in the push power mode in response to determining the ratio of the fan inlet temperature to the combustor outlet temperature is less than the threshold fan-inlet- temperature-to-combustor-outlet-temperature ratio”, which could also be interpreted as a high power event. The specification provides no guidance on what happens in the event of two conflicting scenarios. Which one overrides the other? The specification does not provide any algorithms or flowcharts to determine what happens under these two conflicting events.
MPEP 2181, subsection (II)(B) states: “Accordingly, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is appropriate if the specification discloses no corresponding algorithm associated with a computer or microprocessor” and “Mere reference to a general purpose computer with appropriate programming without providing an explanation of the appropriate programming, or simply reciting "software" without providing detail about the means to accomplish a specific software function, would not be an adequate disclosure of the corresponding structure to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph”.
Claims 3-7, 10-14, 17-20, and 22-23 are also rejected because they depend on either claim 1, 8, or 15.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
Regarding Applicant’s argument (pg. 11, 2nd para. of REMARKS) that “The present amendments therefore address the precise concern identified by the Office Action…”, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 has been amended to include “in commanding the high spool motor-generator to push power to the low spool motor-generator, the controller is configured to command the high spool motor-generator to operate in a generator mode and the low spool motor-generator to operate a motor mode”. This additional amendment merely provides the next steps after the high spool motor-generator has pushed power to the low spool motor-generator. Since the low spool motor-generator has now received additional power, it can now drive (as a motor) the low spool transmission, and thus the load, whereas the high spool motor-generator has loss power and should operate in a generator mode to recover its loss power. These next steps do not address the concerns highlighted in the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) section, namely:
the threshold fan-inlet-temperature-to combustor-outlet-temperature ratio is still not defined numerically or qualitatively;
there are still no algorithms or flowcharts provided; and
there is still no information on what happens when the ratio is greater than the threshold.
Additionally, when computing the ratio of the fan inlet temperature to the combustor outlet temperature, it is not known which units to use for temperature. The numerical value of this ratio will vary based on the units chosen. For example, assume the fan inlet temperature to be 15°C (equivalent to 288.15 K) and the combustor outlet temperature to be 2000°C (equivalent to 2273.15 K). The ratio will be 0.0075 when computed in Celsius temperature units, whereas the ratio will be 0.1268 when computed in Kelvin temperature units. When comparing to the threshold value (which is currently unknown), it is not known whether the comparison should be based on the computed ratio using Celsius or Kelvin because there is no indication in the specification.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Note that the responses from the previous section equally apply to Applicant’s argument in this section, specifically for Applicant’s argument (pg. 12, 3rd para.) that “Claims 8 and 15 now likewise recite the concrete receipt and comparison steps for the ratio-based trigger and further clarify the relationship between the push-power command and the generator-mode/motor-mode implementation”. Applicant’s amendment to claims 8 and 15 still do not provide any details of the threshold, how the ratio is computed (what units to use for temperature), and what happens when the computed ratio is greater than the threshold. For these reasons, the claims (including claim 1) remain indefinite.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (pg. 12, last para.) that “Applicant also respectfully traverses the Office’s concern…that claims 11-24 and 18-20 may present conflicting conditions relative to claims 8 and 15”, as stated previously, there are no flowcharts or algorithms provided, and additionally no discussion in the specification. The specification merely provides that the motor-generators could push power to one another based on one or more flight parameters and/or engine operating conditions. As an example using claim 11, there is no information on what happens when the following conditions occur:
ratio of fan inlet temperature to combustor outlet temperature is less than the threshold fan-inlet-temperature-to-combustor-outlet-temperature, AND
a velocity of a change in throttle position to is greater than the threshold throttle change velocity.
Based on the 1st condition, claim 8 requires the high spool motor-generator to push power to the low spool motor-generator. Based on the 2nd condition, claim 11 requires the low spool motor-generator to push power to the high-spool motor generator. Which condition overrides the other? Which motor-generator actually pushes power to the other? There is no information in the specification to provide these answers.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102
In view of Applicant’s amendments to claim 1, the prior art rejections under Kupratis have been withdrawn for claims 1, 3-7, and 22.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
In view of Applicant’s amendments to claim 1, the prior art rejections under Kupratis, in view of Gansler, have been withdrawn for claims 21 and 23.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY NG whose telephone number is (571)272-2318. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:30 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.
/HENRY NG/ /GERALD L SUNG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741 Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights