DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the combustion” is believed to be in error for --the combustor--. 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 1-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 6 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,291,997. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 1 of 12,291,997 comprises all of the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application in addition to further limitations.
Claim 2 of 12,291,997 comprises the same limitations as claim 2 of the instant application.
Claim 3 of 12,291,997 comprises the same limitations as claim 3 of the instant application.
Claim 6 of 12,291,997 comprises the same limitations as claim 4 of the instant application.
Claim 8 of 12,291,997 comprises the same limitations as claim 5 of the instant application.
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 6, 9, 14, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCaffrey 2009/0162192 in view of Birkholz 5,672,047.
In regards to Independent Claim 6, McCaffrey teaches a variable area turbine nozzle assembly (vane 32 and extension 50) defining a radial direction (direction along length of 50) and a circumferential direction (circumferential direction about central axis Cl in figure 1), the variable area nozzle assembly comprising: a guide vane (vane 32) including an airfoil (32 is an airfoil, paragraph [0004]) and an extension (50) extending at least partially along the radial direction at an outer end of the airfoil (as shown in figure 2), the extension defining a first coefficient of thermal expansion (50 comprises a material that will have a coefficient of thermal expansion) and the airfoil defining a pitch axis (32 rotates about axis of 50, paragraph [0018]), the guide vane defining a flowpath surface configured to be exposed to a combustion gas flow (outer surfaces of 32 exposed to gases as shown in figure 1); and an outer support ring spaced radially outward from the airfoil of the guide vane (ring 40), the outer support ring defining a second coefficient of thermal expansion (40 comprises a material with a coefficient of thermal expansion), wherein the extension is operably engaged with the outer support ring to adjust an angle of the airfoil about the pitch axis in response to a change in temperature of the combustion gas flow (paragraphs [0015] and [0019]). However, McCaffrey does not teach that the vane and extension comprise a greater coefficient of thermal expansion than the outer support ring. Birkholz teaches using a higher coefficient of thermal expansion for more inward components of an adjustable stator vane assembly (Col. 2, ll. 43-54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to use a lower coefficient of thermal expansion material for the vane and extension of McCaffrey than the material of the outer support ring of McCaffrey, according to the teachings of Birkholz, in order to maintain the clearances of the components over a wide range of temperatures (Col. 2, ll. 43-54).
Regarding Dependent Claim 9, McCaffrey in view of Birkholz teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and McCaffrey further teaches an inner support ring (44) spaced radially outward from the guide vane (44 spaced outwardly from 32 in figure 2).
In regards to Independent Claim 14, McCaffrey teaches a gas turbine engine (10) defining a radial direction (direction extending radially outward from central axis CL in figure 1), the gas turbine engine comprising: a combustor (18); a turbine (20 and 22) disposed downstream from the combustion (as shown in figure 1), the turbine including an engine casing (23D and 23E) defining an inner surface (surface of 23D and 23E facing blades 34 as shown in at least figure 2) and a variable area turbine nozzle assembly (variable vanes 32 and inner portion of 50 within 23E) disposed within the engine casing (as shown in figures 1 and 2), the variable area turbine nozzle assembly comprising: a guide vane (32 acts as a guide vane) including an airfoil (32 acts as an airfoil, paragraph [0004], to guide flow to turbine blades 34) and an extension extending at least partially along the radial direction at an outer end of the airfoil (extension 50), the extension defining a first coefficient of thermal expansion (50 will comprise a coefficient of thermal expansion regardless of material used) and the airfoil defining a pitch axis (32 rotates about axis of 50, paragraph [0018]), the guide vane defining a flowpath surface configured to be exposed to a combustion gas flow (outer surface of vanes 32); and an outer support ring spaced radially outward from the airfoil of the guide vane (40), the outer support ring defining a second coefficient of thermal expansion (40 comprises a material that will have a coefficient of thermal expansion), wherein the extension is operably engaged with the outer support ring to adjust an angle of the airfoil about the pitch axis in response to a change in temperature of the combustion gas flow (paragraphs [0015] and [0019]). However, McCaffrey does not teach that the vane and extension comprise a greater coefficient of thermal expansion than the outer support ring. Birkholz teaches using a higher coefficient of thermal expansion for more inward components of an adjustable stator vane assembly (Col. 2, ll. 43-54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to use a lower coefficient of thermal expansion material for the vane and extension of McCaffrey than the material of the outer support ring of McCaffrey, according to the teachings of Birkholz, in order to maintain the clearances of the components over a wide range of temperatures (Col. 2, ll. 43-54).
Regarding Dependent Claim 15, McCaffrey in view of Birkholz teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and McCaffrey further teaches the guide vane includes a first portion defining a leading edge of the guide vane (upstream half of 32 relative to flow direction Ap in figure 2), and a second portion defining a trailing edge of the guide vane (downstream half of 32 relative to flow direction Ap in figure 2).
Regarding Dependent Claim 19, McCaffrey in view of Birkholz teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and McCaffrey further teaches that the variable area turbine nozzle assembly further comprises an inner shroud (outer surface of turbine 34 that is radially inward of 32 in figure 1) radially spaced from an outer shroud (as shown in figure 1), wherein the inner shroud and the outer shroud define a hot-gas flowpath therebetween (hot gases pass over blades 32 and 34 in figure 1), and wherein the guide vane is disposed between the inner shroud and the outer shroud within the hot-gas flowpath (32 is between radially inward portion of 34 and 23E in figures 1 and 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8, 10-13, 16-18 and 20 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: prior art fails to teach, in combination with the other limitations of dependent claims 7 and 17, an anti-rotation tab that extends radially outward from the outer surface of an outer support ring; prior art fails to teach, in combination with the other limitations of dependent claim 10, a linkage configured to rotate the inner support ring circumferentially in response to a change in operational temperature of a combustion gas; prior art fails to teach, in combination with the other limitations of dependent claim 16, that the first portion of the guide vane is stationary, and the second portion of the guide vane is rotatable with the outer centering pin; and prior art fails to teach, in combination with the other limitations of dependent claim 20, an inner centering pin extending into and rotatable within a forward inner nozzle support.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN M SUTHERLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-1902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571) 270 - 1814. 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.
/STEVEN M SUTHERLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752