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 .
Claims 1-13 are currently pending. Claims 1-8 and 11-13 are rejected. Claims 9-10 are objected to and have not been further treated on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 14, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1, Line 3 recite “A”, Line 8 recites “(36b)”, Line 12 recites “(38ba)”. These are believed to be references to the figures. All other references to figures have been removed. Applicant is suggested to remove these for consistency.
Regarding Claim 1, Lines 16-17 recite “the external periphery” and “the internal periphery” of “the duct”. These limitations lack antecedent basis since the peripheries of the duct have not been previously introduced. It is believed these recitations intend to introduce the respective peripheries.
Claims 9-10 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the Claims 9-10 not been further treated on the merits.
Claims 2-8 and 11-13 are subsequently objected to for their dependencies upon a previously objected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-8 and 11-13 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, Line 17 recites “in the tangential direction”. It is unclear what tangential direction the claim refers to. In other words, what is the frame of reference tangential is with respect to?
Regarding Claims 3 and 8, Lines 2 and 3 of Claim 3, Lines 3-4 of Claim 8 recite “for example”. The phrase "for example" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, they will be treated as not necessarily required.
Regarding Claim 8, Lines 2-3 recite “for attachment to the diffuser”. The resulting structure is unclear because the recitation of “diffuser” is with respect to the first volute rather than the second volute. See Claim 1, which states the first volute attached or connected to the diffuser rather than the second volute, using the term “respectively” to describe this. It is noted that the preliminary amendments removed reference numeral (36), which is not the reference numeral for what was considered the diffuser (34) throughout the rest of the disclosure.
Regarding Claim 11, Lines 2-3 recite “wherein the parts of the ducts defined by said annular portions have greater thickness than the rest of these ducts”. It is unclear what parts the claim refers to. The first and second volute each comprise an annular duct. The connecting arms connect annular portions of the first and second volutes. However, the scope of the claims does not clearly relate the ducts and the annular portions.
Regarding Claim 13, Line 3 recites “preferably between 8 and 20”. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, Claim 13 recites the broad recitation “between 6 and 60”, and the claim also recites “preferably between 8 and 20” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 2, 4-7, and 12 are subsequently rejected for their dependencies upon a previously rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, and 11, as far as they are definite and understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weiler (US 4,203,283 A), hereinafter Weiler.
Regarding Claim 1, the figure of Weiler discloses a turbine engine (see Col. 1, Lines 6-14), comprising: a compressor (1) extending around an axis (horizontal direction, not shown), an annular combustion chamber (interior of 10) extending around the axis, a system for diffusing and straightening an airstream exiting the compressor (1) to supply the combustion chamber, this system comprising: an annular diffuser comprising a substantially radially oriented outlet and an inlet supplied by the compressor (1), and an annular straightener (region where “V” is annotated) which comprises an outlet for supplying the combustion chamber, and a heat exchanger (not shown, see Col. 3, Lines 17-44), this exchanger comprising: a first circuit supplied with exhaust gas from the turbine engine (see Col. 3, Lines 17-44, particularly regarding being a regenerative heat exchanger with an exchanging matrix and one portion using exhaust gas), and a second circuit comprising an inlet connected by a first volute (9) to the outlet of the diffuser (see Col. 3, Lines 17-44, particularly regarding being a regenerative heat exchanger with an exchanging matrix and one portion using compressor air from 9), and an outlet (not shown, end portion of the exchanger leading to combustor) connected by a second volute to an inlet (left portion of straightener in view of Figure) of the straightener, the first and second volutes being placed side by side and each comprising an annular duct (cross-section shown understood to extend circumferentially around the axis) wound around the axis and connected to a first port (connection portion with heat exchanger not shown) located at the external periphery of the duct and oriented in the tangential direction, and a second port located at the internal periphery of the duct and defining an annular vein of air passage (at second ports), wherein the second port of each of the first and second volutes comprises connecting arms distributed around the axis, these connecting arms extending axially and/or radially through the vein of the second port and rigidly connecting the annular portions of the first and second volutes which are attached or connected respectively to the diffuser and to the straightener (Col. 3, Lines 7 – 64). See also the annotated Figure below. The limitation of being an aircraft turbine engine is treated as intended use of the turbine engine. As noted above, Weiler teaches all the required structure set forth in the body of the claim. The record does not indicate the use for an aircraft results in a structural difference (see MPEP 2111.02 regarding effects of the preamble).
PNG
media_image1.png
807
1202
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Weiler discloses the turbine engine as set forth in Claim 1.
Weiler discloses wherein the first volute (9) comprises an upstream annular portion for attachment to the diffuser and/or to a first casing (any of the adjacent housing structure) of the turbine engine, this upstream portion defining part of the duct and of the second port of this volute (9), first connecting arms (left annotation) extending axially through the vein of the second port of this volute (9) from this upstream annular portion. See the annotated Figure above.
Regarding Claim 3, Weiler discloses the turbine engine as set forth in Claim 2.
Weiler discloses wherein the upstream annular portion of the first volute (9) comprises an annular flange (see where portion is annotated) for attachment to the diffuser and/or the first casing (any adjacent housing structure). See the annotated Figure above.
Regarding Claim 4, Weiler discloses the turbine engine as set forth in Claim 1.
Weiler discloses wherein the first (9) and second volutes share an intermediate annular portion which defines part of the duct and the second port of each volute, said first connecting arms (left annotation) extending axially through the vein of the second port of the first volute (9) to said intermediate annular portion. See the annotated Figure above. The intermediate annular portion is interpretable as the entire portion including the horizontal part the annotation points to and all connecting parts between the volutes.
Regarding Claim 7, Weiler discloses the turbine engine as set forth in Claim 1.
Weiler discloses wherein the second volute comprises a downstream annular portion for attachment to the straightener (see portion where “V” annotation points to) and or to a second casing (any adjacent static structure) of the turbine engine, this downstream portion defining part of the duct and of the second port of this volute. See the annotated Figure above.
Regarding Claim 8, Weiler discloses the turbine engine as set forth in Claim 7.
Weiler discloses wherein the downstream annular portion of the second volute comprises an annular flange (portion “Downstream Annular Portion” points to in annotated Figure) for attachment to the diffuser (not clear if it meant a different object) and/or to the second casing (any adjacent static structure). See the annotated Figure above.
Regarding Claim 11, Weiler discloses the turbine engine as set forth in Claim 1.
Weiler discloses wherein the parts of the ducts defined by said annular portions have greater thickness than the rest of these ducts. See the annotated Figure above. For instance, parts of the wall surrounding (9) at the upstream annular portion (bottom of 9 with respect to view in Figure) are thicker than the parts remote (top left of 9 with respect to view in Figure). This is similar for the second volute as well (see region where 10 points to being thicker than the rest).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 12-13, as far as they are definite and understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiler.
Regarding Claim 12, Weiler teaches the turbine engine as set forth in Claim 1.
Weiler does not expressly teach wherein said annular portions are all formed in a single piece as claimed.
However, the courts have held various practices as routine expedients, requiring only ordinary skill in the art. One such practice is the integration of parts. The use of a one piece construction has been ruled as merely an obvious matter of design choice (see MPEP 2144.04, V, B). With respect to the instant application, while it is not clear if all the portions (see annotated Figure above) are formed as a single piece, the claimed formation is an integration of parts in a one piece construction. As such, it is considered an obvious matter of design choice.
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 turbine engine taught by Weiler such that said annular portions are all formed in a single piece, since an integration of parts is an obvious matter of design choice.
Regarding Claim 13, Weiler teaches the turbine engine as set forth in Claim 1.
Weiler does not expressly teach wherein the number of connecting arms of each of the second ports is between 6 and 60 as claimed.
However, the courts have held various practices to be routine expedients, requiring only ordinary skill in the art. One such practice is the duplication of parts. A mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see MPEP 2144.04, VI, B). With respect to the instant application, Weiler is silent regarding the exact number of arms present, as only one cross-sectional view along the axial direction is taken. However, the record does not indicate any new and unexpected results from having a particular number of arms. As such, having a number of arms within the claimed range is considered an obvious matter of design choice from a mere duplication of parts.
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 turbine engine taught by Weiler such that the number of connecting arms of each of the second ports is between 6 and 60, since a mere duplication of parts is an obvious matter of design choice.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 5, Weiler teaches the turbine engine as set forth in Claim 4. Weiler does not expressly teach wherein the intermediate annular portion comprises air passage channels which are distributed around the axis and which each comprise a first end opening into the first volute, and a second end opening downstream of the diffuser as claimed. As can be seen in the annotated Figure of Weiler, there is no such air passage channel through the intermediate annular portion. According to Pg. 17, Line 22 – Pg. 18, Line 2 of the Specification filed February 07, 2025, the provision of the air passage channels (96) provides air to cool portions of the turbine, since the portions through the heat exchanger become too hot for adequate cooling.
Claim 6 subsequently depends upon Claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELTON K WONG whose telephone number is (408)918-7626. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM - 5:00PM 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, Court Heinle can be reached at (571)270-3508. 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.
/ELTON K WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights