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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on June 21, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the claimed properties related to stage loading and stage reaction are not inherent to Gao. This is not found persuasive because:
“Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433.". See MPEP 2112.01.
The applicant’s arguments do not address that a prima facie case of anticipation has been made. Attorney argument is not evidence, see MPEP 2145 I and 716.01(c). The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 24-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on June 21, 2026.
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 14-23 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 14 recites, “wherein the stage loading of said at least one upstream blade stage is from 0.5 to 2.0, the stage loading of the nucleating blade stage is from 1.4 to 2.2, and the stage loading of said at least one downstream blade stage is from 0.5 to 1.4, wherein the stage loading of said at least one downstream blade stage is lower than the stage loading of the nucleating blade stage and the stage loading of said at least one upstream blade stage is lower than the stage loading of the nucleating blade stage, but is higher than the stage loading of said at least one downstream blade stage, and the stage reaction for the nucleating blade stage is from 40% to 55% and the stage reaction of said at least one downstream blade stage is higher than for the nucleating blade stage and is from 40% to 60%.”
These limitations are related to functional properties (including stage loading and stage reaction) of the system during operation. Both stage loading and stage reaction are defined on page 9 of the specification of the instant application. Both quantities relate to properties of the fluid as the fluid passes through the airfoils of the steam turbine. The following is a discussion of the Wands factors, see MPEP 2164.01(a).
(A) The breadth of the claims;
The limitations are considered “unlimited” as they extend to all possible structures of achieving the claimed result and this is not found to be commensurate in scope with the enabling disclosure; see MPEP 2173.05(g).
(B) The nature of the invention;
The invention is a steam turbine with certain functional properties of the fluid that flow through the steam turbine. The steam turbine is a complex physical system that has many highly optimized geometries of airfoils in particular, but also many other systems such as bearings and sealings which are required to operate under large forces and high temperatures. Functional properties related to the gas flow through portions of the steam turbine would require extensive details to simulate or test.
(C) The state of the prior art
Steam turbines have highly optimized components for efficient power generation (commonly at large scales).
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
One of ordinary skill likely has an engineering degree and some familiarity with steam turbine operation specifically.
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
There is a reasonable amount of predictability in the art due to computational fluid dynamic simulations. Nucleation is a complicated phenomenon that is less easily predicted as impurities and other considerations can affect when/where nucleation occurs.
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
The inventor provides no details of geometries of the airfoils or other details such as the rotational speed of the turbine that would be fundamental to achieving the claimed functional properties of stage loading and stage reaction.
(G) The existence of working examples;
There are many working steam turbines. It is unclear if there are any working examples of steam turbines that achieve the functional results claimed.
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
As the applicant has provided essentially no direction beyond a typical turbine structure with multiple stages, a person of ordinary skill in the art is essentially solely responsible for the entire design of the airfoil geometries and other geometries of shafts, bearings, seals, etc. to achieve the claimed functional results of the turbine.
Based on the above, the disclosure is not found to be enabling particularly based on factors A, B, F, and H weighing heavily against enablement while the other factors at best provide little weight for enablement.
Claims dependent from claim 14 are also rejected based on the discussion above.
It is noted that the functional limitations regarding “stage loading” or “stage reaction” in claims 15, 17, and 18 are additionally rejected for the same reasons as discussed with regard to claim 14 above.
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 14-23 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.
Claim 14 recites, “wherein the stage loading of said at least one upstream blade stage is from 0.5 to 2.0, the stage loading of the nucleating blade stage is from 1.4 to 2.2, and the stage loading of said at least one downstream blade stage is from 0.5 to 1.4, wherein the stage loading of said at least one downstream blade stage is lower than the stage loading of the nucleating blade stage and the stage loading of said at least one upstream blade stage is lower than the stage loading of the nucleating blade stage, but is higher than the stage loading of said at least one downstream blade stage, and the stage reaction for the nucleating blade stage is from 40% to 55% and the stage reaction of said at least one downstream blade stage is higher than for the nucleating blade stage and is from 40% to 60%.”
These limitations are related to functional properties (including stage loading and stage reaction) of the system during operation. The stage loading and stage reaction are defined by the applicant on page 9 of the specification. The claim language only sets forth these functional results obtained and provides effectively no boundaries of the invention related to how this result is achieved. One of ordinary skill in the art would not know the structure encompassed by the claims due all possible configurations capable of the result being claimed and the fact a person of ordinary skill in the art would be almost solely required to engineer the system themselves to achieve the claimed results. Based on the above, the recited functional language fails "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and is thus be indefinite; see MPEP 2173.05(g).
Additionally, it is noted that the functional properties are related to the effect of the turbine on the fluid that passes through. The claimed stage loading and stage reaction would be different at different conditions such as the temperature and pressure of the fluid. There are no disclosed details of the fluid and it is therefore variable. As it is the steam turbine itself that is claimed and not the fluid, the claim references an object (fluid) that is variable. The claim is therefore indefinite for these compounding reasons, see MPEP 2173.05(b).
Claims dependent from claim 14 are also rejected based on the discussion above.
It is noted that the functional limitations regarding “stage loading” or “stage reaction” in claims 15, 17, and 18 are additionally rejected for the same reasons as discussed with regard to claim 14 above.
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 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guo et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20090178468) hereinafter Guo.
Regarding claim 14, Guo discloses:
A steam turbine including at least one steam turbine section {[0001]},
wherein said at least one steam turbine section comprises at least three blade stages {[00059] describes an example with 9 stages},
wherein said blade stages include a row of fixed blades and an accompanying row of moving blades that is downstream of the row of fixed blades {[0059], this is the standard definition of a stage, “A steam turbine may have multiple stages, each of which contain a row of nozzles followed by a row of buckets”}, and
wherein said blade stages include:
a single nucleating blade stage {[0059], “nucleation calculation may determine that spontaneous nucleation occurs in the bucket blade row of stage two”},
at least one downstream blade stage {[0059], the third through ninth stages are the at least one downstream stages}, and
at least one upstream blade stage {[0059], the first stage is the upstream blade stage},
wherein said at least one downstream blade stage is located downstream of said nucleating blade stage {[0059], stages 3 through 9 are by definition downstream of stage 2} and
said at least one upstream blade stage is located upstream of said nucleating blade stage {[0059], stage 1 is by definition upstream of stage 2}, and
wherein said nucleating blade stage includes the location of the Wilson point {[0059]-[0060], the nucleating blade stage by definition includes the Wilson point},
wherein the stage loading of said at least one upstream blade stage is from 0.5 to 2.0 {This is a function/property of the system limitation, see definition of stage loading in the instant application. The claimed properties are presumed inherent when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, see MPEP 2112.01 I. It is also noted that the claim has indefiniteness issues as there is no clear structure associated with the property; see the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections above},
the stage loading of the nucleating blade stage is from 1.4 to 2.2 {This is a function/property of the system limitation, see definition of stage loading in the instant application. The claimed properties are presumed inherent when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, see MPEP 2112.01 I. It is also noted that the claim has indefiniteness issues as there is no clear structure associated with the property; see the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections above}, and
the stage loading of said at least one downstream blade stage is from 0.5 to 1.4 {This is a function/property of the system limitation, see definition of stage loading in the instant application. The claimed properties are presumed inherent when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, see MPEP 2112.01 I. It is also noted that the claim has indefiniteness issues as there is no clear structure associated with the property; see the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections above},
wherein the stage loading of said at least one downstream blade stage is lower than the stage loading of the nucleating blade stage {This is a function/property of the system limitation, see definition of stage loading in the instant application. The claimed properties are presumed inherent when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, see MPEP 2112.01 I. It is also noted that the claim has indefiniteness issues as there is no clear structure associated with the property; see the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections above} and
the stage loading of said at least one upstream blade stage is lower than the stage loading of the nucleating blade stage, but is higher than the stage loading of said at least one downstream blade stage {This is a function/property of the system limitation, see definition of stage loading in the instant application. The claimed properties are presumed inherent when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, see MPEP 2112.01 I. It is also noted that the claim has indefiniteness issues as there is no clear structure associated with the property; see the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections above}, and
the stage reaction for the nucleating blade stage is from 40% to 55% and the stage reaction of said at least one downstream blade stage is higher than for the nucleating blade stage and is from 40% to 60% {This is a function/property of the system limitation, see definition of stage reaction in the instant application. The claimed properties are presumed inherent when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, see MPEP 2112.01 I. It is also noted that the claim has indefiniteness issues as there is no clear structure associated with the property; see the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections above}.
Regarding claim 15, Guo further discloses:
wherein the stage loading of said at least one downstream blade stage is 60-70% of the stage loading of the nucleating blade stage or less and / or not less than 20-35% of the stage loading of the nucleating blade stage {This is a function/property of the system limitation, see definition of stage loading in the instant application. The claimed properties are presumed inherent when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, see MPEP 2112.01 I. It is also noted that the claim has indefiniteness issues as there is no clear structure associated with the property; see the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections above}.
Regarding claim 16, Guo further discloses:
wherein the nucleating blade stage is an impulse blade stage {blades are impulse in types of stage in contrast to a reaction turbine; [0059]}.
Regarding claim 17, Guo further discloses:
wherein the stage reaction of said at least one upstream blade stage is from 0% to 60% {This is a function/property of the system limitation, see definition of stage reaction in the instant application. The claimed properties are presumed inherent when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, see MPEP 2112.01 I. It is also noted that the claim has indefiniteness issues as there is no clear structure associated with the property; see the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections above}.
Regarding claim 18, Guo further discloses:
wherein the stage reaction of said at least one upstream blade stage is within 40-60% and the stage loading of said at least one upstream blade stage is within 0.5-1.5 or the stage reaction of said at least one upstream blade stage is within 0%-20% and the stage loading of said at least one upstream blade stage is within 1.5-2.0 {This is a function/property of the system limitation, see definition of stage loading and stage reaction in the instant application. The claimed properties are presumed inherent when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, see MPEP 2112.01 I. It is also noted that the claim has indefiniteness issues as there is no clear structure associated with the property; see the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections above}.
Regarding claim 19, Guo further discloses:
wherein said at least one upstream blade stage is an axial flow stage, radial flow stage or an axial-radial flow stage {Implicitly the upstream blade stage (stage 1) is one of these claimed options as these are essentially the types of turbine stages for bladed steam turbine, see MPEP 2144.01.}
Regarding claim 20, Guo further discloses:
wherein said steam turbine section is selected from a group including a high-pressure section, a medium-pressure section and a low- pressure section {The steam turbine section if there is only 1 section may be considered high, medium, or low pressure as these terms are relative. If there is another section in the steam turbine, the steam turbine section may be considered high or low relative to the other section as these two comparative options cover all possibilities of relative pressure}.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ono et al. (WO2013027239) discloses enthalpy changes across blade stages of steam turbines.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL K. REITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1387. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 a.m. -5:30 p.m.
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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at 5712703508. 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.
/MICHAEL K. REITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights