Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 19/251,142

FAN BLADE OR VANE WITH IMPROVED BIRD IMPACT CAPABILITY

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Jun 26, 2025
Examiner
ZAMORA ALVAREZ, ERIC J
Art Unit
3745
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Rtx Corporation
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
458 granted / 519 resolved
+18.2% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+21.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
14 currently pending
Career history
533
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
33.8%
-6.2% vs TC avg
§102
27.6%
-12.4% vs TC avg
§112
31.7%
-8.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 519 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 . 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/03/2026 has been entered. Applicant’s Submission of a Response Applicant’s submission of response was received on 03/03/2026. Presently claims 4 and 14-15 are pending. Claims 1-3 and 5-13 are canceled. Response to Arguments In light of Applicant’s amendments to claims 4 and 14-15, new 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections and a new 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection are issued herewith (see rejections below). Claim Objections Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 15, line 2, change: “in a section of maximum-thickness…” 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. Claim 4 is 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 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 4, the claim recites the inflection point having a magnitude, which is a first multiple of a magnitude of the chord at 0% span, and which is a second multiple of a magnitude of the chord at 100% span. From the specification, there is no written description or support with regard to such limitation. The specification does not discuss the magnitude of the infection point being a multiple of a magnitude of a chord at 0% and at 100% span. Therein, there is a lack of written description suggesting to one of ordinary skill in the art with respect to the limitation and therein the amended claim 4 has introduced new matter. 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 4 and 15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 4 recites “the chord” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 15 in line 2, recites “wherein an increase in a section maximum-thickness is on a pressure surface only of the first airfoil”. It Is unclear of the use of the term “only”. It is unclear whether “only” excludes the suction surface of the first airfoil or if the use of the term “only” excludes the second airfoil in the sense that there is maximum thickness only on the first airfoil for the pressure surface. Due to the ambiguity and lack of clarity of the use of the term “only” in the claim language found for claim 15, the metes and bounds cannot be determined, which renders the claim indefinite. 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 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. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Warikoo et al. (U.S. 10,718,215). Regarding claim 4, Warikoo et al. discloses a fan (12) blade (applicable to fan blades, Col. 7, lines 55-67) of a gas turbine engine (Fig. 1), comprising: a body having an airfoil shape (i.e., 26) and exhibiting-a range of thickness-over-chord values (i.e., values shown in Fig. 7A in the distribution of max thickness over chord values as a function of the span) that decrease from 20% span to 50% span (i.e., the values decrease from 0.2 to 0.5 span as shown in Fig. 7A), wherein the body comprises an airfoil section (26) exhibiting at least one of: a tapering thickness-to-chord value (i.e., as shown in Fig. 7A, the airfoil comprises tapering values (i.e., decreasing) along the span from approximately a value greater than 0.05 max thickness/chord to a value approximately less than 0.03 max thickness/chord). Allowable Subject Matter Claim 14 is allowable over the prior art of record. The closest prior art of record is: Shmilovich et al. (US 2021/0323656 A1) and Schlipf et al. (US 2014/0246540 A1). Regarding claim 14¸ Shmilovich et al. and Schlipf et al. each discloses of an airfoil with droop (Fig. 2 of Shmilovich and Fig. 3 of Schlipf), but each fails to disclose or suggest of a suction surface metal-angle distribution that decreases to where the second airfoil at least partially overlaps the first airfoil in a circumferential dimension, and wherein the suction surface metal-angle distribution exhibits a bump of an airfoil covered-passage starting position, and following a precompression region, the suction surface metal-angle distribution has a linear section that blends into precompression and trailing-edge locations. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC J ZAMORA ALVAREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7928. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am- 5:00 pm EST alternating Fridays off. 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 (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. /ERIC J ZAMORA ALVAREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745 04/06/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 26, 2025
Application Filed
Sep 03, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112
Dec 03, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 17, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §112
Feb 18, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 03, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 23, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601357
AIR MOVING DEVICES, AERODYNAMIC ROTOR, AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595782
WIND TURBINE BLADE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING A WIND TURBINE BLADE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590590
AIRCRAFT ENGINE IMPELLER WITH EXDUCER SHROUD FORWARD SWEEP
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588784
Mixing Utensil
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587065
ENERGY CONVERSION DEVICE, ASSOCIATED SYSTEMS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
88%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+21.9%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 519 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow 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