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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Application Nos. 17/978,629, 18/481,753, and 18/481,515 fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The prior-filed applications fail to disclose an unducted fan having a diameter (D);
a gearbox configured as a compound gearbox having a gear ratio (GR) within a range of 4.1-14.0; and
a gearbox efficiency rating of 0.10-1.8, wherein the gearbox efficiency rating equals
Q
D
1
.
5
6
T
1.53
, wherein Q is a gearbox oil flow rate measured in gallons per minute at a max takeoff condition and is between 5 and 25 gallons per minute, wherein D is measured in inches, and wherein T is a net thrust of the gas turbine engine measured in pounds force at the max takeoff condition as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, claims 1-15 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior filed applications.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 recites “greater than or equal to 45” and should recite “greater than or equal to 45 and less than or equal to 90”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 6 recites “wherein Q is within a range of 15-30 gallons per minute” and base claim 1 recites “Q is a gearbox oil flow rate measured in gallons per minute at a max takeoff condition and is between 5 and 25 gallons per minute”. Claim 6 therefore broadens the base claim rather than further limiting the base claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4-5 of US Patent 12,410,753 (‘753) in view of Piazza et al. (US 2023/0243309).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of ‘753 teaches a gas turbine engine comprising:
a turbomachine comprising a compressor section, a combustion section, and a turbine section arranged in serial flow order, the compressor section having a high pressure compressor defining a high pressure compressor exit area (AHPCExit) in square inches,
wherein the gas turbine engine defines a redline exhaust gas temperature (EGT) in degrees Celsius, a total sea level static thrust output (FnTotal) in pounds, and a corrected specific thrust, wherein the corrected specific thrust is greater than or equal to 42 and less than or equal to 90, the corrected specific thrust determined as follows: FnTotal × EGT / (AHPCExit2 × 1000).
Claim 1 of ‘753 is silent on an unducted fan having a diameter (D);
a gearbox configured as a compound gearbox having a gear ratio (GR) within a range of 4.1-14.0; and
a gearbox efficiency rating of 0.10-1.8, wherein the gearbox efficiency rating equals
Q
D
1
.
5
6
T
1.53
, wherein Q is a gearbox oil flow rate measured in gallons per minute at a max takeoff condition and is between 5 and 25 gallons per minute, wherein D is measured in inches, and wherein T is a net thrust of the gas turbine engine measured in pounds force at the max takeoff condition.
Piazza teaches an unducted fan having a diameter (D) (Figure 1, Dfan);
a gearbox (102) configured as a compound gearbox (paragraph 71) having a gear ratio (GR) (paragraph 124) within a range of 4.1-14.0 (paragraph 124); and
a gearbox efficiency rating of 0.10-1.8 (paragraph 130), wherein the gearbox efficiency rating equals
Q
D
1
.
5
6
T
1.53
(paragraph 124, equation 8), wherein Q is a gearbox oil flow rate measured in gallons per minute at a max takeoff condition (paragraph 124) and is between 5 and 25 gallons per minute (paragraph 132), wherein D is measured in inches (paragraph 124), and wherein T is a net thrust of the gas turbine engine measured in pounds force at the max takeoff condition (paragraph 124).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘753s invention to include an unducted fan having a diameter (D);
a gearbox configured as a compound gearbox having a gear ratio (GR) within a range of 4.1-14.0; and
a gearbox efficiency rating of 0.10-1.8, wherein the gearbox efficiency rating equals
Q
D
1
.
5
6
T
1.53
, wherein Q is a gearbox oil flow rate measured in gallons per minute at a max takeoff condition and is between 5 and 25 gallons per minute, wherein D is measured in inches, and wherein T is a net thrust of the gas turbine engine measured in pounds force at the max takeoff condition in order to simplify the complexities of geared turbomachine engine development as suggested and taught by Piazza in paragraph 9.
Regarding claim 2, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Piazza teaches the invention as claimed and described above. Piazza further teaches wherein the gearbox efficiency rating is 0.10-1.01 (paragraph 130).
Regarding claim 3, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Piazza teaches the invention as claimed and described above. Piazza further teaches wherein the gearbox efficiency rating is 0.19-1.8 (paragraph 130).
Regarding claim 4, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Piazza teaches the invention as claimed and described above. Piazza further teaches wherein the gear ratio is within a range of 4.5-9.0 (paragraph 88).
Regarding claim 5, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Piazza teaches the invention as claimed and described above. Piazza further teaches wherein the gear ratio is within a range of 6.0-11.0 (paragraph 88).
Regarding claim 6, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Piazza teaches the invention as claimed and described above. Piazza further teaches wherein Q is within a range of 15-30 gallons per minute (paragraph 132).
Regarding claim 7, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Piazza teaches the invention as claimed and described above. Piazza further teaches wherein Q is within a range of 5.5-25 gallons per minute (paragraph 132).
Regarding claim 8, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Piazza teaches the invention as claimed and described above. Piazza further teaches wherein the gearbox is a compound star gearbox (paragraph 166).
Regarding claim 9, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Piazza teaches the invention as claimed and described above. Piazza further teaches wherein the diameter of the unducted fan is at least 120 inches and up to 216 inches (paragraph 63).
Regarding claim 10, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Piazza teaches the invention as claimed and described above. Piazza further teaches wherein the unducted fan defines a rotor blade tip speed at a cruise flight condition between 650 and 900 feet per second (paragraph 64).
Regarding claim 11, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Piazza teaches the invention as claimed and described above. Piazza further teaches wherein the diameter of the unducted fan is at least 120 inches and up to 216 inches, and wherein the unducted fan defines a rotor blade tip speed at a cruise flight condition between 650 and 900 feet per second (paragraph 63).
Regarding claim 12, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Piazza teaches the invention as claimed and described above. Claim 5 of ‘753 teaches wherein the EGT is greater than 1000 degree Celsius and less than 1300 degrees Celsius, and wherein the corrected specific thrust is greater than or equal to 45.
Regarding claim 13, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Piazza teaches the invention as claimed and described above. Claim 4 of ‘753 teaches wherein the EGT is greater than 1150 degree Celsius and less than 1250 degrees Celsius.
Regarding claim 14, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Piazza teaches the invention as claimed and described above. Piazza further teaches wherein the unducted fan comprises a plurality of variable pitch rotor blades (paragraph 104).
Regarding claim 15, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Piazza teaches the invention as claimed and described above. Piazza further teaches wherein the gear ratio is within a range of 6 to 14.0 (paragraph 72).
Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,078,107 in view of Piazza et al. (US 2023/0243309) in the same manner as described above.
Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,428,992 in view of Piazza et al. (US 2023/0243309) in the same manner as described above.
Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,503,980 in view of Piazza et al. (US 2023/0243309) in the same manner as described above.
Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,618,378 in view of Piazza et al. (US 2023/0243309) in the same manner as described above.
Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,618,332 in view of Piazza et al. (US 2023/0243309) in the same manner as described above.
Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,655,802 in view of Piazza et al. (US 2023/0243309) in the same manner as described above.
Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,655,803 in view of Piazza et al. (US 2023/0243309) in the same manner as described above.
Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,644,386 in view of Piazza et al. (US 2023/0243309) in the same manner as described above.
Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,662,959 in view of Piazza et al. (US 2023/0243309) in the same manner as described above.
Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,662,958 in view of Piazza et al. (US 2023/0243309) in the same manner as described above.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/045,124 in view of Piazza et al. (US 2023/0243309) in the same manner as described above.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/045,134 in view of Piazza et al. (US 2023/0243309) in the same manner as described above.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/045,152 in view of Piazza et al. (US 2023/0243309) in the same manner as described above.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/055,619 in view of Piazza et al. (US 2023/0243309) in the same manner as described above.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/055,645 in view of Piazza et al. (US 2023/0243309) in the same manner as described above.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/055,668 in view of Piazza et al. (US 2023/0243309) in the same manner as described above.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/070,161 in view of Piazza et al. (US 2023/0243309) in the same manner as described above.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/083,161 in view of Piazza et al. (US 2023/0243309) in the same manner as described above.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/194,584 in view of Piazza et al. (US 2023/0243309) in the same manner as described above.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/210,793 in view of Piazza et al. (US 2023/0243309) in the same manner as described above.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/210,808 in view of Piazza et al. (US 2023/0243309) in the same manner as described above.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/221,722 in view of Piazza et al. (US 2023/0243309) in the same manner as described above.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/221,742 in view of Piazza et al. (US 2023/0243309) in the same manner as described above.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/221,777 in view of Piazza et al. (US 2023/0243309) in the same manner as described above.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/235,801 in view of Piazza et al. (US 2023/0243309) in the same manner as described above.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/235,827 in view of Piazza et al. (US 2023/0243309) in the same manner as described above.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/235,903 in view of Piazza et al. (US 2023/0243309) in the same manner as described above.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/250,221 in view of Piazza et al. (US 2023/0243309) in the same manner as described above.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/250,310 in view of Piazza et al. (US 2023/0243309) in the same manner as described above.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/254,227 in view of Piazza et al. (US 2023/0243309) in the same manner as described above.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/265,747 in view of Piazza et al. (US 2023/0243309) in the same manner as described above.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/265,761 in view of Piazza et al. (US 2023/0243309) in the same manner as described above.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/279,541 in view of Piazza et al. (US 2023/0243309) in the same manner as described above.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/279,574 in view of Piazza et al. (US 2023/0243309) in the same manner as described above.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/279,587 in view of Piazza et al. (US 2023/0243309) in the same manner as described above.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/293,588 in view of Piazza et al. (US 2023/0243309) in the same manner as described above.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/293,611 in view of Piazza et al. (US 2023/0243309) in the same manner as described above.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/293,636 in view of Piazza et al. (US 2023/0243309) in the same manner as described above.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/305,850 in view of Piazza et al. (US 2023/0243309) in the same manner as described above.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/305,856 in view of Piazza et al. (US 2023/0243309) in the same manner as described above.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/305,970 in view of Piazza et al. (US 2023/0243309) in the same manner as described above.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/333,727 in view of Piazza et al. (US 2023/0243309) in the same manner as described above.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/333,833 in view of Piazza et al. (US 2023/0243309) in the same manner as described above.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/348,974 in view of Piazza et al. (US 2023/0243309) in the same manner as described above.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/650,795 in view of Piazza et al. (US 2023/0243309) in the same manner as described above.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/662,581 in view of Piazza et al. (US 2023/0243309) in the same manner as described above.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/666,646 in view of Piazza et al. (US 2023/0243309) in the same manner as described above.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/691,736 in view of Piazza et al. (US 2023/0243309) in the same manner as described above.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/739,413 in view of Piazza et al. (US 2023/0243309) in the same manner as described above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katheryn Malatek whose telephone number is (571)272-5689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9 am - 6 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.
/KATHERYN A MALATEK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights