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 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 1-15 and 19-20 are allowed. Claims 16-18 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 8 of the response, filed September 11, 2026, with respect to the objection of Claims 6, 7 and rejections of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of amendments. The objection of Claims 6, 7 and rejections of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 9-12 of the response, filed with respect to the rejections of Claims 1 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of Claims 1 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been withdrawn.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant’s arguments are found to be persuasive. Particularly, the arguments explain why Cheng et al. (US 2016/0160676 A1) does not expressly teach the system where the full extension is less than 50 percent of a total radial distance that extends from the radially inner wall to the radially outer wall as claimed. See also the objection of previously presented Claim 10 on Pg. 12-13 of the Non-Final Rejection filed June 11, 2026, where similar logic applies. Therefore, the rejection of Claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Arguments with respect to Claim 19 are considered persuasive for the same reasons as Claim 1.
Applicant's arguments, see Pg. 10-11 of the response, filed with respect to the rejection of Claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 16, as best understood, Applicant argues Cheng does not expressly teach the controlling of vanes to extend or retract depending on operating conditions, the first being more susceptible to stall than the second. The Office respectfully disagrees. Broadly, an operating condition is considered to be an operating state of the engine. The addressing of stall conditions is considered the addressing of stall during that given operating condition where stall occurs. See for example, paragraph [0043] of Cheng discussing varying the flow for surge and stall conditions. Paragraph [0045] also discusses the controller of the actuator assembly capable of operating from various inputs, including takeoff and landing information, parameters relating to engine and aircraft operation. Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “operating condition” is met.
No additional arguments have been provided with respect to the remaining claims.
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 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cheng et al. (US 2016/0160676 A1), hereinafter Cheng.
Regarding Claim 16, Figures 1-4B of Cheng disclose a system, comprising: a controller (97) configured to control a plurality of flow control vanes (60) along a flow path (C) through a turbine section (28) and a turbine exhaust section (unlabeled portion of 20 to the right of 28 in Figure 1), wherein the turbine section (28) comprises one or more turbine stages (pairs of 74, e.g. 74a and b), each stage of the one or more turbine stages has a plurality of turbine blades (64, 66) downstream from a plurality of turbine vanes (60, 62), and the turbine exhaust section is coupled to the turbine section (28), wherein the controller (97) is configured to: control the plurality of flow control vanes (60) to move to an extended position (88) in a first operating condition; and control the plurality of flow control vanes (60) to move to a retracted position (90) in a second operating condition, wherein the first operating condition is more susceptible to a rotating stall condition in the turbine section (28) than is the second operating condition [0041-0046]. Note Figure 7 discloses an embodiment where the vanes (60) extend and retract from the radially outer wall instead, compared to the radially inner all of Figure 2 [0048]. Paragraph [0045] describes use of a controller (97). The controller which controls the actuator for the vanes communicates based on various inputs, including operating conditions. Paragraph [0043] describes the extension and retraction to be varied to address stall conditions. Paragraph [0004] evidences that a variation of flow is sufficient to address stall conditions. Stall is understood to be a condition which occurs at different operating conditions for different turbine configurations. The operating conditions in which stall occurs and the vanes are to be extended are interpreted to be the first operating condition which is more susceptible to stall.
Regarding Claim 17, Cheng discloses the system as set forth in Claim 16.
Figures 4A and 7 disclose wherein the plurality of flow control vanes (60) comprises one or more inner flow control vanes coupled to a radially inner wall along the flow path (C), or one or more outer flow control vanes coupled to a radially outer wall along the flow path (C) [0046, 0048].
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng.
Regarding Claim 18, Cheng teaches the system as set forth in Claim 16 above.
Cheng does not expressly teach wherein the plurality of flow control vanes is disposed within a last turbine stage of the one or more turbine stages of the turbine section, the turbine exhaust section downstream from the last turbine stage of the one or more turbine stages of the turbine section, or a combination thereof.
However, paragraph [0041] of Cheng note that any number of stages may be present in the section the teachings are implemented in. In a single stage turbine, this would be the last stage of the one or more turbine stages. Additionally, the disclosed example in Figure 2 appears to be merely exemplary, as noted by Cheng only discussion the applicable to a stage of the turbine or compressor section rather than a specific stage [0014-0015]. Having the teachings of Cheng on a particular stage would allow the particular stage to achieve the benefits of improving efficiency taught by Cheng [0043].
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 illustrated embodiment of Cheng such that the plurality of flow control vanes is disposed within a last stage of the one or more turbine stages of the turbine section, to allow attaining the benefits of the teachings of Cheng in single stage turbines and/or in any stage of a given turbine section.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 and 19-20 are allowed.
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 is considered allowable for the same reasons as previously objected Claim 10. See Pg. 12-13 of the Non-Final Rejection filed June 11, 2026. Although the entirety of the scope is broader, the claim sufficiently contains the objected subject matter.
Claim 19 is allowed for the same reasons as Claim 1.
Claims 2-15, 20 subsequently depend upon Claims 1 and 19, respectively.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
