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 1-20 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 30, 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 6-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claims 6-7, Line 1 of the claims recite “comprise”. The subject of the clause is the “plurality” rather than the “vanes”. A plurality is considered a singular subject, so the grammatically correct form would be “comprises”.
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 1-20 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 Claims 1, 16, and 19, Lines 10-11 of Claim 1, Lines 8 and 11 of Claim 16, and Lines 8 and 11 of Claim 19 recite “susceptible” and “not susceptible”. The term “(not) susceptible” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “(not) susceptible” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. With respect to this instance, the claims recite “(not) susceptible” as it relates to the occurrence of a rotating stall condition. The disclosure is not clear regarding how this is quantified. How open to rotating stall is considered susceptible, and how resistant to stalling is considered not susceptible? How is susceptibility quantified? Since the bounds of what is considered susceptible as it relates to rotating stall is not clearly defined, the operating conditions themselves are indefinite.
Claims 2-15, 17-18, and 20 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, 15-17, and 19, as far as they are definite and understood, 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 1, Figures 1-4B of Cheng disclose a system, comprising: a turbine section (28) having one or more turbine stages, wherein each stage of the one or more turbine stages (each pair of 74, e.g. a and b) has a plurality of turbine blades (64, 66) downstream from a plurality of turbine vanes (60, 62); a turbine exhaust section (unlabeled, portion of engine 20 to right of 28 in Figure 1, [0039]) coupled to the turbine section (28); a flow path (C) through the turbine section (28) and the turbine exhaust section; and a plurality of flow control vanes (60) along the flow path (C), wherein each of the plurality of flow control vanes (60) is configured to move between an extended position (88) in a first operating condition and a retracted position (90) in a second operating condition, the first operating condition is susceptible to a rotating stall condition in the turbine section (28), and the second operating condition is not susceptible to the rotating stall condition in the turbine section (28) [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 [0043] describes the extension and retraction to be varied to address stall conditions. Paragraph [0004] evidences 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. Thus, in instances where stall occurs when the vanes are retracted, an extension addresses the stall conditions.
Regarding Claim 2, Cheng discloses the system as set forth in Claim 1.
Figures 1-4B of Cheng disclose a controller (97) configured to: control the plurality of flow control vanes (60) to move to the extended position (88) in the first operating condition susceptible to the rotating stall condition in the turbine section (28); and control the plurality of flow control vanes (60) to move to the retracted position (90) in the second operating condition not susceptible to the rotating stall condition in the turbine section (28) [0041-0046]. Paragraph [0045] clarifies a controller (97) controls the actuator (96) to move the flow control vane (60). The discussion of Claim 1 above discussed the stall conditions.
Regarding Claim 3, Cheng discloses the system as set forth in Claim 1.
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].
Regarding Claim 4, Cheng discloses the system as set forth in Claim 3.
Figures 1-4B of Cheng disclose wherein the plurality of flow control vanes (60) is disposed in the turbine section (28) [0041].
Regarding Claim 15, Cheng discloses the system as set forth in Claim 1.
Figure 1 of Cheng discloses comprising a gas turbine engine (20) having the turbine section (28) coupled to the turbine exhaust section (unlabeled portion to the right of 28) [0035, 0039].
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 susceptible to a rotating stall condition in the turbine section (28); and control the plurality of flow control vanes (60) to move to a retracted position (90) in a second operating condition not susceptible to the rotating stall condition in the turbine section (28) [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). Paragraph [0043] describes the extension and retraction to be varied to address stall conditions. Paragraph [0004] evidences 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. Thus, in instances where stall occurs when the vanes are retracted, an extension addresses the stall conditions.
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].
Regarding Claim 19, Figures 1-4B of Cheng disclose a method, comprising: controlling 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 controlling comprises: controlling the plurality of flow control vanes (60) to move to an extended position (88) in a first operating condition susceptible to a rotating stall condition in the turbine section (28); and controlling the plurality of flow control vanes (60) to move to a retracted position (90) in a second operating condition not susceptible to the rotating stall condition in the turbine section (28) [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 [0043] describes the extension and retraction to be varied to address stall conditions. Paragraph [0004] evidences 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. Thus, in instances where stall occurs when the vanes are retracted, an extension addresses the stall conditions.
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 5-7, 18, and 20, as far as they are definite and understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng.
Regarding Claim 5, Cheng teaches the system as set forth in Claim 4.
Cheng does not explicitly show wherein the plurality of flow control vanes is disposed within a last stage of the one or more turbine stages of the turbine section as claimed.
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.
Regarding Claim 6, Cheng teaches the system as set forth in Claim 5.
Figure 4A teaches wherein the plurality of flow control vanes (60) comprise one or more inner flow control vanes coupled to a radially inner wall [0046]. Being in the last turbine stage is a result of the modification in Claim 5 above.
Regarding Claim 7, Cheng teaches the system as set forth in Claim 5.
Figure 7 teaches wherein the plurality of flow control vanes (60) comprise one or more outer flow control vanes coupled to a radially outer wall [0048]. Being in the last turbine stage is a result of the modification in Claim 5 above.
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.
Regarding Claim 20, Cheng teaches the method as set forth in Claim 19.
Figures 4A and 7 teach 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].
Cheng does not expressly teach 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.
Claim 14, as far as it is definite and understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of Orlando et al. (US 2006/0275111 A1), hereinafter Orlando.
Regarding Claim 14, Cheng teaches the system as set forth in Claim 1.
Figure 3A of Cheng teaches wherein the plurality of flow control vanes (60) are circumferentially spaced about a longitudinal axis (center axis of the circular shape in view of Figure 3A) of the system.
Cheng does not expressly teach the plurality of flow control vanes are oriented at an angle between 10 and 80 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis as claimed. However, angling would have been obvious in view of Orlando.
Figure 3 of Orlando teaches a system with a plurality of vanes (60) oriented at an angle (C) relative to the longitudinal axis (30), with the angle illustrated well within the claimed range of between 10 and 80 degrees. Orlando explains that efficient operation for turbines involves having vanes and blades in angular or twist orientations that efficiently turn the flow under aerodynamic loading [0010-0013]. The angle (C) is particular chosen in conjunction with the other upstream/downstream portions such that cooperation is maximized [0043-0044, 0067]. Therefore, Orlando provides evidence that the angle (C) is a results-expected variable, to which one of ordinary skill would routinely optimize to achieve efficient operation (see MPEP 2144.05, II regarding routine optimization).
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 system taught by Cheng such that the plurality of flow control vanes are oriented at an angle between 10 and 80 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis as evidenced by Orlando, since one of ordinary skill would routinely optimize the angle for efficient operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-13, as far as they are definite and understood, 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 8, the art of record, Cheng, does not expressly teach wherein the plurality of flow control vanes is disposed in the turbine exhaust section downstream from a last turbine stage of the one or more turbine stages of the turbine section as claimed. As seen in Figure 2, the teachings relate to vanes in the turbine section or compressor section, not the turbine exhaust section downstream of the last stage of the turbine section [0041]. There is currently no motivation in the art of record to move locations of the flow control vanes to the claimed location. Paragraphs [00102] of the Specification of the instant application filed September 30, 2025 recognizes the impact of swirling in the turbine exhaust section and implements a solution with control vanes (92, 94) having a different arrangement than the vanes of Cheng that were used in the broadest reasonable interpretation of Claim 1.
Figure 3 of Vlasic et al. (US 2017/0030213 A1) teaches a system with a plurality of flow control vanes (40) disposed in the turbine exhaust section downstream form the last turbine stage (26a) of one or more turbine stages of the turbine section [0026]. Figure 4 of Orosa et al. (WO 2019/027661 A1) also teaches a system with a plurality of flow control vanes (50) disposed in the turbine exhaust section downstream form the last turbine stage (26) of one or more turbine stages of the turbine section [0024]. However, neither contemplate having the flow control vanes be configured to move between an extended and retracted position in first and second operating conditions, the first operating condition susceptible to a rotating stall condition, and the second operating condition not susceptible to the rotating stall condition, as required of Claim 1.
Claim 9 subsequently depends upon Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 10, the art of record, Cheng, does not expressly teach wherein the extended position of the one or more inner flow control vanes extends to a first radial distance from the radially inner wall, the extended position of the one or more outer flow control vanes extends to a second radial distance from the radially inner wall, and the first and second radial distances are less than 50 percent of a total radial distance between the radially inner wall and the radially outer wall at respective locations of the one or more inner flow control vanes and the one or more outer flow control vanes as claimed. As seen in Figures 3A-4A and 7, Cheng teaches two separate embodiments of vanes (60) that are on the radially inner wall and the radially outer wall. Cheng does not contemplate a combination of both. Vlasic and Orosa teach control vanes (40) and (50), respectively on radially outer and radially inner walls (Vlasic Figure 3, Orosa Figure 4). As previously noted however, neither contemplate having the flow control vanes be configured to move between an extended and retracted position in first and second operating conditions, the first operating condition susceptible to a rotating stall condition, and the second operating condition not susceptible to the rotating stall condition, as required of Claim 1. Paragraph [0047] of the instant application contemplates the usage of sets of vanes (13) in pairs that selectively extend or retract depending on operating conditions to handle the reverse flow conditions.
Claims 11-13 subsequently depend upon Claim 10.
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