DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 18 September 2026, with respect to the claims rejections under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are partially persuasive. Some of the claims rejections have been withdrawn.
With respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 19 directed at how the claimed properties affect the claimed structure of the engine, applicant argues that it is common practice and widely accepted that properties of structures can be claimed, and there is no requirement that patent applicants recite how each claim limitation affects the structure and points to case law (BASF Corp. v. Johnson Matthey Inc., 875 F.3d 1365, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The examiner points out that the cited case law applies to how claimed material compositions are limited by functional language to achieve a treating function. The issue addressed in the cited case law is different from the instant application where a temperature is not a composition or any other feature that limits a structural component in a clear way. Furthermore, the instant application claim recite a ratio of a temperature with respect to a cooling requirement, which is a completely different situation when trying to find similarities between the decision of the court in the cited case law and the claim limitations of the instant application.
For these reasons, the arguments are not found persuasive and the claim rejections are maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 9, 15 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 9 recites “a maximum power condition” and should recite “the maximum power condition” to maintain consistency with claim 1.
Claim 15 recites “the axially most upstream row of rotor blades in the first turbine” instead of “an axially most upstream row of rotor blades in the first turbine” to provide proper antecedent basis to the limitation.
Claim 17 recites “a maximum power condition” and should recite “the maximum power condition” to maintain consistency with claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 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.
Claim 1 is indefinite because it is not clear in what sense the turbine entry temperature and the cooling flow requirement, on their own, or the ratio between the turbine entry temperature and the cooling flow requirement, limit the claimed invention because there is no structure, process, or composition of matter, e.g., a material. For the inventor, they are desired results; for one of ordinary skill in the art, the numbers per se represent casual observations with indiscernible ties to the recited structure, absent clarifications. Furthermore, the ratio itself as a number per se is a vague entity when it comes to understanding the meets and bounds of the claimed gas turbine engine, with invisible ties to the engine core, fan, compressor, turbine and gearbox, as recited in the claims and invisible ties to an airframe or aircraft configuration, which are not recited in the claims.
In more detail, it is first noted that this is an apparatus claim in the form of a gas turbine engine. Applicant is attempting to limit a gas turbine engine by a ratio of the temperature at the inlet of the turbine and a cooling flow requirement in the range of from 8000 to 20000 K. However, the temperature at the inlet of the turbine or downstream of the inlet, being a scalar, has no bearing on the structure of the gas turbine engine, neither in terms of dimensions, i.e., big, small, round, square, etc., nor in terms of the materials used in the environment, i.e., metallic, magnetic, ceramic, etc.. As such, it is not structurally limiting.
MPEP 2173.05(g) provides, “Examiners should consider the following factors when examining claims that contain functional language to determine whether the language is ambiguous: (1) whether there is a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim; (2) whether the language sets forth well-defined boundaries of the invention or only states a problem solved or a result obtained; and (3) whether one of ordinary skill in the art would know from the claim terms what structure or steps are encompassed by the claim.” For the reasons described above, it is asserted that the recitation in the claim “a ratio between the turbine entry temperature and a cooling flow requirement” doesn't provide a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim, doesn't provide well-defined boundaries of the invention and one of ordinary skill of the art would not know from the claim terms what structures are encompassed by the claim.
Claims 2-20 depend from claim 1 and fail to remedy its deficiencies.
Claim 19 is further indefinite because it is not clear in what sense the turbine entry temperature and the fan speed, on their own, or the ratio of the turbine entry temperature to the fan speed, limit the claimed invention because there is no structure, process, or composition of matter, e.g., a material. For the inventor, they are desired results; for one of ordinary skill in the art, the numbers per se represent casual observations with indiscernible ties to the recited structure, absent clarifications. Furthermore, the ratio itself as a number per se is a vague entity when it comes to understanding the meets and bounds of the claimed gas turbine engine, with invisible ties to the engine core, fan, compressor, turbine and gearbox, as recited in the claims and invisible ties to an airframe or aircraft configuration, which are not recited in the claims.
In more detail, it is first noted that this is an apparatus claim in the form of a gas turbine engine. Applicant is attempting to limit a gas turbine engine by a ratio of the temperature at the inlet of the turbine to a rotational speed of the fan. However, the temperature at the inlet of the turbine or downstream of the inlet, being a scalar, has no bearing on the structure of the gas turbine engine, neither in terms of dimensions, i.e., big, small, round, square, etc., nor in terms of the materials used in the environment, i.e., metallic, magnetic, ceramic, etc.. As such, it is not structurally limiting.
MPEP 2173.05(g) provides, “Examiners should consider the following factors when examining claims that contain functional language to determine whether the language is ambiguous: (1) whether there is a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim; (2) whether the language sets forth well-defined boundaries of the invention or only states a problem solved or a result obtained; and (3) whether one of ordinary skill in the art would know from the claim terms what structure or steps are encompassed by the claim.” For the reasons described above, it is asserted that the recitation in the claim “a ratio of the turbine entry temperature (K) to the fan speed” doesn't provide a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim, doesn't provide well-defined boundaries of the invention and one of ordinary skill of the art would not know from the claim terms what structures are encompassed by the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Claims 2-20 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.
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 JUAN G FLORES whose telephone number is (571)272-3486. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:30pm Pacific Time.
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.
/JUAN G FLORES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights