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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 3 in the reply filed on 05/27/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-12 are examined. Claim 13 is withdrawn as it pertains to Fig. 12, which corresponds to Species 6.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5, line 1, change: “wherein the inlet section further [[comprising]]
comprises”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,577,925.
Although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from one another. The present application (19/398166) claims are broader in at least one aspect and do not recite additional features claimed in the patented claims.
For claim 1:
Regarding the broadening aspect of the present application claims, the following comparison between the present application claims and the patented claims highlights (see underlined features in the patented claims) what elements have been excluded in the presentation of the present application claims.
Patented claim 10 (U.S. 12,577,925)
Present application (19/398166) claim 1
A gas turbine engine comprising: a turbomachine comprising a compressor section, a combustion section, and a turbine section arranged in serial flow order,
the turbomachine defining an engine inlet to an inlet duct, a fan duct inlet to a fan duct, and a core inlet to a core duct;
a primary fan driven by the turbomachine;
a secondary fan located downstream of the primary fan within the inlet duct, the gas turbine engine defining a thrust to power airflow ratio between 3.5 and 100 and a core bypass ratio between 0.1 and 10, wherein the thrust to power airflow ratio is a ratio of an airflow through a bypass passage over the turbomachine plus an airflow through the fan duct to an airflow through the core duct, and wherein the core bypass ratio is a ratio of the airflow through the fan duct to the airflow through the core duct; and a means for reducing a thickness of a boundary layer of a fan airflow that is ingested into the turbomachine, for reenergizing the boundary layer of the fan airflow that is ingested into the turbomachine, or both;
an inlet section located downstream of the primary fan and upstream of the compressor section, the inlet section comprising an inner liner along a radial direction of the gas turbine engine, wherein the means for reducing the thickness of the boundary layer of the fan airflow that is ingested into the turbomachine, for reenergizing the boundary layer of the fan airflow that is ingested into the turbomachine, or both comprises a boundary layer opening defined by the inner liner for receiving at least a portion of the boundary layer of the fan airflow during operation of the gas turbine engine.
A gas turbine engine defining a radial direction, the gas turbine engine comprising: a turbomachine having a compressor section, a combustion section, and a turbine section in serial flow order;
a fan section comprising a fan drivingly coupled to the turbomachine; and
an inlet section located downstream of the fan and upstream of the compressor section, the inlet section comprising an inner liner along the radial direction of the gas turbine engine,
the inner liner defining a boundary layer opening for receiving a boundary layer airflow during operation of the gas turbine engine.
Thus, it is apparent, for the broadening aspect, that the patented claim 10 includes features that are not in present application claim 1. Following the rationale in re Goodman, cited above, where applicant has once been granted a patent of an application containing a claim for the specific or narrower invention, applicant may not then obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer. Since the present application claim 1 is anticipated by the patented claim 10, with respect to the broadening aspect, then present application claim 1 is obvious over patented claim 10 with respect to the broadening aspect.
For dependent claims 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8 the recited limitations are contained in patented claims 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15, respectively.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rud et al. (U.S. 4,999,994) in view of Hirschkron (U.S. 4,607,657).
Regarding claim 1, Rud et al. discloses a gas turbine engine defining a radial direction (Fig. 1), the gas turbine engine comprising:
a turbomachine (Fig. 1);
a fan section (comprising fan blades 9, 10, Fig .1) comprising a fan drivingly coupled to the turbomachine (Col. 3, lines 18-31); and
an inlet section (11, as shown in Fig. 2) located downstream of the fan (i.e., as shown in Figs. 1-2, the inlet section 11 is downstream of the fan (fan blades 9, 10) and upstream of the compressor section (inlet 11 is a compressor air inlet section, Col. 1, lines 50-52), the inlet section comprising an inner liner (15) along the radial direction of the gas turbine engine (i.e., as shown in Fig. 2, the liner extends in the vertical, radial direction of the engine), the inner liner defining a boundary layer opening (the liner 15 defines intake holes 8, Col. 3, lines 24-44) for receiving a boundary layer airflow during operation of the gas turbine engine (air is received as shown in Fig. 2 during engine operation, Col. 3, lines 32-44).
Rud et al. does not specifically disclose the turbomachine having a compressor section, a combustion section, and a turbine section in serial flow order.
Hirschkron teaches of an analogous aircraft engine inlet, which is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Specifically, Hirschkron teaches of a conventional aircraft engine (12) having a compressor section, a combustion section, and a turbine section in serial flow order (Col. 2, lines 29-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rud et al. in view of Hirschkron by having the engine disclosed in Rud et al. have a compressor section, a combustion section, and a turbine section in serial flow order as it is widely known in the gas turbine engine art of such serial flow order in order for the turbine engine to function properly (Hirschkron, Col. 2, lines 29-34).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Rud et al. and Hirschkron further discloses wherein the inlet section (11) comprises an inlet duct (the inlet section 11 is an inlet duct, Col. 3, lines 23-26), wherein the inlet duct includes the inner liner (15), wherein the inlet duct defines an engine inlet (i.e., E, Fig. 2’ below, Col. 3, lines 23-25), and wherein the boundary layer opening is located downstream of the engine inlet (i.e., portion “p” contains boundary layer openings 8 that are downstream of the engine inlet “E”).
PNG
media_image1.png
381
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2’
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Rud et al. and Hirschkron further discloses wherein the inlet duct (11) comprises a strut (17) extending therethrough, and wherein the boundary layer opening is aligned with the strut along an axial direction of the gas turbine engine (i.e., the boundary layer openings 8 of the liner 15 are axially aligned with the strut 17 as shown in Fig. 2, wherein the openings 8 are aligned with the axial passage of air for the engine).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Rud et al. and Hirschkron further discloses wherein the boundary layer opening (8) is a first boundary layer opening of a plurality of boundary layer openings (i.e., Rud, intake holes 8, Col. 3, lines 35-40) arranged along a circumferential direction of the gas turbine engine (i.e., the liners 15 can be arranged circumferentially offsetting with respect to the inlet section, Col. 3, lines 35-40).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Rud et al. and Hirschkron further discloses wherein the boundary layer opening (8) is a first boundary layer opening of a plurality of boundary layer openings (i.e., Rud, intake holes 8, Col. 3, lines 35-40) arranged along an axial direction of the gas turbine engine (i.e., the intake holes 8 extend and are arranged along the axial direction (i.e., from left to right), as shown in Fig. 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 11-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest wherein the inlet section further comprises a plurality of scoops oriented in an upstream direction, wherein each scoop is associated with a respective boundary layer opening of the plurality of boundary layer openings of the inner liner.
Regarding claim 11, Rud discloses of a plurality of stationary outlet guide vanes (o, Fig. 2’) downstream of the fan (i.e., downstream of the fan blades 9, 10), but fails to disclose or suggest wherein each stationary outlet guide vane of the plurality of stationary outlet guide vanes defines an OGV internal passage, wherein the boundary layer opening of the inner liner is in fluid communication with the OGV internal passage of the plurality of stationary outlet guide vanes.
Claim 12 would be allowable due to its dependency on claim 11.
Claims 4-5 would be allowable if the double patenting rejections are overcome.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest wherein the boundary layer opening (Rud, 8) is positioned proximate a trailing edge of the strut (17). As shown in Fig. 2, the opening (8) is positioned proximately a leading edge of the strut (17).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest wherein the inlet section further comprising a scoop oriented in an upstream direction and associated with the boundary layer opening of the inner liner.
Claim 6-7 would be allowable due to their dependency on claim 5.
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 06/08/2026
Prosecution Insights