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 November 26, 2025 and June 15, 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The Specification is unclear as to what values constitute the invention. As best understood, Tables 1, 2, and 3 provide lists of values to describe the invention, where CVXA, IBR, LA are entered into Equation 1 to result in a dimensionless value. The Specification states the resulting Equation 1 values being within a particular range are recognized to have the described benefits of improved engine durability [0099]. However, the tables contain several issues that make it unclear what the inventive values are supposed to be (listed below). As such, the original disclosure is unclear regarding what the exact invention is.
Tables 1 and 2 do not appear to contain enough significant figures. As such, the result for Equation 1 may vary greatly due to the lack of precision. For instance, Example 11 lists a value of 0. LA is in the denominator of Equation 1. It is not possible to divide by 0, yet there is still a result presented.
Table 2 appears to have incorrect values. Using the values of Table 2 into Equation 1 does not result in the values present in the Equation 1 column.
Tables 1-2 are not consistent with Table 3. As best understood, Tables 1-2 present embodiments in the form of Examples 1-10 which meet the desired values of Applicant’s invention, and Examples 11-14 which do not satisfy the values. Table 3 presents ranges of values which meet the desired values. However, the vales of Tables 1-2 are not in the ranges disclosed in Table 3.
Table 3 is inconsistent with the text of the disclosure. For instance, the range of Equation 1 differs from the range stated in paragraph [0106].
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
It is noted that the claims use the terminology “loading area”. This appears to be specially defined in paragraph [0035] of the disclosure as the area of a protrusion that interlocks or otherwise connects airfoils.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 1, 9, and 15, the claims recite an equation EQ1, followed by values of ranges which CVXA, IBR, LA, and Equation 1 must be within. As noted in the objection to the Specification above, there are numerous issues where the numerical values, that the original disclosure presents as the invention, conflict with each other. With respect to the claims, the claims require values of CVXA, IBR, LA, and Equation 1 to be within specific ranges. The values of CVXA, IBR, LA, and Equation 1 all conflict with Examples 1-10 of Tables 1-2, which the Specification describes as embodiments that meet the inventive design [0099]. The values of Equation 1 conflict with the range disclosed in Table 3, to which the Specification states that designs that fall out of the range do not obtain the disclosed benefit [0103]. The claimed ranges encompass values to which the original disclosure, at certain points, refer to as not being the invention. As such, the claimed invention as a whole does not appear to be adequately described in a manner which one of ordinary skill would recognize that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing, due to the inconsistencies between the claimed invention and the Specification.
Claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 are subsequently rejected for their dependencies upon a previously rejected claim.
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, 9, and 15, Line 12 of Claim 1, Line 15 of Claim 9, and Line 17 of Claim 15 recite “Equation 1”. It is unclear if there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since this limitation has not been previously recited. It is unclear if this is intended to refer to the previously recited “EQ1”. The claims may be amended to better clarify the relationship between “Equation 1” and “EQ1” if this is the case. For purposes of examination, they will be treated as synonymous.
Regarding Claims 1, 9, and 15, Lines 12-13 of Claim 1, Line 15-16 of Claim 9, and Line 17 of Claim 15 recite Equation 1 being within the range of 4.835 to 281.150. However, this does not appear to be consistent with the desired ranges of CVXA, IBR, and LA. Placing the extremes of these values into EQ1 results in values ranging about 0.186 to 8.027 as being possible results for EQ1. It is unclear what the metes and bounds of what is considered the invention are because the desired Equation 1 and calculated EQ1 from the desired CVXA, IBR, LA both contain range values that lie outside of each other.
Claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 are subsequently rejected for their dependencies upon a previously rejected claim.
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, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 3, 6, and 7 of copending Application No. 19/402,547 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claims are merely broader recitations of the ‘547 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 of the instant application recites the same limitations as Claim 1 of the ‘547 application. Claim 1 of the instant application is broader in that it does not recite the aspects of EQN2 and CCVA noted in Lines 20-29 of Claim 1 of the ‘547 application. Following the rationale of In re Goodman cited above, where Applicant has once been granted a patent 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.
Regarding Claims 2, 3, 4, 5 of the instant application, these recite the same limitations as Claims 2, 4, 5, 3 of the ‘547 application. As such, Claims 2, 3, 4, 5 are rejected over Claims 2, 4, 5, 3 of the ‘547 application, respectively. Please note that the ‘547 application appears to have a numbering error. This rejection refers to the second recitation of Claims 2 and 3 present on Pg. 3 of the Claims for the ‘547 application.
Regarding Claim 9 of the instant application, the claim is similar in scope to Claim 6 of the ‘547 application. Claim 9 of the instant application is broader in that it does not recite the aspects of EQN2 and CCVA noted in Lines 20-29 of Claim 1 of the ‘547 application. Following the rationale of In re Goodman cited above, where Applicant has once been granted a patent 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.
Regarding Claim 15 of the instant application, the claim is similar in scope to Claim 7 of the ‘547 application. Claim 15 of the instant application is broader in that it does not recite the aspects of EQN2 and CCVA noted in Lines 20-29 of Claim 1 of the ‘547 application. Following the rationale of In re Goodman cited above, where Applicant has once been granted a patent 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Correia et al. (US 2009/0293495 A1), Arisi et al. (US 10,844,729 B2) provide examples of airfoils with cooling. Shaw (US 6,425,738 B1), Wong et al. (US 2021/0025282 A1) provide examples of airfoils with loading areas.
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