DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Pub. No.: US 2021/0108597 A1 (Ostdiek) in view of US Patent 7,165,744 (Howarth), Pub. No.: US 2023/0356853 (Cline), US Patent 4,055,041 (Adamson) and Pub. No. US 2004/0140397 A1 (Dun).
The applied reference has a common applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claim 1, Ostdiek discloses (see annotated fig. 1 below) an aircraft (see par. 2) defining a vertical direction V, an upstream direction F, and a downstream direction (opposite to F), the aircraft comprising: a fuselage (see pars. 38 and 42); a wing (see pars. 38 and 42) connected to and extending outward from the fuselage (one of ordinary skill when reading pars. 38 and 42 would understand that the wings extend out from the fuselage); an engine 10 mounted to the wing (see par. 42), wherein the engine is an unducted fan 20 engine and comprises: a turbomachine (see par. 31) defining a centerline axis 11; a fan 20 connected to and disposed upstream from the turbomachine, wherein the fan is disposed to rotate about the centerline axis; and an exhaust section 80 comprising an outlet nozzle 79 and a core plug (at 81), wherein the core plug extends out of the outlet nozzle in the downstream direction and defines an aft most portion of the engine, wherein during operation of the engine an exhaust stream is expelled from the outlet nozzle of the exhaust section, wherein the exhaust stream defines a mean direction of flow MDF1 in the downstream direction from the exhaust section; and an unducted fan engine pylon (see par. 38; the vanes counteract swirl created by the unducted fan rotor blades 21, and thus the pylon is associated with the engine and can be called an unducted fan engine pylon) and mounting the unducted fan engine to the wing (see par. 42); a top guide vane (at 31 in fig. 1); the fan 20 comprises a stage of unducted rotor blades 21 and a stage of guide vanes 31 located downstream of the stage of unducted rotor blades, wherein the aircraft further comprises: a pylon (see par. 38);
wherein the wing (see par. 42) defines an upper surface (the upper surface of the wing that the engine is mounted to) along the vertical direction and a lower surface along the vertical direction (the lower surface of the wing that the engine is mounted to); the outlet nozzle 79 defines an outlet axis (see fig. 1 below).
Ostdiek does not explicitly disclose the mean direction of flow of the exhaust stream defines a first angle with the centerline axis of the turbomachine greater than zero such that the centerline axis is oriented downwardly along the vertical direction relative to the mean direction of flow of the exhaust stream; the unducted fan engine pylon is for mounting the unducted fan engine to the wing; the top guide vane mounted to and extending from a portion of the unducted fan engine pylon, wherein the unducted rotorblades extend radially outward beyond the unducted fan engine pylon; and wherein only one of the top guide vane is mounted to the unducted fan engine pylon, wherein a portion of the unducted fan engine pylon connects to and extends along a portion of the upper surface of the wing, wherein the outlet nozzle is non-axisymmetric about the outlet axis.
Howarth teaches a gas turbine 1 (see fig. 2) and further teaches a mean direction of flow MDF2 of an exhaust stream defines a first angle (see FA in fig. 2 below; see col. 3, ll. 1-3, col. 4, ll. 29-33; and col. 5, ll. 25-29 discussing vectoring of core nozzle 7 to vary the angle of mean exhaust stream from nozzle 7) with a centerline axis (Y-Y) of a turbomachine (core engine of “turbo fan” at location 1 in fig. 2 below; see col. 2, l. 38) greater than zero (see fig. 2 below) such that the centerline axis is oriented downwardly (centerline axis Y-Y is oriented downwardly compared to exhaust stream exiting core nozzle 7 in fig. 2 below) along the vertical direction relative to the mean direction of flow of the exhaust stream.
PNG
media_image1.png
735
1054
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (V)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (outlet axis, CA)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (AP)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (MDF1)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector]
In summary, Howarth teaches angling the MDF2 slightly downward (see vector MDF2 at location below wing 4 in fig. 2 below) as shown such that the MDF2 provides thrust with a component of lift. This is accomplished by inclining the core nozzle 7 as shown below. The bypass duct nozzle 2a may also be vectored. The teachings of Howarth are implemented by 1) alignment of the duct/nozzle structures discussed above in this paragraph (see col. 4, ll. 28-33); 2) by use of thrust vectoring petals (see col. 4, ll. 35-40); or 3) by use of adjustable engine mounts (see col. 2, ll. 1-3). Such teachings permit the axis of rotation of the engine to stay aligned with the incoming flow stream 5 (see below), thereby improving propulsive efficiency 9 (see col. 1, ll. 36-38), while at the same time providing a component of lift in the thrust vector thereby optimizing aircraft performance in terms of fuel economy.
PNG
media_image3.png
438
867
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (D)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (U)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (FA)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (V)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (SA)][AltContent: arc][AltContent: textbox (TA)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (CP)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (MZ)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (it is noted this office action cites the embodiment wherein fan nacelle 2 is truncated at 2a (see col. 5, ll. 29-31))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (MDF2)][AltContent: arrow]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Ostdiek with the mean direction of flow of the exhaust stream defines a first angle with the centerline axis of the turbomachine greater than zero such that the centerline axis is oriented downwardly along the vertical direction relative to the mean direction of flow of the exhaust stream as taught by Howarth in order to facilitate optimizing L/D ratio and thus fuel efficiency, as well as noise emissions (see col. 2. ll. 52-56, col. 2 l. 65 to col. 3 l. 3, col. 4 ll. 10-15, and col. 5 ll. 25-29).
Cline teaches (see fig. 4A below) a gas turbine 400 and further teaches an unducted fan (see annotated figure below; one of ordinary skill would understand when reading par. 47, par. 67 (see , “unducted fan”) and viewing figs. 4A, 7A-B and 8A-B, that engine 400 in fig. 4A is an unducted fan engine; for example, there is no fan casing surrounding the unducted fan rotor blades, wherein there is a fan casing 132 surrounding the ducted fan engine rotor blades and guide vanes 134 shown in fig. 3) engine pylon 402 is for mounting an unducted fan engine 400 to a wing 212; a top guide vane 411 mounted to and extending from a portion of the unducted fan engine pylon, and wherein the unducted rotorblades extend radially outward beyond the unducted fan engine pylon; only one of the top guide vane is mounted to the unducted fan engine pylon (see fig. 7A showing only one top guide vane 702b being mounted to a pylon 704, wherein fig. 7A is applicable to engine 400 of fig. 4A, see par. 61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Ostdiek in view of Howarth with the unducted fan engine pylon is for mounting the unducted fan engine to the wing; the top guide vane mounted to and extending from a portion of the unducted fan engine pylon, and wherein the unducted rotorblades extend radially outward beyond the unducted fan engine pylon; only one of the top guide vane is mounted to the unducted fan engine pylon as taught by Cline in order to facilitate mounting of the engine of Ostdiek in view of Howarth to the wing.
PNG
media_image5.png
613
993
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (unducted fan )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (unducted fan rotor blades)][AltContent: arrow]
Adamson teaches a gas turbine (abstract) and further teaches (see fig. 1) a portion of a pylon 44 connects to and extends along a portion of an upper surface (at 46) of a wing 46.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Ostdiek in view of Howarth and Cline with portion of the unducted fan engine pylon connects to and extends along a portion of the upper surface of the wing as taught by Adamson in order to facilitate providing and engine attachment structure including additional space to mount critical engine accessories (see Adamson col. 3, ll. 40-50).
Dun teaches (see fig. 1; and fig. 2 below) a gas turbine (see par. 45) and further teaches an outlet nozzle 12 is non-axisymmetric about an outlet axis OA.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Ostdiek in view of Howarth, Cline and Adamson with the outlet nozzle is non-axisymmetric about the outlet axis as taught by Dun in order to facilitate improving noise attenuation and providing a more compact and thus lighter mounting configuration (see Dunn pars. 30 and 32).
PNG
media_image7.png
242
303
media_image7.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (OA)][AltContent: arrow]
Regarding claim 2, Ostdiek in view of Howarth, Cline, Adamson and Dun teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Ostdiek does not explicitly disclose the first angle is less than or equal to 10°.
The presence of a known result-effective variable would be a motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. See KSR; MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). A particular parameter is a result-effective variable when the variable is known to achieve a recognized result. See In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620, 195 USPQ 6,8 (CCPA 1977).
Here, Howarth teaches (see col. 2. ll. 52-56, col. 2 l. 65 to col. 3 l. 3, col. 4 ll. 10-15, and col. 5 ll. 25-29) that adjusting the nozzle axis of nozzle 7 results in varying a vertical component of the thrust vector 9 (as it applies to nozzle 7). For example, tilting the nozzle axis (MZ; see fig. 2 above) for example of nozzle 7 more clockwise in fig. 2 above results in a greater component of thrust (directed upward) in the vertical direction V. Likewise tilting the nozzle axis MZ more upward such that the axis MZ becomes more horizontal in fig. 2 above results a lesser component of thrust in the vertical direction V or in other words less lift created by thrust vector 9 and thus changing the angle of the mean direction of flow. Varying the vertical component of the thrust vector 9 helps to optimize the L/D ratio and thus has an effect on aircraft performance and fuel efficiency. Therefore, an ordinary skilled worker would recognize that an angular setting of the outlet axis, regarding the embodiment of short fan duct 2a, is a result-effective variable that controls the component of thrust in the vertical direction and thus the L/D ratio. Thus, the claimed the first angle is less than or equal to 10° is found to be an obvious optimization of the prior art obtainable by an ordinary skilled worker through routine experimentation.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, the first angle, was disclosed in the prior art by Ostdiek in view Howarth, Cline, Adamson and Dun, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ostdiek in view Howarth, Cline, Adamson and Dun’s invention to include wherein the first angle is less than or equal to 10° (i.e., to adjust the nozzle 7 such that the first angle is less than or equal to 10°) in order to optimize L/D ratio and thus fuel efficiency, as well as noise emissions, as suggested and taught by Howarth (see col. 2. ll. 52-56, col. 2 l. 65 to col. 3 l. 3, col. 4 ll. 10-15, and col. 5 ll. 25-29). It has been held “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”, In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It is further noted that a person of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success of achieving the instant range because optimizing L/D is a standard design activity regarding gas turbine powered aircraft and the engine may be adjustably mounted for routing procedures as pointed out in Howarth col. 2, ll. 1-2 and performing the routine optimization results in desirable fuel savings.
Regarding claim 3, Ostdiek in view of Howarth, Cline, Adamson and Dun teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Ostdiek further discloses (see fig. 1) the fuselage (see pars. 38 and 42) defines a fuselage centerline (a centerline of the fuselage of Ostdiek), wherein the fuselage centerline defines a second angle with the centerline axis 11 of the turbomachine (the angle between the fuselage centerline and the centerline axis). Ostdiek does not disclose wherein the second angle (SA) is greater than or equal to 1° and less than or equal to 10°.
The presence of a known result-effective variable would be a motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. See KSR; MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). A particular parameter is a result-effective variable when the variable is known to achieve a recognized result. See In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620, 195 USPQ 6,8 (CCPA 1977).
Here, Howarth teaches that the angular setting of the centerline axis Y-Y within nacelle 2a is adjusted by mounts (6; see col. 4, ll. 46-47) shown in in fig. 2 above. Because the nacelle 2a is rigidly connected to the wing 4 and via pylon 3 as shown in fig. 2 above, the second angle SA is also adjustable via mounts 6. Adjusting the angular setting of centerline axis Y-Y results in aligning the engine with the inlet flow (i.e., reduces turning of the inlet flow from E to E’ as show in fig. 1). For example, tilting the centerline axis Y-Y downward as seen when comparing figs. 1 and 2 results in lessening of the turning of the inlet flow from E to E’. Such turning of the inlet flow reduces propulsion efficiency (see col. 1, ll. 35-40). Adjustment of the second angle SA via adjustable mounts 6 also can be used to reduce the noise of the engine (see col. 5, ll. 25-28).
Therefore, an ordinary skilled worker would recognize that a setting of the second angle between the centerline axis Y-Y and the fuselage centerline is a result-effective variable that controls propulsion efficiency and engine noise. Thus, the claimed wherein the second angle SA is greater than or equal to 1° and less than or equal to 10° is found to be an obvious optimization of the prior art obtainable by an ordinary skilled worker through routine experimentation.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. a second angle (SA; see fig. 2 above) between the fuselage centerline and the centerline axis (centerline axis Y-Y) was disclosed in the prior art by Ostdiek in view of Howarth, Cline, Adamson and Dun, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ostdiek in view of Howarth, Cline, Adamson and Dun’s invention to include wherein the second angle (SA) is greater than or equal to 1° and less than or equal to 10° in order to optimize propulsion efficiency and noise emissions as suggested and taught by Howarth in col. 1, ll. 35-40 and col. 5, ll. 25-28. It has been held “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”, In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
PNG
media_image9.png
95
91
media_image9.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (OA)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (MDF2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (expanded portion of fig. 2 version 1)][AltContent: textbox (RM)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (apex)][AltContent: arrow]
Regarding claim 4, Ostdiek in view of Howarth, Cline, Adamson and Dun teaches the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Ostdiek further discloses (see fig. 1 above) the outlet nozzle 79 defines an outlet axis (see fig. 1 above) and wherein the outlet axis passes through an apex AP of the core plug (at 81). The teachings of Howarth applied to Ostdiek in the claim 1 analysis above include (see expanded portion of fig. 2 version 1 of Howarth above) the outlet nozzle (outlet nozzle 7 wherein fan duct 2 truncates at 2a in fig. 2 above, see col. 5, ll. 29-31) the mean direction of flow MDF2 is parallel to an outlet axis OA (and wherein the outlet axis passes through an apex of the core plug). One of ordinary skill would understand the nozzle 7 axis to be the outlet axis OA shown below; thus, the outlet axis being parallel to the mean direction of flow of the exhaust exiting the nozzle 7 below. Howarth applied to Ostdiek results in the outlet nozzle and plug of Ostdiek being formed similarly to outlet nozzle and plug of Howarth such that the mean direction of flow of Ostdiek in view of Howarth, Cline, Adamson and Dun is parallel to the outlet axis (or alternatively, instead of the forming, the outlet nozzle of Ostdiek in view of Howarth, Cline, Adamson and Dun including thrust vectoring petals as discussed in the claim 1 analysis above and also at col. 4, ll. 35-40 of Howarth) in order to arrive at the claimed mean direction of flow.
Regarding claim 5, Ostdiek in view of Howarth, Cline, Adamson and Dun teaches the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Ostdiek further discloses (see fig. 1 above) the outlet nozzle 79 defines an outlet axis (see fig. 1 above). The teachings of Howarth applied to Ostdiek in the claim 1 analysis above include wherein the outlet axis of the outlet nozzle defines a third angle TA with the centerline axis (Y-Y; see fig. 2 above) of the turbomachine greater than zero (see angle TA in fig. 2 above) such that the centerline axis is oriented downward (see location TA in fig. 2 above) along the vertical direction relative to the outlet axis. Ostdiek does not explicitly disclose the third angle is less than or equal to 20°.
The presence of a known result-effective variable would be a motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. See KSR; MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). A particular parameter is a result-effective variable when the variable is known to achieve a recognized result. See In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620, 195 USPQ 6,8 (CCPA 1977).
Here, Howarth teaches (see col. 2. ll. 52-56, col. 2 l. 65 to col. 3 l. 3, col. 4 ll. 10-15, and col. 5 ll. 25-29) that adjusting the nozzle axis of nozzles 7 (regarding nacelle 2a) results in varying a vertical component of the thrust vector 9 (as it applies to nozzle 7). For example, tilting the nozzle axis MZ for example of nozzle 7 more clockwise in fig. 2 above results in a greater component of thrust (directed upward) in the vertical direction V. Likewise tilting the nozzle axis MZ more upward such that the axis MZ becomes more horizontal in fig. 2 above results a lesser component of thrust in the vertical direction V or in other words less lift created by thrust vector 9. Varying the vertical component of the thrust vector 9 helps to optimize the L/D ratio and thus has an effect on aircraft performance and fuel efficiency. Therefore, an ordinary skilled worker would recognize that an angular setting of the outlet axis, regarding the embodiment of short fan duct 2a, is a result-effective variable that controls the component of thrust in the vertical direction and thus the L/D ratio. Thus, the claimed the third angle is less than or equal to 20° is found to be an obvious optimization of the prior art obtainable by an ordinary skilled worker through routine experimentation.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, the third angle or the nozzle angle was disclosed in the prior art by Ostdiek in view of Howarth, Cline, Adamson and Dun, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ostdiek in view of Howarth, Cline, Adamson and Dun’s invention to include wherein the third angle is less than or equal to 20° (i.e., to adjust the nozzle 7 such that the third angle, or the nozzle angle, is less than or equal to 20°) in order to optimize L/D ratio and thus fuel efficiency, as well as noise emissions, as suggested and taught by Howarth (see col. 2. ll. 52-56, col. 2 l. 65 to col. 3 l. 3, col. 4 ll. 10-15, and col. 5 ll. 25-29). It has been held “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”, In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
PNG
media_image9.png
95
91
media_image9.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (OA, CPA)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (CP)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (apex)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (expanded portion of fig. 2 version 2)]
Regarding claim 7, Ostdiek in view of Howarth, Cline, Adamson and Dun teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Ostdiek further discloses (see fig. 1 above) the outlet nozzle 79 defines an outlet axis (see fig. 1 above), wherein the core plug (at 81) is disposed at a downstream most end of the exhaust section 80, wherein the core plug defines a core plug axis CA and an apex AP, wherein the core plug axis is coaxial with the outlet axis. It is noted that, this Ostdiek structure as modified by Howarth in the claim 1 analysis above, results the outlet nozzle of Ostdiek being formed similarly to the outlet nozzle of Howarth as shown in expanded portion of fig. 2 version 2 of Howarth above (or alternatively thrust vectoring petals may be used) wherein the outlet nozzle of Howarth (outlet nozzle 7 wherein fan duct 2 truncates at 2a in fig. 2 of Howarth above, see col. 5, ll. 29-31 and also discussion in claim 1 analysis above) defines an outlet axis OA, wherein a core plug CP is disposed at a downstream most end of the exhaust section (this is the downstream most end in the embodiment wherein fan duct 2 truncates at 2a in annotated fig. 2 above), wherein the core plug defines a core plug axis CPA and an apex, wherein the core plug axis is coaxial with the outlet axis (see below).
Regarding claim 8, Ostdiek in view of Howarth, Cline, Adamson and Dun teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Ostdiek further discloses (see fig. 1) the outlet nozzle 79 defines an outlet axis (see fig. 1 above) and the fuselage (see pars. 38 and 42) defines a fuselage centerline (a centerline of the fuselage of Ostdiek). Ostdiek does not disclose the outlet axis is parallel with the fuselage centerline.
The presence of a known result-effective variable would be a motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. See KSR; MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). A particular parameter is a result-effective variable when the variable is known to achieve a recognized result. See In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620, 195 USPQ 6,8 (CCPA 1977).
Here, Howarth teaches (see col. 2. ll. 52-56, col. 2 l. 65 to col. 3 l. 3, col. 4 ll. 10-15, and col. 5 ll. 25-29) that adjusting the nozzle axis of nozzle 7 (i.e., adjusting the outlet axis corresponding with nozzle 7) results in varying a vertical component of the thrust vector 9 (as it applies to nozzle 7). For example, tilting the nozzle axis MZ for example of nozzle 7 more clockwise in fig. 2 above results in a greater component of thrust (directed upward) in the vertical direction V. Likewise tilting the nozzle axis MZ more upward such that the axis MZ becomes more horizontal in fig. 2 above results a lesser component of thrust in the vertical direction V or in other words less lift created by thrust vector 9. Varying the vertical component of the thrust vector 9 helps to optimize the L/D ratio and thus has an effect on aircraft performance and fuel efficiency. Therefore, an ordinary skilled worker would recognize that an angular setting of the outlet axis, regarding the embodiment of short fan duct 2a, is a result-effective variable that controls the component of thrust in the vertical direction and thus the L/D ratio. Thus, the claimed the outlet axis is parallel with the fuselage centerline is found to be an obvious optimization of the prior art obtainable by an ordinary skilled worker through routine experimentation.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, and outlet axis and a fuselage centerline were disclosed in the prior art by Howarth, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ostdiek in view of Howarth, Cline, Adamson and Dun’s invention to include wherein the outlet axis is parallel with the fuselage centerline (i.e., to adjust the angle of nozzle 7 such that the outlet axis of nozzle 7 is parallel with the fuselage centerline) in order to optimize L/D ratio and thus fuel efficiency, as well as noise emissions, as suggested and taught by Howarth (see col. 2. ll. 52-56, col. 2 l. 65 to col. 3 l. 3, col. 4 ll. 10-15, and col. 5 ll. 25-29). It has been held “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”, In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 11, Ostdiek in view of Howarth, Cline, Adamson and Dun teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Ostdiek further discloses (see fig. 1) the turbomachine (see par. 31) defines a working gas flowpath (flowpath through core duct 72), and wherein the outlet nozzle 79 is an outlet nozzle for the working gas flowpath.
Regarding claim 12, Ostdiek in view of Howarth, Cline, Adamson and Dun teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Ostdiek further discloses (see fig. 1) the turbomachine includes a compressor section 27,45, wherein the engine defines a fan stream (stream in duct 73 from fan 40, or stream exiting unducted fan 20 and passing through vanes 31) and a third stream (core stream through duct 72; it is noted that 1) the term “third” is only a place holder, see applicant par. 14, 2) there is no first or second stream claimed and thus three total streams are not required) and wherein the outlet nozzle 79 is an outlet nozzle for the third stream.
Regarding claim 13, Ostdiek in view of Howarth, Cline, Adamson and Dun teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Ostdiek further discloses (see fig. 1) the engine is configured to operate at a speed greater than Mach 0.74 and less than Mach 0.90, and wherein the exhaust stream defines the mean direction of flow (MDF1 as shown in fig. 1 above of Ostdiek as modified by Howarth to be similar to MDF2 of Howarth shown in fig. 2 above) in the downstream direction from the exhaust section when the engine operates at the speed. It is noted that the phrase “greater than Mach 0.74 and less than Mach 0.90” is interpreted as intended use and Ostdiek in view of Howarth, Cline, Adamson and Dun is capable of performing the intended use. For example, unducted fan type aircraft can operate at speeds within the instant Mach range.
Claim(s) 14 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostdiek in view of Howarth, Cline and Dun.
Regarding claim 14, Ostdiek discloses (see fig. 2 above) a thrust producing system 10 for an aircraft (see par. 2), the aircraft including a wing (see par. 42) and defining a vertical direction V, an upstream direction F, and a downstream direction (opposite to F), the thrust producing system comprising: a turbomachine (see par. 31) defining a centerline axis 11; a fan 20 connected to and disposed upstream from the turbomachine, wherein the fan is disposed to rotate about the centerline axis, and wherein the fan is part of an unducted fan 20 engine 10; an unducted fan engine pylon (see par. 38; the vanes 31 counteract swirl created by the unducted fan rotor blades 21, and thus the pylon is associated with the engine and can be called an unducted fan engine pylon) and mounting the unducted fan engine 10 to the wing (see par. 42); a top guide vane 31 (see fig. 1) and a guide vane mounted to the unducted fan engine pylon (see par. 38); and an exhaust section 80 comprising an outlet nozzle 79 and a core plug (at 81), wherein the core plug extends out of the outlet nozzle in the downstream direction and defines an aft most portion of the engine, wherein during operation of the thrust producing system an exhaust stream is expelled from the outlet nozzle of the exhaust section, wherein the exhaust stream defines a mean direction of flow MDF1 in the downstream direction from the exhaust section;
the outlet nozzle 79 defines an outlet axis (see fig. 1 above) and wherein the outlet axis passes through an apex AP of the core plug (at 81). Ostdiek does not explicitly disclose the unducted fan engine pylon is for mounting the unducted fan engine to the wing; the top guide vane is mounted to and extending from the unducted fan engine pylon; and the mean direction of flow of the exhaust stream defines a first angle with the centerline axis of the turbomachine greater than 0[Symbol font/0xB0] and less than 10[Symbol font/0xB0] such that the centerline axis is oriented downwardly along the vertical direction relative to the mean direction of flow of the exhaust stream, wherein the outlet nozzle is non-axisymmetric about the outlet axis, wherein the mean direction of flow is parallel to the outlet axis, and wherein only one of the top guide vane is mounted to the unducted fan engine pylon and extends upwards in a radial direction away from a casing of the unducted fan engine.
Howarth teaches a mean direction of flow MDF2 of an exhaust stream defines a first angle (see FA in fig. 2 above; see col. 3, ll. 1-3, col. 4, ll. 29-33; and col. 5, ll. 25-29 discussing vectoring of core nozzle 7 to vary the angle of mean exhaust stream from nozzle 7) with a centerline axis (Y-Y) of a turbomachine (core engine of “turbo fan” at location 1 in fig. 2 above; see col. 2, l. 38) greater than zero (see fig. 2 above) such that the centerline axis is oriented downwardly (centerline axis Y-Y is oriented downwardly compared to exhaust stream exiting core nozzle 7 in fig. 2 above) along the vertical direction relative to the mean direction of flow of the exhaust stream. In summary, Howarth teaches angling the MDF2 slightly downward as shown such that the MDF2 provides thrust with a component of lift. This is accomplished by inclining the core nozzle 7 as shown above. The bypass duct nozzle 2a may also be vectored. The teachings of Howarth are implemented by 1) alignment of the duct/nozzle structures (see col. 4, ll. 28-33, 2); 2) by use of thrust vectoring petals (see col. 4, ll. 35-40); or 3) by use of adjustable engine mounts (see col. 2, ll. 1-3). Such teachings permit the axis of rotation of the engine to stay aligned with the incoming flow stream 5 (see above), thereby improving propulsive efficiency 9 (see col. 1, ll. 36-38), while at the same time providing a component of lift in the thrust vector thereby optimizing aircraft performance in terms of fuel economy.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Ostdiek with the mean direction of flow of the exhaust stream defines a first angle with the centerline axis of the turbomachine greater than zero such that the centerline axis is oriented downwardly along the vertical direction relative to the mean direction of flow of the exhaust stream as taught by Howarth in order to facilitate optimizing L/D ratio and thus fuel efficiency, as well as noise emissions (see col. 2. ll. 52-56, col. 2 l. 65 to col. 3 l. 3, col. 4 ll. 10-15, and col. 5 ll. 25-29).
Cline teaches an unducted fan (see annotated figure above; one of ordinary skill would understand when reading par. 47, par. 67 (see , “unducted fan”) and viewing figs. 4A, 7A-B and 8A-B, that engine 400 in fig. 4A is an unducted fan engine; for example, there is no fan casing surrounding the unducted fan rotor blades, wherein there is a fan casing 132 surrounding the ducted fan engine rotor blades and guide vanes 134 shown in fig. 3) engine 400 pylon is for mounting the unducted fan engine to a wing; a top guide vane 411 is mounted to and extending from an unducted fan engine pylon 402.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Ostdiek in view of Howarth with the unducted fan engine pylon is for mounting the unducted fan engine to the wing; the top guide vane is mounted to and extending from the unducted fan engine pylon as taught by Cline in order to facilitate mounting of the engine of Ostdiek in view of Howarth to the wing.
The teachings of Howarth applied to Ostdiek in this claim 14 analysis above include (see expanded portion of fig. 2 version 1 of Howarth above) the outlet nozzle (outlet nozzle 7 wherein fan duct 2 truncates at 2a in fig. 2 above, see col. 5, ll. 29-31) the mean direction of flow MDF2 is parallel to an outlet axis OA (and wherein the outlet axis passes through an apex of the core plug). One of ordinary skill would understand the nozzle 7 axis to be the outlet axis OA shown above; thus, the outlet axis being parallel to the mean direction of flow of the exhaust exiting the nozzle 7 above. Howarth applied to Ostdiek results in the outlet nozzle and plug of Ostdiek being formed similarly to outlet nozzle and plug of Howarth such that the mean direction of flow of Ostdiek in view of Howarth and Cline is parallel to the outlet axis (or alternatively, instead of the forming, the outlet nozzle of Ostdiek in view of Howarth and Cline including thrust vectoring petals as discussed in the claim 1 analysis above and also at col. 4, ll. 35-40 of Howarth) in order to arrive at the claimed mean direction of flow. The combination teaches only one of the top guide vane is mounted to the unducted fan engine pylon (see fig. 7A showing only one top guide vane 702b being mounted to a pylon 704, wherein fig. 7A is applicable to engine 400 of fig. 4A, see par. 61).
Dun teaches (see fig. 1; and fig. 2 below) a gas turbine (see par. 45) and further teaches an outlet nozzle 12 is non-axisymmetric about an outlet axis OA (see annotated figure above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Ostdiek in view of Howarth and Cline with the outlet nozzle is non-axisymmetric about the outlet axis as taught by Dun in order to facilitate improving noise attenuation and providing a more compact and thus lighter mounting configuration (see Dunn pars. 30 and 32).
Ostdiek in view of Howarth, Cline and Dun teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Ostdiek does not explicitly disclose the first angle is less than or equal to 10°.
The presence of a known result-effective variable would be a motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. See KSR; MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). A particular parameter is a result-effective variable when the variable is known to achieve a recognized result. See In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620, 195 USPQ 6,8 (CCPA 1977).
Here, Howarth teaches (see col. 2. ll. 52-56, col. 2 l. 65 to col. 3 l. 3, col. 4 ll. 10-15, and col. 5 ll. 25-29) that adjusting the nozzle axis of nozzle 7 results in varying a vertical component of the thrust vector 9 (as it applies to nozzle 7). For example, tilting the nozzle axis (MZ; see fig. 2 above) for example of nozzle 7 more clockwise in fig. 2 above results in a greater component of thrust (directed upward) in the vertical direction V. Likewise tilting the nozzle axis MZ more upward such that the axis MZ becomes more horizontal in fig. 2 above results a lesser component of thrust in the vertical direction V or in other words less lift created by thrust vector 9 and thus changing the angle of the mean direction of flow. Varying the vertical component of the thrust vector 9 helps to optimize the L/D ratio and thus has an effect on aircraft performance and fuel efficiency. Therefore, an ordinary skilled worker would recognize that an angular setting of the outlet axis, regarding the embodiment of short fan duct 2a, is a result-effective variable that controls the component of thrust in the vertical direction and thus the L/D ratio. Thus, the claimed the first angle is less than or equal to 10° is found to be an obvious optimization of the prior art obtainable by an ordinary skilled worker through routine experimentation.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, the first angle, was disclosed in the prior art by Ostdiek in view Cline, Howarth and Dun, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ostdiek in view Cline, Howarth and Dun’s invention to include wherein the first angle is less than or equal to 10° (i.e., to adjust the nozzle 7 such that the first angle is less than or equal to 10°) in order to optimize L/D ratio and thus fuel efficiency, as well as noise emissions, as suggested and taught by Howarth (see col. 2. ll. 52-56, col. 2 l. 65 to col. 3 l. 3, col. 4 ll. 10-15, and col. 5 ll. 25-29). It has been held “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”, In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 16, Ostdiek in view of Howarth, Cline and Dun teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Ostdiek further discloses (see fig. 1 above) wherein the core plug (at 81) is disposed at a downstream most end of the exhaust section 80, wherein the core plug defines a core plug axis CA and an apex AP, wherein the core plug axis is coaxial with the outlet axis. It is noted that, this Ostdiek structure as modified by Howarth in the claim 1 analysis above, results the outlet nozzle of Ostdiek being formed similarly to the outlet nozzle of Howarth as shown in expanded portion of fig. 2 version 2 of Howarth above (or alternatively thrust vectoring petals may be used) wherein the outlet nozzle of Howarth (outlet nozzle 7 wherein fan duct 2 truncates at 2a in fig. 2 of Howarth above, see col. 5, ll. 29-31 and also discussion in claim 1 analysis above) defines an outlet axis OA, wherein a core plug CP is disposed at a downstream most end of the exhaust section (this is the downstream most end in the embodiment wherein fan duct 2 truncates at 2a in annotated fig. 2 above), wherein the core plug defines a core plug axis CPA and an apex, wherein the core plug axis is coaxial with the outlet axis (see below).
Regarding claim 17, Ostdiek in view of Howarth, Cline and Dun teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Ostdiek discloses (see fig. 1 above) wherein the outlet nozzle includes a rim (at 79) disposed at a terminal endpoint of the outlet nozzle (one of ordinary skill would recognize the instant nozzle to be circular or annular and thus having a rim at a terminal endpoint; for example nozzle can be interpreted as “a short tube with a taper or constriction used … direct a flow of fluid”, Merriam-Webster online), wherein the rim defines an exit plane (see dashed annotated line in expanded portion of fig. 1 below) along which the rim is disposed. Ostdiek does not disclose the exit plane is non-orthogonal to the outlet axis.
Dun teaches (see fig. 1; and fig. 2 above) a gas turbine (see par. 45) and further teaches the wherein an exit plane (at 12 in fig. 2 above) is non-orthogonal to an outlet axis OA.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Howarth, Cline and Dun with the exit plane is non-orthogonal to the outlet axis as taught by Dun in order to facilitate improving noise attenuation and providing a more compact and thus lighter mounting configuration (see Dunn pars. 30 and 32).
PNG
media_image11.png
261
243
media_image11.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (expanded portion of Ostdiek fig. 1)]
Regarding claim 18, Ostdiek in view of Howarth and Cline teaches the current invention as claimed and discussed above. The teachings of Howarth applied to Ostdiek in the claims 14 analysis above include wherein the outlet axis of the outlet nozzle defines a nozzle angle TA greater than zero (see angle TA in fig. 2 above) with the centerline axis (Y-Y; see fig. 2 above) of the turbomachine such that the centerline axis is oriented downward (see location TA in fig. 2 above) along the vertical direction relative to the outlet axis. Ostdiek does not explicitly disclose the nozzle angle is less than or equal to 20°.
The presence of a known result-effective variable would be a motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. See KSR; MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). A particular parameter is a result-effective variable when the variable is known to achieve a recognized result. See In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620, 195 USPQ 6,8 (CCPA 1977).
Here, Howarth teaches (see col. 2. ll. 52-56, col. 2 l. 65 to col. 3 l. 3, col. 4 ll. 10-15, and col. 5 ll. 25-29) that adjusting the nozzle axis of nozzles 7 (regarding nacelle 2a) results in varying a vertical component of the thrust vector 9 (as it applies to nozzle 7). For example, tilting the nozzle axis MZ for example of nozzle 7 more clockwise in fig. 2 above results in a greater component of thrust (directed upward) in the vertical direction V. Likewise tilting the nozzle axis MZ more upward such that the axis MZ becomes more horizontal in fig. 2 above results a lesser component of thrust in the vertical direction V or in other words less lift created by thrust vector 9. Varying the vertical component of the thrust vector 9 helps to optimize the L/D ratio and thus has an effect on aircraft performance and fuel efficiency. Therefore, an ordinary skilled worker would recognize that an angular setting of the outlet axis, regarding the embodiment of short fan duct 2a, is a result-effective variable that controls the component of thrust in the vertical direction and thus the L/D ratio. Thus, the claimed the nozzle angle TA is less than or equal to 20° is found to be an obvious optimization of the prior art obtainable by an ordinary skilled worker through routine experimentation.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, the third angle or the nozzle angle was disclosed in the prior art by Ostdiek in view of Howarth, Cline and Dun, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ostdiek in view of Howarth, Cline and Dun’s invention to include wherein the nozzle angle is less than or equal to 20° (i.e., to adjust the nozzle 7 such that the third angle, or the nozzle angle, is less than or equal to 20°) in order to optimize L/D ratio and thus fuel efficiency, as well as noise emissions, as suggested and taught by Howarth (see col. 2. ll. 52-56, col. 2 l. 65 to col. 3 l. 3, col. 4 ll. 10-15, and col. 5 ll. 25-29). It has been held “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”, In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 19, Ostdiek in view of Howarth, Cline and Dun teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Ostdiek further discloses (see fig. 1) the thrust producing system is configured to operate at a speed greater than Mach 0.74 and less than Mach 0.90, and wherein the exhaust stream defines the mean direction of flow (MDF1 as shown in fig. 1 above of Ostdiek as modified by Howarth to be similar to MDF2 of Howarth shown in fig. 2 above) in the downstream direction from the exhaust section when the thrust producing system operates at the speed. It is noted that the phrase “greater than Mach 0.74 and less than Mach 0.90” is interpreted as intended use and Ostdiek in view of Howarth and Cline is capable of performing the intended use. For example, unducted fan type aircraft can operate at speeds within the instant Mach range.
Regarding claim 20, Ostdiek in view of Howarth, Cline and Dun teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Ostdiek further discloses (see fig. 1) the turbomachine (see par. 31) defines a working gas flowpath (flowpath through core duct 72), and wherein the outlet nozzle 79 is an outlet nozzle for the working gas flowpath.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostdiek in view of Howarth, Pub. No.: US 2019/0225318 A1 (Ramakrishnan), French Patent Document FR3083207A1 (Foresto), Adamson and Dun.
Regarding claim 1, Ostdiek discloses (see annotated fig. 1above) an aircraft (see par. 2) defining a vertical direction V, an upstream direction F, and a downstream direction (opposite to F), the aircraft comprising: a fuselage (see pars. 38 and 42); a wing (see pars. 38 and 42) connected to and extending outward from the fuselage (one of ordinary skill when reading pars. 38 and 42 would understand that the wings extend out from the fuselage); an engine 10 mounted to the wing (see par. 42), wherein the engine is an unducted fan 20 engine and comprises: a turbomachine (see par. 31) defining a centerline axis 11; a fan 20 connected to and disposed upstream from the turbomachine, wherein the fan is disposed to rotate about the centerline axis; and an exhaust section 80 comprising an outlet nozzle 79 and a core plug (at 81), wherein the core plug extends out of the outlet nozzle in the downstream direction and defines an aft most portion of the engine, wherein during operation of the engine an exhaust stream is expelled from the outlet nozzle of the exhaust section, wherein the exhaust stream defines a mean direction of flow MDF1 in the downstream direction from the exhaust section; and an unducted fan engine pylon (see par. 38; the vanes counter