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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/18/2026 has been entered.
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 1-5, 9, 14, 16-17, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parmentier et al. (US 20220001998 A1), hereafter Parmentier, in view of Hines (US 20190283888 A1), Jones et al. (EP 3128153 A1), hereafter Jones, and Jeschke et al. (DE 102019208353 A1, as provided in IDS dated 04/17/2024), hereafter Jeschke.
Regarding Claim 1, Parmentier discloses an aircraft system (100, Fig. 2, comprising:
a plurality of aircraft wings (para. [0050], “two wings”);
a first propulsor (11, Fig. 3) including a first propulsor rotor (para. [0054], “propeller or fan”), the first propulsor disposed aft of the plurality of aircraft wings (Figs. 3-4 and para. [0057], “positioned at the rear of the airplane”);
a second propulsor (12, Fig. 3) including a second propulsor rotor (para. [0054], “propeller or fan”), the second propulsor disposed aft of the plurality of aircraft wings (Figs. 3-4 and para. [0057], “positioned at the rear of the airplane”);
a drivetrain (53 and 5, Fig 3) including a drive structure (5, Fig. 3) and a transmission (53, Fig. 3), the drive structure configured as a driveshaft (shaft 5, Fig 3 and para. [0069], “single mechanical shaft 5”), an output of the transmission coupled to the first propulsor rotor and the second propulsor rotor through the driveshaft (Fig. 3 and para. [0066]);
a combustion engine (gas generator 2, Fig. 3) configured to drive rotation of the first propulsor rotor and the second propulsor rotor through the drivetrain (para. [0064]);
an aircraft fuselage housing the intermittent combustion engine and the transmission (body 101, Figs. 3-4);
an inlet configured to direct air to the intermittent combustion engine (Fig. 3, examiner notes an inlet is depicted for 2 located on top of body 101, and para. [0063], “configured to compress an incoming air stream from outside the gas generator 2”); and
an exhaust located at an aft end of the aircraft fuselage (exhaust at aft end of 23, Fig 3), the exhaust configured to direct combustion products generated by the intermittent combustion engine out of the aircraft system (outlet of 23 is clearly capable of this function, Figs. 2-3).
Parmentier is silent about a first annular vane array, a second annular vane array, the engine is an intermittent combustion engine, and a muffler located between and fluidly coupled to the intermittent combustion engine and the exhaust.
Hines teaches a first vane array and a second vane array (96, Figs. 10-11 and para. [0119]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the first and second propulsors of Parmentier with a first annular vane array and a second annular vane array as taught by Hines, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to straighten airflow of the spinning fan blades to provide more thrust to the aircraft (Hines, para. [0125]).
Jones teaches an intermittent combustion engine (Abstract, auxiliary power unit 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the combustion engine of modified Parmentier with the intermittent combustion engine as taught by Jones, with a reasonable expectation of success, because all of the claimed elements, i.e., the combustion engine and an intermittent combustion engine, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the intermittent combustion engine, taught by Jones, for the engine of Parmentier, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results and drive rotation of the first and second propulsor rotors with increased efficiency. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Jeschke teaches a muffler located between and fluidly coupled to a similar combustion engine and exhaust (321, Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the intermittent combustion engine and exhaust of modified Parmentier with the muffler of Jeschke, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce noise emission of the aircraft.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Parmentier teaches the aircraft system of claim 1, wherein the first propulsor rotor is rotatable about a first propulsor axis (axis of rotation of 11 parallel to X axis, Fig. 2);
the second propulsor rotor is rotatable about a second propulsor axis (axis of rotation of 12 parallel to X axis, Fig. 2); and
the drive structure is rotatable about a drive axis that is angularly offset from the first propulsor axis and the second propulsor axis (5 is angularly offset from X axis, Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Parmentier teaches the aircraft system of claim 1,
wherein the first propulsor further includes a first duct (Parmentier, para. [0055], “each rotating propulsive member 1 may be…ducted”), and the first propulsor rotor and the first annular vane array are disposed within the first duct (Parmentier, rotor of 11 and vane array, as modified by Hines, are disposed within duct of 11, as depicted in Fig. 3); and
the second propulsor further includes a second duct (Parmentier, para. [0055], “each rotating propulsive member 1 may be…ducted”), and the second propulsor rotor and the second annular vane array are disposed within the second duct (Parmentier, rotor of 12 and vane array, as modified by Hines, are disposed within duct of 12, as depicted in Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Parmentier teaches the aircraft system of claim 1, wherein the first propulsor rotor comprises a first open rotor (Parmentier, para. [0055], “each rotating propulsive member 1 may be free/unducted”); and
the second propulsor rotor comprises a second open rotor (Parmentier, para. [0055], “each rotating propulsive member 1 may be free/unducted”).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Parmentier teaches the aircraft system of claim 1, wherein the first propulsor is laterally spaced from the second propulsor (Parmentier, 11 is laterally spaced from 12, Fig. 3); and
the intermittent combustion engine is located laterally between the first propulsor and the second propulsor (2 is located laterally between 11 and 12, Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Parmentier teaches the aircraft system of claim 1, wherein the drivetrain is configured to rotate the first propulsor rotor and the second propulsor rotor in a common direction (Parmentier, para. [0059], “rotating propulsive members 1 are configured to rotate in identical directions”).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Parmentier teaches the aircraft system of claim 1, wherein the intermittent combustion engine comprises one of a rotary engine, a piston engine, a rotating detonation engine or a pulse detonation engine (Jones, Abstract, “a rotary intermittent internal combustion engine”).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Parmentier teaches the aircraft system of claim 1, wherein the first propulsor and the second propulsor are located outside of the aircraft fuselage (Parmentier, 11 and 12 are located outside 101, Figs. 2-3).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Parmentier teaches the aircraft system of claim 1, wherein the inlet is configured to direct boundary layer air flowing along the aircraft fuselage to the intermittent combustion engine (Fig. 3, examiner notes an inlet is depicted for 2 located on top of body 101 and is clearly capable of this function, additionally see para. [0063], “configured to compress an incoming air stream from outside the gas generator 2”).
Regarding Claim 21, modified Parmentier teaches the aircraft system of claim 1, wherein the inlet is configured to direct air flowing along exterior surfaces of the aircraft exterior surfaces to the intermittent combustion engine (Fig. 3, examiner notes an inlet is depicted for 2 located on top of body 101 along exterior surfaces of the aircraft, and para. [0063], “configured to compress an incoming air stream from outside the gas generator 2”).
Regarding Claim 22, modified Parmentier teaches the aircraft system of claim 1, wherein the inlet is configured to direct air flowing along the aircraft fuselage to the intermittent combustion engine (Fig. 3, examiner notes an inlet is depicted for 2 located on top of body 101 along exterior surfaces of the aircraft, and para. [0063], “configured to compress an incoming air stream from outside the gas generator 2”).
Regarding Claim 23, modified Parmentier teaches the aircraft system of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of aircraft wings include a span (examiner notes wings inherently include a span, a portion of which is depicted at the top of Fig. 2 attached to body 101);
the first propulsor rotor includes a diameter (diameter of 11, Fig. 2); and
the span is greater than the diameter (examiner notes that while the entire wingspan is not fully depicted, the wing span that is depicted in Fig. 2 is clearly greater than the diameters of 11 and 12).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Parmentier as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Suciu et al. (US 9650954 B2), hereafter Suciu.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Parmentier teaches the aircraft system of claim 1, wherein the first propulsor is laterally spaced from the second propulsor (Parmentier, 11 is laterally spaced from 12, Fig. 3).
Parmentier is silent about the first propulsor and the second propulsor are located to a common lateral side of the intermittent combustion engine.
Suciu teaches the first propulsor and the second propulsor are located to a common lateral side of the intermittent combustion engine (Fig. 1, for example, depicts a plurality of propulsors on a common lateral side of an engine).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to arrange modified Parmentier with the first and second propulsors located to a common lateral side of the intermittent combustion engine as taught by Suciu, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to decrease the diameter of a single large fan rotor and create a more compact arrangement of propulsors on a single lateral side, while still providing sufficient thrust (Suciu, Col. 1, lines 21-30 and Col. 3, lines 1-5, for example).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Parmentier teaches the aircraft system of claim 1.
Modified Parmentier is silent about a third propulsor including a third annular propulsor rotor and a third vane array;
the output of the transmission further coupled to the third propulsor rotor through the drive structure; and
the intermittent combustion engine further configured to drive rotation of the third propulsor rotor through the drivetrain.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to duplicate Parmentier’s propulsors and add a third propulsor including a third annular propulsor rotor and a third vane array, for additional thrust of the aircraft, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Examiner further notes that adding a third propulsor is known in the art, as evidenced by Suciu, for example, which teaches a third propulsor (Fig. 1, 44, for example) driven by a similar transmission further coupled to the third propulsor rotor through the drive structure (Fig. 1, shaft 38).
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parmentier as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Robertson et al. (US 20160229531 A1), hereafter Robertson.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Parmentier teaches the aircraft system of claim 1,
wherein the drivetrain further includes a first coupling connecting the drive structure to the first propulsor rotor (transfer box 7 connects 5 and 11, Fig. 3); and
a second coupling connecting the drive structure to the second propulsor rotor (transfer box 7 connects 5 and 12, Fig. 3).
Parmentier is silent about the first coupling including a first propulsor bevel gear and a first structure bevel gear, the first propulsor bevel gear rotatable with the first propulsor rotor, and the first structure bevel gear rotatable with the drive structure and meshed with the first propulsor bevel gear; the second coupling including a second propulsor bevel gear and a second structure bevel gear, the second propulsor bevel gear rotatable with the second propulsor rotor, and the second structure bevel gear rotatable with the drive structure and meshed with the second propulsor bevel gear.
Robertson teaches a first propulsor bevel gear (top bevel gear of gearbox 420, Fig. 4) and a first structure bevel gear (lower bevel gear of gearbox 420, Fig. 4), the first propulsor bevel gear rotatable with the first propulsor rotor (top bevel gear of gearbox 420 is directly coupled and rotatable with blades of 110, Fig. 4), and the first structure bevel gear rotatable with the drive structure (bottom bevel gear of gearbox 420 is directly coupled and rotatable with 160, Fig. 4) and meshed with the first propulsor bevel gear (gearbox 420 includes the meshed bevel gears, Fig. 4); and
a second propulsor bevel gear (top bevel gear of gearbox 420, Fig. 4) and a second structure bevel gear (lower bevel gear of gearbox 420, Fig. 4), the second propulsor bevel gear rotatable with the second propulsor rotor (top bevel gear of gearbox 420 is directly coupled and rotatable with blades of 110, Fig. 4), and the second structure bevel gear rotatable with the drive structure (bottom bevel gear of gearbox 420 is directly coupled and rotatable with 160, Fig. 4) and meshed with the second propulsor bevel gear (gearbox 420 includes the meshed bevel gears, Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the coupling of modified Parmentier with the first and second propulsor bevel gears and the first and second structure bevel gears, as taught by Robertson, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the benefit of efficiently transmitting the torque at non-parallel angles.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Parmentier teaches the aircraft system of claim 1, wherein the drivetrain further includes a coupling connecting the output of the transmission to the drive structure (Parmentier, transmission box 3, Fig. 3);
Modified Parmentier is silent about the coupling includes a first bevel gear and a second bevel gear meshed with the first bevel gear;
the first bevel gear is rotatable with the output of the transmission; and
the second bevel gear is rotatable with the drive structure.
Robertson teaches the coupling includes a first bevel gear (Robertson, 502, Fig. 4) and a second bevel gear meshed with the first bevel gear (Robertson, 507, Fig. 4);
the first bevel gear is rotatable with the output of the transmission (para. [0034], “180 transfers power to spiral bevel gear 502”);
and the second bevel gear is rotatable with the drive structure (Fig. 4 and para. [0036]-[0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the coupling of modified Parmentier with the first and second bevel gears, as taught by Robertson, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the benefit of efficiently transmitting the torque at non-parallel angles.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Parmentier as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Pollitt (BR 102018068954 A2).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Parmentier teaches the aircraft system of claim 1.
While modified Parmentier teaches that the drive structure may alternatively be comprised of two separate drive shafts (Parmentier, para. [0067]), modified Parmentier does not specifically teach wherein the drive structure includes a first driveshaft, a second driveshaft and a compliant coupling connecting the first driveshaft to the second driveshaft.
Pollitt teaches a similar drive structure wherein the drive structure includes a first driveshaft (14a, Fig. 1), a second driveshaft (14b, Fig. 1) and a compliant coupling connecting the first driveshaft to the second driveshaft (flexible coupling 10, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to arrange the drivetrain of modified Parmentier as a first driveshaft and second driveshaft connected by a compliant coupling, as taught by Pollitt, with a reasonable expectation of success, to achieve the desirable result of transmitting torque while simultaneously accommodating axial misalignment of the driveshaft system parts (Pollitt, para. [0014]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Parmentier as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Thomassin et al. (CA 3055846 A1), hereafter Thomassin.
Regarding Claim 15, modified Parmentier teaches the aircraft system of claim 1.
Modified Parmentier is silent about wherein the intermittent combustion engine comprises a turbo-compounded intermittent combustion engine.
Thomassin teaches a turbo-compounded intermittent combustion engine ([0031], engine 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute modified Parmentier’s engine with the turbo-compounded intermittent combustion engine as taught by Thomassin, with a reasonable expectation of success, because all of the claimed elements, i.e., the aircraft having an intermittent combustion engine and a turbo-compounded intermittent combustion engine, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the turbo-compounded intermittent combustion engine, taught by Thomassin, for the intermittent combustion engine of modified Parmentier, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results and drive rotation of the first and second propulsor rotors. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parmentier et al. (US 20220001998 A1), hereafter Parmentier, in view of Thomassin et al. (CA 3055846 A1), hereafter Thomassin, and Feeley et al. (US 20210199022 A1), hereafter Feeley.
Regarding Claim 18, Parmentier discloses an aircraft system (100, Fig 2), comprising:
an airframe (airplane 100, Figs. 3-4) including a first wing and a second wing (para. [0050], “two wings”);
a combustion engine (gas generator 2, Fig. 3);
an air scoop arranged along an exterior of the airframe, the air scoop configured to direct air to the combustion engine (Fig. 3, examiner notes an air scoop style inlet is depicted for 2 located along the top exterior of body 101, and para. [0063], “configured to compress an incoming air stream from outside the gas generator 2”);
a first propulsor rotor (11, Fig. 3 and para. [0054], “propeller or fan”) rotatable about a first propulsor axis (axis of rotation of 11 parallel to X axis, Fig. 2) and disposed to a first side of the combustion engine (11 is on left side of 2, Fig. 3), the first propulsor rotor disposed aft of the first wing (Figs. 3-4 and para. [0057], “positioned at the rear of the airplane”);
a first propulsor coupling (transfer box 7, Fig. 3), the first propulsor coupling configured to connect a drive structure to the first propulsor rotor (transfer box 7 connects 5 and 11, Fig. 3);
a second propulsor rotor (12, Fig. 3 and para. [0054], “propeller or fan”) rotatable about a second propulsor axis (axis of rotation of 12 parallel to X axis, Fig. 2) and disposed to a second side of the combustion engine that is opposite the first side (12 is on right side of 2, Fig. 3) the second propulsor rotor disposed aft of the second wing (Figs. 3-4 and para. [0057], “positioned at the rear of the airplane”);
and a second propulsor coupling (transfer box 7, Fig. 3), the second propulsor coupling configured to connect the drive structure to the second propulsor rotor (transfer box 7 connects 5 and 12, Fig. 3); and
a drivetrain (53 and 5, Fig 3) including the drive structure (5, Fig. 3) and a transmission (53, Fig. 3), the drive structure comprising a driveshaft (shaft 5, Fig 3 and para. [0069], “single mechanical shaft 5”) rotatable about a drive axis that is angularly offset from the first propulsor axis (5 is angularly offset from X axis, Figs. 3-4), and an output of the transmission coupled to the first propulsor rotor and the second propulsor rotor through the driveshaft (Fig. 3 and para. [0066]);
the combustion engine configured to drive rotation of the first propulsor rotor and the second propulsor rotor through the drivetrain (Fig. 3 and para. [0066]);
wherein the first wing and the second wing include a span (examiner notes wings inherently include a span, a portion of which is depicted at the top of Fig. 2 attached to body 101), the first propulsor rotor and the second propulsor rotor include a diameter (diameter of 11 and 12, Fig. 2), and the span is greater than the diameter (examiner notes that while the entire wingspan is not fully depicted, the wing span that is depicted in Fig. 2 is clearly greater than the diameters of 11 and 12).
Parmentier is silent about wherein the engine is a turbo-compounded intermittent combustion engine; a first vane array downstream of the first propulsor rotor and the first propulsor coupling, and the first vane array including a plurality of stator vanes distributed circumferentially about the first propulsor axis; and a second vane array downstream of the second propulsor rotor and the second propulsor coupling, and the second vane array including a plurality of second stator vanes distributed circumferentially about the second propulsor axis.
Thomassin teaches a turbo-compounded intermittent combustion engine ([0031], engine 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute Parmentier’s engine with the turbo-compounded intermittent combustion engine as taught by Thomassin, with a reasonable expectation of success, because all of the claimed elements, i.e., the aircraft having an engine and a turbo-compounded intermittent combustion engine, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the turbo-compounded intermittent combustion engine, taught by Thomassin, for the engine of Parmentier, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results and drive rotation of the first and second propulsor rotors. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Feeley teaches a vane array (121a-c and 125a-b, Fig. 3) downstream of a similar propulsor rotor and propulsor coupling (Fig. 3, 125a-b are downstream of 123, and are downstream of 111, see Fig. 1), and the first vane array including a plurality of stator vanes distributed circumferentially about the first propulsor axis (121a-c and 125a-b, Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the first and second propulsors of modified Parmentier with vane arrays downstream of the propulsor rotor and the propulsor coupling, as taught by Feeley, whereby Parmentier’s first and second propulsors include first and second vane arrays as taught by Feeley, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to facility yaw control, changes of direction, turning, etc. during flight of the aircraft (Feeley, para. [0022]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parmentier et al. (US 20220001998 A1), hereafter Parmentier, in further view of Feeley et al. (US 20210199022 A1), hereafter Feeley, Robertson et al. (US 20160229531 A1), hereafter Robertson, and Jones et al. (EP 3128153 A1), hereafter Jones.
Regarding Claim 20, Parmentier discloses an aircraft system (100, Fig. 2), comprising:
a first propulsor rotor (11, Fig. 3 and para. [0054], “propeller or fan”) rotatable about a first propulsor axis (axis of rotation of 11 parallel to X axis, Fig. 2);
a drivetrain (53 and 5, Fig 3) including a drive structure (5, Fig. 3), a transmission (53, Fig. 3) and a coupling connecting the drive structure to the first propulsor rotor (transfer box 7 connects 5 and 11, Fig. 3), the drive structure rotatable about a drive axis that is angularly offset from the first propulsor axis (axis of 5 is angularly offset from X axis, Fig. 4), an output of the transmission coupled to the first propulsor rotor through the drive structure and the coupling (Fig. 3 and para. [0066]);
a combustion engine (gas generator 2, Fig. 3) configured to drive rotation of the first propulsor rotor through the drivetrain (para. [0064]), the drivetrain forward of the intermittent combustion engine (53 and 5 are forward of 2, Fig. 3);
an aircraft fuselage (101, Fig. 2) housing the intermittent combustion engine and the transmission (Fig. 2);
an inlet configured to direct boundary layer flow flowing along the aircraft fuselage to the combustion engine (Fig. 3, examiner notes an inlet is depicted for 2 located along the top exterior of body 101 and is clearly capable of directing the flow flowing along body 101 to the engine 2, and para. [0063], “configured to compress an incoming air stream from outside the gas generator 2”);
a plurality of wings (para. [0050], “two wings”) arranged with the aircraft fuselage and forward of the first propulsor rotor (Figs. 3-4 and para. [0057], “positioned at the rear of the airplane”); and
an exhaust located at a tail end of the aircraft fuselage (exhaust at aft end of 23, Fig 3), the exhaust configured to direct combustion products generated by the intermittent combustion engine out of the aircraft system (outlet of 23 is clearly capable of this function, Figs. 2-3), and the exhaust laterally centered between opposing lateral sides of the aircraft fuselage (Fig 3).
Parmentier is silent about a first annular vane array downstream of the first propulsor rotor, the drive structure arranged between the first propulsor rotor and the first annular vane array, the coupling comprising a first propulsor bevel gear and a first structure bevel gear meshed with the first propulsor bevel gear, the first propulsor bevel gear rotatable with the first propulsor rotor about the first propulsor axis, and the first structure bevel gear rotatable with the drive structure about the drive axis;
and the combustion engine is an intermittent combustion engine.
Feeley teaches an annular vane array (121a-c and 125a-b, Fig. 3) downstream of a similar propulsor rotor, the drive structure arranged between the rotor and the first annular vane array (Fig. 3, 125a-b are downstream of 123, and are downstream of 111, see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the first propulsor of Parmentier with an annular vane arrays downstream of the propulsor rotor and the propulsor coupling, as taught by Feeley, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to facility yaw control, changes of direction, turning, etc. during flight of the aircraft (Feeley, para. [0022]).
Robertson teaches a first propulsor bevel gear (top bevel gear of gearbox 420, Fig. 4) and a first structure bevel gear meshed with the first propulsor bevel gear (lower bevel gear of gearbox 420, Fig. 4), the first propulsor bevel gear rotatable with the first propulsor rotor about the first propulsor axis (top bevel gear of gearbox 420 is directly coupled and rotatable with blades of 110, Fig. 4), and the first structure bevel gear rotatable with the drive structure about the drive axis (bottom bevel gear of gearbox 420 is directly coupled and rotatable with 160, Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the coupling of modified Parmentier with the first propulsor bevel gear and the first structure bevel gear, as taught by Robertson, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the benefit of efficiently transmitting the torque at non-parallel angles.
Jones teaches an intermittent combustion engine (Abstract, auxiliary power unit 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the combustion engine of modified Parmentier with the intermittent combustion engine as taught by Jones, with a reasonable expectation of success, because all of the claimed elements, i.e., the combustion engine and an intermittent combustion engine, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the intermittent combustion engine, taught by Jones, for the engine of Parmentier, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results and drive rotation of the first and second propulsor rotors with increased efficiency. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments “1A”, “1B”, and “2B”, “3A”, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding Applicant’s argument “1C” (Pg. 12-13 of remarks):
The proposed combination of Parmentier with Jaschke is improper…The alleged rationale provided by the Office Action, namely, “in order to reduce noise emission of the aircraft” does not support the conclusion of obviousness as the Office Action has not shown the relevance of that rationale in the context of Parmentier’s engine and exhaust. Further, the Office Action does not identify why the engine and exhaust of Parmentier would need the muffler disclosed by Jaschke, or that the alleged engine and exhaust of Parmentier would ever require reduce “noise emission of the aircraft.” The Office Action does not provide any disclosure, teaching, or suggestion in Parmentier that the proposed modification…would even accomplish such a result.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes that in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it is known in the art that there are benefits to reduced noise from aircraft, both for stealth purposes and/or to reduce noise pollution in the area. For these reasons, Examiner maintains that the proposed combination of Parmentier and Jeschke is proper.
Regarding Applicant’s argument “2A” (Claim 18, Pg. 15 of remarks):
“…Arguments based on measurements of the drawings are of little value when the cited references does not disclose that the drawings are to scale and is silent as to dimensions…Parmentier does not disclose that its drawings are to scale and is further silent as to any dimensions of its alleged propulsor rotor diameter and its alleged wing span…”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains that Parmentier does disclose the span is greater than the diameter of the propulsor rotors (Fig. 2, as outlined in the rejection above). Examiner notes that Applicant’s own disclosure is silent regarding the scale of Applicant’s drawings, and Applicant’s specification does not disclose the dimensions of the propulsor rotors or the wing span. There does not appear to be any disclosure regarding the wingspan being greater than the diameter of the propulsor rotors. Rather, it appears that Applicant relies only on Fig. 1 of the drawings to disclose this limitation, in the same manner that the drawings of Parmentier are relied upon to teach this limitation in the prior art rejection. Based on Applicant’s logic above, this limitation in Claim 18 would lack 112(a) support if Applicant’s drawings were not relied upon, in the same manner that Parmentier has been relied upon to teach this limitation. For these reasons, Examiner maintains that Parmentier does disclose the span is greater than the diameter of the propulsor rotors.
Regarding Applicant’s argument “3B” (Pg. 17-18 of remarks):
“…A skilled practitioner in the art would not look to Roberson, as Parmentier already discloses its transfer box 7 is capable of providing “an optimal drive of the rotating propulsive members 1 along axes parallel to the longitudinal axis X”…Parmentier already solves the problem the Office Action’s seeks to resolve using the teachings of Robertson. The Office Action is impermissibly picking and choosing from the cited references….The Office Action does not identify why the alleged coupling of Parmentier would need the gear structure disclosed by Robertson, or that the structure of Parmentier would need the gear structure…”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, and acknowledges that while Parmentier does disclose a transfer box 7, the structure of Parmentier’s the internal transfer box and the coupling itself is not disclosed. It would be reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to equip the transfer box with the claimed bevel gears, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a specific element to efficiently transfer the torque at the transfer box. Bevel gears are known in the art for this function, and Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA LYNN GORDON whose telephone number is (571)270-5323. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-4:30pm.
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, JOSHUA HUSON can be reached on 571-270-5301. 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.
/ANNA L. GORDON/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights