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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/08/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities:
change line 2 accordingly: “to the first thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 18, 23 and 26 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.
The term “substantially along a horizontal direction” in claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Par. 33 states “substantially horizontal ( e.g., within 5 degrees, 10 degrees, etc. of a horizontal axis)”. However this provides examples but does not clarify to a member of the public how to avoid infringing the claim. For example “etc” can include 20 degrees, 30 degrees and so forth.
The term “substantially along a vertical direction” in claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Par. 33 states “substantially vertical (e.g., within 5 degrees, 10 degrees, etc. of a vertical axis)”. However this provides examples but does not clarify to a member of the public how to avoid infringing the claim. For example “etc” can include 20 degrees, 30 degrees and so forth.
Claim 23 recites “a core of the gas turbine engine”. It is unclear if the claim 23 core (1) refers to the claim 1 “gas turbine engine core” or (2) is a different core. For purposes of compact prosecution the claim is interpreted regarding the former.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the inlet upstream of the gas turbine engine core" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is only antecedent basis for the inlet.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 23 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 4,679,732 (Woodward) in view of US Patent 6,269,627 B1 (Freese), US Patent 3,704,828 (Studer) and US Patent 6,318,668 B1 (Ulanoski).
Regarding claim 1, Woodward discloses (see fig. 1) an assembly for an aircraft propulsion system (see col. 1, ll. 7-11), comprising: a gas turbine engine core 12,13,14,15 extending along an axis (see annotated figure below) and comprising a compressor section 12, a combustor section 13, a turbine section 14,15, a rotating structure (the low pressure (LP) shaft shown in annotated figure below coupled to the low pressure turbine rotor 14; for example, see col. 2, ll. 1-10 stating that the “low pressure turbine 15 … drives L.P. compressor 11 [or fan 11]”, the fan 11 being a fan rotor 11 shown in fig. 1; thus one of ordinary skill understands that the annotated shaft is a low pressure shaft rotating structure to accommodate the driving of the fan rotor; also see Freese col. 1, ll. 54 and 62 referring to low pressure compressor 110 as a fan 110) and a core exhaust nozzle (17 or structure in annotated figure below), the rotating structure comprising a turbine rotor 14 within the turbine section 14; a first bladed rotor 11 (one of ordinary skill would understand the fan 11 to be a bladed structure when reading the instant col. 1 citation and viewing fig. 1; for example see Freese col. 3, ll. 43-46 describing example compressor 110 also known as fan 110; and see col. 3, ll. 40-45 that such a fan 110 is bladed) rotatable about the axis (see annotated figure below), the first bladed rotor 11 configured to be driven by the rotating structure (low pressure shaft shown in annotated figure below and turbine rotor 15; this is consistent with applicant pars. 38 and 39, and applicant fig. 1, wherein rotating structure 68 comprises turbine rotor 60 and shaft 66, the rotating structure 68 driving first bladed rotor 22; the Woodward rotating structure drives the first bladed rotor 11 with the low pressure shaft; see annotated figure below), and the first bladed rotor 11 comprising a fan rotor 11; and a thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle (one of both of nozzles 20); wherein the core exhaust nozzle is configured to direct core gas received from the turbine section out of the aircraft propulsion system independent of the thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle (see fig. 1), and the core exhaust nozzle (see annotated figure below) comprises a fixed exhaust nozzle (the core exhaust nozzle is fixed to duct 23). Woodward can perform the intended use “the thrust vectoring nozzle configured to direct gas propelled by the first bladed rotor out of the aircraft propulsion system along a first direction during a first mode and along a second direction during a second mode” (nozzle 20 is a vectorable nozzle, see col. 2, ll. 10-15, wherein such nozzles can direct thrust selectively in predetermined directions, see col. 1, ll. 10-15, and thus is capable directing the gas from fan 11 in two different directions, the first and second modes corresponding with operation of the vectorable nozzle in the two different directions).
Woodward does not explicitly disclose a second bladed rotor configured to be driven by the rotating structure; the thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle comprising a flap configured to pivot at least seventy degrees between a first position and a second position; and the first direction parallel with the axis or angularly offset from the axis by no more than five degrees, the second direction angularly offset from the axis by at least seventy-five degrees, and the thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle having a first exit area during the first mode and a second exit area during the second mode that is greater than the first exit area; wherein the flap is in the first position during the first mode and the flap is in the second position during the second mode.
PNG
media_image1.png
305
384
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (core exhaust nozzle)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
477
683
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (low pressure shaft)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (axis)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (airflow inlet (claim 21))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (inlet (claims 22,24))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (bypass duct (claim 19))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
Freese teaches (see fig. 1) a gas turbine 100 and further teaches a second bladed rotor 148 (in addition to a first bladed rotor 110) configured to be driven by a rotating structure 112,114.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Woodward with a second bladed rotor configured to be driven by the rotating structure as taught by Freese in order to facilitate providing additional thrust for vertical flight modes (see Freese col. 1, ll. 33-38). This is consistent with vertical flight mode disclosure of Woodward at col. 1, ll. 11-14).
Studer teaches (see figs. 1 and 2) an aircraft propulsion system (see col. 5, ll. 3-4) with a thrust vectoring nozzle (aft end of duct 3 wherein a change in the direction of outflow gasses is shown by arrows B and C shown in figs. 1 and 2, respectively) and further teaches the thrust vectoring nozzle configured to direct gas propelled by the first bladed rotor out of the aircraft propulsion system along a first direction parallel with an axis A or angularly offset from the axis by no more than five degrees (see fig. 1 showing flow at B is parallel to axis A), a second direction angularly offset from the axis by at least seventy-five degrees (see flow at C is offset by 90 degrees; also see col. 6, ll. 59-68). It is further noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 at 1395 (U.S. 2007).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Woodward in view of Freese with the first direction parallel with the axis or angularly offset from the axis by no more than five degrees, the second direction angularly offset from the axis by at least seventy-five degrees as taught by Studer in order to facilitate fine control of the deflection angle of the exhaust and thus providing lower aerodynamic losses and safe operation (see Studer col. 1, ll. 65-67 and col. 2, ll. 16-17) as well as reverse thrust capability for aircraft braking (see Studer col. 7 , ll. 35-40). Studer applied to Woodward in view of Freese results in one of both exhaust nozzles 20 of Woodward being a similar shape to the exhaust nozzle of Studer and comprising one or more vanes 4 (see Studer figs. 1-2). Woodward does not disclose the type of thrust vectoring (see pertinent prior art infra) for example whether (1) thrust vectoring nozzles 20 rotate into the page of fig. 1 to vector thrust, or (2) there are vanes at the outlet of nozzles 20 in order to vector thrust. Studer’s teachings result in the simple substitution of the thrust vectoring type of Studer for the thrust vectoring type of Woodward in view of Freese regarding scenario (1) and results in the simple substitution of vanes of Studer for the vanes of Woodward in view of Freese in scenario (2). In either case Studer teaching results in the benefit of lower aerodynamic losses, safe operation and reverse thrust capability.
Ulanoski teaches (see figs. 10, 13 and 15-17) a gas turbine engine 420 and further teaches a thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle (with rotatable vanes, for example vanes 460b,c,f,g, each with a fixed leading edge portion e.g., 470b) having a first exit area during a first mode and a second exit area during a second mode. The instant vanes can pivot to arrive at vector directions TVE1 or TVE2 (see fig. 16 and col. 15, ll. 57 to col. 16, l. 1). Additionally the exit area can be changed in either mode (see abstract: the “discharge exit area is contracted by adjusting convergence of the vanes). During convergence, the vanes are pivoted to various pivot angles selected to optimize thrust efficiency when contracting the throat area”. Wherein the instant vanes “may turn in a common rotational direction at the same time (i.e., clockwise or counterclockwise) to effect a directional change in a thrust vector, the amount each vane 460a-460h turns may vary to simultaneously change convergence or divergence” (see col. 15, ll. 53-56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Woodward in view of Freese and Studer with thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle having a first exit area during the first mode and a second exit area during the second mode as taught by Ulanoski in order to facilitate improved efficiency in thrust vectoring with a reduced weight by using same actuator for vectoring and variable area features (see Ulanoski col. 1, ll. 22-24, ll. 49-60). Because the convergence of the vanes, and thus the exit area, can be changed independently of the thrust direction as taught by Ulanoski, the combination can perform the intended use “the second exit area is greater than the first exit area”. See Ulanoski fig. 16 below (such figure being rotated by examiner) regarding how the vanes of Ulanoski could be combined with the nozzle of Woodward in view of Freese and Studer (it is noted that the centerbody 421 is optional as pointed out at col. 14, l. 20).
The combination of Woodward in view of Freese, Studer and Ulanoski teaches (see Ulanoski figs. 10, 13 and 15-17) (claim 9) the thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle, of the combination, comprises a flap (at 460b; or at 460c; or at 460f; or at 460g) configured to pivot at least seventy degrees between a first position and a second position (the flaps can pivot across an angle of 90 degrees; for example the chord line of the flaps can be parallel to either of the vector directions TVE1 or TVE2, each of TVE1 and TVE2 forming an angle of 45 degrees with axis C in fig. 16, see col. 15, ll. 57 to col. 16, l. 1); the flap is in the first position during the first mode; and the flap is in the second position during the second mode (the first mode being normal horizontal flight and the second mode being vertical flight regarding claim 1 analysis above; because the flaps pivot across an angle of 90 degrees from one extreme to the other, the exhaust nozzle of the combination that provides an outlet for exhaust either in the horizontal direction or the vertical direction, see col. 4 ll. 32-44 of Freese, can be configured to provide an exhaust exit that corresponds with one extreme of the vanes being for horizontal flight and the other extreme of the vanes being for vertical flight (see Ulanoski fig. 16 below regarding how the vanes of Ulanoski could be combined in the combination).
PNG
media_image5.png
766
605
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Woodward in view of Freese, Studer and Ulanoski teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. The combination teaches, via Freese, (claim 3) the second bladed rotor is rotatable about a second axis (axis of the drive shaft of rotor 148, the instant drive shaft extending vertically upward from gearing 146 in fig. 1) that is angularly offset from the axis; (claim 4) the second bladed rotor is configured to generate propulsive power in the second direction (propulsive lift; this this is consistent with applicant par. 33).
Regarding claim 7, The combination of Woodward in view of Freese, Studer and Ulanoski teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. The combination teaches the first direction is parallel with the axis. See that Studer fig. 1 and col. 5, ll. 55-63 teach a first direction B is parallel with an axis A. This is compatible with the Ulanoski annotated figure above because the range of movement of the vanes 460, is ± 45° about axis C, see Ulanoski col. 16, ll. 30-35, and thus such vanes can correspond with the first direction B of Studer discussed above.
Regarding claim 8, The combination of Woodward in view of Freese, Studer and Ulanoski teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. The combination teaches the second direction is angularly offset from the axis between eight-five degrees and ninety-five degrees. See that Studer fig. 2 and col. 5, ll. 60-68 teaches a second direction C is angularly offset from an axis A between eight-five degrees and ninety-five degrees. This is compatible with the Ulanoski annotated figure above because the range of movement of the vanes 460, is ± 45° about axis C, see Ulanoski col. 16, ll. 30-35, and thus such vanes can correspond with the second direction C of Studer discussed above.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Woodward in view of Freese, Studer and Ulanoski teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. The combination teaches (see Ulanoski figs. 10, 13 and 15-17) (claim 10) wherein the thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle is configured to direct the gas along opposing sides of the flap during at least one of the first mode or the second mode (discharge exhaust 422 flows on both sides of the flap; see for example fig. 13 of Ulanoski); and (claim 11) wherein the thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle comprises a vane (460b or 460c or 460f or 460g); and wherein the vane includes a fixed portion (468a; see col. 13, ll. 21-22) and the flap; the fixed portion forms a leading edge (470b or 470c or 470f or 470g) of the vane; and the flap forms a trailing edge of the vane (472b or 472c or 472f or 472g).
Regarding claim 23, Woodward in view of Freese, Studer and Ulanoski teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Woodward discloses (see fig. 1) the first bladed rotor 11 (see Woodward fig. 1) comprises a first bladed propulsor (rotor 11 propels air , see col. 2, ll. 10-15, and is a rotor of a propulsion engine 10) rotor 11; and an inlet (see annotated figure above) is arranged downstream (see annotated figure above) of the first bladed propulsor rotor 11 and upstream of (see annotated figure above) the compressor section 12, the inlet fluidly coupled (see annotated figure above and col. 2, ll. 10-15) with a core 12,13,14 of the gas turbine engine 10 and the thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle (one of both of nozzles 20).
Regarding claim 24, The combination of Woodward in view of Freese, Studer and Ulanoski teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. The combination teaches (see Woodward fig. 1) wherein the gas turbine engine core 12,13,14,17 includes a core flowpath 12,13,14,15,17 extending along the axis (see annotated figure above) sequentially through the compressor section 12, the combustor section 13, the turbine section 14,15, the rotating structure (the low pressure (LP) shaft shown in annotated figure below coupled to the low pressure turbine rotor 14; for example, see col. 2, ll. 1-10 stating that the “low pressure turbine 15 … drives L.P. compressor 11 [or fan 11]”, the fan 11 being a fan rotor 11 shown in fig. 1; thus one of ordinary skill understands that the annotated shaft is a low pressure shaft rotating structure to accommodate the driving of the fan rotor; also see Freese col. 1, ll. 54 and 62 referring to low pressure compressor 110 as a fan 110) and to the core exhaust nozzle 17; and a bypass duct (see annotated figure above; i.e., aft portion of structure 19 and structure 18) forms a bypass flowpath (the portion of compressed air entering nozzles 20 bypasses the high pressure compressor; see col. 1, ll. 62-65, and fig. 1) disposed outside (see annotated figure above) the core flowpath 12,13,14,15,17, the bypass flowpath extending along the axis (see annotated figure above) from an inlet (see annotated figure above) upstream (see annotated figure above) of the gas turbine engine core 12,13,14,17, and bypass flowpath fluidly coupled (see annotated figure above and col. 2, ll. 10-15) with the thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle (one of both of nozzles 20 as modified by Studer and Ulanoski in the claim 1 analysis above).
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodward in view of Freese, Studer and Ulanoski, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lewis.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Woodward in view of Freese, Studer and Ulanoski teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Woodward does not explicitly disclose (claim 5) the second exit area is greater than one and one-quarter times the first exit area; and (claim 6) the second exit area is greater than one and one-half times the first exit area.
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, Lewis teaches at col. 1, ll. 23-31, col. 2, ll. 4-8, and col. 2, ll. 29-31, that the area of thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle is varied in order to accommodate increase or decrease in mass flow through the nozzle. For example, when a reheat combustor is used, such as that implemented in Taylor (see col. 1, ll. 45-48) and Lewis, the mass flow through the thrust vectoring nozzle is increased because of the fuel used and resulting combustion gasses. Thus, the nozzle area must be increased to accommodate the increased mass flow. Other factors that inform the setting of the area of the thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle are altitude, ambient temperature, forward speed of the aircraft, and speed of the engine, for example as pointed out by Lewis at col. 1, ll. 30-32. Thus even in the scenario wherein there was not reheating, other factors require that the nozzle area be varied in order to accommodate changing mass flow. For example, when the ambient temperature is colder, the ambient air is denser and would represent a higher mass flow. Thus the exhaust nozzle would need to vary the area in order to accommodate the higher mass flow of cold air compared to less dense warmer air in the case of higher ambient temperatures.
Therefore, an ordinary skilled worker would recognize that the relative settings of the area of a thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle regarding a first area during a first mode and a second area during a second mode (as discussed in the claim 1 analysis above) are result effective variables. Thus, the claimed wherein the second exit area is greater than one and one-quarter times the first exit area; and the second exit area is greater than one and one-half times the first exit area 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 first area and a second area of a thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle, were disclosed in the prior art by Ulanoski, of Woodward in view of Freese, Studer and Ulanoski, 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 the combination Woodward in view of Freese, Studer and Ulanoski’s invention to include wherein the second exit area is greater than one and one-quarter times the first exit area; and the second exit area is greater than one and one-half times the first exit area in order to accommodate changing mass flow through the exhaust nozzle of the combination, and to accommodate varying flight and engine conditions, as suggested and taught by Lewis (at col. 1, ll. 23-31, col. 2, ll. 4-8, and col. 2, ll. 29-31). 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).
Claim(s) 18, 19, 25 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodward in view of US Patent 4,948,072 (Garland).
Regarding claim 18, Woodward discloses an assembly for an aircraft propulsion system (title and col. 1, ll. 5-15), comprising: a bladed propulsor rotor (11; the instant rotor provides thrust via nozzles 20 that provide thrust for propulsion, such rotor also provides compressed air to high pressure compressor 12 that is combusted for thrust at exhaust nozzle 17; rotor 11 is a ducted fan and this is consistent with applicant par. 34; rotor 11 is an axial flow compressor for an aviation gas turbine engine, see col. 1, ll. 53-57; one of ordinary skill would understand such a compressor to include “one or more rows of radial blades in form of small aerofoils (airfoils) arranged to rotate around central axis”, (from definition of “axial compressor” in Cambridge Aerospace Dictionary in Pertinent Prior Art section on page 21 of the final office action mailed 02/28/2025); and a thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle (one of nozzles 20) configured to direct gas propelled by (see col. 2, ll. 10-15) the bladed propulsor rotor 11 out of the aircraft propulsion system (air compressed by rotor 11 enters nozzle 20 via plenum chamber 18), the thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle (one of nozzles 20) forming a bypass flowpath (the portion of compressed air entering nozzles (one of nozzles 20) bypasses the high pressure compressor; see col. 1, ll. 62-65, and fig. 1); and (see fig. 1) a gas turbine engine core 12,13,14 including a compressor section 12, a combustor section 13 and a turbine section 14, the gas turbine engine core 12,13,14 extending along an axis (see annotated figure above) and located radially inboard of the thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle (one of nozzles 20); and an airflow inlet (see annotated figure above) downstream (see annotated figure above) of the bladed propulsor rotor 11, the airflow inlet (see annotated figure above) fluidly coupled (see annotated figure above: air from fan 11 goes into both the thrust exhaust nozzle and the compressor 12) with the gas turbine engine core 12,13,14 and the thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle (one of nozzles 20).
Woodward does not explicitly teach the gas directed substantially along a horizontal direction during a horizontal thrust mode and substantially along a vertical direction during a vertical lift mode, the thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle having a first exit area during the horizontal thrust mode and a second exit area during the vertical lift mode that is greater than the first exit area, and the Woodward thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle comprising a flap configured to pivot between a first position and a second position; wherein at least pivoting of the flap from the first position to the second position: changes a trajectory of the gas directed out of the aircraft propulsion system from the horizontal direction to the vertical direction; and increases the first exit area to the second exit area.
Garland teaches an aircraft (abstract) propulsion system (12; see fig. 7) and further teaches a thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle (16; see figs. 3 and 7) configured to direct gas substantially along a horizontal direction (see fig. 9 and col. 4, ll. 60-67) during a horizontal thrust mode (see col. 5, ll. 1-3) and substantially along a vertical direction (see fig. 2 and col. 4, ll. 38-45) during a vertical lift mode (see col. 1, l. 7), the thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle having a first exit area during the horizontal thrust mode and a second exit area during the vertical lift mode that is greater than the first exit area (see below), and the thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle comprising a flap (34 or 36) configured to pivot between a first position (fig. 9) and a second position (fig. 2); wherein at least pivoting of the flap from the first position to the second position: changes a trajectory of the gas directed out of the aircraft propulsion system from the horizontal direction to the vertical direction (see figs. 9 and 2); and increases the first exit area to the second exit area (in fig. 9 flaps 34 and 36 are in convergent positions with respect to each other, and in fig. 2 the flaps are in a divergent position and thus one of ordinary skill would understand the second exit area to be greater than the first; in the scenario wherein applicant does not believe the configuration of fig. 2 results in the claimed vertical direction and the configuration of fig. 9 does not result in the claimed horizontal direction, the flaps can also be additionally adjusted to provide a prescribed direction, e.g., see the aft two flaps in fig. 3, and thus flaps 34 and 36 in fig. 9 can be adjusted to converge more towards each other thereby decreasing the exit area and still providing the claimed horizontal direction; see annotated figure below). Use of the term “at least” in the claims is such other structures are not precluded from participating in the changing of the directory and/or area. It is further noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 at 1395 (U.S. 2007).
PNG
media_image7.png
506
750
media_image7.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (example of portion of overall exit area of nozzle 16; a dimension of exit area can be distance between tips of instant flaps 34,36, or distance between instant flaps in plane perpendicular to direction of exhaust flow through the instant flaps; the other dimension of the area being the width of the nozzle)][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 Woodward with the gas directed substantially along a horizontal direction during a horizontal thrust mode and substantially along a vertical direction during a vertical lift mode, the thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle having a first exit area during the horizontal thrust mode and a second exit area during the vertical lift mode that is greater than the first exit area, and the thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle comprising a flap configured to pivot between a first position and a second position; wherein at least pivoting of the flap from the first position to the second position: changes a trajectory of the gas directed out of the aircraft propulsion system from the horizontal direction to the vertical direction; and increases the first exit area to the second exit area as taught by Garland in order to provide the predicable result of vectoring thrust while improving operating scenarios (see Garland col. 1, ll. 25-31) and reducing noise with improved efficiency (one of ordinary skill understands that having the ability to vary the nozzle area results in increased efficiency and reduced noise; see pertinent prior art infra). Garland applied to Woodward results in one of both exhaust nozzles 20 of Woodward having an outlet being a similar shape to the exhaust nozzle outlet of Garland and comprising one or more flaps (as taught by Garland). Woodward does not disclose the type1 of thrust vectoring (see pertinent prior art infra) for example whether (1) thrust vectoring nozzles 20 rotate into the page of fig. 1 to vector thrust or (2) there are vanes at the outlet of nozzles 20 in order to vector thrust. Garland’s teachings result in the simple substitution of the thrust vectoring type of Garland for the thrust vectoring type of Woodward regarding scenario (1) and results in the simple substitution of vanes of Garland for the vanes of Woodward in scenario (2). In either case Garland results in the benefit of lower aerodynamic losses and safe operation.
Regarding claim 19, Woodward discloses (see fig. 1) an assembly for an aircraft propulsion system (see col. 1, ll. 7-11), comprising: an inlet (see annotated figure above); a bypass duct (see annotated figure above; i.e., aft portion of structure 19 and structure 18) forming a bypass flowpath (the portion of compressed air entering nozzles 20 bypasses the high pressure compressor; see col. 1, ll. 62-65, and fig. 1) disposed outside a core flowpath 12,13,14,15,17; the bypass flowpath (the portion of compressed air entering nozzles 20 bypasses the high pressure compressor; see col. 1, ll. 62-65, and fig. 1) extends axially along an axis (see annotated figure above) from an inlet; the core flowpath 12,13,14,15,17 extends axially along the axis (see annotated figure above) from the inlet; and the bypass duct 18 is disposed radially outboard (see annotated figure above) of the core flowpath 12,13,14,15,17; a first thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle (one of the two nozzles 20) fluidly coupled with and downstream of the bypass duct; and a second thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle (the other of the two nozzles 20) fluidly coupled with and downstream of the bypass duct; a gas turbine engine 10 core 12,13,14,17 comprising a compressor section 12, a combustor section 13, a turbine section 14 and a core exhaust nozzle 17 configured to direct gas received from the turbine section 14 out of the aircraft propulsion system 10 independent of the first thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle (one of the two nozzles 20) and the second thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle (the other of the two nozzles 20).
Woodward does not explicitly disclose the first thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle comprising a first flap pivotable between a first flap first position and a first flap second position, wherein at least pivoting of the first flap from the first flap first position to the first flap second position is configured to change a trajectory of gas directed out of the aircraft propulsion system through the first thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle and change an exit area of the first thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle; and the second thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle comprising a second flap pivotable between a second flap first position and a second flap second position, wherein at least pivoting of the second flap from the second flap first position to the second flap second position is configured to change a trajectory of gas directed out of the aircraft propulsion system through the second thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle and change an exit area of the second thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle.
Garland teaches a thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle 16 comprising a flap (34 or 36) pivotable between a flap first position and a flap second position (compare figs. 5 and 8) and, wherein at least pivoting of the flap from the flap first position to the flap second position is configured to change a trajectory of gas (the gas in fig. 8 will be directed more downward compared to the gas in fig. 5) directed out of an aircraft propulsion system through the thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle and change an exit area (one of ordinary skill would understand the that the exit area of the nozzle in fig. 5 is greater than that of fig. 8; ) of the thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle. Use of the term “at least” in the claims is such other structures are not precluded from participating in the changing of the directory and/or area. It is further noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 at 1395 (U.S. 2007).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Woodward with the first thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle comprising a first flap pivotable between a first flap first position and a first flap second position, wherein at least pivoting of the first flap from the first flap first position to the first flap second position is configured to change a trajectory of gas directed out of the aircraft propulsion system through the first thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle and change an exit area of the first thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle; and the second thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle comprising a second flap pivotable between a second flap first position and a second flap second position, wherein at least pivoting of the second flap from the second flap first position to the second flap second position is configured to change a trajectory of gas directed out of the aircraft propulsion system through the second thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle and change an exit area of the second thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle as taught by Garland in order to provide the predicable result of vectoring thrust while also alleviating damage to tarmac and improving operating scenarios (see Garland col. 1, ll. 25-31). Garland applied to Woodward results in one of both exhaust nozzles 20 of Woodward having an outlet being a similar shape to the exhaust nozzle outlet of Garland and comprising one or more flaps (as taught by Garland). Woodward does not disclose the type2 of thrust vectoring (see pertinent prior art infra) for example whether (1) thrust vectoring nozzles 20 rotate into the page of fig. 1 to vector thrust or (2) there are vanes at the outlet of nozzles 20 in order to vector thrust. Garland’s teachings result in the simple substitution of the thrust vectoring type of Garland for the thrust vectoring type of Woodward regarding scenario (1) and results in the simple substitution of vanes of Garland for the vanes of Woodward in scenario (2). In either case Garland results in the benefit of lower aerodynamic losses and safe operation.
Regarding claim 25, Woodward in view of Garland teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Woodward further discloses (see fig. 1) wherein the inlet (see annotated figure above) is arranged upstream (see annotated figure above; upstream with respect to the stream flowing through the engine from structure 11 to structures 17 and 20) of the compressor section 12.
Regarding claim 26, The combination of Woodward in view of Garland teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. The combination teaches (see Woodward fig. 1) wherein the bypass flowpath (the portion of compressed air entering nozzles 20 bypasses the high pressure compressor; see col. 1, ll. 62-65, and fig. 1) extends from the inlet (see annotated figure above) upstream of (see annotated figure above) the gas turbine engine core 12,13,14,15,17 to the first thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle (one of the two nozzles 20, as modified by Garland in the claim 19 analysis above) or the second thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle (the other of the two nozzles 20; as modified by Garland above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/08/2026 (regarding the final office action mailed 01/08/2026; referred to hereinafter as the “Action”) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e.,
“axial flow low pressure compressor … modified to operate as a 'first bladed rotor comprising a fan rotor’" (see page 8, bottom); applicant is not claiming a method of modifying and there is no transformation from a low pressure compressor to a bladed rotor claimed
there is only a “first bladed rotor comprising a fan rotor" claimed. this was disclosed by Woodward and discussed at page 3, middle of the Action. the Woodward fan rotor 11 is the same structure as applicant fan rotor 22. thus Woodward discloses the instant limitation without modification. see annotated figure below
“core exhaust nozzle … modified to ‘comprise a fixed exhaust nozzle’" (see page 9, top)
there is only a “fixed exhaust nozzle” claimed. Woodward discloses a fixed exhaust nozzle (see annotated figure below). such nozzle is fixed to duct at location 23. there was no modification alleged by applicant.
PNG
media_image3.png
477
683
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (fan rotor; Woodward and Applicant fan rotors are standard ducted fans that provide a core flow and a bypass flow)][AltContent: textbox (axis)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image9.png
587
883
media_image9.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (core flow)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (bypass flow)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
305
384
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (core exhaust nozzle)][AltContent: arrow]
“thrust vectoring nozzle … modified such that ‘the core exhaust nozzle is configured to direct core gas received from the turbine section out of the aircraft propulsion system independent of the thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle’" (see page 9, bottom)
there is only “the core exhaust nozzle is configured to direct core gas received from the turbine section out of the aircraft propulsion system independent of the thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle” claimed. this was disclosed by Woodard on page 3 of the Action: the core exhaust nozzle (see annotated figure above wherein the core exhaust nozzle it the terminal end portion of structure 17 in annotated figure below; see col. 2, ll. 10-15) is configured to (see annotated figure below) direct core gas received from the turbine section 14,15 out of the aircraft propulsion system (see col. 1, ll. 7-11) independent of the thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle (one or both of nozzles 20).
PNG
media_image3.png
477
683
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (low pressure shaft)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (axis)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (airflow inlet (claim 21))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (inlet (claims 22,24))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (bypass duct (claim 19))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (radial direction)]
“axial flow low pressure compressor … modified to operate as a ‘a bladed propulsor rotor’" (see page 12, middle)
there is only “a bladed propulsor rotor" claimed. Woodward discloses bladed propulsor rotor 11 (see annotated figure above) without the applicant alleged modification.
“thrust vectoring system … modified such that ‘the gas turbine engine core extending along an axis and located radially inboard of the thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle’ (see page 12, bottom)
there is only “the gas turbine engine core extending along an axis and located radially inboard of the thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle” claimed. this was disclosed by Woodard without modification on page 19 of the Action: the gas turbine engine core 12,13,14 extending along an axis (see annotated figure above) and located radially inboard3 (see annotated figure above; thrust vectoring nozzle 20 is outboard of the engine core 12,13,14 and the engine core is inboard of thrust vectoring nozzle) of the thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle (one of nozzles 20).
“thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle … modified to receive core exhaust flow“ (see page 15, top)
this is not claimed.
are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant’s argument (see page 8, top and page 10, middle) 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, applicant has omitted discussion of the reasons to combine in the Action and thus applicant is referred to those portions of the Action. With regard to Woodward, Freese, Studer and Ulanoski, it was pointed out in the Action at page 5 middle that modifying Woodward with Freese facilitates providing additional thrust for vertical flight modes (see Freese col. 1, II. 33-38). This is consistent with vertical flight mode disclosure of Woodward at col. 1, II. 11-14 ). Studer’s teachings applied to Woodward in view Freese result in providing lower aerodynamic losses and safe operation (Action, page 6, middle). Ulanoski’s teachings applied to Woodward in view of Freese and Studer result in improved efficiency in thrust vectoring with a reduced weight (Action, page 7, middle). Thus reasons to combine were provided in the Action regarding Woodward, Freese, Studer and Ulanoski.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). For example, applicant attacks Woodward at page 9, top because Woodward includes a “rotation about an axis 27”. In response this does not address the core exhaust nozzle in the Action and in the annotated figure above such core exhaust nozzle being fixed to duct at location 23. The term fixed can be interpreted as “securely placed or fastened” (Merriam-Webster online). One of ordinary skill in the art when viewing the annotated figure above would understand the core exhaust nozzle to be fixed to the duct at 23.
Applicant attacks Studer at page 9 bottom because Studer includes a fan 2 in fig. and states that Studer’s teachings would not be applicable because Studer changes the direction of air from fan 2 wherein Woodward in view Freeze just includes air from fan 11. The Action has been clarified to communicate for example regarding claim 1 that “Woodward does not disclose the type of thrust vectoring (see pertinent prior art infra) for example whether (1) thrust vectoring nozzles 20 rotate into the page of fig. 1 to vector thrust or (2) there are vanes at the outlet of nozzles 20 in order to vector thrust. Studer’s teachings result in the addition of vanes in scenario (1) and results in the simple substitution of vanes of Studer for the vanes of Woodward in view of Freese in scenarios (2). In either case Studer results in the benefit of lower aerodynamic losses and safe operation (see Studer col. 1, ll. 65-67 and col. 2, ll. 16-17) as well as reverse thrust capability for aircraft braking (see Studer col. 7 , ll. 35-40). It is further noted that, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant argues at page 10, middle that there is no reason to modify Woodward in view of Freese and Studer with Ulanoski. Applicant apparently has overlooked the motivation provided in the Action at page 7 discussing improved efficiency. Applicant argues the principle of operation has changed citing MPEP 2143.01 that cites In re Ratti. A change in principle of operation occurs when a structure of the base reference is replaced by another structure taught by a secondary reference that makes the combination inconsistent with the principles of the base reference. For example in In re Ratti, 123 U.S.P.Q. 349, discussed in MPEP 2143.01 V.I., the court evaluated a set of facts regarding an aircraft engine wherein a shaft was fit within a bore of the aircraft engine such that the shaft was sealed against the bore inner wall with a sealing structure comprising an inner rubber annular gasket surrounding the shaft including an outer sheet metal frame attached to the inner wall of the bore. The combined gasket and sheet metal casing being press fitted into the bore to affect a seal via tight engagement. A secondary reference was applied replacing the sheet metal casing with resilient spring fingers taught by the secondary reference. The court held that it was major reconstruction to make the instant replacement because the primary reference relies on stiffness to make the seal and the secondary relies on the design of flexible spring fingers and thus there is a different principle of operation, Id at 352.
Unlike in Ratti, the modifications made to Woodward do not replace any structure in Woodward that would change the principle of operation of Woodward. The combination simply provides the claimed flaps as taught by Studer and Ulanoski. A thrust vectoring principle of operation is maintained.
Applicant argues at page 14 middle There is no disclosure, teaching or suggestion in Woodward of at least the features of "the bypass flowpath extending axially along an axis from the inlet, and the bypass duct is disposed radially outboard of the core flowpath" as recited in claim 18. In response Woodward discloses this limitation (see annotated figure above).
Applicant argues at page 15 top that modifying Woodward to include Garland’s structure at the outlet would prevent operation of Woodward’s nozzle. Applicant has provided no evidence or explanation for this. The flaps and vanes of Garland are common structures regarding thrust vectoring and there is no reason why Woodward in view of Garland would not vector thrust.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Garland motivation of improving operating scenarios (see Garland col. 1, II. 25-31 ) was not taken from applicant disclosure.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
(1) thrust vectoring nozzle rotates to vector thrust (such that orientation of the nozzle outlet is directed downwards to vector thrust: US 34332444 (fig. 1)
(2) there are vanes at the outlet of nozzles 20 in order to vector thrust (Studer or Garland), or
(3) both: US 5769317 (fig. 2); nozzle 120 changes such that outlet 122 is directed partially downward to vector thrust; vanes 152 further vector thrust (see abstract).
one of ordinary skill understands that having the ability to vary the nozzle area results in:
increased efficiency: variable area nozzles permit optimum thrust under different conditions (US 5221048; abstract)
reduced noise; US 20040187476 (par. 34).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC J AMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-9948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571) 272-7118. 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.
/MARC AMAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/PHUTTHIWAT WONGWIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
1 See Garland col. 1, ll. 14-20: “Typical methods for deflecting thrust from the engines include deflector blades, rotatable engine nozzles, and rotating the entire power unit.”
2 See Garland col. 1, ll. 14-20: “Typical methods for deflecting thrust from the engines include deflector blades, rotatable engine nozzles, and rotating the entire power unit.”
3 This is also discussed in the advisory action mailed 03/27/2026.
4 This is discussed in detail on page 16 of the non-final office action mailed 02/14/2026
Prosecution Insights