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 .
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.
Claims 10, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 10, “a first axis” appears to refer to the same part as “an axis” in claim 1 from which it depends.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 claims “the transmission arranged along the axis upstream of the gear system”. However, as can be seen in applicants fig 1, the gear system 76 is located upstream of the transmission 74. It appears that applicant intended to state that the transmission is located downstream of the gear system as per the drawings. The claim will be rejected as best understood to the transmission being located downstream of the gear system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 7-10, 16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Many (1704753) in view of Woodward (4118997).
Regarding claim 1, Many discloses a propulsion system for an aircraft (fig 1), comprising: a first propulsor rotor (E, fig 1) rotatably driven by a rotating structure (C, fig 3) during a first mode and a second mode (page 1, lines 85-100), the first mode being a horizontal flight mode and the second mode being a vertical flight mode and/or a hover flight mode (page 1, lines 1-15), the first propulsor rotor comprising a plurality of variable pitch blades (page 1, line 107 to page 2, line 18), the plurality of variable pitch blades comprising a first blade configured to pivot between a thrust position and an idle position (thrust position for horizontal flight and idle position in the neutral position), the first blade in the thrust position during the first mode, and the first blade in the idle position during the second mode; and a second propulsor (F, fig 1) rotatably driven during the second mode, wherein a geartrain (S, H, K, fig 3) couples the rotating structure to the first propulsor rotor during the first mode and the second mode, and the geartrain couples the rotating structure to the second propulsor during the second mode; a transmission (k, fig 3) configured to decouple the second propulsor rotor from the rotating structure during the first mode; and couple the second propulsor rotor to the rotating structure during the second mode (page 1, lines 70-85), wherein the second propulsor rotor comprises an open rotor (fig 1); and wherein the first propulsor rotor is configured to generate thrust during the first mode, and generate substantially no thrust during the second mode.
Many does not disclose a gas turbine engine core including a compressor section, a combustor section, a turbine section, and a rotating structure comprising a turbine rotor with the turbine section, and the first propulsor rotor comprising a ducted rotor, the transmission arranged along the axis forward of the geartrain.
Woodward teaches a propulsion system for an aircraft (1, fig 1), comprising: a gas turbine engine core extending along an axis (centerline of fig 2) including a compressor section (12, 13, fig 2), a combustor section (14, fig 2), a turbine section (15, 16, fig 2) and a rotating structure (6, fig 1), the rotating structure comprising a turbine rotor (the shaft connects all the main rotatable core components) within the turbine section; a first propulsor rotor (5, fig 2) rotatably driven by the rotating structure during a first mode and a second mode, the first propulsor rotor comprising a plurality of variable pitch blades (24, fig 2), the plurality of variable pitch blades comprising a first blade (5, fig 2) configured to pivot between a thrust position and an idle position, the first blade in the thrust position during the first mode, and the first blade in the idle position during the second mode (due to the language configured to be, the blade must merely be capable of doing so, which it is), and the first propulsor rotor comprising a ducted rotor (19, fig 2); and a second propulsor rotor (3, fig 1) rotatably driven by the rotating structure during the second mode; wherein a geartrain (25 is a reduction gear, which requires multiple gears to provide said reduction and thus would serve as a geartrain, fig 2) couples the rotating structure to the first propulsor rotor during the first mode and the second mode (the reduction gearbox 25 constantly connects the ducted fan 5 to the engine shaft 6), and the geartrain couples the rotating structure to the second propulsor rotor during the second mode (via the transmission, fig 1), and a transmission (7, 8, 9, 10, 11, fig 2) arranged along the axis forward of the geartrain (the transmission 8 is axially forward of 25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a ducted gas turbine engine to drive the propulsors of Many based on the teachings of Woodward. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that gas turbine engines have a much higher power density than older class engines, and thus would be the better choice for an aircraft.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the transmission of Many to have it located axially forward of the geartrain, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 7, Many discloses wherein the first propulsor rotor is configured to generate at least twenty times more thrust during the first mode than during the second mode (due to the language configured to generate, the engine must merely be capable of performing the claimed function, since the angle of the fan can be varied, the engine can be dropped down to zero thrust when the pitch angle is turned to 90 degrees vs the 5 to 10 thousand of the engines at full thrust (page 1, line 1-7 to page 2, line 18)).
Regarding claim 8, Many discloses wherein the first propulsor rotor is configured to generate thrust during the first mode; and generate substantially no thrust during the second mode (due to the language configured to generate, the engine must merely be capable of performing the claimed function, since the angle of the fan can be varied, the engine can be dropped down to zero thrust when the pitch angle is turned to 90 degrees vs the 5 to 10 thousand of the engines at full thrust (page 1, line 107 to page 2, line 18)).
Regarding claim 9, Many discloses wherein the first propulsor rotor is configured to generate horizontal thrust during the first mode; and the second propulsor rotor is configured to generate vertical lift during the second mode (page 1, lines 19-41).
Regarding claim 10, Many discloses wherein the first propulsor rotor is rotatable about a first axis; and the second propulsor rotor is rotatable about a second axis that is angularly offset from the first axis (fig 1, first axis is horizontal along the center of the engine in the solid lines configuration and second is along the vertical at the center of 3).
Regarding claim 16, Many as modified by Woodward discloses wherein the gas turbine engine core further includes a second rotating structure; the second rotating structure includes a compressor rotor within the compressor section and a second turbine rotor (col 2, line 66- col 3, line 7, Woodward) within the turbine section.
Regarding claim 21, Many as modified by Woodward discloses the claimed invention except for a gear system arranged along the axis forward of the transmission, the gear system coupling the second propulsor rotor to the transmission. Applicant states “the gear system may be omitted where the functionality of the gear system is integrated into the transmission” (par. 0042), the gear system is a bevel gearing which operates to transmit force from the axial shaft to a radial output shaft, (par. 0039 and 00041), thus, it performs the same function as the transmission of Many and Woodward (Woodward specifically uses a bevel gearing 30, fig 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the transmission have a gear system arranged along the axis forward of the transmission as well as transmission, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Many as modified by Woodward in claim 1, further in view of Murrow (10710735).
Regarding claim 3, Many as modified by Woodward does not explicitly disclose wherein the second propulsor rotor comprises a plurality of fixed pitch rotor blades.
Murrow teaches a VTOL aircraft (10, fig 1), wherein the vertical fans can use fixed pitch rotor blades (col 8, lines 1-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the fixed pitch rotor blades on the vertical fan of Many as modified by Woodward based on the teachings of Murrow. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the fixed pitch fan blades would be the simplest to produce and the most reliable blade type.
Regarding claim 15, Many as modified by Woodward does not disclose wherein the second propulsor rotor is one of a plurality of second propulsor rotors rotatably driven by the rotating structure during the second mode.
Murrow teaches a VTOL aircraft (10, fig 1), wherein an engine can be used to drive a plurality of second propulsor rotors (48, 50, 58, fig 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a plurality of second propulsor rotors based on the teachings of Murrow. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using multiple propulsors can help balance forces along a VTOL making the vertical flight more stable.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Many as modified by Woodward in claim 1, further in view of Niergarth (10443412).
Regarding claim 4, Many discloses wherein the first propulsor rotor is rotatable about an axis (shaft S, fig 7); and an angle between a chord line of the first blade in the thrust position and the axis can be decreased from 90 degrees to increase power.
Many as modified by Woodward does not disclose wherein the angle is less than 60 degrees when powered.
Niergarth teaches adjusting fan blade angle so that the maximum angle can be adjusted by 90 degrees in either direction from neutral (col 6, lines 7-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pitch change angle disclosed by Many as modified by Woodward by having the pitch be less than 60 degrees in a thrust position based on the teachings of Niergarth. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that adjusting pitch angle would increase engine efficiency
Regarding claim 5, Many as modified by Woodward discloses wherein the first propulsor rotor is rotatable about an axis (S, fig 7); and an angle between a chord line of the first blade in the idle position and the axis is variable (page 1, line 107 to page 2, line 18).
Woodward as modified by Many does not disclose wherein an angle between a chord line of the first blade in the idle position and the axis is greater than seventy degrees.
Niergarth teaches adjusting fan blade angle so that the maximum angle can be adjusted by 90 degrees in either direction from neutral (col 6, lines 7-26), which means that the angle between the chord line of the first blade in an idle position and the axis can be up to 90 degrees which is greater than 70 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pitch change angle disclosed by Woodward by having the pitch be greater than 70 degrees in an idle position based on the teachings of Niergarth. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that adjusting pitch angle to an idle position would allow for power to be fully directed elsewhere when needed.
Regarding claim 6, Many as modified by Woodward does not disclose wherein the first blade pivots at least twenty degrees between the forward thrust position and the idle position.
Niergarth teaches adjusting fan blade angle so that the maximum angle can be adjusted by 90 degrees in either direction from neutral (col 6, lines 7-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pitch change angle disclosed by Many as modified by Woodward by having the pitch pivot at least 20 degrees in a thrust position based on the teachings of Niergarth. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that adjusting pitch angle would increase engine efficiency.
Claims 17, 18, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Many in view of Woodward, Niergarth, and Larrabee (US-Pub 2012/0329593).
Regarding claim 17, Many discloses a propulsion system for an aircraft (fig 1), comprising: a first propulsor rotor (E, fig 1) rotatably driven by a rotating structure (C, fig 3) during a first mode and a second mode (page 1, lines 85-100), the first mode being a horizontal flight mode and the second mode being a vertical flight mode and/or a hover flight mode (page 1, lines 1-15), the first propulsor rotor comprising a plurality of variable pitch blades (page 1, line 107 to page 2, line 18), the plurality of variable pitch blades comprising a first blade configured to pivot between a thrust position and an idle position (thrust position for horizontal flight and idle position in the neutral position), the first blade in the thrust position during the first mode, and the first blade in the idle position during the second mode; and a second propulsor (F, fig 1) rotatably driven during the second mode, wherein a geartrain (S, H, K, fig 3) couples the rotating structure to the first propulsor rotor during the first mode and the second mode, and the geartrain couples the rotating structure to the second propulsor during the second mode; a transmission (k, fig 3) configured to decouple the second propulsor rotor from the rotating structure during the first mode; and couple the second propulsor rotor to the rotating structure during the second mode (page 1, lines 70-85), wherein the second propulsor rotor comprises an open rotor (fig 1); and wherein the first propulsor rotor is configured to generate thrust during the first mode, and generate substantially no thrust during the second mode.
Many does not disclose a gas turbine engine core including a compressor section, a combustor section, a turbine section, and a rotating structure comprising a turbine rotor with the turbine section, and the first propulsor rotor comprising a ducted rotor, the transmission arranged along the axis forward of the geartrain.
Woodward teaches a propulsion system for an aircraft (1, fig 1), comprising: a gas turbine engine core extending along an axis (centerline of fig 2) including a compressor section (12, 13, fig 2), a combustor section (14, fig 2), a turbine section (15, 16, fig 2) and a rotating structure (6, fig 1), the rotating structure comprising a turbine rotor (the shaft connects all the main rotatable core components) within the turbine section; a first propulsor rotor (5, fig 2) rotatably driven by the rotating structure during a first mode and a second mode, the first propulsor rotor comprising a plurality of variable pitch blades (24, fig 2), the plurality of variable pitch blades comprising a first blade (5, fig 2) configured to pivot between a thrust position and an idle position, the first blade in the thrust position during the first mode, and the first blade in the idle position during the second mode (due to the language configured to be, the blade must merely be capable of doing so, which it is), and the first propulsor rotor comprising a ducted rotor (19, fig 2); and a second propulsor rotor (3, fig 1) rotatably driven by the rotating structure during the second mode; wherein a geartrain (25 is a reduction gear, which requires multiple gears to provide said reduction and thus would serve as a geartrain, fig 2) couples the rotating structure to the first propulsor rotor during the first mode and the second mode (the reduction gearbox 25 constantly connects the ducted fan 5 to the engine shaft 6), and the geartrain couples the rotating structure to the second propulsor rotor during the second mode (via the transmission, fig 1), and a transmission (7, 8, 9, 10, 11, fig 2) arranged along the axis forward of the geartrain (the transmission 8 is axially forward of 25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a ducted gas turbine engine to drive the propulsors of Many based on the teachings of Woodward. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that gas turbine engines have a much higher power density than older class engines, and thus would be the better choice for an aircraft.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the transmission of Many to have it located axially forward of the geartrain, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Niergarth teaches adjusting fan blade angle so that the maximum angle can be adjusted by 90 degrees in either direction from neutral (col 6, lines 7-26), which would include an angle between 70 and 85 degrees and an angle less than 60 degrees depending upon the mode of operation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pitch change angle disclosed by Gilbert by having the pitch be less than 60 degrees in a thrust position and between 75 and 85 in a no thrust position based on the teachings of Niergarth. Doing so would allow for optimization of pitch angle based on thrust required (col 1, lines 40-50), as suggested by Niergarth.
Larrabee teaches using a clutch less transmission in a gas turbine engine (par. 0008).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transmission disclosed by Gilbert by having a clutch less transmission based on the teachings of Larrabee. Doing so would reduce friction losses within the transmission (par. 0007), as suggested by Larrabee.
Regarding claim 18, Many discloses wherein the first propulsor rotor is configured to generate propulsive power in a first direction during the first mode; and the second propulsor rotor is configured to generate propulsive power in a second direction during the second mode (fig 1, the rotors are directed in two different directions).
Regarding claim 22, Many as modified by Woodward in claim 17 discloses a geartrain coupling the rotating structure to the first propulsor rotor during the first mode and the second mode, and the geartrain coupling the rotating structure to the second propulsor rotor during the second mode (see modification of claim 17 above).
Many as modified by Woodward discloses the claimed invention except for a gear system coupling the second propulsor rotor to the clutchless transmission; the clutchless transmission arranged along the axis between the geartrain and the gear system. Applicant states “the gear system may be omitted where the functionality of the gear system is integrated into the transmission” (par. 0042), the gear system is a bevel gearing which operates to transmit force from the axial shaft to a radial output shaft, (par. 0039 and 00041), thus, it performs the same function as the transmission of Many and Woodward. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the transmission have a gear system as well as transmission,
since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Many in view of Woodward and Larrabee.
Regarding claim 19, Many discloses a propulsion system for an aircraft (fig 1), comprising: a first propulsor rotor (E, fig 1) rotatably driven by a rotating structure (C, fig 3) during a first mode and a second mode (page 1, lines 85-100), the first mode being a horizontal flight mode and the second mode being a vertical flight mode and/or a hover flight mode (page 1, lines 1-15), the first propulsor rotor comprising a plurality of variable pitch blades (page 1, line 107 to page 2, line 18), the plurality of variable pitch blades comprising a first blade configured to pivot between a thrust position and an idle position (thrust position for horizontal flight and idle position in the neutral position), the first blade in the thrust position during the first mode, and the first blade in the idle position during the second mode; and a second propulsor (F, fig 1) rotatably driven during the second mode, wherein a geartrain (S, H, K, fig 3) couples the rotating structure to the first propulsor rotor during the first mode and the second mode, and the geartrain couples the rotating structure to the second propulsor during the second mode; a transmission (k, fig 3) configured to decouple the second propulsor rotor from the rotating structure during the first mode; and couple the second propulsor rotor to the rotating structure during the second mode (page 1, lines 70-85), wherein the second propulsor rotor comprises an open rotor (fig 1); and wherein the first propulsor rotor is configured to generate thrust during the first mode, and generate substantially no thrust during the second mode.
Many does not disclose a gas turbine engine core including a compressor section, a combustor section, a turbine section, and a rotating structure comprising a turbine rotor with the turbine section, and the first propulsor rotor comprising a ducted rotor, the transmission arranged along the axis forward of the geartrain.
Woodward teaches a propulsion system for an aircraft (1, fig 1), comprising: a gas turbine engine core extending along an axis (centerline of fig 2) including a compressor section (12, 13, fig 2), a combustor section (14, fig 2), a turbine section (15, 16, fig 2) and a rotating structure (6, fig 1), the rotating structure comprising a turbine rotor (the shaft connects all the main rotatable core components) within the turbine section; a first propulsor rotor (5, fig 2) rotatably driven by the rotating structure during a first mode and a second mode, the first propulsor rotor comprising a plurality of variable pitch blades (24, fig 2), the plurality of variable pitch blades comprising a first blade (5, fig 2) configured to pivot between a thrust position and an idle position, the first blade in the thrust position during the first mode, and the first blade in the idle position during the second mode (due to the language configured to be, the blade must merely be capable of doing so, which it is), and the first propulsor rotor comprising a ducted rotor (19, fig 2); and a second propulsor rotor (3, fig 1) rotatably driven by the rotating structure during the second mode; wherein a geartrain (25 is a reduction gear, which requires multiple gears to provide said reduction and thus would serve as a geartrain, fig 2) couples the rotating structure to the first propulsor rotor during the first mode and the second mode (the reduction gearbox 25 constantly connects the ducted fan 5 to the engine shaft 6), and the geartrain couples the rotating structure to the second propulsor rotor during the second mode (via the transmission, fig 1), and a transmission (7, 8, 9, 10, 11, fig 2) arranged along the axis forward of the geartrain (the transmission 8 is axially forward of 25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a ducted gas turbine engine to drive the propulsors of Many based on the teachings of Woodward. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that gas turbine engines have a much higher power density than older class engines, and thus would be the better choice for an aircraft.
Many as modified by Woodward discloses the claimed invention except for a gear system coupling the second propulsor rotor to the clutchless transmission; the clutchless transmission arranged along the axis between the geartrain and the gear system. Applicant states “the gear system may be omitted where the functionality of the gear system is integrated into the transmission” (par. 0042), the gear system is a bevel gearing which operates to transmit force from the axial shaft to a radial output shaft, (par. 0039 and 00041), thus, it performs the same function as the transmission of Many and Woodward. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the transmission have a gear system as well as transmission,
since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Larrabee teaches using a clutch less transmission in a gas turbine engine (par. 0008).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transmission disclosed by Gilbert by having a clutch less transmission based on the teachings of Larrabee. Doing so would reduce friction losses within the transmission (par. 0007), as suggested by Larrabee.
Regarding claim 20, Many discloses wherein the first propulsor rotor comprises a plurality of variable pitch blades (E, fig 1); and the plurality of variable pitch blades comprise a first blade configured to pivot between a thrust position during the first mode and an idle position during the second mode (page 1, line 1-7 to page 2, line 18)).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilbert (3483696) in view of Niergarth (10443412) and Larrabee (US-Pub 2012/0329593).
Regarding claim 17, Gilbert discloses a propulsion system for an aircraft, comprising: a gas turbine engine core including a compressor section (31, fig 3), a combustor section (33, fig 3), a turbine section (34, 35, 36, fig 3) and a rotating structure (53 and 36, fig 3), the rotating structure comprising a shaft extending along a core axis (along 41, fig 3) turbine rotor within the turbine section; a first propulsor rotor (46, fig 3) coupled to the rotating structure during a first mode and a second mode, the first propulsor rotor rotatable about an axis (42, fig 3) and comprising a plurality of variable pitch blades (45, fig 1), the plurality of variable pitch blades comprising a first blade movable between a first position during the first mode and a second position during the second mode, and a second angle greater than the first (the higher the angle the higher the thrust would be) and the first propulsor rotor comprising a ducted rotor (47, fig 3); a second propulsor rotor (12, fig 1), the second propulsor rotor comprising an open rotor; and a transmission (60, fig 3) configured to couple the rotating structure to the second propulsor rotor during the second mode, the transmission coupled to the shaft of the rotating structure (via 55, fig 3), wherein the first mode is a horizontal flight mode and the second mode is a vertical flight mode, and wherein the first propulsor rotor is configured to generate thrust during the first mode and generate substantially no thrust during the second mode (Gilbert is a helicopter which is known for its ability to fly vertically and fly horizontally, in which case there would be no forward thrust in the vertical mode).
Niergarth teaches adjusting fan blade angle so that the maximum angle can be adjusted by 90 degrees in either direction from neutral (col 6, lines 7-26), which would include an angle between 70 and 85 degrees and an angle less than 60 degrees depending upon the mode of operation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pitch change angle disclosed by Gilbert by having the pitch be less than 60 degrees in a thrust position and between 75 and 85 in a no thrust position based on the teachings of Niergarth. Doing so would allow for optimization of pitch angle based on thrust required (col 1, lines 40-50), as suggested by Niergarth.
Larrabee teaches using a clutch less transmission in a gas turbine engine (par. 0008).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transmission disclosed by Gilbert by having a clutch less transmission based on the teachings of Larrabee. Doing so would reduce friction losses within the transmission (par. 0007), as suggested by Larrabee.
Regarding claim 18, Gilbert discloses wherein the first propulsor rotor is configured to generate propulsive power in a first direction during the first mode; and the second propulsor rotor is configured to generate propulsive power in a second direction during the second mode (fig 1, the rotors are directed in two different directions).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 4/27/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 19-20 under Gilbert have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Many and Woodward.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant arguments that the prior art does not disclose a transmission forward of a geartrain, the transmission configured to decouple the propulsor rotor from the rotating structure during the first mode and couple it during the second. This argument is not persuasive as Woodward discloses the transmission forward of the geartrain as per the rejection above. Furthermore, applicants arguments regarding claim 17 are not persuasive, as Niergarth teaches modifying fan blade angle by up to 90 degrees in either direction, thus the claimed angles would be known by Niergarth as set forth in the rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN V MEILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-9229. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-5pm.
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.
/DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights