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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment submitted 03/18/2026 has been entered. Claims 8-14 and 17-20 remain pending. Claims 1-7 and 15-16 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues the prior art does not disclose nor teach all limitations of the claim since Praisner shows in Figure 1 “the blades having passageways are turbine blades” and one of ordinary skill would not find it obvious “to include the passageways of Praisner in his fan blades” since “[f]an blades are not the same as turbine blades”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The benefits disclosed by Praisner, namely the prevention of separation of air flow (see background), are directed towards “a turbomachinery airfoil” (Col 1 Ln 8). It is also well known in the art that separation of air flow is detrimental to fan blades, as taught by US 6203269 to Lorber (see background), therefore modifying the fan blades of Praisner to also include the separation eliminating features disclosed by Praisner would be an obvious modification.
For the reasons above the rejections are hereby maintained.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 8-10, 12-14, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8016567 to Praisner in view of US 6203269 to Lorber.
(a) Regarding claim 8:
(i) Praisner discloses a rotor assembly disposed in an aircraft propulsion device, the rotor assembly positioned in a ducted aircraft engine (Col 2 Ln 31; Fig 1), the rotor assembly comprising:
a rotor hub (hubs of any one of compressors 12/14 and turbines 16/18; “hub”, Col 2 Lns 35-36); and
a plurality of rotor blades (“blades”, Col 2 Lns 35-36) extending outward from the rotor hub (Fig 1),
wherein each of the plurality of rotor blades comprises:
an elongated body (body of blade, Fig 2), the elongated body comprising a pressure side (pressure surface 42, Fig 2) and a suction side (suction surface 40, Fig 2), the pressure side and suction side intersecting at a leading edge and a trailing edge (leading and trailing edges 44/46, respectively, Fig 2),
the elongated body having a root that is coupled to the fan hub (portion of airfoil connected to hub; radially inner end of blade body, Fig 2), the elongated body extending outward from the fan hub in a radial direction (Figs 1-2),
wherein a span (distance between radially inner and outer ends of blade body, Fig 2) of the elongated body is described by a first straight line distance extending outward from the fan hub along the elongated body to a tip surface (radially outer end of blade body, Fig 2),
wherein a chord of the elongated body is defined by a second straight-line distance extending between the leading edge and the trailing edge (chord line 48, Fig 3);
wherein the suction side comprises a continuous surface over which external air flows (Figs 2-3/9);
one or more passageways (passages 56 and/or slots 76, Figs 2-3/8-9) extending through the elongated body between the pressure side and the suction side (Figs 2-3/9),
the one or more passageways being substantially straight and positioned in a generally perpendicular direction with respect to the pressure side and the suction side and not being skewed in the radial direction (Figs 2-3/9),
the one or more passageways allowing a corrective flow of air (jet 72, Fig 3) to move from the pressure side to the suction side and exit the blade in a direction that is substantially perpendicular to the suction side and not skewed in the radial direction (Figs 2-3/9),
wherein the rotor blades extend outward from the fan hub to a casing of the ducted aircraft engine (unlabeled casing surrounding fan 10, Fig 1) and wherein the leading edge of each of the rotor blades is configured so as to be longer than the trailing edge of each blade (reasonably disclosed in Fig 1).
(ii) Praisner suggests (Col 1 Lns 6-9 and Col 2 Lns 34-38) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the rotor assembly is a fan assembly.
(iii) Lorber is also in the field of blades (see abstract) and teaches wherein fan blades (Col 1 Ln 14) may suffer from boundary layer separation which reduces performance and decreases efficiency (Col 1 Lns 35-38).
(iv) 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 rotor system as disclosed by Praisner to be a fan system as claimed for the purpose of avoiding reduced performance and decreased efficiency of the fan system (Lorber: Col 1 Lns 35-38) of Praisner.
(v) The Examiner notes that the limitation “the corrective flow of air interacting with and energizing low momentum airflow occurring along the suction side” is a functional limitation. As Praisner as modified by Lorber teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the fan assembly of the proposed combination can perform the claimed function.
(b) Regarding claim 9:
(i) Praisner as modified by Lorber teaches fan assembly of claim 8.
(ii) Praisner further discloses wherein each of the one or more passageways of each fan blade is located at a distance greater than 40 percent span from the fan hub (any of passages 56 and/or slots 76 located radially outward of 40 percent span, Figs 2/9).
(c) Regarding claim 10:
(i) Praisner as modified by Lorber teaches fan assembly of claim 8.
(ii) Praisner further discloses wherein each of the one or more passageways of each fan blade is located at a distance of up to 40 percent along the chord (any of passages 56 and/or slots 76 located radially inward of 40 percent span, Figs 2/9).
(d) Regarding claim 12:
(i) Praisner as modified by Lorber teaches fan assembly of claim 8.
(ii) Praisner further discloses wherein an angle of each of the one or more passageways of each of the plurality of fan blades is described with respect to a line tangent to a point on the suction side and the angle is from 5 degrees to 175 degrees (angle α of 45 degrees, Fig 3, Col 3 Ln 35).
(e) Regarding claim 13:
(i) Praisner as modified by Lorber teaches fan assembly of claim 8.
(ii) Praisner further discloses wherein each of the one or more passageways of each of the plurality of fan blades comprises a single passageway (Figs 2-3).
(f) Regarding claim 14:
(i) Praisner as modified by Lorber teaches fan assembly of claim 8.
(ii) Praisner further discloses wherein each of the one or more passageways of each of the plurality of fan blades comprises multiple passageways (Figs 8-9).
(g) Regarding claim 17:
(i) Praisner discloses a method of operating a rotor assembly, the rotor assembly positioned in a ducted aircraft engine (Col 2 Ln 31; Fig 1), the method comprising:
providing a rotor assembly (any one of compressors 12/14 and turbines 16/18),
the rotor assembly comprising a rotor hub (hubs of any one of compressors 12/14 and turbines 16/18; “hub”, Col 2 Lns 35-36) and a plurality of fan blades (“blades”, Col 2 Lns 35-36) extending outward from the rotor hub in a radial direction (Fig 1),
wherein each of the plurality of rotor blades comprises an elongated body (body of blade, Fig 2),
the elongated body comprising a pressure side and a suction side (pressure surface 42 and suction surface 40, Fig 2), the pressure side and suction side intersecting at a leading edge and a trailing edge (leading and trailing edges 44/46, respectively, Fig 2),
the elongated body having a root that is coupled to the rotor hub (portion of airfoil connected to hub; radially inner end of blade body, Fig 2), the elongated body extending outward from the rotor hub (Figs 1-2),
wherein a span (distance between radially inner and outer ends of blade body, Fig 2) of the elongated body is described by a first straight line distance extending outward from the rotor hub along the elongated body to a tip surface (radially outer end of blade body, Fig 2),
wherein a chord of the elongated body is defined by a second straight-line distance extending between the leading edge and the trailing edge (chord line 48, Fig 3),
wherein the suction side comprises a continuous surface over which external air flows (Figs 2-3/9),
each rotor blade comprising one or more passageways (passages 56 and/or slots 76, Figs 2-3/8-9) extending through the elongated body between the pressure side and the suction side (Figs 2-3/8-9),
the one or more passageways being substantially straight and positioned in a generally perpendicular direction with respect to the pressure side and the suction side and not being skewed in the radial direction (Figs 2-3/9);
wherein the rotor blades extend outward from the rotor hub to a casing of the ducted aircraft engine (Fig 1) and wherein the leading edge of each of the rotor blades is configured so as to be longer than the trailing edge of each blade (reasonably disclosed in Fig 1),
turning the rotor assembly to create at some conditions an airflow to the plurality of fan blades (that is how turbofans work),
the airflow having low momentum air along the suction side of each of the plurality of rotor blades (at airflow separation point 52, Fig 3); and
allowing a flow of corrective air (jet 72, Fig 3) to move through the one or more passageways from the pressure side to the suction side of each of the plurality of rotor blades and exit the blade in a direction that is substantially perpendicular to the suction side and not skewed in the radial direction (Figs 2-3/9),
the corrective air interacting with and energizing the low momentum air occurring along the suction side of each of the rotor blades (as Praisner discloses all method steps of the claim, the method of operating the rotor assembly of Praisner would perform the claimed function).
(ii) Praisner suggests (Col 1 Lns 6-9 and Col 2 Lns 34-38) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the rotor assembly is a fan assembly.
(iii) Lorber is also in the field of blades (see abstract) and teaches wherein fan blades (Col 1 Ln 14) may suffer from boundary layer separation which reduces performance and decreases efficiency (Col 1 Lns 35-38).
(iv) 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 rotor system as disclosed by Praisner to be a fan system as claimed for the purpose of avoiding reduced performance and decreased efficiency of the fan system (Lorber: Col 1 Lns 35-38) of Praisner.
(h) Regarding claim 18:
(i) Praisner as modified by Lorber teaches method of claim 17.
(ii) Praisner further discloses wherein each of the one or more passageways of each fan blade is located at a distance greater than 40 percent span from the fan hub (any of passages 56 and/or slots 76 located radially outward of 40 percent span, Figs 2/9).
(i) Regarding claim 19:
(i) Praisner as modified by Lorber teaches method of claim 17.
(ii) Praisner further discloses wherein each of the one or more passageways of each fan blade is located at a distance of up to 40 percent along the chord (any of passages 56 and/or slots 76 located radially inward of 40 percent span, Figs 2/9).
Claim(s) 11 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8016567 to Praisner in view of US 6203269 to Lorber as evidenced by US 11391159 to Yamashita.
(a) Regarding claims 11 and 20:
(i) Praisner as modified by Lorber teaches fan assembly of claim 8 and the method of claim 17.
(ii) Praisner further discloses wherein the outlet of each of the one or more passageways of each fan blade is located upstream of a chordwise point of separation (point of separation 52, Fig 3) whose location depends on airfoil shape (Col 2 Lns 61-63) but does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the one or more passageways of each fan blade is located at a distance of greater than 50 percent along the chord.
(iii) The Office is hereby taking formal notice that is it well known in the art to have passageways located at a distance of greater than 50 percent along the chord as evidenced by Yamashita (reasonably disclosed in Figs 4/8A/12).
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 Justin A Pruitt whose telephone number is (571)272-8383. The examiner can normally be reached T-F 8:30am - 6:30pm.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JUSTIN A PRUITT/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights