DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The substitute specification filed 12/12/2025 has not been entered because it does not conform to 37 CFR 1.125(b) and (c) because: on page 1, “PRIOR ART” has been replaced by –BACKGROUND--. Note once a prior art admission is made, it cannot be retracted. See MPEP 2129. Accordingly, the substitute specification will not entered. Note that for any subsequent amendments, instructions to amend the substitute specification would be sufficient to address the issue above, and these instructions would then result in the substitute specification then being entered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 12/12/2025. These drawings are entered.
The drawing objection made on 8/12/2025 is maintained due to the admitted problems in the specification, as the substitute specification has not been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-9, 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breeze-Stringfellow et al (2021/0222575) in view of Neuteboom (2013/0315701).
Breeze-Stringfellow et al [Figs. 1, 2] teach An aeronautical thruster having a longitudinal axis, comprising: a hub 12; and at least two annular rows of unducted blades 16, 20 comprising an upstream annular row 16 and a downstream annular row 20 which are spaced apart from each other along the longitudinal axis, wherein the downstream annular row 20 is fixed around the longitudinal axis [¶ 0041], the upstream annular row 16 being rotatable around the longitudinal axis, the downstream annular row 20 comprising a series of blades including a first blade 20A [see annotations] and a second blade 20B [see annotations] each extending in a radial direction from the hub to define a radial dimension between the hub 48 and a radially outer end of the corresponding blade, wherein, angularly around the longitudinal axis: the first blade [see annotations] is positioned closer to an angular position at 12 o'clock or to an angular position at 6 o'clock than the second blade [see annotations]; and the second blade [see annotations] is positioned closer to an angular position at 3 o'clock or to an angular position at 9 o'clock than the first blade 20A; and the radial dimension 66 of the first blade 20A is greater than the radial dimension 68 of the second blade 20B; the downstream annular row further comprising a third blade [see annotations], wherein the third blade is angularly positioned around the longitudinal axis in the same angular area as the first blade and second blade, and wherein the second blade is arranged circumferentially between the first blade and third blade. (3) wherein the first blade and the second blade of the downstream annular row each have a radially outer radius passing through the radially outer end, the radially outer radius 66 of the first blade being greater than the radially outer radius 64 of the second blade. (4) wherein the first blade 20A and the second blade of the downstream annular row are circumferentially consecutive [Fig. 2]. (5) wherein the downstream annular row comprises at least one group of blades having the same radial dimension 20A, including at least a first group comprising a plurality of first blades 20A and/or a second group 20B comprising a plurality of second blades 20B. (6) wherein the blades of the at least one group of blades are arranged circumferentially contiguously in an angular sector around the longitudinal axis [multiple blades 20B are contiguous, but not illustrated, ¶ 0060 – see annotations]. (7) wherein the downstream annular row comprises a first angular series of blades 20B centered on the angular position at 3 o'clock or on the angular position at 9 o'clock and a second angular series of blades 20A centered on the angular position at 12 o'clock or on the angular position at 6 o'clock, the average radial dimension of the blades of the first angular series being less than the average radial dimension of the blades of the second angular series [note that the vanes are generally symmetrically disposed]. (8) wherein the downstream annular row comprises at least one pair of blades [of either 20A or 20B] for which the angular positioning around the longitudinal axis is symmetrical relative to a plane of symmetry comprising the longitudinal axis and an axis passing through the angular positions at 6 o'clock and at 12 o'clock, and wherein the blades of the pair of blades [of either 20A or 20B] have the same radial dimension. (9) wherein; the first blade [top 20A] and the second blade 20B are each positioned in an angular area between the angular position at 12 o'clock and the angular position at 6 o'clock taken in a clockwise direction or a counter-clockwise direction; (11) wherein the upstream annular row and the downstream annular row are located at an upstream end portion of the aeronautical thruster in the longitudinal direction [Fig. 1] or at a downstream end portion of the aeronautical thruster in the longitudinal direction.
(12) An aeronautical thruster having a longitudinal axis, comprising: a hub; and at least two annular rows of unducted blades comprising an upstream annular row and a downstream annular row which are spaced apart from each other along the longitudinal axis, the upstream annular row being rotatable around the longitudinal axis, the downstream annular row being fixed around the longitudinal axis, the downstream annular row comprising a series of blades including a first blade and a second blade each extending in a radial direction from the hub to define a radial dimension between the hub and a radially outer end of the corresponding blade, wherein, angularly around the longitudinal axis: the first blade is positioned closer to an angular position at 12 o'clock or to an angular position at 6 o'clock than the second blade; the second blade is positioned closer to an angular position at 3 o'clock or to an angular position at 9 o'clock than the first blade; the radial dimension of the first blade is greater than the radial dimension of the second blade [see treatment above for claim 1]; and the downstream annular row comprises a first group of blades 20A [annotated 1], a second group of blades 20B [annotated 2], and a third group of blades 20B [annotated 3], wherein a radial dimension of blades of first group 20 is greater than a radial dimension of blades of each among second group and third group 20B, and wherein the radial dimension of blades of second group is greater than the radial dimension of blades of third group.
PNG
media_image1.png
574
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Breeze-Stringfellow et al do not teach (1) a third blade which has a radial dimension greater than the radial dimension of the second blade, and the radial dimension of the third blade being less than the radial dimension of the first blade nor (12) wherein the radial dimension of blades of second group is greater than the radial dimension of blades of third group. While not particularly illustrated, Breeze-Stringfellow et al do further teach that three or more different geometries of the outlet guide vanes may be utilized [¶ 0036, which would be conducive to adding a third blade / group of different dimension]. Neuteboom teaches a third blade 180 or 190 which has a radial dimension greater than the radial dimension of the second blade 172, wherein the third blade 180 or 190 is angularly positioned around the longitudinal axis in the same angular area as the first blade 170 and second blade 180 or 190, and wherein the second blade 180 or 190 is arranged circumferentially between the first blade 170 and third blade 172; and the radial dimension of the third blade 172 being less than the radial dimension of the first blade 170. [¶ 0105]. Neuteboom further teaches wherein the radial dimension of blades of second group 180 is greater than the radial dimension of blades of third group 172. Neuteboom teaches that by using the different geometries between the groups of unducted vanes / first and second blade, the airflow may be modified to reduce the vortices and the noise emitted [¶ 0017]. This is consistent with the desire of Breeze-Stringfellow et al to also reduce noise via the use of the different geometry vanes [¶ 0044]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make (1) the third blade have a radial dimension greater than the radial dimension of the second blade, and the radial dimension of the third blade being less than the radial dimension of the first blade, as taught by Neuteboom, as an obvious matter of using the workable vane geometries in the art for reducing the noise / tailoring the flow. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make (12) the radial dimension of blades of second group greater than the radial dimension of blades of third group, as taught by Neuteboom, as an obvious matter of using the workable vane geometries in the art for reducing the noise / tailoring the flow.For an alternate treatments of claims 3-8, Neuteboom also teaches (3) wherein the first blade 170 and the second blade 190 or 180 of the annular row each have a radially outer radius passing through the radially outer end, the radially outer radius of the first blade being greater than the radially outer radius of the second blade 190 or 180. (5) wherein the annular row comprises at least one group of blades having the same radial dimension, including at least a first group 170 comprising a plurality of first blades and/or a second group 180 comprising a plurality of second blades. (6) wherein the blades of the at least one group of blades 170 or 172 are arranged circumferentially contiguously in an angular sector around the longitudinal axis. (7) wherein the annular row comprises a first angular series of blades 180, 190, 192 centered on the angular position at 3 o'clock or on the angular position at 9 o'clock and a second angular series of blades 170 centered on the angular position at 12 o'clock [measured from left end of horizontal plane between 170 and 172] or on the angular position at 6 o'clock, the average radial dimension of the blades of the first angular series being less than the average radial dimension of the blades of the second angular series. (8) wherein the annular row comprises at least one pair of blades for which the angular positioning around the longitudinal axis is symmetrical relative to a plane of symmetry comprising the longitudinal axis and an axis passing through the angular positions at 6 o'clock and at 12 o'clock [measured from left end of horizontal plane between 170 and 172], and wherein the blades of the pair of blades have the same radial dimension [each of 170 or each of 172]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the geometry of claims 3-8 of Neuteboom, as an obvious matter of using the workable vane geometries in the art for reducing the noise / tailoring the flow.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
“The Office Action sets forth that a skilled artisan would combine Breeze-Stringfellow and Neuteboom to reach the subject matter of Claim 10. Applicant respectfully disagrees. The skilled artisan would not reach the subject matter of Claim 10, which has been incorporated into Claim 1, based on this combination of references for the following reasons:
1) As explained above, the only possible equivalent of the downstream annular row of
Claim 1 in Neuteboom is the second vane assembly. In this regard, the arguments in section 10 of the Office Action are moot, because they are based on the configuration of
the first vane assembly.
2) Neuteboom teaches a reduction of noise and vortices by adapting the cross-sectional profile of the vane (see paragraphs [0091]-[0093]) and adding one or two additional vane assemblies, whereas the claimed subject matter solves the problem by adapting the radial dimension of the blades from a single downstream annular row fixed around the longitudinal axis. Neuteboom therefore teaches away from the subject matter of amended Claim 1.
3) Section 10 of the Office Action sets forth that the angular area between 12 o'clock and 6 o'clock from the claimed subject matter is equivalent to the angular area from 3 o'clock to 9 o'clock in Figure 6b of Neuteboom. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Instead, Figure 6C of Neuteboom shows that the vanes 170, 190, 180 and 172 are positioned in a precise manner according to the plane 160. This means that Neuteboom teaches away from turning the vanes to fit the claimed subject matter.
The technical effect of a downstream annular row being fixed and comprising blades with three different radial dimensions enables a precise adaptation of the blade geometry, depending on their angular position in relation to the rest of the plane, in order to reduce the noise caused by the aeronautical thruster without impacting its effectiveness. “
In rebuttal, Breeze-Stringfellow [see annotations] already teach the second 20B and third 20B vanes, which are shorter than first group of vanes 20A and merely lacks a third blade which has a radial dimension greater than the radial dimension of the second blade, and the radial dimension of the third blade being less than the radial dimension of the first blade. While not particularly illustrated, Breeze-Stringfellow et al do further teach that three or more different geometries of the outlet guide vanes may be utilized [¶ 0036, which would be conducive to adding a third blade / group of different radial dimension]. Neuteboom would teach one of ordinary skill in the art how to size blades that are of different radial dimensions in the circumferential direction, which is analogous to that done by Breeze-Stringfellow. While the applied vanes of Neuteboom appear to be upstream of the rotor vs downstream of the rotor, they are analogous in that they are shorter vanes which are analogous to those of Breeze-Stringfellow. Accordingly, applicant’s argument with point 1 & 2 regarding the upstream location is not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument with respect to point 2 is further not persuasive as Neuteboom also changes the radial dimension in the circumferential direction. Even if Neutebook desires to reduce the noise, so does Breeze-Stringfellow [¶ 0044].
Regarding point 3, applicant’s argument is not persuasive as the key feature is that the different groups have different radial dimensions and gradual reduction of the radial dimension between the first, second and third blades. As Breeze-Stringfellow already teach the first, second and third blades, the relative sizing of the groups is deemed an obvious sizing utilized in the art for stationary stator blades.
The argument that the applied references “teach away” from the claimed subject matter is not persuasive. A reference will teach away only if it suggests that the line of development flowing from the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be productive of the results sought by the inventor. MPEP 2123, In re Gurly, 27 F.3d 551, 553, 31USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994). From a review of the disclosures of the applied references, it is clear that these references do not “teach away” from the claimed invention, since none of their disclosures teaches, either expressly or impliedly, that it is undesirable to combine different radial dimensions for the second and third stator vanes.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to TED KIM whose telephone number is 571-272-4829. The Examiner can be reached on regular business hours before 5:00 pm, Monday to Thursday and every other Friday.
The fax number for the organization where this application is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Devon Kramer, can be reached at 571-272-7118 Alternate inquiries to Technology Center 3700 can be made via 571-272-3700.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. Should you have questions on Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). General inquiries can also be directed to the Inventors Assistance Center whose telephone number is 800-786-9199. Furthermore, a variety of online resources are available at https://www.uspto.gov/patent
/Ted Kim/
Telephone
571-272-4829
Primary Examiner
Fax
571-273-8300
February 11, 2026