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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 19th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues ‘506 is cited only to supply fins and only discloses local fins/ribs on guide vanes for vibration/damping. However, the claims do not negate the structural teaching and it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to cite for vibration/damping purposes. The resulting combination results in the fins subdividing the intervene passages and thereby reads on the claims regardless of purposes for adding the fins.
Applicant argues ‘506 does not disclose or suggest using the fins to create a network of diffusion corridors located directly upstream of a heat exchanger. However, ‘506 was not relied upon for the location. ‘476 was cited that teaches the heat exchanger downstream of the guidevanes. ‘506 was cited to teach the utilization of fins on the guide vanes. When combined, the fins are on the guide vanes that are upstream of the heat exchanger.
Applicant argues ‘506 does not disclose arranging the fins on two circumferentially adjacent vanes so that each corridor is circumferentially delimited by the two vanes and radially delimited by the fins. This argument is not persuasive. In any annular row of vanes, the passage between two adjacent vanes is delimited circumferentially by the intrados of one and the extrados of the other. This is how vane geometry exists. ‘506 teaches fins on both the intrados and extrados of a vane. When applied to a vane row, fins on the extrados of vane A and fins on the intrados of vane B both project into the shared inter-vane passage, creating radial boundaries within a corridor that is already circumferentially delimited by the two vane surfaces. The claims only they delimit radially the corridor, which is taught by the combination.
Applicant argues to arrive at the recitations a skilled person would not merely add known fins, they would have completely redesigned the guide vane row. This argument is not persuasive. No redesign is required. ‘476 already have guide vanes which already exist in an annular passage upstream of a heat exchanger. ‘506 has fins added to those vanes. The inter-vane passages are thereby subdivided radially by the fins.
Applicant argues neither ‘476 and ‘506 recognize this problem or propose this solution, or indicated in the prior art. This argument is not persuasive. Under KSR, the motivation to combine need not come from the references themselves or address the same problem the Applicant has identified. Vibration damping is a well-recognized problem for stator guide vanes in turbomachines, and therefore the art teaches the claimed invention.
Additionally, Applicant has not argued against the utilization of Harvey on the merits. Harvey was cited for the purposes of flow improvement, yet Applicant repeated the same arguments against the ‘476/’506 combination.
The rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 3074476A1 in view of FR 2867506A1.
FR 3074476 A1 (figures 1-2) discloses a turbomachine 1 for an aircraft shown generally at 22, substantially as claimed, the turbomachine comprising a compressor 7 compressing a primary flow F1; a fan 15 propelling a secondary flow F2; an annular passage (unnumbered, inside of nacelle 17) for the flow of the secondary flow downstream of the fan; and an unducted propeller 14 propelling a tertiary flow F3, the primary, secondary and tertiary flows being distinct from each other, an annular row of guide vanes 18 arranged in the passage, each vane inherently having an intrados and an extrados, and at least one heat exchanger arranged in the passage (in the guide vanes) downstream of the row of vanes (claim 12).
Note the attached English machine translation.
However, FR 3074476 A1 does not disclose a plurality of diffusion corridors upstream of the at least one exchanger, each corridor being delimited circumferentially by an intrados and by an extrados of two circumferentially adjacent vanes, and each corridor being delimited radially by at least one fin carried by at least one of the two circumferentially adjacent vanes (claim 12), does not disclose that the at least one fin is carried by the extrados of a vane of the two circumferentially adjacent vanes, and has a circumferential end cantilevered facing the intrados of the other of the two vanes (claim 13), does not disclose that the at least one fin is carried by the intrados of a blade of the two circumferentially adjacent vanes, and has a circumferential end cantilevered facing the extrados of the other of the two vanes (claim 14), and does not disclose that the at least one fin is carried by the intrados of a vane of the two circumferentially adjacent vanes and by the extrados on the other of the two vanes (claim 15).
FR 2867506 A1 (note the attached English machine translation) shows a turbomachine (a turbojet engine) having a guide vane 2 arranged in an unnumbered passage, the vane having a concave intrados and a convex extrados. The concave intrados and the convex extrados defines a plurality of diffusion corridors, the corridor being delimited circumferentially by an intrados and by an extrados of the vane, and each corridor being delimited radially by at least one fin 3 carried by the vane, the at least one fin is carried by the extrados of a vane, and has a circumferential end cantilevered facing the intrados of the vane, the at least one fin is carried by the intrados of a blade the vane, and has a circumferential end cantilevered facing the extrados of the vane, and the at least one fin is carried by the intrados of the vane and by the extrados on the vane. The arrangement is provided for the purpose of dampening vibrations of the vane.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide each guide vane of FR 3074476 A1 with a fin as taught by FR 2867506 A1, such that each vane has a plurality of diffusion corridors upstream of the at least one exchanger, each corridor being delimited circumferentially by an intrados and by an extrados of two circumferentially adjacent vanes, and each corridor being delimited radially by at least one fin carried by at least one of the two circumferentially adjacent vanes, such that the at least one fin is carried by the extrados of a vane of the two circumferentially adjacent vanes, and has a circumferential end cantilevered facing the intrados of the other of the two vanes, such that the at least one fin is carried by the intrados of a blade of the two circumferentially adjacent vanes, and has a circumferential end cantilevered facing the extrados of the other of the two vanes, and such that the at least one fin is carried by the intrados of a vane of the two circumferentially adjacent vanes and by the extrados on the other of the two vanes, as taught by FR 2867506 A1, for the purpose of dampening vibrations of the vanes.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 3074476A1 and FR 2867506A1 as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Harvey et al. 2002/0136639.
The modified turbomachine of FR 3074476 A1 shows all of the claimed subject matter except for the interface between the fin and the extrados, or between the fin and the intrados of the vane carrying it, is aerodynamically optimized by a connection fillet.
Harvey et al. shows a stator vane 34 having a fin 44 attached to an intrados 42, having unnumbered fillets at the interface with the intrados, which reduces stress at the interface.
It would have been further obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the modified turbomachine of FR 3074476 A1 such that the interface between the fin and the extrados, and between the fin and the intrados of the vane carrying it, as aerodynamically optimized, by a connection fillet, as taught by Harvey et al., for the purpose of reducing stress at the interface.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 3074476A1 and FR 2867506A1 as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Harvey et al. 2017/0184053.
The modified turbomachine of FR 3074476 A1 shows all of the claimed subject matter except for the two circumferentially adjacent vanes as well as the at least one fin delimiting the corridor between these two vanes, are in one piece.
Harvey et al. (figure 10) shows a turbomachine 10 having circumferentially adjacent guide vanes 300 with fins 400, the two circumferentially adjacent vanes as well as the fins delimiting the corridor between these two vanes, are in one piece (paragraph [0018]), for the purpose of reducing the number of separate parts and simplifying assembly.
It would have been further obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the modified turbomachine FR 3074476 A1 such that the two circumferentially adjacent vanes as well as the at least one fin delimiting the corridor between these two vanes, are in one piece, as taught by Harvey et al., for the purpose of reducing the number of separate parts and simplifying assembly.
Claim 20, as far as it is definite and understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 3074476A1 and FR 2867506A1 as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Deparis et al. 2019/0153940.
The modified turbomachine of FR 3074476 A1 shows all of the claimed subject matter except for structural arms are arranged at an axial position which at least partially overlaps that of the at least one exchanger, a vane of the annular row of vanes being circumferentially aligned with each structural arm, said vane having the flared trailing profile.
Deparis et al. shows a turbomachine 1 having vanes 16 of an annular row of vanes 24, and structural arms 19, a vane of the annular row of vanes being circumferentially aligned with each structural arm, the vane having a flared trailing profile, for the purpose of providing structural support for the turbomachine and smooth flow across the structural arms.
It would have been further obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the modified turbomachine FR 3074476 A1 such that it includes structural arms arranged at an axial position which at least partially overlaps that of the at least one exchanger, a vane of the annular row of vanes being circumferentially aligned with each structural arm, the vane having a flared trailing profile, as taught by Deparis et al., for the purpose of providing structural support for the turbomachine and smooth flow across the structural arms.
Claim 21, as far as it is definite and understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 3074476A1 and FR 2867506A1 as applied to claim 12 above.
The modified turbomachine of FR 3074476 A1 shows all of the claimed subject matter except for the vanes are distributed angularly in an irregular manner, the vanes being more spaced circumferentially from each other in the occupied angular portion(s) by the exchanger(s).
Official Notice is taken that guide vanes in turbomachines commonly have irregular angular distributions, for the purpose of reducing noise.
It would have been further obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the modified turbomachine of FR 3074476 A1 such that the vanes are distributed angularly in an irregular manner, the vanes being more spaced circumferentially from each other in the occupied angular portion(s) by the exchanger(s), for the purpose of reducing noise.
Claim 22, as far as it is definite and understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 3074476A1 and FR 2867506A1 as applied to claim 12 above.
The modified turbomachine of FR 3074476 A1 shows all of the claimed subject matter, the annular row of vanes comprises vanes supporting one or more fin(s) and portions of the vanes devoid of fins, but does not show the latter extending axially over a length shorter, at least twice or at least three times shorter, than the first (claim 22).
The recitation of the latter extending axially over a length at least twice or at least three times shorter than the first, is an obvious engineering expedient. It would have been further obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the modified turbomachine of FR 3074476 A1 such that the fins are very long, such that the length of the portions devoid of fins are very small (free of any fin), for example the length of the portions devoid of fins extending axially over a length at least twice or at least three times shorter, than the finned portions, for the purpose of providing more of an air guiding effect by virtue of the increased length of the finned portions, as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the a longer fin length provides a greater air guiding effect.
Claims 12-15, 17, and 19 (as far as claim 17 is definite and understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 3074476A1 in view of Harvey et al. 2017/0184053.
FR 3074476 A1 (figures 1-2) discloses a turbomachine 1 for an aircraft shown generally at 22, substantially as claimed, the turbomachine comprising a compressor 7 compressing a primary flow F1; a fan 15 propelling a secondary flow F2; an annular passage (unnumbered, inside of nacelle 17) for the flow of the secondary flow downstream of the fan; and an unducted propeller 14 propelling a tertiary flow F3, the primary, secondary and tertiary flows being distinct from each other, an annular row of guide vanes 18 arranged in the passage, and at least one heat exchanger arranged in the passage (in the guide vanes) downstream of the row of vanes (claim 12).
However, FR 3074476 A1 does not disclose a plurality of diffusion corridors upstream of the at least one exchanger, each corridor being delimited circumferentially by an intrados and by an extrados of two circumferentially adjacent vanes, and each corridor being delimited radially by at least one fin carried by at least one of the two circumferentially adjacent vanes (claim 12), does not disclose that the at least one fin is carried by the extrados of a vane of the two circumferentially adjacent vanes, and has a circumferential end cantilevered facing the intrados of the other of the two vanes (claim 13), does not disclose that the at least one fin is carried by the intrados of a blade of the two circumferentially adjacent vanes, and has a circumferential end cantilevered facing the extrados of the other of the two vanes (claim 14), does not disclose that the at least one fin is carried by the intrados of a vane of the two circumferentially adjacent vanes and by the extrados on the other of the two vanes (claim 15), does not disclose that each corridor is delimited radially internally and/or radially externally by two fins, one of which is carried by the extrados of a vane and the other is carried by the intrados of a circumferentially adjacent vane, each of the two fins extending circumferentially over approximately half of the circumferential distance between the two adjacent vanes (claim 17), and dos not disclose that the two circumferentially adjacent vanes as well as the at least one fin delimiting the corridor between these two vanes, are in one piece (claim 19).
Harvey et al. (figure 10) shows a turbomachine 10 having guide vanes 300 arranged in a passage 100, the vanes having a concave intrados and a convex extrados, the guide vanes forming a plurality of diffusion corridors, each corridor being delimited circumferentially by an intrados and by an extrados of two circumferentially adjacent vanes, and each corridor being delimited radially by at least one fin 400 carried by at least one of the two circumferentially adjacent vanes, the at least one fin is carried by the extrados of a vane of the two circumferentially adjacent vanes, and has a circumferential end cantilevered facing the intrados of the other of the two vanes, the at least one fin is carried by the intrados of a blade of the two circumferentially adjacent vanes, and has a circumferential end cantilevered facing the extrados of the other of the two vanes, the at least one fin is carried by the intrados of a vane of the two circumferentially adjacent vanes and by the extrados on the other of the two vanes, each corridor is delimited radially internally and/or radially externally by two fins, one of which is carried by the extrados of a vane and the other is carried by the intrados of a circumferentially adjacent vane, each of the two fins extending circumferentially over approximately half of the circumferential distance between the two adjacent vanes, and the two circumferentially adjacent vanes as well as the at least one fin delimiting the corridor between these two vanes, are in one piece. The arrangement is provided for the purpose of improving flow characteristics in the passage, by helping flow stay attached to an inner wall of the flow passage in the region of and downstream of the fins, and providing a more even flow distributions in terms of pressure and velocity across the radial extent of the passage.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide each guide vane FR 3074476 A1 with a fin, such that a plurality of diffusion corridors upstream of the at least one exchanger, each corridor being delimited circumferentially by an intrados and by an extrados of two circumferentially adjacent vanes, and each corridor being delimited radially by at least one fin carried by at least one of the two circumferentially adjacent vanes, such that the at least one fin is carried by the extrados of a vane of the two circumferentially adjacent vanes, and has a circumferential end cantilevered facing the intrados of the other of the two vanes, such that the at least one fin is carried by the intrados of a blade of the two circumferentially adjacent vanes, and has a circumferential end cantilevered facing the extrados of the other of the two vanes, such that the at least one fin is carried by the intrados of a vane of the two circumferentially adjacent vanes and by the extrados on the other of the two vanes, such that each corridor is delimited radially internally and/or radially externally by two fins, one of which is carried by the extrados of a vane and the other is carried by the intrados of a circumferentially adjacent vane, each of the two fins extending circumferentially over approximately half of the circumferential distance between the two adjacent vanes, and such that the two circumferentially adjacent vanes as well as the at least one fin delimiting the corridor between these two vanes, are in one piece, as taught by Harvey et al., provided for the purpose of improving flow characteristics in the passage, by helping flow stay attached to an inner wall of the flow passage in the region of and downstream of the fins, and providing a more even flow distributions in terms of pressure and velocity across the radial extent of the passage.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 3074476A1 and Harvey et al. 2017/0184053 as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Harvey et al. 2002/0136639.
The modified turbomachine of FR 3074476 A1 shows all of the claimed subject matter except for the interface between the fin and the extrados, or between the fin and the intrados of the vane carrying it, is aerodynamically optimized by a connection fillet.
Harvey et al. shows a stator vane 34 having a fin 44 attached to an intrados 42, having unnumbered fillets at the interface with the intrados, which reduces stress at the interface.
It would have been further obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the modified turbomachine of FR 3074476 such that the interface between the fin and the extrados, and between the fin and the intrados of the vane carrying it, as aerodynamically optimized, by a connection fillet, as taught by Harvey et al., for the purpose of reducing stress at the interface.
Claim 18, as far as it is definite and understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 3074476A1 and Harvey et al. 2017/0184053 as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of FR 2867506 A1.
The modified turbomachine of FR 3074476 A1 shows all of the claimed subject matter, wherein each of the two fins has a free end, the free end of a fin being arranged in the vicinity of the free end of the other fin, but does not show the free ends being tapered to be aerodynamically optimized.
FR 2867506 A1 (note the attached English machine translation) shows a turbomachine (a turbojet engine) having a guide vane 2 arranged in an unnumbered passage, the vane having a concave intrados and a convex extrados, which defines a plurality of diffusion corridors, the corridor being delimited circumferentially by an intrados and by an extrados of the vane, and each corridor being delimited radially by at least one fin 3 carried by the vane, with the fin having a triangular shaped free end such as at 5 (figure 2) and unnumbered (figure 3), the free end being tapered, for the purpose of providing an aerodynamically optimized shape at the free end.
It would have been further obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the modified turbomachine of FR 3074476 A1 such that free ends are tapered to be aerodynamically optimized, as taught by FR 2867506 A1, for the purpose of providing an aerodynamically optimized shape at the free end.
Claim 20, as far as it is definite and understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 3074476A1 and Harvey et al. 2017/0184053 as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Deparis et al. 2019/0153940.
The modified turbomachine of FR 3074476 A1 shows all of the claimed subject matter except for structural arms are arranged at an axial position which at least partially overlaps that of the at least one exchanger, a vane of the annular row of vanes being circumferentially aligned with each structural arm, said vane having the flared trailing profile.
Deparis et al. shows a turbomachine 1 having vanes 16 of an annular row of vanes 24, and structural arms 19, a vane of the annular row of vanes being circumferentially aligned with each structural arm, the vane having a flared trailing profile, for the purpose of providing structural support for the turbomachine and smooth flow across the structural arms.
It would have been further obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the modified turbomachine of FR 3074476 A1 such that it includes structural arms arranged at an axial position which at least partially overlaps that of the at least one exchanger, a vane of the annular row of vanes being circumferentially aligned with each structural arm, the vane having a flared trailing profile, as taught by Deparis et al., for the purpose of providing structural support for the turbomachine and smooth flow across the structural arms.
Claim 21, as far as it is definite and understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 3074476A1 and Harvey et al. 2017/0184053 as applied to claim 12 above.
The modified turbomachine of FR 3074476 A1 shows all of the claimed subject matter except for the vanes are distributed angularly in an irregular manner, the vanes being more spaced circumferentially from each other in the occupied angular portion(s) by the exchanger(s).
Official Notice is taken that guide vanes in turbomachines commonly have irregular angular distributions, for the purpose of reducing noise.
It would have been further obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the modified turbomachine of FR 3074476 A1 such that the vanes are distributed angularly in an irregular manner, the vanes being more spaced circumferentially from each other in the occupied angular portion(s) by the exchanger(s), for the purpose of reducing noise.
Claim 22, as far as it is definite and understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 3074476A1 and Harvey et al. 2017/0184053 as applied to claim 12 above.
The modified turbomachine of FR 3074476 A1 shows all of the claimed subject matter, the annular row of vanes comprises vanes supporting one or more fin(s) and portions of the vanes devoid of fins, but does not show the latter extending axially over a length shorter, at least twice or at least three times shorter, than the first (claim 22).
The recitation of the latter extending axially over a length at least twice or at least three times shorter than the first, is an obvious engineering expedient. It would have been further obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the modified turbomachine of FR 3074476 A1such that the fins are very long, such that the length of the portions devoid of fins are very small, for example the length of the portions devoid of fins extending axially over a length at least twice or at least three times shorter, than the finned portions, for the purpose of providing more of an air guiding effect by virtue of the increased length of the finned portions, as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the a longer fin length provides a greater air guiding effect.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 (as far as claims 17-18 and 20-22 are definite and understood) are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 27, respectively, of copending Application No. 18/580,056 in view of FR 3074476 A1.
Claims 15, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 27, respectively, of copending Application No. 18/580,056 claims substantially the same subject matter as claims 12, 14, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 of the present application, including a turbomachine for an aircraft, but do not claim the turbomachine comprising a compressor compressing a primary flow; a fan propelling a secondary flow; an annular passage for the flow of the secondary flow downstream of the fan; and an unducted propeller propelling a tertiary flow, the primary, secondary and tertiary flows being distinct from each other.
FR 3074476 A1 (figures 1-2) shows a turbomachine 1 for an aircraft shown generally at 22, the turbomachine comprising a compressor 7 compressing a primary flow F1; a fan 15 propelling a secondary flow F2; an annular passage (unnumbered, inside of nacelle 17) for the flow of the secondary flow downstream of the fan; and an unducted propeller 14 propelling a tertiary flow F3, the primary, secondary and tertiary flows being distinct from each other, for the purpose of providing for propulsion of the aircraft.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the turbomachine for an aircraft of the above claims of copending Application No. 18/580,056 such that it includes a compressor compressing a primary flow; a fan propelling a secondary flow; an annular passage for the flow of the secondary flow downstream of the fan; and an unducted propeller propelling a tertiary flow, the primary, secondary and tertiary flows being distinct from each other, as taught by FR 3074476 A1, for the purpose of providing for propulsion of the aircraft.
Claims 13 and 16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15 and 19, respectively, of copending Application No. 18/580,056 and FR 3074476 A1 as applied above, and further in view of FR 2867506 A1.
The modified turbomachine for an aircraft of claim 15 of copending Application No. 18/580,056 claims substantially the same subject matter as claim 13 of the present application, but does not claim that the at least one fin is carried by the extrados of a vane of the two circumferentially adjacent vanes, and has a circumferential end cantilevered facing the intrados of the other of the two vanes.
FR 2867506 A1 shows a turbomachine (a turbojet engine) having a guide vane 2 arranged in an unnumbered passage, the vane having a concave intrados and a convex extrados, which defines a plurality of diffusion corridors, the corridor being delimited circumferentially by an intrados and by an extrados of the vane, and each corridor being delimited radially by at least one fin 3 carried by the vane, the at least one fin is carried by the extrados of a vane, and has a circumferential end cantilevered to the intrados of the vane. The arrangement is provided for the purpose of dampening vibrations of the vanes.
It would have been further obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the modified turbomachine for an aircraft of claim 15 of copending Application No. 18/580,056 such that the at least one fin is carried by the extrados of a vane of the two circumferentially adjacent vanes, and has a circumferential end cantilevered facing the intrados of the other of the two vanes, as taught by FR 2867506 A1, for the purpose of dampening vibrations of the vanes.
These are provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NATHANIEL EDWARD WIEHE whose telephone number is (571)272-8648. The examiner can normally be reached M-F approx. 7-4:30 EST.
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, Alford Kindred can be reached at (571) 272-4037. 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.
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights