DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 is 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the remaining plurality of booster stages" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that it is unclear if the instant phrase (1) requires one booster stage (the ducted fan being the first stage of the plurality of booster stages and the instant “one booster stage” completing the claimed plurality of booster stages or (2) the instant phrase itself require a plurality of stages. For purposes of compact prosecution the claim is interpreted regarding the scenario (1) because initially a plurality of booster stages is recited and then the term “remaining” is recited.
Claim 11 recites “the booster and ducted fan are driven at the same speed”. The meaning of this phrase is unclear because the claim 11 earlier discusses that the ducted fan is a part of the booster. For purposes of compact prosecution the claim is interpreted as the ducted fan stage of the booster is driven as the same speed as the other stage(s) of the booster.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-10, 14-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 4,446,696 (Sargisson) in view of Pub. No. US 2016/0333734 A1 (Bowden) and Pub. No.: US 2007/0186535 A1 (Powell).
Regarding claim 1, Sargisson discloses a propulsion system (the propulsion system shown in fig. 3), the propulsion system comprising a rotating element 14, a stationary element (cowling 62 at a location of cowling 62 just radially outward of ducted fan 12 of ducted fan section 44), and an inlet (see annotated figure below) between the rotating element 14 and the stationary element (cowling 62 at a location of cowling 62 just radially outward of ducted fan 12 of ducted fan section 44), wherein the inlet (see annotated figure below) passes radially inward of the stationary element (cowling 62); wherein the inlet leads to an inlet duct (see annotated figure below) containing a ducted fan 12 having an axis of rotation (longitudinal axis of shaft connecting ducted fan 12 and low pressure turbine 24) and a plurality of blades (at 12), the ducted fan 12 disposed at an axial location (see annotated figure below) as the stationary element (cowling 62 overlaps with the axial location of the ducted fan 12) and radially inward (see annotated figure below) of the stationary element (cowling 62 at a location of cowling 62 just radially outward of ducted fan 12 of ducted fan section 44); and wherein the inlet duct (see annotated figure below) divides into a first duct 54 and a second duct 52, separate from the first duct 54. Sargisson does not disclose wherein the ducted fan is at the same axial location as the stationary element wherein the stationary element comprises a plurality of unducted vanes.
Bowden teaches (see fig. 1) a gas turbine 50 and further teaches a stationary element 30 comprises a plurality of unducted vanes (outlet guide vanes 31; also see par. 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Sargisson with the stationary element including an array of vanes as taught by Bowden in order to facilitate improving propulsive efficiency without using counter-rotating propellers (see Bowden pars. 5 and 27).
PNG
media_image1.png
433
512
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (inlet)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (inlet duct)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (rotating element 14 axis of rotation)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (exit plane)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (core nozzle)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (fan nozzle)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (first stream of air)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (propulsion system central axis)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (locations regarding claim 6)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
Powell teaches (see fig. 1) a gas turbine 10 and further teaches a ducted fan 56 at the same axial location as a stationary element (plurality of vanes 50). It is further noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 at 1395 (U.S. 2007) (MPEP 2143 I.B.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to substitute the axial location of the vanes of Powell for the axial location of the vanes of Sargisson in view of Bowden for the purpose of substituting one known element for another in order to provide the expected result of providing an axial location for outlet guide vanes that deswirl a flow from an upstream rotating element. For example, the Powell vanes 50 deswirl (or in other words provide a counter-swirl) the flow from rotating element 14 (that is upstream form vanes 50; see fig. 1 and par. 35). Likewise the vanes of Sargisson in view of Bowden (i.e. vane 31 taught by Bowden) deswirl the flow from upstream rotor 14 (see Sargisson fig. 3 and Bowden par. 27, top and middle).
Regarding claim 2, Sargisson in view of Bowden and Powell teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Sargisson further discloses (see fig. 3) the rotating element 14 is a ducted rotating element or an unducted (see fig. 3) rotating element.
Regarding claim 3, Sargisson in view of Bowden and Powell teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Sargisson further discloses (see fig. 3) the first duct 54 is a radially inward core duct 54 (of core engine 10) downstream of the ducted fan 12 and the second duct 52 is a radially outward fan duct 52 downstream of the ducted fan 12.
Regarding claim 4, Sargisson in view of Bowden and Powell teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Sargisson further discloses (see fig. 3) the rotating element 14 has an axis of rotation (see annotated figure above) and a plurality of blades (at 14). The teachings of Bowden applied above in the claim 1 analysis include (see fig. 1) the plurality of unducted vanes 31 are configured to impart a change in tangential velocity of air opposite to that imparted by a rotating element 21 (see par. 26, middle and par. 27; a counter-swirl is applied to the flow from blades 21 and thus an opposing tangential velocity is applied).
Regarding claim 8, Sargisson in view of Bowden and Powell teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Sargisson further discloses (see fig. 3) the first duct 54 fluidly communicates with a core gas turbine engine 10.
Regarding claim 9, Sargisson in view of Bowden and Powell teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Sargisson further discloses (see fig. 3) the core gas turbine engine 10 has an exit plane (see annotated figure above) and a core nozzle (see annotated figure above) at the exit plane (see annotated figure above).
Regarding claim 10, Sargisson in view of Bowden and Powell teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Sargisson further discloses (see fig. 3) the second duct 52 extends aft to a fan nozzle (see annotated figure above; see col. 5, ll. 5-10) which is aft (see annotated figure above) of the core nozzle (see annotated figure above).
Regarding claim 14, Sargisson in view of Bowden and Powell teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Sargisson discloses (see fig. 3) the second duct 52 includes a mixer 64 and a nozzle (see fan nozzle in annotated figure above) configured to mix air (see col. 7, ll. 15-20) from the first duct 54 with air from the second duct 52.
Regarding claim 15, Sargisson in view of Bowden and Powell teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Sargisson discloses (see fig. 3) at least one of the rotating element 14 and the ducted fan are operated through a gear box 28 (see figs. 1 and 3). It is noted that gear box is interpreted as “gearing” wherein gearing is “a train of gears” (Merriam-Webster online).
Regarding claim 16, Sargisson discloses (see fig. 3) a method of operating a propulsion system (the propulsion system shown in fig. 3), comprising the steps of: operating a first rotating fan assembly 14 (the fan 14 is operated to deliver thrust; see col. 4, ll. 5-10) to produce a first stream of air (see annotated figure above); directing a portion of the first stream of air into a second ducted rotating fan assembly 12 through an inlet (see annotated figure above) disposed between the first rotating fan assembly 14 and a stationary element 62, wherein the second ducted rotating fan assembly 12 is disposed at an axial location (see fig. 3) of the stationary element 62 and radially inward (see fig. 3) of the stationary element 62; operating (see that the bypass fan 12 is operated to produce thrust, see fig. 2) the second ducted rotating fan assembly 12 to produce a second stream of air (stream of air exiting ducted fan 12 blades at location 12); dividing the second stream of air into a core stream (stream of air entering core duct 54) and a fan stream (stream of air entering bypass duct 52); and directing the core stream (stream of air entering core duct 54) into a gas turbine engine core 10. Sargisson does not explicitly disclose wherein the stationary element comprises a plurality of unducted vanes; and the second ducted rotating fan assembly 12 is disposed at the same axial location as of the stationary element 62
Bowden teaches (see fig. 1) a gas turbine 50 and further teaches a stationary element 30 comprises a plurality of unducted vanes (outlet guide vanes 31; also see par. 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Sargisson with the stationary element including an array of vanes as taught by Bowden in order to facilitate improving propulsive efficiency without using counter-rotating propellers (see Bowden pars. 5 and 27).
Powell teaches (see fig. 1) a gas turbine 10 and further teaches a ducted fan 56 at the same axial location as a stationary element (plurality of vanes 50). It is further noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 at 1395 (U.S. 2007) (MPEP 2143 I.B.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to substitute the axial location of the vanes of Powell for the axial location of the vanes of Sargisson in view of Bowden for the purpose of substituting one known element for another in order to provide the expected result of providing an axial location for outlet guide vanes that deswirl a flow from an upstream rotating element. For example, the Powell vanes 50 deswirl (or in other words provide a counter-swirl) the flow from rotating element 14 (that is upstream form vanes 50; see fig. 1 and par. 35). Likewise the vanes of Sargisson in view of Bowden (i.e. vane 31 taught by Bowden) deswirl the flow from upstream rotor 14 (see Sargisson fig. 3 and Bowden par. 27, top and middle).
Regarding claim 17, Sargisson in view of Bowden and Powell teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Sargisson discloses (see fig. 3) the first rotating fan assembly 14 is an open rotor 14 or a ducted fan.
Regarding claim 18, Sargisson in view of Bowden and Powell teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Sargisson discloses (see fig. 3) the core stream (stream of air entering core duct 54), the fan stream (stream of air entering bypass duct 52), and the first stream of air (see annotated figure above) are arranged concentrically (concentric with respect to propulsion system central axis, see annotated figure above) along a portion (at least at the portion at axial location 62 in annotated figure above) of the propulsion system (the propulsion system shown in fig. 3).
Regarding claim 20, Sargisson in view of Bowden and Powell teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Sargisson discloses (see fig. 3) wherein at least one of the first rotating fan assembly 14 and the second ducted rotating fan assembly are operated through a gear box 28 (see figs. 1 and 3 wherein fig. 1 identifies the structure shown in fig. 3 as being a gearbox 28; see col. 6, l. 66 to col. 7, l. 2).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sargisson in view of Bowden and Powell as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pub. No.: US 2013/0000314 A1 (McCaffrey).
Regarding claim 5, Sargisson in view of Bowden and Powell teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Sargisson further discloses (see fig. 3) the rotating element 14 is driven via a torque producing device selected from the group consisting of electric motors, gas turbine 24, gear drive systems, hydraulic motors, and combinations thereof. Sargisson does not explicitly disclose the gas turbine is gas turbines (Sargisson is silent if the low pressure turbine 24 is a single stage or multiple stage gas turbines; applicant low pressure turbine 50 in applicant fig. 1 appears to be multiple stages, such turbine 50 driving rotating element 21).
McCaffrey teaches (see fig. 1) a gas turbine engine 10 and further teaches gas turbines 24 (driving rotating element 54). It is further notes that it has been held in re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), “the duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced” (see MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to duplicate the number of stages of the low pressure turbine of Sargisson in view of Bowden and Powell (in the scenario such low pressure turbine is a single stage turbine) to arrive at the claimed gas turbines because there is no unexpected result in the current record produced by applicant’s use of plural gas turbines.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sargisson in view Bowden and Powell as applied to 1 above, and further in view of Pub. No.: US 2007/0251212 A1 (Tester).
Regarding claim 6, Sargisson in view Bowden and Powell teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Sargisson further discloses (see annotated figure above) surfaces (for example surfaces of ducted fan 12 duct 52 located at annotated locations in annotated figure above) downstream of the stationary element (the stationary element of Sargisson in view Bowden and Powell is unducted vanes taught by Bowden in the claim 1 analysis above at the axial location of ducted fan 12 in Sargisson fig. 3). Sargisson teaches a noise reduction treatment (Sargisson discusses the general concept of a noise reduction treatment at col. 6, ll. 54-57 regarding cowling 50 in fig. 1).
Sargisson does not explicitly disclose a noise reduction treatment (for the embodiment of fig. 3) comprises the surfaces downstream of the stationary element, and wherein a sound absorbing material is applied to at least one of the surfaces or at least one of the surfaces comprises a sound absorbing material.
Tester teaches (see annotated fig. 1 below) a gas turbine turbofan engine 10 and further teaches wherein a noise reduction treatment comprises surfaces at 30, 31, 30’ (Tester teaches applying noise reduction material, i.e. acoustic liners 30, 31, 30’, to the inner and outer surfaces of the bypass duct 22 (see fig. 1 below) of ducted fan 13 of gas turbine engine 10; these surfaces are downstream of downstream of ducted fan 25 and thus downstream of stationary element of Sargisson in view Bowden and Powell) These instant surfaces are similar to Applicant surfaces wherein noise treatment is applied; for example in Applicant fig. 8 noise suppression is situated at location 93, 94, 95, locations 93, 94, 95 being in the bypass duct 73 (see fig. 1) of the ducted fan 40 downstream of the entrance (at 73 in fig. 1) of the bypass duct 73. Tester further teaches and wherein a sound absorbing material is applied to at least one of the surfaces or at least one of the surfaces 24 comprises a sound absorbing (par. 23, top) material (30, 31, 30’).
PNG
media_image3.png
592
990
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (entrance to bypass duct 22)][AltContent: arrow]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Sargisson in view Bowden and Powell with a noise reduction treatment comprising the surfaces downstream of the stationary element, and wherein least one of the surfaces comprises a sound absorbing material as taught by Tester in order to facilitate suppressing noise in the propulsion system of Sargisson thereby complying with environmental regulations (Tester par. 2).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sargisson in view Bowden and Powell, as applied to 1 above, and further in view of Pub. US 2012/0192543 A1 (Aeberli).
Regarding claim 7, Sargisson in view Bowden and Powell teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Sargisson does not explicitly disclose the second duct includes an axially translatable variable area fan nozzle.
Aeberli teaches (see figs. 1-2) a gas turbine 10 and further teaches a second duct 30 includes an axially translatable (see moveable portions 30b that vary the cross section area of the fan nozzle created by portions 30b) variable area fan nozzle (the area of nozzle at 30b can also be varied by moveable central body 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Sargisson in view Bowden and Powell with the second duct includes an axially translatable variable area fan nozzle as taught by Aeberli in order to facilitate improving aerodynamic performance and reducing noise (see Aeberli par. 6).
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sargisson in view Bowden and Powell as applied to 8 above, and further in view of US 2016/0305667 A1 (Wolfe).
Regarding claim 11, Sargisson in view Bowden and Powell teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Sargisson further discloses the core gas turbine 10 engine includes a booster 12 (such that claimed core engine can be 10,12 according to the instant amended claim 11) comprising a booster stage 12, the ducted fan 12 is a first stage 12 of the booster1, the inlet duct (see annotated figure above) divides into the first duct 54 and the second duct 52 at a position downstream of the ducted fan 12. Sargisson does not disclose a plurality of booster stages, the divide is upstream of the remaining plurality of booster stages, and the booster and ducted fan are driven at the same speed.
Wolfe teaches (see fig. 1) a gas turbine 10 and further teaches a plurality of booster stages 12,14 (of a booster), a divide (see annotated figure below) (an inlet duct (just upstream of fan 12) divides into a first duct (at 14,18) and a second duct (at 10)) is upstream of the remaining plurality of booster stages (at 14), and the booster and ducted fan are driven at the same speed (they are both driven by low pressure turbine 16; see fig. 1). Wolfe teaches the structure 14 is optional (see par. 34, top).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Sargisson in view Bowden and Powell with a plurality of booster stages, the divide is upstream of the remaining plurality of booster stages, and the booster and ducted fan are driven at the same speed as taught by Wolfe in order to facilitate increase the pressure of air before such air reaches high pressure compressor of Sargisson in view Bowden and Powell (see high pressure compressor 18 in Sargisson figs. 1 and 3) thereby improving engine efficiency and reducing the load on the high pressure compressor.
PNG
media_image5.png
345
555
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (divide)][AltContent: arrow]
Claim 13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sargisson in view Bowden and Powell, as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Pub. No. US 2016/0090863 A1 (Diaz).
Regarding claim 13, Sargisson in view Bowden and Powell teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Sargisson further discloses (see fig. 3) a surface or a duct (a surface for example downstream of “12” in fig. 3 the surface being a part of fan duct 52 in fig. 3) downstream of the stationary element (the stationary element of Sargisson in view Bowden and Powell is unducted vanes taught by Bowden in the claim 1 analysis above at the axial location of ducted fan 12 in Sargisson fig. 3). Sargisson does not disclose at least one heat exchanger is applied to the surface.
Diaz teaches (see fig. 1) a gas turbine 10 and further teaches least one heat exchanger 54 is applied to a surface (of fan duct 51 wherein such surface is downstream from axial location of ducted fan 16 with fan blades 24 wherein the surface is the surface of the inner wall of ducted fan 16 duct 51 at the location of the heat exchanger 54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Sargisson in view Bowden and Powell with at least one heat exchanger is applied to the surface as taught by Diaz in order to facilitate cooling engine lubrication oil (see Diaz par. 2).
Regarding claim 19, Sargisson in view Bowden and Powell teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Sargisson further discloses (see fig. 3) the step of passing (the fan stream passes through fan duct 52) the fan stream (stream of air entering bypass duct 52). Sargisson does not disclose passing the fan stream through a heat exchanger.
Diaz teaches (see fig. 1) a gas turbine 10 and further teaches passing a fan 16 stream (stream of air in bypass fan 16 duct 51) through a heat exchanger 54.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Sargisson in view Bowden and Powell with passing the fan stream through a heat exchanger as taught by Diaz in order to facilitate cooling engine lubrication oil (see Diaz par. 2).
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 1-9, 11, 13, 15-18 and 20 of the instant application 18/675,233 (“the patent application”) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11, 14 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,044,194 (“the patent”) in view of Powell and Bowden. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because the claims of the patent in view of prior art references Powell and Bowden make obvious the claims of the application.
Regarding claim 1 of the patent application, the patent claim 1 claims (see top and middle) a propulsion system, the propulsion system comprising a rotating element, a stationary element; an inlet between the rotating element and the stationary element, wherein the inlet passes radially inward of the stationary element; wherein the stationary element comprises a plurality of vanes; and wherein the inlet leads to an inlet duct containing a ducted fan having an axis of rotation and a plurality of blades; and wherein the inlet duct divides into a first duct and a second duct, separate from the first duct in addition to other further limitations. It is noted that one of ordinary skill would understand, regarding the patent claim 1, (1) the inlet to be before the inlet duct and thus the inlet leads to the inlet duct, and (2) a ducted fan to have an axis of rotation. The patent does not claim in claim 1, the ducted fan disposed at a same axial location as the stationary element and radially inward of the stationary element; and wherein the vanes are unducted vanes.
Powell teaches (see fig. 1) a ducted fan 16 disposed at a same axial location (see fig. 1 and see par. 35) as a stationary element 50 and radially inward (see fig. 1) of the stationary element 50.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the patent with the ducted fan disposed at a same axial location as the stationary element and radially inward of the stationary element as taught by Powell in order to facilitate improved performance with a delicate balance of aerodynamic configuration, mechanical strength and noise performance (see Powell par. 19).
Bowden teaches (see fig. 1) vanes 31 are unducted vanes 31.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the patent in view of Powell with the vanes are unducted vanes as taught by Bowden in order to facilitate improving propulsive efficiency without using counter-rotating propellers (see Bowden pars. 5 and 27) (regarding when the rotating element is an unducted rotating element; see claim 2 of the patent).
Regarding claim 2 of the patent application, the patent claim 2 is identical.
Regarding claim 3 of the patent application, the patent claim 3 is identical.
Regarding claim 4 of the patent application, the patent claim 4 claims the rotating element has an axis of rotation and a plurality of blades and the plurality of unducted (as taught by Bowden in the double patenting claim 1 analysis above) vanes are configured to impart a change in tangential velocity of air opposite to that imparted by the rotating element.
Regarding claim 5 of the patent application, the patent claim 5 is identical.
Regarding claim 6 of the patent application, the patent claim 6 is identical.
Regarding claim 7 of the patent application, the patent claim 7 is identical.
Regarding claim 8 of the patent application, the patent claim 8 is identical.
Regarding claim 9 of the patent application, the patent claim 12 claims the core gas turbine engine has an exit plane (a plane located at the core nozzle) and a core nozzle at the exit plane in addition to other further limitations.
Regarding claim 11 of the patent application, the patent claims 1 and 9 claim the core gas turbine engine includes a booster comprising a plurality of booster stages, the ducted fan is a first stage of the plurality of booster stages, the inlet duct divides into the first duct and the second duct at a position downstream of the ducted fan and upstream of the remaining plurality of booster stages, and the booster and ducted fan are driven at the same speed. It is noted the patent defines the booster as being part of the core gas turbine engine at col. 3, l. 66 to col. 4, l. 5.
Regarding claim 13 of the patent application, the patent claim 11 claims at least one heat exchanger is applied to a surface or duct downstream of the stationary element.
Regarding claim 15 of the patent application, the patent claim 1 claims (see bottom) at least one of the rotating element and the ducted fan are operated through a gear box in addition to other further limitations.
Regarding claim 16 of the patent application, the patent claim 14 claims (see top and middle) a method of operating a propulsion system, comprising the steps of: operating a first rotating fan assembly to produce a first stream of air; directing a portion of the first stream of air into a second ducted rotating fan assembly through an inlet disposed between the first rotating fan assembly and a stationary element; wherein the stationary element comprises a plurality of vanes; operating the second ducted rotating fan assembly to produce a second stream of air; dividing the second stream of air into a core stream and a fan stream; and directing the core stream into a gas turbine engine core along with additional limitations. The patent does not claim in claim 14, the second ducted rotating fan assembly disposed at a same axial location as the stationary element and radially inward of the stationary element; and wherein the vanes are unducted vanes.
Powell teaches (see fig. 1) a ducted fan 16 disposed at a same axial location (see fig. 1 and see par. 35) as a stationary element 50 and radially inward (see fig. 1) of the stationary element 50.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the patent with the second ducted rotating fan assembly disposed at a same axial location as the stationary element and radially inward of the stationary element as taught by Powell in order to facilitate improved performance with a delicate balance of aerodynamic configuration, mechanical strength and noise performance (see Powell par. 19).
Bowden teaches (see fig. 1) vanes 31 are unducted vanes 31.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the patent in view of Powell with the vanes are unducted vanes as taught by Bowden in order to facilitate improving propulsive efficiency without using counter-rotating propellers (see Bowden pars. 5 and 27) (regarding when the first rotating fan assembly is an open rotor; see claim 15 of the patent).
Regarding claim 17 of the patent application, the patent claim 15 claims the first rotating fan assembly is an open rotor or a ducted fan.
Regarding claim 18 of the patent application, the patent claim 16 claims the core stream, the fan stream, and the first stream are arranged concentrically along a portion of the propulsion system (the instant streams are associated with the propulsion system as pointed out in patent claim 14; thus they are concentric along such a portion).
Regarding claim 20 of the patent application, the patent claim 14 claims (see bottom) at least one of the first rotating fan assembly and the second ducted rotating fan assembly are operated through a gear box in addition to other further limitations.
Claim 10 of the patent application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of the patent in view Powell and Bowden and further in view of Pub. No.: US 2013/0104560 A1 (Kupratis). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 10 of the patent application, the patent claim 3 claims a second duct (fan duct is a second duct according to the patent disclosure at col. 12, ll. 5-10) as discussed in the patent application double patenting claim 3 analysis above. The patent does not claim the fan duct extends aft to a fan nozzle which is aft of the core nozzle.
Kupratis teaches (see fig. 1) a fan duct (at 58) extends aft to a fan nozzle 64 which is aft of a core nozzle (at 38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the patent in view of Powell and Bowden with the fan duct extends aft to a fan nozzle which is aft of the core nozzle as taught by Kupratis in order to facilitate providing a thrust nozzle for mixing in order to reduce noise (see Kupratis par. 20).
Claim 14 of the patent application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of the patent in view of Powell and Bowden and further in view US Patent 3,750,402 (Vdoviak). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 14 of the patent application, the patent claim 1 does not claim the second duct includes a mixer and a nozzle configured to mix air from the first duct with air from the second duct.
Vdoviak teaches (see fig. 1) a gas turbine 1 and further teaches a second duct (fan duct 8) includes a mixer 21 and a nozzle 18 configured to mix air (see col. 1, ll. 35-49) from a first duct (core or inner duct, for example at location 13) with air from the second duct 8.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the patent in view Powell and Bowden with the second duct includes a mixer and a nozzle configured to mix air from the first duct with air from the second duct as taught by Vdoviak in order to facilitate reducing engine noise and improving combustion efficiency with improved mechanical reliability (see Vdoviak col. 2, II. 10-13 and 48).
Claim 19 of the patent application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of the patent in view of Powell and Bowden and further in view of Diaz. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 19 of the patent application, the patent claim 14 does not claim the step of passing the fan stream through a heat exchanger.
Diaz teaches (see fig. 1) passing a fan 24 stream (stream in duct 51) through a heat exchanger 54.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the patent in view of Powell and Bowden with the step of passing the fan stream through a heat exchanger as taught by Diaz in order to facilitate cooling engine lubrication oil (see Diaz par. 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the non-final office action mailed 10/01/2025 pointed out on page 4 bottom that use of the vanes of Bowden improves propulsive efficiency. For example, in par. 27 Bowden points out that “Vanes 31 are sized, shaped, and configured to impart a counteracting swirl to the fluid so that in a downstream direction aft of both rows2 of blades the fluid has a greatly reduced degree of swirl, which translates to an increased level of induced efficiency. Thus regarding Sargisson in view of Bowden and Powell the air flow traveling from the open rotor 14 of Sargisson fig. 3 is straightened by the vanes taught by Bowden and thus such air flow can be used to improve thrust production (see annotated figure below showing the location of the Bowden unducted vanes with the engine of Sargisson). In addition such vanes can be used for reverse thrust (see par. 26, bottom) in order provide braking to the aircraft upon landing at an airport (in the scenario the thrust reversing feature of Sargisson is inoperable. Finally the unducted vanes of Sargisson can be used to lower noise as pointed out in par. 22 that was cited in the instant non-final office wherein noise suppression is an important principle of Sargisson (see col. 2, ll. 10-20).
Applicant argues that improving propulsive efficiency is irrelevant because Sargisson already incorporated ducted vanes 60 (shown in fig. 3 and identified in fig. 1). However one of ordinary skill would consider the two types of instant vanes to accomplish different functions. For example ducted vanes 60 (see annotated figure below) serve to vary the portions of power distributed between the ducted fan 12 and the open rotor 14. In contrast the Bowden fig. 1 unducted vanes 31 serve to straighten the air flow traveling from open rotor 14 (see annotated figure below) to improve the efficiency of the thrust created by the open rotor 14. One of ordinary skill has been aware of the benefits of such unducted vanes since at least 1984. For example, Campion (US 4,486,146) points out when referring to unducted vanes 10c that “The blades of the stator 10c are aerofoil shaped in cross-section and are designed to at least reduce the swirl inherent in the slipstream of the propeller fan 10b and thus to generate a forward thrust. In other words, in generating this forward thrust, the swirl is at least partly removed” (see col. 2 l. 64 to col. 3, l. 3) and “By this arrangement, the propulsive efficiency of the propulsion means can be high” (see col. 1, ll. 30-35). In addition the par. 27 Bowden discussion of improving propulsive efficiency, “Vanes 31 are sized, shaped, and configured to impart a counteracting swirl to the fluid so that in a downstream direction … the fluid has a greatly reduced degree of swirl, which translates to an increased level of induced efficiency”, is very similar to the discussion in applicant par. 37.
Applicant further argues regarding power distribution between the Sargisson ducted fan 12 and the open rotor 14 accomplished propulsive efficiency and thus additional improvements would be against the principles of Sargisson. Examiner could not find any statement in Sargisson that teaches away from additional improvement. The use of unducted vanes taught by Bowden would enhance the power distribution scheme of Sargisson because the thrust created by the open rotor 14 by the annotated air traveling from the open rotor in annotated figure above is made more efficient.
PNG
media_image1.png
433
512
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (location of unducted vanes 31 taught by Bowden fig. 1)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (air flow traveling from open rotor 14)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (ducted vanes 60)][AltContent: arrow]
Applicant argues that including the unducted vanes with Sargisson would add weight and thus the combination is improper. The ordinary worker understands that engineering changes are tradeoffs and Sargisson demonstrates this by the embodiment of fig. 5 wherein the weight of engine is increased (due to two open rotors 72,74) however this change also includes lower noise levels (see col. 7, l. 60 to col. 8, l. 5). Thus one of ordinary skill would consider it reasonable to include unducted vanes with Sargisson.
Applicant argues that adding unducted vane to Sargisson is against the principle of operation of Sargisson citing In re Ratti (see MPEP 2143.01 VI.). In Ratti, the court discusses that replacing a rigid seal with a flexible seal conflicted with the principle of operation of the primary reference that required the rigidity and thus there was substantial reconstruction. Applicant has not stated what applicant believes is the principle of operation of Sargisson and why adding the unducted vanes would be against such principle. As pointed out above, adding such unducted vanes are within the principles of Sargisson.
Applicant argues “Even if all elements of claim 1 were disclosed in various prior art references, which is certainly not the case here …” Applicant has not identified any missing elements not disclosed or taught by the prior art and thus it is not possible to reply in more detail to this. The plurality of unducted vanes taught by Bowden are similar to the vanes of applicant disclosure (see annotated figure below). In the scenario applicant is arguing against the teachings of Powell regarding the claimed “the ducted fan disposed at a same axial location as the stationary element” it is noted that applicant disclosure at par. 75 states “the ducted fan being disposed at about the same axial location as the stationary element, aft of the stationary element, or forward of the stationary element, and radially inward of the stationary element” Thus there is no criticality provided therein and such axial location of the unducted vanes does not appear to be an inventive feature.
PNG
media_image7.png
463
942
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
767
1099
media_image8.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Bowden unducted vanes similar to applicant unducted vanes)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
use of booster compressor enhances power output and efficiency: US 20050095117 (par. 5); and
it is known to use booster compressors in three stream engines such the engine of Sargisson as shown by similar engine to Sargisson with booster compressor 32: US 20130000314 (fig. 1).
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 MARC J AMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-9948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571) 272-7118. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARC AMAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3741 /DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
1 Applicant specification par. 42 discusses that the booster can include the ducted fan or the ducted fan can be separate from the booster. Thus in claim 8 upon which claim 11 depends, the core engine was interpreted as not including the fan. However in newly amended claim 11 booster was interpreted as including the fan as recited in amended claim 11.
2 This is thought to refer to blade row 21 (i.e. there is only one row blades disclosed in Bowden).