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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/19/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7, 9, 10 and 13-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the unducted fan" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution the claim is interpreted such that “unducted fan” refers to either the “rotating element” or the “ducted fan”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the core stream and the fan stream are divided" in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is only antecedent basis the second stream being divided. The claim is interpreted in this manner.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the unducted fan" in lines 15-16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution the claim is interpreted such that “unducted fan” refers to either the “first rotating fan assembly” or the “second ducted rotating fan assembly”.
Claim 23 recites “a second gearbox operating the ducted fan and the booster”. This meaning of this phrase is unclear because claim 1 upon which claim 23 depends recites “a booster, the ducted fan is a first stage of the booster”. For purposes of compact prosecution the claim is interpreted such that the second gearbox operates the ducted fan and the remaining booster stages. This appears to be shown in applicant fig. 11 showing ducted fan 40 and remaining booster stages 45.
Claims dependent thereon are rejected for the same reasons.
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, 9, 10, 14-18, 20 and 21 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), Pub. No.: US 2007/0186535 A1 (Powell) and Pub. No.: US 2010/0310358 (Major).
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, wherein the first duct 54 is in fluid communication with a core gas turbine engine 10, the core gas turbine engine 10,12 comprising a booster 12, the ducted fan 12 is a first stage 12 of the booster 12, the inlet duct (see annotated figure below) divides into the first duct and the second duct at a position downstream (see annotated figure below) of the ducted fan 12.
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; and the divide (of the inlet duct) is upstream of remaining booster stages downstream of the first stage; and wherein the booster includes a plurality of variable inlet guide vanes disposed in the first duct between the ducted fan and the remaining booster stages downstream from the first stage.
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).
Major teaches (see figs. 1-2) a gas turbine engine 10 and further teaches a booster 20,16 includes a plurality of variable inlet guide vanes 44 disposed in a first duct (at arrow tip of “16” in fig. 1) between a ducted fan 20 and remaining booster stages (see stages of blades 40 of compressor 16 in fig. 2; each stage of blades 40 supported on a rotor 42; see par. 3) downstream of a first stage 20 (of the booster 20,16).
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 of Bowden and Powell with wherein the booster includes a plurality of variable inlet guide vanes disposed in the first duct between the unducted fan and the remaining booster stages downstream from the first stage as taught by Major in order to facilitate enhancing power output and efficiency (see pertinent prior art on page 30 of the office action mailed 03/31/2026 of such knowledge of the POSITA; also see Major pars. 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 2, Sargisson in view of Bowden, Powell and Major 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, Powell and Major 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, Powell and Major 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 9, Sargisson in view of Bowden, Powell and Major 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, Powell and Major 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, Powell and Major 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, Powell and Major 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 comprising a booster 12, wherein the second ducted rotating fan 12 assembly is a first stage 12 of the booster 12, wherein the core stream (stream of air entering core duct 54) and the fan stream (stream of air entering bypass duct 52) are divided at a position downstream of the second ducted rotating fan assembly 12.
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; the division (of the second stream) is upstream of remaining booster stages, and wherein the booster includes a plurality of variable inlet guide vanes disposed in the first duct between the unducted fan and the remaining booster stages downstream of the first stage.
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).
Major teaches (see fig. 1) a division (of a second stream; stream just downstream of fan 20; see 112 section regarding claim interpretation) is upstream of remaining booster stages (see stages of blades 40 of compressor 16 in fig. 2; each stage of blades 40 supported on a rotor 42; see par. 3), and wherein a booster 20,16 includes a plurality of variable inlet guide vanes 44 disposed in a first duct (at arrow tip of “16” in fig. 1).
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 of Bowden and Powell with the division (of the second stream) is upstream of remaining booster stages, and wherein the booster includes a plurality of variable inlet guide vanes disposed in the first duct between the unducted fan and the remaining booster stages downstream of the first stage as taught by Major in order to facilitate enhancing power output and efficiency.
Regarding claim 17, Sargisson in view of Bowden, Powell and Major 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, Powell and Major 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, Powell and Major 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).
Regarding claim 21, Sargisson in view of Bowden, Powell and Major teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. The teachings of Major applied in the claim 1 analysis above include (see fig. 1) wherein each of the plurality of inlet guide vanes 44 are variable pitch (each vane 44 pivots about its long. axis, see par. 4 describing in general the pivoting of stators and see par. 34 and figs. 10-11 and 17, and thus the pitch of the vane changes with respect to the incoming air flow).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sargisson in view of Bowden, Powell and Major 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, Powell and Major 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, Powell and Major (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 of Bowden, Powell and Major as applied to 1 above, and further in view of Pub. No.: US 2007/0251212 A1 (Tester).
Regarding claim 6, Sargisson in view of Bowden, Powell and Major 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 of Bowden, Powell and Major 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 of Bowden, Powell and Major) 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 of Bowden, Powell and Major 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 of Bowden, Powell and Major as applied to 1 above, and further in view of Pub. US 2012/0192543 A1 (Aeberli).
Regarding claim 7, Sargisson in view of Bowden, Powell and Major 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 of Bowden, Powell and Major 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 13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sargisson in view of Bowden, Powell and Major, 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 of Bowden, Powell and Major 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 of Bowden, Powell and Major 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 of Bowden, Powell and Major 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 of Bowden, Powell and Major 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).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sargisson in view of Bowden, Powell and Major as applied to 1 above, and further in view of Pub. No. US 2008/0236133 A1 (Bart).
Regarding claim 22, Sargisson in view of Bowden, Powell and Major teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Sargisson discloses (see fig. 1) a plurality of outlet guide vanes 48 downstream of the ducted fan 12. Sargisson does not disclose the outlet guide vanes 48 are disposed in the inlet duct upstream of the first duct and the second duct.
Bart teaches (see fig. 1-2) a gas turbine engine 10 and further teaches outlet guide vanes 12 are disposed in an inlet duct upstream of a first duct (at F1) and a second duct (at F2). 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 the location of the fan outlet guide vane or Bart for the location of the fan outlet guide vane of Sargisson in view of Bowden, Powell and Major for the purpose of substituting one known element for another in order to provide the expected result of directing incoming air of the combination and to provide ease of assembly using a single piece inlet guide vane in comparison to the two piece vane (radially inward and outward of nose 58 in Sargisson fig. 1) of Sargisson in view of Bowden, Powell and Major and also prevent/limit ingestion of foreign matter into the engine (see Bart par. 1).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sargisson in view of Bowden, Powell and Major as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2013/0259652 A1 (Kupratis ‘652).
Regarding claim 23, Sargisson in view of Bowden, Powell and Major teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Sargisson discloses a first gearbox 28 (see figs. 1 and 3) operating the rotating element 14. Sargisson does not disclose a second gearbox operating the ducted fan and remaining stages of the booster.
Kupratis ‘652 teaches a gas turbine 20 (see fig. 1) and further teaches (see fig. 2 and par. 79) a gearbox 48 operating a ducted fan 42 and remaining stages 44 of a booster 42,44. Gearbox 48 permits greater design flexibility regarding the spool speeds (see Kupratis ‘652 par. 3).
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 of Bowden, Powell and Major with a second gearbox operating the ducted fan and remaining stages of the booster as taught by Kupratis ‘652 in order to facilitate permitting greater design flexibility regarding the spool speeds (see Kupratis ‘652 par. 3).
Claim(s) 1 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sargisson in view of Bowden, Powell, US 2013/0259652 A1 (Kupratis ‘652) and Major.
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 above) 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 above) passes radially inward of the stationary element (cowling 62); wherein the inlet leads to an inlet duct (see annotated figure above) 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 above) as the stationary element (cowling 62 overlaps with the axial location of the ducted fan 12) and radially inward (see annotated figure above) 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 above) divides into a first duct 54 and a second duct 52, separate from the first duct 54, wherein the first duct 54 is in fluid communication with a core gas turbine engine 10, the core gas turbine engine 10,12 comprising a booster 12, the ducted fan 12 is a first stage 12 of the booster 12, the inlet duct (see annotated figure above) divides into the first duct and the second duct at a position downstream (see annotated figure above) of the ducted fan 12.
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; and the divide (of the inlet duct) is upstream of remaining booster stages downstream of the first stage; and wherein the booster includes a plurality of variable inlet guide vanes disposed in the first duct between the ducted fan and the remaining booster stages downstream from the first stage.
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).
Kupratis ‘652 teaches (see figs. 1, and 2 or 3) a gas turbine engine 20 and further teaches a booster 42,44 includes a ducted fan 42 and remaining booster stages (see stages of compressor blades 40 of compressor 44 in fig. 1) downstream of a first stage 42 (of the booster 42,44).
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 of Bowden and Powell with the booster includes remaining booster stages downstream of the first stage as taught by Kupratis ‘652 in order to facilitate enhancing power output and efficiency. This results in remaining booster stages in the first duct of Sargisson in view of Bowden, Powell and Kupratis.
Major teaches (see figs. 1-2) a gas turbine engine 10 and further teaches a plurality of variable inlet guide vanes 44 disposed in a first duct (at arrow tip of “16” in fig. 1) between a ducted fan 20 and remaining booster stages (see stages of blades 40 of compressor 16 in fig. 2; each stage of blades 40 supported on a rotor 42; see par. 3).
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 of Bowden, Powell and Kupratis ‘652 with a plurality of variable inlet guide vanes 44 disposed in the first duct between the ducted fan and remaining booster stages as taught by Major in order to facilitate enhancing performance of the compressor comprising the remaining booster stages of Sargisson in view of Bowden, Powell and Kupratis ‘652 and Major (see Major par. 4).
Regarding claim 23, Sargisson in view of Bowden, Powell and Kupratis ‘652 and Major teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Sargisson discloses a first gearbox 28 (see figs. 1 and 3) operating the rotating element 14. The teachings of Kupratis ‘652 applied in the claim 1 analysis above include (see fig. 2 and par. 79) a gearbox 48 operating a ducted fan 42 and remaining stages 44 of a booster 42,44. Gearbox 48 permits greater design flexibility regarding the spool speeds (see Kupratis ‘652 par. 3).
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 1-7, 9, 13, 15-18, 20 and 21 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, Bowden and Major. 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; wherein the first duct is in fluid communication with a core gas turbine engine (one of ordinary skill would understand claim 1, ll. 1-2 to represent a core gas turbine engine), the core gas turbine engine comprising a booster, the ducted fan is a first stage of the booster, the inlet duct divides into the first duct and the second duct at a position downstream of the ducted fan and upstream of remaining booster stages downstream of the first stage. 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; wherein the vanes are unducted vanes; and wherein the booster includes a plurality of variable inlet guide vanes disposed in the first duct between the unducted fan and the remaining booster stages.
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).
Major teaches (see figs. 1-2) a gas turbine engine 10 and further teaches a plurality of variable inlet guide vanes 44 disposed in a first duct (at arrow tip of “16” in fig. 1) between a ducted fan 20 and remaining booster stages (see stages of blades 40 of compressor 16 in fig. 2; each stage of blades 40 supported on a rotor 42; see par. 3).
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 Bowden and Powell with a plurality of variable inlet guide vanes disposed in the first duct between the ducted fan and remaining booster stages as taught by Major in order to facilitate enhancing performance of the compressor comprising the remaining booster stages (see Major par. 4).
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 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 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 comprising a booster, wherein the second ducted rotating fan assembly is a first stage of the booster, wherein the core stream and the fan stream are divided at a position downstream of the second ducted rotating fan assembly and upstream of remaining booster stages downstream of the first stage 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; wherein the vanes are unducted vanes; and wherein the booster includes a plurality of variable inlet guide vanes disposed in the first duct between the unducted fan and the remaining booster stages.
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).
Major teaches (see figs. 1-2) a gas turbine engine 10 and further teaches a plurality of variable inlet guide vanes 44 disposed in a first duct (at arrow tip of “16” in fig. 1) between a ducted fan 20 and remaining booster stages (see stages of blades 40 of compressor 16 in fig. 2; each stage of blades 40 supported on a rotor 42; see par. 3).
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 Bowden and Powell with a plurality of variable inlet guide vanes disposed in the first duct between the ducted fan and remaining booster stages as taught by Major in order to facilitate enhancing performance of the compressor comprising the remaining booster stages (see Major par. 4).
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.
Regarding claim 21 of the patent application, the teachings of Major applied above include wherein each of the plurality of inlet guide vanes 44 are variable pitch (each vane 44 pivots about its long. axis, see par. 4 describing in general the pivoting of stators and see par. 34 and figs. 10-11 and 17, and thus the pitch of the vane changes with respect to the incoming air flow).
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 ‘560). 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 ‘560 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 ‘560 in order to facilitate providing a thrust nozzle for mixing in order to reduce noise (see Kupratis ‘560 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).
Claim 22 of the patent application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of the patent in view Powell and Bowden and Major and further in view of Bart. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 22 of the patent application, the patent does not claim a plurality of outlet guide vanes is disposed in the inlet duct downstream of the ducted fan and upstream of the first duct and the second duct.
Bart teaches (see fig. 1-2) a gas turbine engine 10 and further teaches a plurality of outlet guide vanes 12 are disposed in an inlet duct downstream of a ducted fan 6 and upstream of a first duct (at F1) and a second duct (at F2).
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 a plurality of outlet guide vanes is disposed in the inlet duct downstream of the ducted fan and upstream of the first duct and the second duct as taught by Bart in order to facilitate directing the air downstream of the fan at the most efficient angle.
Claim 23 of the patent application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of the patent in view Powell, Bowden and Major and further in view of Kupratis ‘652. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct.
Regarding patent application claim 23, the patent claim 1 claims a first gearbox operating the rotating element and a second gearbox operating the ducted fan. The patent does not claim the second gearbox operating the remaining stages of the booster.
Kupratis ‘652 teaches (see figs. 1, and 2 or 3) a gas turbine engine 20 and further teaches a (see fig. 2 and par. 79) a gearbox 48 operating (a ducted fan 42 and) remaining stages 44 of a booster 42,44.
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, Bowden and Major with the second gearbox operating the remaining stages of the booster as taught by Kupratis ‘652 in order to facilitate providing more flexibility in design speeds of the low spool (see Kupratis ‘652 par. 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/19/2026 have been fully considered, but a new combination of references were used to reject the claims and therefor the arguments were moot.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: any number of booster stages may be used: US 20150233250 A1 (par. 42).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights