DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication(s) filed on 02 March 2026.
Claim 3 is canceled by the Applicant.
Claims 22-27 are newly presented by the Applicant.
Claims 1-2 and 4-27 are currently pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Remarks
The arguments in response to the claim(s) rejection under 35 U.S.C § 112(b), the and the claim objection(s) have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are found persuasive. The Examiner withdraws the 112(b) rejection(s) and the claim objection(s).
It is noted, the amendments have generated new 112(d) rejections.
The arguments in response to the claims rejection under 35 U.S.C § 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are not found persuasive for the following reasons.
The Applicant’s remarks pertaining to “Impermissible Hypothetical Reconstruction,” “Individual Control Does Not Equal Disclosure of a Specific Structural Arrangement,” and “Absence of Disclosure Regarding Consecutive Blades and Specific Angular Delta” are not found persuasive since the Applicant has mischaracterized the rejection of record. The Office did not rely on the teachings of [0023] to reject the limitation, “wherein the difference between the pitch angle of two circumferentially consecutive downstream stator blades is less than 45°.” Rather, the Office relied on [0023] to disclose only one outlet guide vane may be configured to rotate while the rest of the vanes remain at a zero degree, non-rotated position. Paragraph [0026] was used since it explicitly discloses the vane that does rotate may have a pitch range of +/- 10 degrees (a pitch range of at least about twenty degrees), among many other disclosed pitch ranges. Thus, if the single vane is configured to rotate +/- 10 degrees, the difference between the pitch angle of the rotated blade from the rest of the non-rotated blades is only 10 degrees.
A new rejection is included in this Office Action, commensurate with the Office’s original position.
The arguments in response to the claims rejection under 35 U.S.C § 103 have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are not found persuasive for the following reasons.
Hall remarks:
The Applicant’s remarks pertaining to Hall, are not persuasive since they mischaracterize the Hall reference and the Instant Application. The ganging of vanes taught by Hall does not require a unison ring, as the vanes may be individually controlled, and may be grouped in any combination, see for example [0074]. There is nothing in the Hall reference to suggest the different groups of vanes cannot have different pitch angles. Further, the Applicant mischaracterizes the claim language, since claim 4 requires a group of vanes to be in the closed-pitch configuration, thus each of the consecutive vanes in each group do not have a different pitch. The remarks pertaining to noise reduction benefits is not found persuasive since the arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim language.
Muldoon remarks:
The Applicant’s remarks pertaining to Muldoon are not found persuasive for at least the same reasons as explained above.
A new rejection is included in this Office Action, commensurate with the Office’s original position.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Examiner note: no 112(f) invocations have been identified by the Office.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding Claim 2:
The claim language, “wherein the difference between the pitch angle of two downstream stator blades is less than 120°,” fails to further limit the claim since claim 1 already requires the difference to be less than 45°
Regarding Claim 23:
The claim language, “wherein the difference between the pitch angle of two downstream stator blades is less than 60°,” fails to further limit the claim since claim 1 already requires the difference to be less than 45°
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Miller et al (US 20160333729), hereafter referred to as Miller.
Regarding Claim 1, Miller discloses the following:
An aeronautical thruster (10) of longitudinal axis (X) comprising:
a hub (18; FIG. 2),
an annular row of unducted upstream rotor blades (40; FIG. 2) and
an annular row of unducted downstream stator blades (50; FIG. 2), each downstream stator blade (50; FIG. 2) being of variable pitch (vanes may be individually pitched, see [0023]), and
wherein at least one of the downstream stator blades (50; FIG. 2) may be in a closed-pitch configuration (FIG. 4 shows a closed pitch configuration) relative to another of the downstream stator blades (50; FIG. 2) in that it has a pitch angle (γ) smaller than the pitch angle (γ) of the other downstream stator blade (FIG. 3 shows an open-pitch configuration) (It is noted, since the vanes may be individually controlled, if only a single guide vane is rotated in a closed-pitch configuration shown in FIG. 4, and the other vanes are in an open position shown in FIG. 3, then the pitch angle of the closed stator vane would be smaller relative to the open stator vane.);
wherein the difference between the pitch angle of two circumferentially consecutive downstream stator blades (50; FIG. 2) is less than 45°. (If a pitch range of 20 degrees is selected, then the difference between a closed blade and an open blade would not exceed 10 degrees; see [0026].)(To further clarify, paragraph [0023] discloses only one outlet guide vane may be configured to rotate while the rest of the vanes remain at a zero degree, non-rotated position. Paragraph [0026] was used since it explicitly discloses the vane that does rotate may have a pitch range of +/- 10 degrees (a pitch range of at least about twenty degrees), among many other disclosed pitch ranges. Thus, if the single vane is configured to rotate +/- 10 degrees, the difference between the pitch angle of the rotated blade from the rest of the non-rotated blades is only 10 degrees.)
Regarding Claim 2, Miller discloses the following:
An aeronautical thruster (10) according to claim 1,
wherein the difference between the pitch angle of two downstream stator blades (50; FIG. 2) is less than 120° preferably less than 60°. (If a pitch range of 20 degrees is selected, then the difference between a closed blade and an open blade would not exceed 10 degrees; see [0026].)
Regarding Claim 22, Miller discloses the following:
An aeronautical thruster (10) according to claim 1,
wherein the difference between the pitch angle of two circumferentially consecutive downstream stator blades (50; FIG. 2) is less than 20°. (If a pitch range of 20 degrees is selected, then the difference between a closed blade and an open blade would not exceed 10 degrees; see [0026].) (To further clarify, paragraph [0023] discloses only one outlet guide vane may be configured to rotate while the rest of the vanes remain at a zero degree, non-rotated position. Paragraph [0026] was used since it explicitly discloses the vane that does rotate may have a pitch range of +/- 10 degrees (a pitch range of at least about twenty degrees), among many other disclosed pitch ranges. Thus, if the single vane is configured to rotate +/- 10 degrees, the difference between the pitch angle of the rotated blade from the rest of the non-rotated blades is only 10 degrees.)
Regarding Claim 23, Miller discloses the following:
An aeronautical thruster (10) according to claim 1,
wherein the difference between the pitch angle of two circumferentially consecutive downstream stator blades (50; FIG. 2) is less than 60°. (If a pitch range of 20 degrees is selected, then the difference between a closed blade and an open blade would not exceed 10 degrees; see [0026].) (To further clarify, paragraph [0023] discloses only one outlet guide vane may be configured to rotate while the rest of the vanes remain at a zero degree, non-rotated position. Paragraph [0026] was used since it explicitly discloses the vane that does rotate may have a pitch range of +/- 10 degrees (a pitch range of at least about twenty degrees), among many other disclosed pitch ranges. Thus, if the single vane is configured to rotate +/- 10 degrees, the difference between the pitch angle of the rotated blade from the rest of the non-rotated blades is only 10 degrees.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4-17, 20, and 24-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al (US 20160333729), hereafter referred to as Miller, in view of Hall et al (US 20230060832), hereafter referred to as Hall.
Regarding Claim 4, Miller discloses the following:
An aeronautical thruster (10) according to claim 1,
wherein the pitch may be set to a desired pitch angle (see [0026]) and the desired angle may be in the closed-pitch configuration (see FIG. 4) relative to at least one downstream stator blade (see FIG. 3) out of the annular row of downstream stator blades (40)(the vanes may be individually set to any desired angle within a range of up to 50 degrees, see [0026]);
Miller does not explicitly disclose the following:
wherein the downstream stator blades (16) out of the annular row of downstream stator blades (16) that are located around the longitudinal axis (X) in a first angular sector (S1) around the longitudinal axis (X) are each in the closed-pitch configuration relative to at least one downstream stator blade (16) out of the annular row of downstream stator blades (16) that is located around the longitudinal axis (X) in a second angular sector (S2) around the longitudinal axis (X), the second angular sector (S2) being distinct from the first angular sector (S1).
However Hall teaches the following:.
it is well known in the art to gang variable vanes together in groups of up to four in a single circumferential row of variable guide vanes (see for example [0072-76]); as applied to Miller results in the limitation:
wherein the downstream stator blades (32, 42, FIG. 11A) out of the annular row of downstream stator blades (32, 42, FIG. 11A) that are located around the longitudinal axis (11) in a first angular sector (selecting the second group that has 5 of 60 vanes 32, see [0072-76] which discloses there may be four groups of vanes) around the longitudinal axis (11) are each in the closed-pitch configuration (FIG. 4 of Hall shows a closed pitch configuration) relative to at least one downstream stator blade (FIG. 3 of Hall shows an open-pitch configuration) out of the annular row of downstream stator blades (32, 42, FIG. 11A) that is located around the longitudinal axis (11) in a second angular sector (second group of vanes 32, see [0072-76] which discloses there may be four groups of vanes) around the longitudinal axis (11), the second angular sector (second group of vanes 32, see [0072-76] which discloses there may be four groups of vanes) being distinct from the first angular sector (selecting the second group that has 5 of 60 vanes 32, see [0072-76] which discloses there may be four groups of vanes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the individually controlled vanes, as taught by Miller, with the ganged variable vanes, as taught by Hall, with the reasonable expectation of successfully redirecting fan exit air to minimize losses created by distortions in the fan air (see for example [0088]). It is further noted, the simple substitution of the individually controlled vanes with the ganged together vanes yields the predictable result of guiding fan exit air (i.e. substituting one known means to guide fan exit air for another known means to guide fan exit air). This rationale further supports a conclusion of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
Regarding Claim 5 Miller as modified by Hall discloses the following:
An aeronautical thruster (10) according to claim 4,
Hall continues to teach the following:
wherein the annular row of downstream stator blades (32, 42, FIG. 11A) comprises at least two circumferentially consecutive (as shown in FIG. 11A) downstream stator blades (32, 42, FIG. 11A) in each of the first angular sector (selecting the second group that has 5 of 60 vanes 32, see [0072-76] which discloses there may be four groups of vanes) and the second angular sector (second group of vanes 32, see [0072-76] which discloses there may be four groups of vanes).
Regarding Claim 6 Miller as modified by Hall discloses the following:
An aeronautical thruster (10) according to claim 4,
Hall continues to teach the following:
wherein the first angular sector (selecting the second group that has 5 of 60 vanes 32, see [0072-76] which discloses there may be four groups of vanes) extends over an angular range of less than or equal to 180° (the second and third groups each comprise 5 of 60 vanes, see [0074], thus resulting in an angular range of less than or equal to 30 degrees each).
Regarding Claim 8 Miller as modified by Hall discloses the following:
An aeronautical thruster (10) according to claim 4,
Hall continues to teach the following:
wherein the downstream stator blades (32, 42, FIG. 11A) of the annular row of downstream stator blades (32, 42, FIG. 11A) that are located around the longitudinal axis in a first angular sub-sector (third group of vanes 32, see [0072-76] which discloses there may be four groups of vanes) of the second angular sector (second group of vanes 32, see [0072-76] which discloses there may be four groups of vanes) around the longitudinal axis are each in the open- pitch configuration relative to the downstream stator blades (32, 42, FIG. 11A) located around the longitudinal axis (11) in a second angular sub-sector (fourth group of vanes 32, see [0072-76] which discloses there may be four groups of vanes) of the second angular sector (second group of vanes 32, see [0072-76] which discloses there may be four groups of vanes) around the longitudinal axis (11), the second angular sub-sector (fourth group of vanes 32, see [0072-76] which discloses there may be four groups of vanes) being distinct from the first angular sub-sector (third group of vanes 32, see [0072-76] which discloses there may be four groups of vanes).
Regarding Claim 11 Miller as modified by Hall discloses the following:
An aeronautical thruster (10) according to claim 4,
Hall continues to teach the following:
wherein the downstream stator blades (32, 42, FIG. 11A) of the annular row of downstream stator blades (32, 42, FIG. 11A) that are located around the longitudinal axis (11) in a first angular sub- sector (third group of vanes 32, see [0072-76] which discloses there may be four groups of vanes) of the second angular sector (second group of vanes 32, see [0072-76] which discloses there may be four groups of vanes) around the longitudinal axis (11) are each in the open-pitch configuration relative to the downstream stator blades (32, 42, FIG. 11A) located around the longitudinal axis (11) in a second angular sub-sector (fourth group of vanes 32, see [0072-76] which discloses there may be four groups of vanes) of the second angular sector (second group of vanes 32, see [0072-76] which discloses there may be four groups of vanes) around the longitudinal axis (11), the second angular sub-sector (fourth group of vanes 32, see [0072-76] which discloses there may be four groups of vanes) being distinct from the first angular sub-sector (third group of vanes 32, see [0072-76] which discloses there may be four groups of vanes).
Regarding Claims 7, 9-10, 12-13, and 15-17 Miller as modified by Hall discloses the following:
An aeronautical thruster (10) according to claim 4, claim 8, or claim 11 (respectively);
Miller as modified by Hall does not teach the following:
wherein the first angular sector (S1) is centered on an angular position selected from an angular position at 12H, an angular position at 3H, an angular position at 6H and an angular position at 9H (claim 7); in which the first angular sector (S1) is centered on one of angular positions at 3H and at 9H and the first angular sub-sector (S21) is centered on the other among the angular positions at 3H and at 9H, and in which the upstream rotor blades (14) are driven in a direction of rotation (R1) around the longitudinal axis (X) so that the upstream rotor blades (14) which are located in the first angular sector (S1) are rotated around the longitudinal axis (X) in a direction ranging from an angular position at 6H to an angular position at 12H and the upstream rotor blades (14) which are located in the first angular sub-sector (S21) are driven in rotation around the longitudinal axis (X) in a direction going from the angular position at 12H to the angular position at 6H (claim 9); wherein the first angular sector (S1) is centered on an angular position at 12H and the first angular sub-sector (S21) is centered on an angular position at 6H (claim 10); wherein the first angular sector (S1) is centered on an angular position at 9H and the first angular sub-sector (S21) is centered on an angular position at 3H (claim 12); wherein the first angular sector (S1) is centered on an angular position at 12H and the first angular sub-sector (S21) is centered on an angular position at 6H (claim 13); in which each of the downstream stator blades (16) located around the longitudinal axis (X) in the first angular sector (S1) or in the second angular sector (S2), or if necessary in the first angular sub-sector (S21) of the second angular sector (S2) or in the second angular sub-sector (S22) of the second angular sector (S2), has a pitch angle(γ) which is identical to within about 1° (claim 15); in which at least two downstream stator blades (16) located around the longitudinal axis (X) in the first angular sector (S1) or in the second angular sector (S2), or if applicable in the first angular subsector (S21) of the second angular sector (S2) or in the second angular subsector (S22) of the second angular sector (S2), have identical dimensional characteristics (claim 16); in which at least two downstream stator blades (16) located around the longitudinal axis (X) in the first angular sector (S1) or in the second angular sector (S2), or if applicable in the first angular subsector (S21) of the second angular sector (S2) or in the second angular subsector (S22) of the second angular sector (S2), have different dimensional characteristics (claim 17);
However the Examiner notes the following:
Miller as modified by Hall discloses a variable vane system that may be ganged together to form groups of variable vanes controlled by the same actuator to be moved to the same angle. In other words, Miller as modified by Hall discloses the same structure as the Applicant, except the relative dimensions claimed. The Instant Application has not disclosed the limitation(s) of: wherein the first angular sector (S1) is centered on an angular position selected from an angular position at 12H, an angular position at 3H, an angular position at 6H and an angular position at 9H (claim 7); in which the first angular sector (S1) is centered on one of angular positions at 3H and at 9H and the first angular sub-sector (S21) is centered on the other among the angular positions at 3H and at 9H, and in which the upstream rotor blades (14) are driven in a direction of rotation (R1) around the longitudinal axis (X) so that the upstream rotor blades (14) which are located in the first angular sector (S1) are rotated around the longitudinal axis (X) in a direction ranging from an angular position at 6H to an angular position at 12H and the upstream rotor blades (14) which are located in the first angular sub-sector (S21) are driven in rotation around the longitudinal axis (X) in a direction going from the angular position at 12H to the angular position at 6H (claim 9); wherein the first angular sector (S1) is centered on an angular position at 12H and the first angular sub-sector (S21) is centered on an angular position at 6H (claim 10); wherein the first angular sector (S1) is centered on an angular position at 9H and the first angular sub-sector (S21) is centered on an angular position at 3H (claim 12); wherein the first angular sector (S1) is centered on an angular position at 12H and the first angular sub-sector (S21) is centered on an angular position at 6H (claim 13); in which each of the downstream stator blades (16) located around the longitudinal axis (X) in the first angular sector (S1) or in the second angular sector (S2), or if necessary in the first angular sub-sector (S21) of the second angular sector (S2) or in the second angular sub-sector (S22) of the second angular sector (S2), has a pitch angle(γ) which is identical to within about 1° (claim 15); in which at least two downstream stator blades (16) located around the longitudinal axis (X) in the first angular sector (S1) or in the second angular sector (S2), or if applicable in the first angular subsector (S21) of the second angular sector (S2) or in the second angular subsector (S22) of the second angular sector (S2), have identical dimensional characteristics (claim 16); in which at least two downstream stator blades (16) located around the longitudinal axis (X) in the first angular sector (S1) or in the second angular sector (S2), or if applicable in the first angular subsector (S21) of the second angular sector (S2) or in the second angular subsector (S22) of the second angular sector (S2), have different dimensional characteristics (claim 17); provides any criticality. Note that the mere existence of these relative dimensions themselves in the claim cannot impart criticality as any plurality of groups of variable vanes disposed around a circumference could be described in such a way. It is also noted that the claims 16 and 17 are completely opposite limitations. Further Applicant has not provided evidence the combination of Miller and Hall would perform differently with the claimed relative dimensions. Therefore without explicit support for the relative dimensions of the claim(s) providing a critical result, it appears Miller as modified by Hall would perform equally well with the relative values as claimed by Applicant. Since the courts have held that, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device,” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the variable vane arrangement, as disclosed by Miller and Hall, by utilizing the specific value(s) (relative dimensions) as described above, with the reasonable expectation of successfully specifically providing specific dimensions and placements of the groups of variable vanes. (see MPEP 2144.04, IV, A).
Regarding Claim 14 Miller as modified by Hall discloses the following:
An aeronautical thruster (10) according to claim 8,
Hall continues to teach the following:
wherein the first angular sub-sector (third group of vanes 32, see [0072-76] which discloses there may be four groups of vanes) extends over an angular range less than or equal to 180° (the second and third groups each comprise 5 of 60 vanes, see [0074], thus resulting in an angular range of less than or equal to 30 degrees each).
Regarding Claim 20 Miller as modified by Hall discloses the following:
An aeronautical thruster (10) according to claim 1,
Hall continues to teach the following:
the method comprising adjusting the pitch angle (γ) of each downstream stator blade (50; FIG. 2) in dependence on an incidence phase (e.g. take-off, landing, etc. see [0064-65]) of operation of the aeronautical thruster (10).
Regarding Claim 24 Miller as modified by Hall discloses the following:
An aeronautical thruster (10) according to claim 4,
Hall continues to teach the following:
wherein the first angular sector (selecting the second group that has 5 of 60 vanes 32, see [0072-76] which discloses there may be four groups of vanes) extends over an angular range of less than or equal to 120° (the second and third groups each comprise 5 of 60 vanes, see [0074], thus resulting in an angular range of less than or equal to 30 degrees each).
Regarding Claim 25 Miller as modified by Hall discloses the following:
An aeronautical thruster (10) according to claim 4,
Hall continues to teach the following:
wherein the first angular sector (selecting the second group that has 5 of 60 vanes 32, see [0072-76] which discloses there may be four groups of vanes) extends over an angular range of less than or equal to 90° (the second and third groups each comprise 5 of 60 vanes, see [0074], thus resulting in an angular range of less than or equal to 30 degrees each).
Regarding Claim 26 Miller as modified by Hall discloses the following:
An aeronautical thruster (10) according to claim 8,
Hall continues to teach the following:
wherein the first angular sub-sector (third group of vanes 32, see [0072-76] which discloses there may be four groups of vanes) extends over an angular range less than or equal to 120° (the second and third groups each comprise 5 of 60 vanes, see [0074], thus resulting in an angular range of less than or equal to 30 degrees each).
Regarding Claim 27 Miller as modified by Hall discloses the following:
An aeronautical thruster (10) according to claim 8,
Hall continues to teach the following:
wherein the first angular sub-sector (third group of vanes 32, see [0072-76] which discloses there may be four groups of vanes) extends over an angular range less than or equal to 90° (the second and third groups each comprise 5 of 60 vanes, see [0074], thus resulting in an angular range of less than or equal to 30 degrees each).
Claims 18-19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al (US 20160333729), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Muldoon et al (US 20200300164), hereafter referred to as Muldoon.
Regarding Claim 18 Miller discloses the following:
A propulsion system for an aircraft, the propulsion system comprising
an aeronautical thruster (10) according to claim 1 and
and wherein the annular row of downstream stator blades (50; FIG. 2) of the aeronautical thruster (10) comprises:
a first group (first blade of the blades 50) comprising one or more downstream blade(s) (50; FIG. 2) which each have a downstream end located circumferentially on the same side as the upper surface face (FIG. 3) of the pylon (130) with respect to the radial plane the first group (first blade of the blades 50) comprising at least the downstream stator blade (50; FIG. 2) which is circumferentially closest to the radial plane and whose downstream end is located circumferentially on the same side as the upper surface face (FIG. 3) of the pylon (130) with respect to the radial plane,
a second group (second blade of the blades 50) comprising one or more downstream blade(s) (50; FIG. 2) which each have a downstream end located circumferentially on the same side as the lower surface face (FIG. 3) of the pylon (130) with respect to the radial plane, the second group (second blade of the blades 50) comprising at least the downstream stator blade (50; FIG. 2) which is circumferentially closest to the radial plane and whose downstream end is located circumferentially on the same side as the pressure face (FIG. 3) of the pylon (130) with respect to the radial plane, and
wherein each downstream stator blade (50; FIG. 2) of the first group (first blade of the blades 50) is in a closed-pitch configuration (FIG. 4 shows a closed pitch configuration) relative to each downstream stator blade (50; FIG. 2) of the second group (second blade of the blades 50). (It is noted, since the vanes may be individually controlled, if only a single guide vane is rotated in a closed-pitch configuration shown in FIG. 4, and the other vanes are in an open position shown in FIG. 3, then the pitch angle of the closed stator vane would be smaller relative to the open stator vane.)
Miller does not teach the following:
a pylon (18) adapted to attach the aeronautical thruster to a fuselage or wing of the aircraft,
the pylon extending in a direction including at least a radial direction from a radially inner end by which it is connected to the hub (12) of the aeronautical thruster (10),
the pylon (18) comprising a leading edge (41) and a trailing edge (42) between which extend on each side in the circumferential direction an upper surface face (44) and a lower surface face (43),
the upper surface face (44) and the lower surface face (43) of the pylon (18) being, at least on an upstream part of the pylon (18) arranged circumferentially on either side of a radial plane defined by the longitudinal axis (X) and a radial axis passing, at least in part, through the leading edge (41) of the pylon (18),
However Muldoon teaches the following:
it is well known in the art to connect a thruster to a fuselage or wing of an aircraft, the connection comprising:
a pylon (130) adapted to attach the aeronautical thruster to a fuselage or wing of the aircraft,
the pylon extending in a direction including at least a radial direction from a radially inner end by which it is connected to the hub (18; FIG. 2) of the aeronautical thruster (10),
the pylon (130) comprising a leading edge (FIG. 3) and a trailing edge (FIG. 3) between which extend on each side in the circumferential direction an upper surface face (FIG. 3) and a lower surface face (FIG. 3),
the upper surface face (FIG. 3) and the lower surface face (FIG. 3) of the pylon (130) being, at least on an upstream part of the pylon (130) arranged circumferentially on either side of a radial plane defined by the longitudinal axis and a radial axis passing, at least in part, through the leading edge (FIG. 3) of the pylon (130),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thruster as disclosed by Miller, wherein the thruster is connected to the wing of an aircraft, as taught by Muldoon, with the reasonable expectation of successfully providing thrust and therefore flight to the aircraft.
Regarding Claim 19, Miller as modified by Muldoon discloses the following:
A propulsion system according to claim 18
Miller continues to teach the following:
wherein the downstream stator blades (50; FIG. 2) of the first group (first blade of the blades 50) are circumferentially consecutive pair (see FIG. 11A) and/or the downstream stator blades (50; FIG. 2) of the second group (second blade of the blades 50) are circumferentially consecutive pair (see FIG. 11A).
Regarding Claim 21, Miller as modified Muldoon discloses the following:
A propulsion system according to claim 18
Miller continues to teach the following:
the method comprising adjusting the pitch angle (γ) of each downstream stator blade (50; FIG. 2) in dependence on an incidence phase (e.g. during engine operation).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN C DELRUE whose telephone number is (313)446-6567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Eastern).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathaniel E. Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN CHRISTOPHER DELRUE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745