DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 13 and 16 are objected to. Claims 1-12, 14-15, and 17-20 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Pg. 7-11 of the remarks, filed December 10, 2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As best understood, Applicant argues the combination of Sikorski (US 4,884,948 A) with Nagle et al. (US 6,305,905 B1) is improper because Sikorski discusses the flexibility while Nagle discusses rigidity. The Office respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that Sikorski is not shown to have insufficient structural support and/or experiences undesirable fretting. For Sikorski to explicitly state this is not a requirement under 35 U.S.C. 103, as obviousness is based on the combination of references. Nagle identifies this as an issue for composite blades as well as teaches the solution and expected improvement (Nagle, Col. 4, Lines 21-32). Thus, one of ordinary skill would expect modifications implementing the teachings of Nagle will have the disclosed benefits.
Regarding the discussion of rigidity impairing flexibility, the teachings of Sikorski do not desire a completely compliant structure that has no rigidity. In fact, there are features which are provided which resist bending forces when a strike occurs, such as the second spar (Sikorski, Col. 3, Lines 1-4). See also Col. 2, Lines 9-10 acknowledging operating requirements including stiffness. A certain degree of resistance is desired, not a complete bending of the blade. With respect to Applicant’s citation of Nagle, the citation provided by Applicant already states “other materials may be used”. Broadly speaking, the material of the wall (26) suggested by Nagle is a fiber reinforced resin. This is equivalent to shell member (3) of Sikorski, which is a fiber reinforced thermoplastic (i.e. a subset of resin) as noted in Col. 3, Lines 60-65 of Sikorski. Both Nagle and Sikorski require a similar category of material to form the wall noted by Applicant.
It is also unclear if “bending” in the context of Sikorski and Nagle are to be equated. The portion of Nagle cited by Applicant appears to refer to “bending loads” generally. While the “load” of Sikorski is the load from impact of a bird strike, i.e. a brief moment of high loading during operation (Sikorski, Col. 2, Lines 61-68). Thus, it is not clear that the discussions cited by Applicant constitute a clear teaching away from the combination.
Regarding Claim 19, the “extending” is clearly illustrated. The inner radii support (6 and/or 4) is illustrated between the first radius wall and second radius wall (radiused portions of 3’’ and 3’). Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation of extending from one to the other is satisfied.
Regarding Claim 6, Applicant asserts the pattern of the annotated material does not match. This is not true, as the pattern does match. The directional aspect has no bearing. Part (47) is of a different material as can be seen by the difference in spacing of lines being much tighter. It is difficult to discern the exact pattern due to the thinness of (47). The patterns noted in MPEP 608.02 are recognized standards widely used in the art. Nagle clearly complies with the standard as noted by the different patterns in the cross-section denoting different materials for each component.
Regarding Claim 15, the Office does not believe Applicant’s arguments are commensurate with the scope of the claim. Applicant refers to published paragraphs [0071-0072] of the application. However, when interpreting claims, it is not proper to import limitations into the claims that are not recited. The broadest reasonable interpretation of Claim 15 encompasses a layer-by-layer formation, such as an additive manufacturing technique, which is the interpretation taken by the Office. Applicant’s arguments appear to be directed toward a desired structure in the interpretation of “layers” that is not required according to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
It is noted that if Applicant intends a narrower definition of “extending crosswise”, this would have to be defined in the claim. This may be done by specifying the material continuity in the cross-sectional view shown in the figures.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 10, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-12, 14-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sikorski (US 4,884,948 A), hereinafter Sikorski, in view of Kray (US 2021/0108518 A1), hereinafter Kray, and Nagle et al. (US 6,305,905 B1), hereinafter Nagle.
Regarding Claim 1, Figure 1 of Sikorski teaches a vane assembly defining a chordwise direction (into page of Figure 1) and a crosswise direction (horizontal in view of Figure 1) perpendicular to the chordwise direction, the vane assembly comprising: an attachment plate (2B); and an attachment assembly coupled to the attachment plate (2B), the attachment assembly comprising: a first flange member (left 3A in Figure 1 connected to 3’’, unlabeled) attached to the attachment plate (2B) and extending along the chordwise direction; a second flange member (right 3A in Figure 1 connected to 3’) attached to the attachment plate (2B) and extending along the chordwise direction, the first flange member spaced from the second flange member (left and right 3A members) in the crosswise direction.
Sikorski does not expressly teach the assembly being a stator vane assembly as claimed. However, a stator vane assembly would have been obvious in view of Kray.
Figure 1 of Kray teaches an open rotor engine [0034]. Note that Sikorski also relates to an open rotor engine (Col. 1, lines 6-10). Kray notes the presence of a stator vane assembly (18). The stator vane assembly helps straighten airflow, imparting a counteracting swirl to airflow from the rotor blades. Being variable pitch like the rotor blades (16) further allows for the vanes (20) of the assembly (18) to change according to operating conditions, which allows for adjustment of acoustic and aerodynamic interactions [0042-0043]. Thus, an addition of a stator vane assembly would be beneficial to the engine of Sikorski. The teachings of Kray relate to a mount (100) shown in Figure 4 of the rotor (16). However, Kray acknowledges that that the stator vane assembly may use the same mount as well, exemplifying how teachings related to vane assemblies of the rotor portion are also applicable to the stator vane assemblies [0053].
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 vane assembly taught by Sikorski such that the assembly is a stator vane assembly as suggested by Kray, to provide the benefits of an adjustable stator vane assembly that counteracts swirl and adjusts according to operating conditions, without having the need to develop a new mounting system.
Sikorski does not expressly teach a crosswise support member extending between the first and second flange members and positioned between the attachment plate and the first flange member and between the attachment plate and the second flange member as claimed. However, a crosswise support would have been obvious in view of Nagle.
Figure 2 of Nagle teaches a vane assembly with a crosswise support member (18) extending between the first and second flange members (left and right portions of 12 proximate 30) and positioned between the attachment plate (101) and the first flange member (left portion of 12 proximate 30) and between the attachment plate (101) and the second flange member (right portion of 12 proximate 30). The crosswise support member (18) helps provide structural support as well as preventing fretting (Col. 4, Lines 21-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the stator vane assembly taught by Sikorski-Kray with a crosswise support member extending between the first and second flange members and positioned between the attachment plate and the first flange member and between the attachment plate and the second flange member as suggested by Nagle, to provide the benefits of structurally supporting and preventing fretting.
Regarding Claim 2, Sikorski, Kray, and Nagle teach the stator vane assembly as set forth in Claim 1.
Figures 1-2 of Sikorski teach wherein the first flange member (left 3A in Figure 1 connected to 3’’, unlabeled) defines a plurality of first attachment points (7) with the attachment plate (2B), wherein the second flange member (right 3A in Figure 1 connected to 3’) defines a plurality of second attachment points (7) with the attachment plate (2B) (Col. 4, Lines 30-36).
The modification in Claim 1 by Nagle results wherein the crosswise support member extends at least from the plurality of first attachment points to the plurality of second attachment points, as exemplified in Figure 2 of Nagle where support member (18) extends at least between attachment points (at 31).
Regarding Claim 3, Sikorski, Kray, and Nagle teach the stator vane assembly as set forth in Claim 1.
Figure 1 of Sikorski teaches wherein the first flange member (left 3A in Figure 1 connected to 3’’, unlabeled) comprises a first flange, a first side wall, and a first radius wall extending between the first flange and the first side wall, wherein the second flange member (right 3A in Figure 1 connected to 3’) comprises a second flange, a second side wall, and a second radius wall extending between the second flange and the second side wall. See also annotated Figure 1’ below.
PNG
media_image1.png
672
637
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The modification by Nagle in Claim 1 results wherein the attachment assembly further comprises an inner radii support (extending portion of 18) extending crosswise from the first radius wall to the second radius wall, the inner radii support integrally formed with the crosswise support member (18). See also annotated Figure 2’’ below.
PNG
media_image2.png
614
871
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Sikorski, Kray, and Nagle teach the stator vane assembly as set forth in Claim 1.
Figure 1 of Sikorski teaches wherein the first flange member (left 3A in Figure 1 connected to 3’’, unlabeled) comprises a first flange, a first side wall, and a first radius wall extending between the first flange and the first side wall, wherein the second flange member (right 3A in Figure 1 connected to 3’) comprises a second flange, a second side wall, and a second radius wall extending between the second flange and the second side wall, wherein the attachment assembly further comprises a first retainer (8’) attached to the attachment plate (2B) through the first flange and positioned adjacent to the first radius wall and a second retainer (8) attached to the attachment plate (2B) through the second flange and positioned adjacent to the second radius wall (Col. 4, Lines 30-36). See also annotated Figure 1’ above. Figure 5 illustrates an alternative embodiment with different retainers (8, 8’) as well.
Regarding Claim 5, Sikorski, Kray, and Nagle teach the stator vane assembly as set forth in Claim 1.
Sikorski teaches wherein the first flange member (left 3A in Figure 1 connected to 3’’, unlabeled) and the second flange member (right 3A in Figure 1 connected to 3’) are formed of a composite material (Col. 3, Line 63 – Col. 4, Line 3).
Regarding Claim 6, Sikorski, Kray, and Nagle teach the stator vane assembly as set forth in Claim 5.
The modification in Claim 1 by Nagle results wherein the crosswise support member (18) is formed of a metal material. Figure 2 illustrates a metal with the patterns (see MPEP 608.02, IX).
Regarding Claim 7, Sikorski, Kray, and Nagle teach the stator vane assembly as set forth in Claim 1.
Figures 1-2 of Sikorski teach an outer skin (3) forming an airfoil, wherein the outer skin (3) is coupled to or formed integrally with the first flange member (left 3A in Figure 1 connected to 3’’, unlabeled) and the second flange member (right 3A in Figure 1 connected to 3’) (Col. 3, Line 63 – Col. 4, Line 3).
Regarding Claim 8, Sikorski, Kray, and Nagle teach the stator vane assembly as set forth in Claim 7.
Figure 1 of Sikorski teaches wherein the airfoil is a cantilevered airfoil supported by the attachment plate (2B). This is noted by the cantilevered arrangement between airfoil (3) and the surface of plate (2B).
Regarding Claim 9, Sikorski, Kray, and Nagle teach the stator vane assembly as set forth in Claim 7.
Figure 1 of Sikorski teaches a spanwise direction (vertical direction in view of Figure 1), and wherein the attachment assembly extends along the spanwise direction through the airfoil. The attachment assembly is interpretable as comprising (6 and/or 4), which extends through the airfoil part of (3).
Regarding Claim 10, Sikorski, Kray, and Nagle teach the stator vane assembly as set forth in Claim 9.
Figure 1 of Sikorski teaches wherein the airfoil (radially extending portion of 3) defines a span, and wherein the attachment assembly extends along the spanwise direction for at least 25% of the span. Referring to annotated Figure 1’ above, the annotated “side wall” portions are interpretable as part of the attachment assembly. The claim does not specify where this ends, thus the length is merely a matter of labeling, i.e. the length of the side wall is interpretable to be such that the attachment assembly comprises at least 25% of the span since there is no distinction of what is “not” the attachment assembly.
Regarding Claim 11, Sikorski, Kray, and Nagle teach the stator vane assembly as set forth in Claim 1.
Sikorski teaches wherein the attachment plate (2B, note connected to 2A) is rotatable about an axis (Col. 4, Lines 54-57). The modification by Kray in Claim 1 also calls for rotatable plates for (62) [0042-0043].
Regarding Claim 12, Sikorski, Kray and Nagle teach the stator vane assembly as set forth in Claim 1.
The modification by Nagle in Claim 1 results wherein the attachment plate defines an attachment plane, wherein the attachment assembly further comprises a base extension coupled to or formed integrally with the cross-wise support member and extending into an opening of the attachment plate past the attachment plane, as exemplified by cross-wise support member (18) and attachment plate (101) in Figure 2 of Nagle. See also annotated Figure 2’ below.
PNG
media_image3.png
562
697
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 14, Sikorski, Kray and Nagle teach the stator vane assembly as set forth in Claim 12.
Figure 1 of Sikorski teaches wherein the first flange member (left 3A in Figure 1 connected to 3’’, unlabeled) comprises a first flange, a first side wall, and a first radius wall extending between the first flange and the first side wall, wherein the second flange member (right 3A in Figure 1 connected to 3’) comprises a second flange, a second side wall, and a second radius wall extending between the second flange and the second side wall. See also annotated Figure 1’ above.
The modification by Nagle in Claim 1 results wherein the base extension is formed integrally with the crosswise support member (18), as exemplified by Figure 2 of Nagle. See also annotated Figure 2’ above.
The modification by Nagle in Claim 1 also results wherein the attachment assembly further comprises an inner radii support (extending portion of 18) extending crosswise across a crosswise gap between the first radius wall to the second radius wall (gap between radius walls), the inner radii support integrally formed with the crosswise support member (18). See also annotated Figure 2’’ above.
Regarding Claim 15, Sikorski, Kray and Nagle teach the stator vane assembly as set forth in Claim 12.
The limitation of wherein the base extension comprises a plurality of layers bonded together is considered a product by process claim. Patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production (see MPEP 2113, I). Figure 2 of Nagle at least illustrates the base extension being present. See also annotated Figure 2’ above. The record does not indicate the method of producing said extension, whether being cast at once or formed layer by layer bonded for instance, imparts a distinctive structural characteristic to the final product. As such, the required structure of the claim is met by the prior art combination.
Regarding Claim 17, Figure 1 of Sikorski teaches a gas turbine engine (see Col. 1, Lines 6-26 and Col. 2, Lines 40-46) comprising a fan section comprising a fan (propeller); a vane assembly defining a chordwise direction (into page of Figure 1) and a crosswise direction (horizontal in view of Figure 1) perpendicular to the chordwise direction, the vane assembly comprising: an attachment plate (2B); and an attachment assembly coupled to the attachment plate (2B), the attachment assembly comprising: a first flange member (left 3A in Figure 1 connected to 3’’, unlabeled) attached to the attachment plate (2B) and extending along the chordwise direction; a second flange member (right 3A in Figure 1 connected to 3’) attached to the attachment plate (2B) and extending along the chordwise direction, the first flange member spaced from the second flange member (left and right 3A members) in the crosswise direction.
Sikorski does not expressly teach a turbomachine comprising a compressor, a combustor, and a turbine arranged in serial flow order, the turbomachine drivingly coupled to the fan; a stator vane assembly positioned downstream of the fan, the assembly being a stator vane assembly as claimed. However, such a turbomachine and stator vane assembly would have been obvious in view of Kray.
Figure 1 of Kray teaches an open rotor engine [0034]. Note that Sikorski also relates to an open rotor engine (Col. 1, lines 6-10). The engine comprises a turbomachine comprising a compressor (34, 44), a combustor (40), and a turbine (36, 42) arranged in serial flow order, the turbomachine drivingly coupled to the fan (12); a stator vane assembly (18) positioned downstream of the fan (12) [0034-0036]. Kray exemplifies how these are known features that allow the turbine to provide a flow of combustion gases for driving the turbine section to drive the fan (12) [0040]. Meanwhile, Sikorski is silent regarding the remaining structure of the disclosed gas turbine engine. One of ordinary skill would look to known turbine engines to fill the gaps of Sikorski to obtain a turbine that is expected to operate as intended. Additionally, the stator vane assembly helps straighten airflow, imparting a counteracting swirl to airflow from the rotor blades. Being variable pitch like the rotor blades (16) further allows for the vanes (20) of the assembly (18) to change according to operating conditions, which allows for adjustment of acoustic and aerodynamic interactions [0042-0043]. Thus, an addition of a stator vane assembly would be beneficial to the engine of Sikorski. The teachings of Kray relate to a mount (100) shown in Figure 4 of the rotor (16). However, Kray acknowledges that that the stator vane assembly may use the same mount as well, exemplifying how teachings related to vane assemblies of the rotor portion are also applicable to the stator vane assemblies [0053].
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 gas turbine engine taught by Sikorski with a turbomachine comprising a compressor, a combustor, and a turbine arranged in serial flow order, the turbomachine drivingly coupled to the fan; a stator vane assembly positioned downstream of the fan, and that the assembly is a stator vane assembly as suggested by Kray, to provide the benefits of implementing a known gas turbine arrangement that is expected to operate as intended, and having an adjustable stator vane assembly that counteracts swirl and adjusts according to operating conditions, without having the need to develop a new mounting system.
Sikorski does not expressly teach a crosswise support member extending between the first and second flange members and positioned between the attachment plate and the first flange member and between the attachment plate and the second flange member as claimed. However, a crosswise support would have been obvious in view of Nagle.
Figure 2 of Nagle teaches a vane assembly with a crosswise support member (18) extending between the first and second flange members (left and right portions of 12 proximate 30) and positioned between the attachment plate (101) and the first flange member (left portion of 12 proximate 30) and between the attachment plate (101) and the second flange member (right portion of 12 proximate 30). The crosswise support member (18) helps provide structural support as well as preventing fretting (Col. 4, Lines 21-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the gas turbine engine taught by Sikorski-Kray with a crosswise support member extending between the first and second flange members and positioned between the attachment plate and the first flange member and between the attachment plate and the second flange member as suggested by Nagle, to provide the benefits of structurally supporting and preventing fretting.
Regarding Claim 18, Sikorski, Kray, and Nagle teach the gas turbine engine as set forth in Claim 17.
Figure 1 of Sikorski teaches wherein the fan is an unducted fan (note discussion of prop-jet engines, particularly unshrouded propellers), wherein the vane assembly comprises an outer skin (3) forming an airfoil, and wherein the airfoil is a vane of the unducted fan cantilevered from the attachment plate (2B) (Col. 1, Lines 6-54, Col. 3, Line 63 – Col. 4, Line 3).
The modification by Kray in Claim 17 results in the vane being an outlet guide vane, as explained in paragraphs [0042-0043 and 0053] noted above.
The modification by Nagle in Claim 17 results wherein the crosswise support member (18) extends crosswise (horizontal with respect to view in Figure 2) from the first flange member to the second flange member (left and right portions of 12 proximate 30), as exemplified by Figure 2 of Nagle.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sikorski, Kray, and Nagle as applied to Claim 9 above, and further in view of Tutaj et al. (US 2015/0176426 A1), hereinafter Tutaj. Claim 10 is rejected again for purposes of expediting prosecution, assuming a narrower interpretation of attachment structure.
Regarding Claim 10, Sikorski, Kray, and Nagle teach the stator vane assembly as set forth in Claim 9.
Figure 1 of Sikorski teaches wherein the airfoil (radially extending portion of 3) defines a span.
Sikorski does not expressly teach wherein the attachment assembly extends along a spanwise direction for at least 25% of the span as claimed. However, such a span would have been obvious in view of Tutaj.
Figures 1-2 of Tutaj exemplify various internal structures in the form of spars (7, 8, 24). (7, 8) help support the shape of the hollow portion of the airfoil. (24) in particular is a part of an attachment assembly that extends along the spanwise direction of the span [0164, 0175]. Tutaj notes the exact lengths of the internal structures largely depend on the geometric characteristics of the blade [0217]. This provides evidence that the lengths of the internal structures are results-effective variables, to which one of ordinary skill would routinely optimize according to the geometry of a given blade to achieve their purpose (see MPEP 2144.05, II regarding routine optimization). Similarly, the attachment assembly of Sikorski comprises internal structures (4, 6), that work to absorb forces experienced by the airfoil (3) (Col. 5, Lines 13-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the stator vane assembly taught by Sikorski-Kray-Nagle such that the attachment assembly extends along a spanwise direction for at least 25% of the span as exemplified by Tutaj, since one of ordinary skill would routinely optimize the lengths of internal structures according to the geometric characteristics of the given vane to properly achieve their roles.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sikorski in view of Kray.
Regarding Claim 19, Figure 1 of Sikorski teaches a vane assembly defining a chordwise direction (into page of Figure 1) and a crosswise direction (horizontal in view of Figure 1) perpendicular to the chordwise direction, the vane assembly comprising: an attachment plate (2B); and an attachment assembly coupled to the attachment plate (2B), the attachment assembly comprising: a first flange member (left 3A in Figure 1 connected to 3’, unlabeled) attached to the attachment plate (2B) and extending along the chordwise direction, the first flange member including a first radius wall (see radiused portion of 3’’ proximate 8’); a second flange member (right 3A in Figure 1 connected to 3’’) attached to the attachment plate (2B) and extending along the chordwise direction, the second flange member including a second radius wall (see radiused portion of 3’ proximate 8), the first flange member spaced from the second flange member (left and right 3A members) in the crosswise direction; and an inner radii support (6 and/or 4) extending from the first radius wall to the second radius wall.
Sikorski does not expressly teach the assembly being a stator vane assembly as claimed. However, a stator vane assembly would have been obvious in view of Kray.
Figure 1 of Kray teaches an open rotor engine [0034]. Note that Sikorski also relates to an open rotor engine (Col. 1, lines 6-10). Kray notes the presence of a stator vane assembly (18). The stator vane assembly helps straighten airflow, imparting a counteracting swirl to airflow from the rotor blades. Being variable pitch like the rotor blades (16) further allows for the vanes (20) of the assembly (18) to change according to operating conditions, which allows for adjustment of acoustic and aerodynamic interactions [0042-0043]. Thus, an addition of a stator vane assembly would be beneficial to the engine of Sikorski. The teachings of Kray relate to a mount (100) shown in Figure 4 of the rotor (16). However, Kray acknowledges that that the stator vane assembly may use the same mount as well, exemplifying how teachings related to vane assemblies of the rotor portion are also applicable to the stator vane assemblies [0053].
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 vane assembly taught by Sikorski such that the assembly is a stator vane assembly as suggested by Kray, to provide the benefits of an adjustable stator vane assembly that counteracts swirl and adjusts according to operating conditions, without having the need to develop a new mounting system.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sikorski in view of Kray and Nagle. Please note Claim 19 is rejected again due to Claim 20 further narrowing the “inner radii support” limitation such that the interpretation taken above no longer applies.
Regarding Claims 19-20, Figure 1 of Sikorski teaches a vane assembly defining a chordwise direction (into page of Figure 1) and a crosswise direction (horizontal in view of Figure 1) perpendicular to the chordwise direction, the vane assembly comprising: an attachment plate (2B); and an attachment assembly coupled to the attachment plate (2B), the attachment assembly comprising: a first flange member (left 3A in Figure 1 connected to 3’, unlabeled) attached to the attachment plate (2B) and extending along the chordwise direction, the first flange member including a first radius wall (see radiused portion of 3’’ proximate 8’); a second flange member (right 3A in Figure 1 connected to 3’’) attached to the attachment plate (2B) and extending along the chordwise direction, the second flange member including a second radius wall (see radiused portion of 3’ proximate 8), the first flange member spaced from the second flange member (left and right 3A members) in the crosswise direction.
Sikorski does not expressly teach the assembly being a stator vane assembly as claimed. However, a stator vane assembly would have been obvious in view of Kray.
Figure 1 of Kray teaches an open rotor engine [0034]. Note that Sikorski also relates to an open rotor engine (Col. 1, lines 6-10). Kray notes the presence of a stator vane assembly (18). The stator vane assembly helps straighten airflow, imparting a counteracting swirl to airflow from the rotor blades. Being variable pitch like the rotor blades (16) further allows for the vanes (20) of the assembly (18) to change according to operating conditions, which allows for adjustment of acoustic and aerodynamic interactions [0042-0043]. Thus, an addition of a stator vane assembly would be beneficial to the engine of Sikorski. The teachings of Kray relate to a mount (100) shown in Figure 4 of the rotor (16). However, Kray acknowledges that that the stator vane assembly may use the same mount as well, exemplifying how teachings related to vane assemblies of the rotor portion are also applicable to the stator vane assemblies [0053].
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 vane assembly taught by Sikorski such that the assembly is a stator vane assembly as suggested by Kray, to provide the benefits of an adjustable stator vane assembly that counteracts swirl and adjusts according to operating conditions, without having the need to develop a new mounting system.
Sikorski does not expressly teach an inner radii support extending from the first radius wall to the second radius wall (Claim 19), wherein the attachment assembly further comprises a crosswise support member extending crosswise between the first and second flange members and positioned between the attachment plate and the first flange member and between the attachment plate and the second flange member, the crosswise support member integrally formed with the inner radii support in a T-shaped configuration (Claim 20) as claimed. However, a crosswise support member would have been obvious in view of Nagle.
Figure 2 of Nagle teaches a vane assembly with an inner radii support (radially outward extending portion of 18) extending from the first radius wall to the second radius wall, a crosswise support member (remainder of 18) extending crosswise between the first and second flange members (left and right portions of 12 proximate 30) and positioned between the attachment plate (101) and the first flange member (left portion of 12 proximate 30) and between the attachment plate (101) and the second flange member (right portion of 12 proximate 30), the crosswise support member (18) integrally formed with the inner radii support in a T-shaped configuration (see upside-down T formed by 18). See also annotated Figure 2’’ above. The crosswise support member (18) helps provide structural support as well as preventing fretting (Col. 4, Lines 21-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the stator vane assembly taught by Sikorski-Kray with an inner radii support extending from the first radius wall to the second radius wall (Claim 19), wherein the attachment assembly further comprises a crosswise support member extending crosswise between the first and second flange members and positioned between the attachment plate and the first flange member and between the attachment plate and the second flange member, the crosswise support member integrally formed with the inner radii support in a T-shaped configuration (Claim 20) as suggested by Nagle, to provide the benefits of structurally supporting and preventing fretting.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 13 and 16 remain allowable for the same reasons set forth on Pg. 16-17 of the Non-Final Rejection filed September 15, 2025.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELTON K WONG whose telephone number is (408)918-7626. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM - 5:00PM PST.
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, Court Heinle can be reached at (571)270-3508. 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.
/ELTON K WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745