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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I in the reply filed on December 4, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 12 and 14-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species II or III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 4, 2025.
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 5-6, 10, 13, and 21-22 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 5 recites, “wherein the deviation of the profile of each vane decreases from the radially inner boundary of the vane towards the tip of the vane to a first zone of the vane extending at a distance from the radially inner boundary of the vane of between 45% of the height of the vane and 85% of the height of the vane”.
The claim recites a first zone and describes that it extends at a distance from the radially inner boundary of the vane between 45% to 85% of the height of the vane. It is unclear if the zone is at a singular spanwise height or if it is a region that stretches across a range of spanwise height. This is due to the fact the claim describes the deviation profile of the vane as decreasing from the radially inner boundary “to” the first zone. This language makes it unclear what region is being described (radially inner boundary to the start of the first zone versus radially inner boundary to the end of the first zone).
Claim 6 is also rejected for its dependency on claim 5.
Claim 10 recites, “wherein the deviation of the profile of each vane is less than 25° over a portion of the vane extending from the radially inner boundary to a distance of between 40% and 80% of the height of the vane”.
It is unclear if the distance of between 40% and 80% is a specific region of the blade or a generic height of the blade that may apply anywhere on the blade. The language of from a location (radially inner boundary) to a distance is unclear as the examiner believes the applicant to be defining a region. A region may extend from a first location to a second location and these locations may be located at first / second distances away from a reference. A region may also be said to start at a first location and extend for a distance. In contrast, it appears to be claimed as defining a region as from a location to a distance.
It is unclear if the claimed portion is defined by the location/distance or if the claim is referencing a region defined by the location/distances and only a portion needs to satisfy the value. There is no descriptors to clarify a comparison of the claimed quantity of less than 25° to a distribution of values.
Claim 13 recites, “wherein the deviation of the profile of each vane is less than 25° over a portion of the vane extending from a first distance of between 10% and 20% of the height of the vane to a second distance of between 80% and 100% of the height of the vane”.
It is unclear if the first distance of between 10% and 20% is a specific region of the blade or a generic height of the blade that may apply anywhere on the blade. The same is true for the second distance. The language of a first distance to a second distance is unclear as the examiner believes the applicant to be defining a region. A region may extend from a first location to a second location and these locations may be located at first / second distances away from a reference. In contrast, it appears to be claimed as defining a region as between two distances which is unclear.
It is unclear if the claimed portion is defined by the location/distance or if the claim is referencing a region defined by the location/distances and only a portion needs to satisfy the value. There is no descriptors to clarify a comparison of the claimed quantity of less than 25° to a distribution of values.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "a casing". It is unclear if this is an additional casing or the same casing as recite in claim 19. Claim 22 is also rejected for its dependency on claim 21.
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.
Claims 1, 3-9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallagher et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20170167503) hereinafter Gallagher.
Regarding claim 1, Gallagher discloses:
Outer guide vanes of an unducted thrust-generating assembly for a turbine engine {The claim only requires outer guide vanes. The gas turbine engine is a thrust generating assembly. The transitional phrase “comprising” is open-ended; any ducting may be considered excluded from the teachings of Gallagher for purposes of claim mapping},
the outer guide vanes comprising a plurality of vanes {the airfoils are stator vanes; [0055]/[0063]} each having:
a tip and a radially inner boundary corresponding to an intersection between the vane and a casing of the turbine engine {Figure 3, tip is at (100) and the radially inner boundary is at (0) which is the intersection between the vane and the casing};
a skeleton corresponding to an imaginary line extending from a leading edge to a trailing edge of the vane {Figure 5, the camber mean line (ML) is a skeleton as described},
the skeleton being equidistant between a pressure surface and a suction surface of the vane {Figure 5, the camber mean line (ML) is a skeleton and equidistant between the pressure (72) and suction side (74)}; and
a deviation of a profile of the vane {Figure 5 (θ)},
the deviation corresponding to an absolute value of a difference between a tangent to the skeleton at the leading edge and a tangent to the skeleton at the trailing edge of the vane {Figure 5 (θ) is the difference in angle between (80) and (82) which are tangents to the skeleton at the leading (68) and trailing edge (70)},
of approximately between 20° and 45° at the radially inner boundary of the vane and between 10° and 40° at the tip of the vane {Figure 6, the lowest prior art line has an angle of approximately 45° at the radially inner boundary and slightly less than (40°) at the tip of the vane. It is noted that any future reference to Figure 6 uses this same prior art line}.
Gallagher does not disclose that the angle of the deviation is precisely between 20° and 45° at the radially inner boundary of the vane.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the deviation angle of the vane be in the claimed range of between 20° and 45° at the radially inner boundary of the vane. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as the disclosed value of approximately 45° in Figure 6 approaches the claimed range of between 20° and 45°; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 3, Gallagher further teaches:
wherein a minimum deviation of the profile of each vane is located at a distance from the radially inner boundary of the vane of between 40% and 100% {Figure 6, the minimum deviation is at roughly 45 span}.
Regarding claim 4, Gallagher further teaches:
wherein the deviation of the profile of each vane decreases from the radially inner boundary of the vane towards the tip of the vane over at least 50% of the height of the vane {Figure 6, the profile decreases from 0% to roughly 45% and from roughly 55% to 75%. This means the profile decreases from the radially inner boundary towards the tip for approximately 65% of the height/span}.
Regarding claim 5, Gallagher further teaches:
wherein the deviation of the profile of each vane decreases from the radially inner boundary of the vane towards the tip of the vane to a first zone of the vane extending at a distance from the radially inner boundary of the vane of between 45% of the height of the vane and 85% of the height of the vane {Figure 6, the first zone is considered at 75% as the deviation profile decreases from roughly 45° at 0% to 30° at 75%. This decrease satisfies the claim limitation under the broadest reasonable interpretation as the claim does not specify further restrictions on the decreasing from one location to another.}
Regarding claim 6, Gallagher further teaches:
wherein the deviation of the profile of each vane increases from the first zone of the vane to the tip of the vane {Figure 6, the profile increases from 75% to the tip at 100%}.
Regarding claim 7, Gallagher further teaches:
wherein the deviation of the profile of each vane is greater than 20° over at least a portion of the vane extending from the radially inner boundary of the vane to a second zone of the vane extending at a distance of between 0% and 40% of the height of the vane {Figure 6, the deviation of the profile is greater than 20° between 0% and 40%}.
Regarding claim 8, Gallagher further teaches:
wherein the deviation of the profile of each vane at the radially inner boundary of the vane is strictly greater than the deviation of the profile at the tip of the vane {Figure 6, the deviation of the profile at 0% is roughly 45° while the profile at the tip is under 40°}.
Regarding claim 9, Gallagher further teaches:
wherein a maximum deviation of the profile of each vane is located at a distance from the radially inner boundary of the vane of between 0% and 40% of the height of the vane {Figure 6, the maximum deviation of the profile is at 0%}.
Regarding claim 13, Gallagher teaches the outer guide vanes of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the deviation of the profile of each vane is less than 25° over a portion of the vane extending from a first distance of between 10% and 20% of the height of the vane to a second distance of between 80% and 100% of the height of the vane
Gallagher does teach a region from roughly 40% span to 80% span of being less than 30°.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the deviation angle of the vane to be 25° or less in this region. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as the disclosed value of less than 30° in Figure 6 approaches the claimed range of less than 25°; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Gallagher therefore as modified teaches:
wherein the deviation of the profile of each vane is less than 25° over a portion of the vane extending from a first distance of between 10% and 20% of the height of the vane to a second distance of between 80% and 100% of the height of the vane {The claim requires a portion of a region from the a first position (10%-20%) to a second position (80%-100%) be less than 25°. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this does not require the entire region to meet this angular threshold. Rather, a portion of the defined region will satisfy the limitation. The examiner finds that a portion of the vane from 40% to 80% has a deviation/camber of less than 25° }.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallagher as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jacques et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20140248140) hereinafter Jacques.
Regarding claim 17, Gallagher teaches the outer guide vanes of claim 1, but is silent regarding the number of outer guide vanes.
Jacques pertains to gas turbine engines. Jacques teaches:
The outer guide vanes comprising between 8 and 12 vanes {0060]}
Since Gallagher is silent regarding the number of outer guide vanes, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to chosen the number of outer guide vanes to be between 8 and 12. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as 8 is a known number of outer guide vanes and any number may be chosen {Jacques [0060] and Gallagher [0058]}.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallagher as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wood et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20190242406) hereinafter Wood.
Regarding claim 18, Gallagher teaches the outer guide vanes of claim 1, but is silent regard the length of the chord at different span locations and is therefore silent regarding:
wherein a length of the chord of each vane at the tip of the vane is less than 75% of a maximum chord of the vane.
Wood pertains to gas turbine engines. Wood teaches:
wherein a length of the chord of each vane at the tip of the vane is less than 75% of a maximum chord of the vane {Figure 2 implicitly shows a chordwise length at the tip that is less than 75% of the maximum chord length near the root, [0026]-[0027]; see MPEP 2125 and 2144.01}
Since Gallagher is silent regarding the chord lengths at different spanwise locations, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to chav. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do have the tip have a chord of less than 75% of the maximum chord as taught by Wood. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as configurations where chord lengths increase or decrease along the spanwise direction are well known and may be related to the sweep angle which is a common geometric parameter in airfoil design {Wood [0026]-[0027]}.
Claims 19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallagher as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lopez Guzman (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20190017396) hereinafter Lopez Guzman.
Regarding claim 19, Gallagher further teaches:
a propeller rotatable relative to a casing of the turbine engine {Figure 1 (42) is rotatable relative to a casing (unlabeled) that may refer to several static structures which includes the casing which surrounds the low pressure compressor}
the outer guide vanes according to claim 1 fixedly mounted on the casing and extending downstream of the propeller {See claim 1. Figures 1 / 2, the guide vanes may be stator 3 which on mounted on the casing (unlabeled) and are downstream of the propeller (42); [0064]}.
Gallagher does not explicitly teach:
An unducted thrust-generating assembly for a turbine engine
Lopez Guzman pertains to gas turbine engines. Lopez Guzman teaches:
An unducted thrust-generating assembly for a turbine engine {[0002]}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the gas turbine engine of Gallagher be unducted. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as both unducted and ducted gas turbine engines are well known configurations where individual aspects of a gas turbine engine may be useful in either configuration {Lopez Guzman [0002]}.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Gallagher and Lopez Guzman further teaches:
A turbine engine {Gallagher [0002]} comprising;
a casing {Gallagher Figure 1, casing (unlabeled) may refer to several static structures which includes the casing which surrounds the low pressure compressor}; and
the unducted thrust-generating assembly according to claim 19 {see claim 19 above},
the propeller being rotatable relative to the casing and the outer guide vanes being fixed in rotation relative to the casing, downstream of the propeller {Gallagher Figures 1 / 2, the guide vanes may be stator 3 which is mounted on the casing (unlabeled) and are downstream of the propeller (42); the outer guide vanes a fixed in rotation relative to the casing}.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Gallagher and Lopez Guzman teaches the turbine engine of claim 21, but is silent regarding:
wherein at least one of the propeller and the outer guide vanes has a variable pitch
Lopez Guzman pertains to gas turbine engines. Lopez Guzman teaches:
wherein at least one of the propeller and the outer guide vanes has a variable pitch {Lopez Guzman [0002]}
Since the Gallagher is silent regarding details of all the functions / components of the gas turbine engine, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the gas turbine engine of Gallagher have variable pitch propeller. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so variable pitch propellers provide the capability to adjust depending on the flight condition {Lopez Guzman [0002]}.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallagher in view of Lopez Guzman as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Donisi et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20200165937) hereinafter Donisi.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Gallagher and Lopez Guzman teaches the unducted thrust-generating assembly of claim 19 but is silent regarding:
wherein the propeller comprises between ten and sixteen rotating blades.
Donisi pertains to gas turbine engines. Donisi teaches:
wherein the propeller comprises between ten and sixteen rotating blades {[0083]}.
Since the Gallagher is silent regarding details of the number of propeller / fan blades, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the gas turbine engine of Gallagher have between 10 and 16 rotating blades. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as the fan is recognized as having any number of blades desired including numbers such as 14 and 16 {Donisi [0083]}.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallagher et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20160356285) hereinafter Brilliant.
Brilliant is used to refer to the second reference with Gallagher as the first inventor.
Regarding claim 1, Brilliant discloses:
Outer guide vanes of an unducted thrust-generating assembly for a turbine engine {The claim only requires outer guide vanes. The gas turbine engine is a thrust generating assembly. The transitional phrase “comprising” is open-ended; any ducting may be considered excluded from the teachings of Gallagher for purposes of claim mapping. The airfoils (64) may be guide vanes [0041]},
the outer guide vanes comprising a plurality of vanes {There are a plurality of airfoils (64)} each having:
a tip and a radially inner boundary corresponding to an intersection between the vane and a casing of the turbine engine {Figure 3, tip is at (100) and the radially inner boundary is at (0) which is the intersection between the vane and the casing};
a skeleton corresponding to an imaginary line extending from a leading edge to a trailing edge of the vane {Figure 5, the camber mean line (ML) is a skeleton as described},
the skeleton being equidistant between a pressure surface and a suction surface of the vane {Figure 5, the camber mean line (ML) is a skeleton and equidistant between the pressure (72) and suction side (74)}; and
a deviation of a profile of the vane {Figure 5 (θ)},
the deviation corresponding to an absolute value of a difference between a tangent to the skeleton at the leading edge and a tangent to the skeleton at the trailing edge of the vane {Figure 5 (θ) is the difference in angle between (80) and (82) which are tangents to the skeleton at the leading (68) and trailing edge (70)},
of approximately between 20° and 45° at the radially inner boundary of the vane and between 10° and 40° at the tip of the vane {Figure 6, (88) has an angle of 40° at the radially inner boundary and roughly (10°) at the tip of the vane. It is noted that any future reference to Figure 6 in this portion of the rejection uses (88) as well}.
Brilliant does not disclose that the angle of the deviation is precisely between 10° and 40° at the tip.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the deviation angle of the vane be in the claimed range of between 10° and 40° at the tip. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as the disclosed value of approximately 10° in Figure 6 approaches/touches the claimed range of between 10° and 40°; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 2, Brilliant teaches the outer guide vanes of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the deviation of the profile of each vane at the radially inner boundary of the vane is of between 25° and 35°.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the deviation angle of the vane be in the claimed range of between 25° and 35° at the radially inner boundary. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as the disclosed value of approximately 40° in Figure 6 approaches/touches the claimed range of between 25° and 35°; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Claims 1 and 10-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wadia et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20070243068) hereinafter Wadia in view of Gallagher.
Regarding claim 1, Wadia discloses:
Airfoils of an unducted thrust-generating assembly for a turbine engine {Figure 2 / 4 (62) are airfoils for a thrust generating assembly for a turbine engine; [0002]. The transitional phrase “comprising” is open-ended; any ducting may be considered excluded from the teachings of Gallagher for purposes of claim mapping},
the airfoils comprising a plurality of blades {the airfoils are fan blades; [0062]} each having:
a tip and a radially inner boundary corresponding to an intersection between the blade and a casing of the turbine engine {Figure 4, tip is at 100% span and the radially inner boundary is at 0% span which is the intersection between the blade and the casing};
a skeleton corresponding to an imaginary line extending from a leading edge to a trailing edge of the vane {The airfoil may have an imaginary line to define a mean camber line similar to previous rejections, [0042]-[0043]},
the skeleton being equidistant between a pressure surface and a suction surface of the vane {This is the definition of a mean camber line; [0042]. See previous rejections for illustrations of this concept.}; and
a deviation of a profile of the vane {Figure 5 (θ)},
the deviation corresponding to an absolute value of a difference between a tangent to the skeleton at the leading edge and a tangent to the skeleton at the trailing edge of the vane {Figure 4, the deviation is camber which is angel E minus angle F; [0043]},
of approximately between 20° and 45° at the radially inner boundary of the vane and between 10° and 40° at the tip of the vane {Figure 4, the prior art dashed line has an angle of approximately 50° at the radially inner boundary and slightly less than (20°) at the tip of the vane. It is noted that any future reference to Figure 4 uses this same prior art line}.
Wadia does not disclose that the angle of the deviation is precisely between 20° and 45° at the radially inner boundary of the vane.
Additionally, Wadia discloses that the airfoil is a fan blade rather than an outer guide vane.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the deviation angle of the vane be in the claimed range of between 20° and 45° at the radially inner boundary of the vane. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as the disclosed value of approximately 50° in Figure 4 approaches the claimed range of between 20° and 45°; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Gallagher pertains to gas turbine engine airfoils. Gallagher teaches:
An airfoil design may be used in a variety of components including fan blades and guide vanes {[0055]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the geometry of the fan blade of Wadia be used for an outer guide blade as taught by Gallagher. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as Gallagher recognizes that an airfoil design may be utilized in a variety of applications including fan blades and guide vanes {[0055]}.
Regarding claim 10, Wadia further teaches:
wherein the deviation of the profile of each vane is less than 25° over a portion of the vane extending from the radially inner boundary to a distance of between 40% and 80% of the height of the vane {The claim requires a portion of a region from the radially inner boundary to between 40% and 80% of the height of the vane be less than 25°. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this does not require the entire region to meet this angular threshold. Rather, a portion of the defined region will satisfy the limitation. The examiner finds that a portion of the vane from 40% to 80% has a deviation/camber of less than 25° }.
Regarding claim 11, Wadia further teaches:
wherein the deviation of the profile of each vane at the tip of the vane is of between 10° and 25° {Figure 4, the prior art dashed line has an angle of slightly less than (20°) at the tip of the vane which is in the claimed range}.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Decker et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20080226454) teaches a camber distribution for blades.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL K. REITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1387. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 a.m. -5:30 p.m.
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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at 5712703508. 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.
/MICHAEL K. REITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3745