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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 8, 2026 have been fully considered.
The 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections are withdrawn based on the amendments.
New 35 U.S.C 103 rejections based on Breeze-Stringfellow et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20120243983) and other art are presented below based upon the applicant’s amendments. It is noted that Breeze-Stringfellow refers to camber without providing a detailed description of the meaning as it is a common term in the art. For reference, Gallagher et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20170167503) shows a full visualization and description of the concept in Figure 5 and paragraph [0061].
Claim 23 is withdrawn; see Election/Restriction section below.
The change of the grounds of the rejections are necessitated by amendment and are therefore final.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 23 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 § 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, 3-10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breeze-Stringfellow et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20120243983) hereinafter Breeze-Stringfellow in view of Gallagher et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20160356285) hereinafter Gallagher.
Regarding claim 1, Gallagher discloses:
Outer guide vanes of an unducted thrust-generating assembly for a turbine engine {Figure 8 (204); [0034]. 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 Breeze-Stringfellow for purposes of claim mapping},
the outer guide vanes comprising a plurality of vanes {Figure 8 (204); the airfoils are stator vanes; [0034]} each having:
a tip and a radially inner boundary corresponding to an intersection between the vane and a casing of the turbine engine {Figure 2,the tip is (12); the radially inner boundary is (11) and is where the vane/airfoil intersects with the casing (17); [0021]-[0022]};
a skeleton corresponding to an imaginary line extending from a leading edge to a trailing edge of the vane {Figure 3, the camber mean line is not shown but is the common term for what the applicant refers to as the skeleton. This is present for every 2D cross section of the vane including (201)/(202)/(203); [0023]/[0032]},
the skeleton being equidistant between a pressure surface and a suction surface of the vane {Figure 3, the camber mean line is an imaginary line as claimed above and is by definition drawn such that it satisfies the equidistant relationship claimed. Figure 2 shows pressure surface (5) and suction surface (6); [0022]-[0023]}; and
a deviation of a profile of the vane {Figure 5, camber / camber angle is the common name for what the applicant refers to as a deviation; [0014/[0032]]},
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, camber / camber angle is the common name for what the applicant refers to as a deviation and it corresponds to the claimed different between the tangent lines; [0014]/[0032]},
wherein the deviation decreases from the radially inner boundary of the vane towards the tip of the vane to a point on the vane and increases from the point on the vane to the tip of the vane {Figure 5, the deviation / camber of the conventional design distribution shown decreases from 0% span towards 100% span to a point that is roughly at 50-55% span. The deviation / camber then increases from this point to 100% span}.
Breeze-Stringfellow discloses a conventional deviation distribution that is normalized by the minimum camber. Breeze-Stringfellow does not explicitly describe what are suitable values of minimum camber that the distribution may apply to or what values are not suitable. The general engineering presumption would be that any reasonable value should be apply to be applied to a normalized distribution; this is the purpose of normalization to make some physical/mathematical concept apply across a broad range of circumstances. Breeze-Stringfellow therefore does not explicitly disclose:
The deviation is approximately between 25° and 35° at the radially inner boundary of the vane and between 10° and 32° at the tip of the vane
Gallagher pertains to airfoil camber distributions. Gallagher teaches:
The minimum camber of the airfoil is approximately 20° {Figure 6, the lower “Prior Art” line}
Since Breeze-Stringfellow does not disclose exact minimum camber values that the normalized distribution would apply to, 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 chosen the minimum camber of the distribution of Breeze-Stringfellow be 20° as taught by Gallagher. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as a variety of minimum cambers can be applied to airfoils {Gallagher [0041]}, the lower “Prior Art” line of Gallagher has a similar general pattern to its distribution of camber, and the general engineering presumption would be that any reasonable value should be apply to be applied to a normalized distribution {Breeze-Stringfellow [0032]}.
The combination of Breeze-Stringfellow and Gallagher therefore teaches:
The deviation is approximately between 25° and 35° at the radially inner boundary of the vane and between 10° and 32° at the tip of the vane {Breeze-Stringfellow Figure 5 “conventional design”, the deviation at 0% span is roughly 1.4 times 20 degrees, which equals 28 degrees. The deviation at 100% span is roughly 1.32 times 20 degrees which equals 26.4 degrees. Both values lie within the respective claimed ranges}
Regarding claim 3, Breeze-Stringfellow further discloses:
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% {Breeze-Stringfellow Figure 5 “conventional design”, the minimum deviation / camber of the profile of each vane is roughly located at 50%-55% span; this lies in between 40% and 100%}.
Regarding claim 4, Breeze-Stringfellow further discloses:
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 {Breeze-Stringfellow Figure 5 “conventional design”, decreases deviation / camber of the profile of each vane from 0% to roughly 50%-55% span; therefore, the limitation is satisfied}.
Regarding claim 5, Breeze-Stringfellow further discloses:
Wherein the point on the vane is located at a distance from the radially inner boundary of the vane {Breeze-Stringfellow Figure 5 “conventional design”, the point corresponds to the location of the minimum deviation / camber of the profile of each vane and is roughly located at 50%-55% span. The distance is therefore 50%-55% of the height of the vane},
Wherein the distance is between 45% of the height of the vane and 85% of the height of the vane {Breeze-Stringfellow Figure 5 “conventional design”, the point corresponds to the location of the minimum deviation / camber of the profile of each vane and is roughly located at 50%-55% span. The distance is therefore 50%-55% of the height of the vane}.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Breeze-Stringfellow and 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 {Breeze-Stringfellow Figure 5 “conventional design”, the minimum deviation is 20° based on the normalization based on Gallagher; therefore, the deviation of each vane is greater than 20° as claimed}.
Regarding claim 8, Breeze-Stringfellow further discloses:
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 {Breeze-Stringfellow Figure 5 “conventional design”, the deviation at 0% span is roughly 1.4 (normalized) which is strictly greater than at 100% span of roughly 1.32 (normalized)}.
Regarding claim 9, Breeze-Stringfellow further discloses:
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 {Breeze-Stringfellow Figure 5 “conventional design”, the deviation at 0% span is has a maximum deviation at roughly 1.4 (normalized)}.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Breeze-Stringfellow and Gallagher 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 the point on the vane that is located at a distance from the radially inner boundary between 40% and 80% of the height of the vane {Breeze-Stringfellow Figure 5 “conventional design”, the deviation is less than 25° from about 15% span to the point located at roughly 50%-55%. This is portion of the vane from the radially inner boundary to the point}.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Breeze-Stringfellow and Gallagher further 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 {Breeze-Stringfellow Figure 5 “conventional design”, the deviation is less than 25° from about 15% span to t roughly about 85%; 1.25 times 20 degrees}
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breeze-Stringfellow in view of 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, the combination of Breeze-Stringfellow and 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 the combination of Breeze-Stringfellow and 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 [0040]}.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breeze-Stringfellow in view of 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, the combination of Breeze-Stringfellow and 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 the combination of Breeze-Stringfellow and 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 have the chord at the tip be less than 75% of the maximum chord of the vane of the combination of Breeze-Stringfellow and Gallagher based on the teachings of Wood. 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 Breeze-Stringfellow in view of 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, the combination of Breeze-Stringfellow and Gallagher further teaches:
a propeller {Breeze-Stringfellow [0002], fan}
the outer guide vanes according to claim 1 {See claim 1. Breeze-Stringfellow Figure 8, the guide vanes may be stator (204); [0018]}.
The combination of Breeze-Stringfellow and 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 the combination of Breeze-Stringfellow and 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 Breeze-Stringfellow, Gallagher, and Lopez Guzman further teaches:
A turbine engine {Breeze-Stringfellow, [0002]} comprising;
a casing {Breeze-Stringfellow Figure 8 an unlabeled casing is shown at the radially outer side of the airfoils}; 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 {Breeze-Stringfellow, the fan described in [0002] is rotatable relative to the casing. The outer guide vanes (204) are fixed in rotation relative to the casing}.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Breeze-Stringfellow, 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 Breeze-Stringfellow 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 Breeze-Stringfellow in view of Gallagher and 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 Breeze-Stringfellow, 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 combination of Breeze-Stringfellow, Gallagher, and Lopez Guzman 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 the combination of Breeze-Stringfellow, Gallagher, and Lopez Guzman 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]}.
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 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
Prosecution Insights