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, see page 10, lines 8-14, filed May 26, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 11,927,134 to Schimmels. Schimmels teaches a swirl recovery vane is cantilever mounted.
Schimmels was previously cited to teach the propulsor rotor being in an open environment in the rejection of claim 8. The applicant has argued Schimmels cannot be relied upon to modify Foose, see page 12, line 1 through page 14, line 10, that such a modification would change the principle of operation of Foose because the vane of Foose is fully supported at each end and enclosed within the case and platform, which is based on a closed engine architecture. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The principle of operation of Foose is a guide vane having a recess (column 1, lines 17-27). Foose describes “various implementations” which have additional features of the invention, however Foose uses the word “may” which suggests these features are optional. The additional features include a core material which reduces the bulk density, and the vanes being in an array circumscribed by a duct (column 1, lines 28-33). The examiner further notes Foose states various modifications may be made to the described embodiments (column 3, line 66 through column 4, line 4). Thus, Foose does not appear to be limited to the closed environment embodiments described in the embodiment seen in Figure 1.
Furthermore, Schimmels teaches unshrouded guide vanes are acceptable alternatives to shrouded guide vanes (column 11, lines 62-67). Thus, the prior art shows teachings for shrouded guide vanes could be used for cantilever mounted guide vanes.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) submitted May 26, 2026 and June 25, 2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 8-11, 13-17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7,980,817 to Foose in view of US 11,199,107 to Reba and in further view of US 11,927,134 to Schimmels..
In Reference to Claims 1, 8, and 14
Foose teaches:
A gas turbine engine (20) with a swirl recovery vane (50) with structurally capable acoustic treatment comprising:
a rotor (fan 30);
an array of swirl recovery vanes (50) supported downstream of the rotor, the array of swirl recovery vanes attached to a nacelle flow surface (duct 38),
each swirl recovery vane of the array of swirl recovery vanes comprising:
a leading edge (58) and a trailing edge (60) opposite chordwise from the leading edge;
an attachment region (54) opposite spanwise from a tip region (56);
a span dimension (height) extending between the attachment region and the tip region;
a chord dimension (length) extending between the leading edge and the trailing edge;
a pressure side (62) opposite a suction side (64) of the swirl recovery vane;
a structural feature (airfoil 52) formed within the swirl recovery vane extending spanwise through the swirl recovery vane between the attachment region and the tip region and chordwise between the leading edge and the trailing edge;
an acoustic receiver (rebate 120 and well 122) formed within the structural feature extending spanwise through the swirl recovery vane between the attachment region and the tip region and chordwise between the leading edge and the trailing edge;
an acoustic receiver shape (trapezoid); and
an acoustic panel (core 204 in Figure 8) inserted into the acoustic receiver (see column 2, line 17 through column 3, line 9, and column 3, lines 47-65 and Figures 2, 5, and 8).
Foose fails to teach:
The rotor is located within an open environment, the swirl recovery vane is a cantilever supported structure, and the acoustic receiver shape is selected from the group consisting of oval, circle, semicircle, rhombus, diamond, pentagon, hexagon, octagon, nonagon, and decagon.
Reba teaches:
A vane comprising a structural feature (airfoil 202) and an acoustic receiver (not numbered, space occupied by acoustic resonator inserts, such as insert 302 in Figure 3 or 600 in Figure 6B) formed within the structural feature extending spanwise through the vane between an attachment region (radially inner end) and a tip region (radially outer end) and chordwise between a leading edge (left side in Figure 2) and a trailing edge (right side in Figure 2), and an acoustic receiver shape which is a circle (cylindrical shape has a circular cross-section, see column 9, lines 20-25 and Figure 6B) (see column 8, line 44 through column 9, line 44 and Figures 3, 6A, and 6B).
Schimmels teaches:
A gas turbine (100) comprising a propulsor rotor (fan 154) located within an open environment, and an array of swirl recovery vanes (162), wherein the swirl recovery vanes cantilever supported structures (supported at the radially inward end) (see column 11, lines 57-67, and Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the swirl recovery vane of Foose by re-shaping the acoustic receiver to have a circle shape to secure a cylindrical acoustic panel as taught by Reba as both references are directed to guide vanes having noise reducing features, and which would yield predictable results. In this case, the predictable result would be a resonator having a cylindrical shape (and circular cross-section) would reduce the noise of air passing through the gas turbine.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the swirl recovery vane of Foose by forming the gas turbine engine as an open rotor engine such that the rotor is a propulsor rotor located within an open environment and locating the swirl recovery vane in the open environment as cantilever supported structures as taught by Schimmels which is a simple substitution which replaces one well-known gas turbine engine type (turbofan) with another well-known gas turbine engine type (turboprop) which would yield predictable results. In this case, the predictable result would be the swirl recovery vane of Foose being used in a gas turbine having an open rotor, where the vane is cantilever supported at the root end downstream of the fan rotor. The vane of Foose would still reduce the noise produced by the fluid passing the vane.
Regarding claim 14, the gas turbine engine of Foose as modified by Schimmels and Reba would perform a process comprising: locating the propulsor rotor within an open environment, supporting the array of swirl recovery vanes downstream of the propulsor rotor, attaching the array of swirl recovery vanes to a nacelle flow surface by coupling an attachment region of the swirl recovery vane with the nacelle flow surface, the array of swirl recovery vanes being attached as cantilever supported structures, forming the structural feature, forming the acoustic receiver, forming the acoustic receiver shape as a circle, and inserting the acoustic panel into the acoustic receiver.
In Reference to Claims #2, 9, and 15
Foose as modified by Reba and Schimmels teaches:
The swirl recovery vane with structurally capable acoustic treatment according to claim 1 and the gas turbine engine of claim 8, wherein the structural feature and the acoustic receiver are formed in the swirl recovery vane at predetermined locations along the span of the swirl recovery vane.
Regarding claim 15, Foose as modified by Reba and Schimmels teaches:
The process of claim 14, further comprising: forming the acoustic receiver in the swirl recovery vane at a predetermined location along the span of the swirl recovery vane.
The structural feature extends the entire span of the vane from the attachment region to the tip region, and the acoustic receiver is designed within the structural feature. The structural feature and acoustic receiver would be located at predetermined locations when designing the swirl recovery vane (see Figure 2 of Foose).
In Reference to Claims #3, 11, and 17
Foose as modified by Reba and Schimmels teaches:
The swirl recovery vane with structurally capable acoustic treatment according to claim 1 and the gas turbine engine of claim 8, wherein the acoustic panel and acoustic receiver are located on the pressure side of the swirl recovery vane (see Figure 5 of Foose).
Regarding claim 17, Foose as modified by Reba and Schimmels teaches:
The process of claim 14, further comprising: locating the acoustic receiver on the pressure side of the swirl recovery vane (see Figure 5 of Foose).
In Reference to Claims #5, 10, and 16
Foose as modified by Reba and Schimmels teaches:
The swirl recovery vane with structurally capable acoustic treatment according to claim 1 and the gas turbine engine of claim 8, further comprising:
the acoustic treatment formed within the acoustic panel within the acoustic receiver, the acoustic treatment configured to dissipate sound energy (see column 3, lines 47-61 of Foose).
Regarding claim 16, Foose as modified by Reba and Schimmels teaches:
The process of claim 14, further comprising: forming the acoustic treatment within the acoustic panel; and configuring the acoustic treatment to dissipate sound energy (see column 3, lines 47-61 of Foose).
In Reference to Claim #7
Foose as modified by Reba and Schimmels teaches:
The swirl recovery vane with structurally capable acoustic treatment according to claim 1, wherein the acoustic panel is configured interchangeable to accommodate design changes and/or damage to the acoustic panel.
The acoustic panel is attached via adhesive (column 3, lines 18-29 of Foose), and thus is capable of being removed and replaced. Regarding the design changes and/or damage to the acoustic panel, the motivation for changing the acoustic panel does not define the structure of the swirl recovery vane. The limitation requires the acoustic panel to the have function of being interchangeable.
In Reference to Claim 13
Foose as modified by Reba and Schimmels teaches:
The gas turbine engine with the swirl recovery vane with structurally capable acoustic treatment according to claim 8, further comprising: a surface skin (panel 200 of Foose) in operative communication with the acoustic panel (see column 3, lines 46-65 of Foose).
In Reference to Claim 19
Foose as modified by Reba and Schimmels teaches:
The process of claim 14, further comprising: configuring the acoustic panel and a surface skin as a combination panel interchangeable to accommodate design changes and/or damage.
The acoustic panel is attached via adhesive (see column 3, lines 18-29 of Foose), and thus is capable of being removed and replaced. Regarding the design changes and/or damage to the acoustic panel, the motivation for changing the acoustic panel does not define the structure of the swirl recovery vane or the process being performed. The limitation requires the acoustic panel to have the function of being interchangeable.
In Reference to Claim 20
Foose as modified by Reba and Schimmels teaches:
The process of claim 14, shaping the acoustic panel to influence acoustic dampening capability in the proximity of the swirl recovery vane (see column 3, lines 46-65 of Foose).
Claim(s) 6 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7,980,817 to Foose as modified by US 11,199,107 to Reba and US 11,927,134 to Schimmels as applied to claim 1 and 14 above, and further in view of US 9,587,497 to Hunziker.
In Reference to Claim 6
Foose as modified by Reba and Schimmels teaches:
The swirl recovery vane with structurally capable acoustic treatment according to claim 1, comprising the acoustic panel attached to the acoustic receiver.
Foose as modified by Reba and Schimmels fails to teach:
The acoustic panel is configured insertable as a snap fit or friction fit into the acoustic receiver.
Hunziker teaches:
A vane (30) comprising a receiver (cavity between leading edge cover 34, suction side covering sheet 35, and trailing edge cover 36 occupied by core 33) and a panel (core 33), wherein the panel is configured insertable as a friction fit (interference fit, column 6, lines 19-22) into the receiver (see column 5, line 60 through column 6, line 3 and column 6, lines 17-22, and Figure 3B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the swirl recovery vane of Foose as modified by Reba and Schimmels by joining the panel to the receiver using a friction fit as taught by Hunziker as both references are directed to vanes having panels, and for the purpose of further securing the panel in the vane (column 5, lines 12-16 of Hunziker).
Regarding claim 18, Foose as modified by Reba, Schimmels, and Hunziker teaches:
The process of claim 14, further comprising: configuring the acoustic panel insertable as a friction fit into the acoustic receiver.
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 JASON GREGORY DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3289. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:00-5:00, F: 8:00-12:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan 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.
/JASON G DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights