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Applicant provisionally elected species II and has withdrawn claim 10 as a result of the restriction requirement imposed. Applicant argues there is no serious search and examination burden with respect to this claim. The Examiner agrees and has withdrawn the restriction requirement. Claim 10 has been examined below.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 9-10 and 14-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12338747. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because any remaining differences in the claims are obvious. Claims 11 and 18 disclose overlapping ranges of APF, including multiple stages and APF1/APF2 and the 20%-80% span length. The remaining differences are bypass ratios, gearbox ratios, chord lengths of the airfoils, and fan tip speeds; all of these limitations are obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as they are merely design choices (chord length of the blade), or well known (bypass ratio, gearbox ratio, fan tip speeds).
Claims 9-10 and 14-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12503947. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because any remaining differences in the claims are obvious. Claims 1 and 7 disclose overlapping ranges of APF, including multiple stages and APF1/APF2. The remaining differences are bypass ratios, gearbox ratios, chord lengths of the airfoils, span length percentages, and fan tip speeds; all of these limitations are obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as they are merely design choices (chord length of the blade), or well known (bypass ratio, gearbox ratio, fan tip speeds).
Claims 9-10 and 14-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12442306. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because any remaining differences in the claims are obvious. Claims 1, 11, and 12 disclose overlapping ranges of APF, including multiple stages and APF1/APF2. The remaining differences are bypass ratios, gearbox ratios, chord lengths of the airfoils, span length percentages, and fan tip speeds; all of these limitations are obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as they are merely design choices (chord length of the blade), or well known (bypass ratio, gearbox ratio, fan tip speeds).
Claims 9-10 and 14-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12601270. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because any remaining differences in the claims are obvious. Claims 1 and 11 disclose overlapping ranges of APF, including multiple stages and APF1/APF2. The remaining differences are bypass ratios, gearbox ratios, chord lengths of the airfoils, span length percentages, and fan tip speeds; all of these limitations are obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as they are merely design choices (chord length of the blade), or well known (bypass ratio, gearbox ratio, fan tip speeds).
Claims 9-10 and 14-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 12-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12359572. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because any remaining differences in the claims are obvious. Claims 1 and 11 disclose overlapping ranges of APF, including multiple stages and APF1/APF2. The remaining differences are bypass ratios, gearbox ratios, chord lengths of the airfoils, span length percentages, and fan tip speeds; all of these limitations are obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as they are merely design choices (chord length of the blade), or well known (bypass ratio, gearbox ratio, fan tip speeds).
Claims 9-10 and 14-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, 11, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12352183. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because any remaining differences in the claims are obvious. Claims 1, 8, 11, and 18 disclose overlapping ranges of APF, including multiple stages and APF1/APF2. The remaining differences are bypass ratios, gearbox ratios, chord lengths of the airfoils, span length percentages, and fan tip speeds; all of these limitations are obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as they are merely design choices (chord length of the blade), or well known (bypass ratio, gearbox ratio, fan tip speeds).
Claims 9-10 and 14-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9-11, and 18-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12326101. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because any remaining differences in the claims are obvious. Claims 1, 9-11, and 18-19 disclose overlapping ranges of APF, including multiple stages and APF1/APF2. The remaining differences are bypass ratios, gearbox ratios, chord lengths of the airfoils, span length percentages, and fan tip speeds; all of these limitations are obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as they are merely design choices (chord length of the blade), or well known (bypass ratio, gearbox ratio, fan tip speeds).
Claims 9-10 and 14-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 12467370. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because any remaining differences in the claims are obvious. Claims 1-4 disclose overlapping ranges of APF, including multiple stages and APF1/APF2. The remaining differences are bypass ratios, gearbox ratios, chord lengths of the airfoils, span length percentages, and fan tip speeds; all of these limitations are obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as they are merely design choices (chord length of the blade), or well known (bypass ratio, gearbox ratio, fan tip speeds).
Claims 9-10 and 14-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5-8, 12-15, 19-20, 23, and 27-28 of U.S. Patent No. 12331661. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because any remaining differences in the claims are obvious. Claims 1, 5-8, 12-15, 19-20, 23, and 27-28 disclose overlapping ranges of APF, including multiple stages and APF1/APF2. The remaining differences are bypass ratios, gearbox ratios, chord lengths of the airfoils, span length percentages, and fan tip speeds; all of these limitations are obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as they are merely design choices (chord length of the blade), or well known (bypass ratio, gearbox ratio, fan tip speeds).
Claims 9-10 and 14-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 20-22, 26-28, 32-34, 43, 47-48, 54-55, and 59-60 of U.S. Patent No. 12410719. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because any remaining differences in the claims are obvious. Claims 1, 20-22, 26-28, 32-34, 43, 47-48, 54-55, and 59-60 disclose overlapping ranges of APF, including multiple stages and APF1/APF2. The remaining differences are bypass ratios, gearbox ratios, chord lengths of the airfoils, span length percentages, and fan tip speeds; all of these limitations are obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as they are merely design choices (chord length of the blade), or well known (bypass ratio, gearbox ratio, fan tip speeds).
Claims 9-10 and 14-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12601269. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because any remaining differences in the claims are obvious. Claims 1 and 5-7 disclose overlapping ranges of APF, including multiple stages and APF1/APF2. The remaining differences are bypass ratios, gearbox ratios, chord lengths of the airfoils, span length percentages, and fan tip speeds; all of these limitations are obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as they are merely design choices (chord length of the blade), or well known (bypass ratio, gearbox ratio, fan tip speeds).
Claims 9-10 and 14-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8-11, and 18-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12320273. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because any remaining differences in the claims are obvious. Claims 1, 8-11, and 18-20 disclose overlapping ranges of APF, including multiple stages and APF1/APF2. The remaining differences are bypass ratios, gearbox ratios, chord lengths of the airfoils, span length percentages, and fan tip speeds; all of these limitations are obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as they are merely design choices (chord length of the blade), or well known (bypass ratio, gearbox ratio, fan tip speeds).
Claims 9-10 and 14-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1 and 9-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12467476. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because any remaining differences in the claims are obvious. Claims 1 and 9-11 disclose overlapping ranges of APF, including multiple stages and APF1/APF2. The remaining differences are bypass ratios, gearbox ratios, chord lengths of the airfoils, span length percentages, and fan tip speeds; all of these limitations are obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as they are merely design choices (chord length of the blade), or well known (bypass ratio, gearbox ratio, fan tip speeds).
Claims 9-10 and 14-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 9-14, and 18-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12158082. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because any remaining differences in the claims are obvious. Claims 1, 5, 9-14, and 18-19 disclose overlapping ranges of APF, including multiple stages and APF1/APF2. The remaining differences are bypass ratios, gearbox ratios, chord lengths of the airfoils, span length percentages, and fan tip speeds; all of these limitations are obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as they are merely design choices (chord length of the blade), or well known (bypass ratio, gearbox ratio, fan tip speeds).
Claims 9-10 and 14-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5-8, and 12-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12345177. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because any remaining differences in the claims are obvious. Claims 1, 5-8, and 12-15 disclose overlapping ranges of APF, including multiple stages and APF1/APF2. The remaining differences are bypass ratios, gearbox ratios, chord lengths of the airfoils, span length percentages, and fan tip speeds; all of these limitations are obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as they are merely design choices (chord length of the blade), or well known (bypass ratio, gearbox ratio, fan tip speeds).
Claims 9-10 and 14-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 6, 10-11, 14, 16-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12326154. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because any remaining differences in the claims are obvious. Claims 1, 4, 6, 10-11, 14, 16-18 disclose overlapping ranges of APF, including multiple stages and APF1/APF2. The remaining differences are bypass ratios, gearbox ratios, chord lengths of the airfoils, span length percentages, and fan tip speeds; all of these limitations are obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as they are merely design choices (chord length of the blade), or well known (bypass ratio, gearbox ratio, fan tip speeds).
Claims 9-10 and 14-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, 11, 13, and 18-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12326155. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because any remaining differences in the claims are obvious. Claims 1, 9, 11, 13, and 18-19 disclose overlapping ranges of APF, including multiple stages and APF1/APF2. The remaining differences are bypass ratios, gearbox ratios, chord lengths of the airfoils, span length percentages, and fan tip speeds; all of these limitations are obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as they are merely design choices (chord length of the blade), or well known (bypass ratio, gearbox ratio, fan tip speeds).
Claims 9-10 and 14-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, 10-11, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12326157. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because any remaining differences in the claims are obvious. Claims 1, 8, 10-11, and 18 disclose overlapping ranges of APF, including multiple stages and APF1/APF2. The remaining differences are bypass ratios, gearbox ratios, chord lengths of the airfoils, span length percentages, and fan tip speeds; all of these limitations are obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as they are merely design choices (chord length of the blade), or well known (bypass ratio, gearbox ratio, fan tip speeds).
Claims 9-10 and 14-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, 13-16, 21-22, and 26-27 of U.S. Patent No. 12352284. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because any remaining differences in the claims are obvious. Claims 1, 9, 13-16, 21-22, and 26-27 disclose overlapping ranges of APF, including multiple stages and APF1/APF2. The remaining differences are bypass ratios, gearbox ratios, chord lengths of the airfoils, span length percentages, and fan tip speeds; all of these limitations are obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as they are merely design choices (chord length of the blade), or well known (bypass ratio, gearbox ratio, fan tip speeds).
Claims 9-10 and 14-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, 13-16, 21-22, and 26-27 of U.S. Patent No. 12352284. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because any remaining differences in the claims are obvious. Claims 1, 9, 13-16, 21-22, and 26-27 disclose overlapping ranges of APF, including multiple stages and APF1/APF2. The remaining differences are bypass ratios, gearbox ratios, chord lengths of the airfoils, span length percentages, and fan tip speeds; all of these limitations are obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as they are merely design choices (chord length of the blade), or well known (bypass ratio, gearbox ratio, fan tip speeds).
Claims 9-10 and 14-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-4, 7-9, and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12571404. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because any remaining differences in the claims are obvious. Claims 1, 3-4, 7-9, and 12 disclose overlapping ranges of APF, including multiple stages and APF1/APF2. The remaining differences are bypass ratios, gearbox ratios, chord lengths of the airfoils, span length percentages, and fan tip speeds; all of these limitations are obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as they are merely design choices (chord length of the blade), or well known (bypass ratio, gearbox ratio, fan tip speeds).
Claims 9-10 and 14-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8-9, and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12584494. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because any remaining differences in the claims are obvious. Claims 1, 8-9, and 12 disclose overlapping ranges of APF, including multiple stages and APF1/APF2. The remaining differences are bypass ratios, gearbox ratios, chord lengths of the airfoils, span length percentages, and fan tip speeds; all of these limitations are obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as they are merely design choices (chord length of the blade), or well known (bypass ratio, gearbox ratio, fan tip speeds).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 9, 14-16, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 20160208615) in view of Murooka (US 20130111908) and Stilin (US 20220136394).
Regarding claims 9 and 14;
Li discloses a turbine engine (15) comprising: a fan (14) comprising a fan casing/nacelle (30); a turbomachine defining an engine centerline (11) and comprising a compressor section (16, 18), a combustor (21) in fluid communication with the compressor section, a turbine section (22, 24) in fluid communication with the combustor; a set of composite airfoils (20) circumferentially arranged about the engine centerline, an airfoil of the set of composite airfoils comprising: a composite portion (Paragraph 26) extending chordwise between a composite leading edge and a trailing edge (Figure 8); a leading edge protector (64) coupled to the composite portion at the composite leading edge to define a seam (see the seam in Figure 8), and extending chordwise between a leading edge and the seam to define a leading length (lengths 82, 84); and the composite portion and the leading edge protector together defining an exterior surface of the airfoil and extending chordwise between the leading edge and the trailing edge to define a chord length (Paragraph 28).
Li fails to teach a speed reduction device driven by the turbine section for rotating the fan and wherein the leading length (LL) is related to the chord length (CL) by an airfoil protection factor APF = LL/CL; and wherein the APF is greater than or equal to 0.08 and less than or equal to 0.3 (0.08<APF<0.3), wherein each of the set of composite airfoils extend spanwise between a root and a tip to define a span length and the APF is determined between 20% and 80% of the span length, and wherein an airfoil in the set of composite airfoils has a CL that is greater than or equal to 9 cm and less than or equal to 77 cm (9 cm<CL<77 cm).
Murooka teaches the relationship between leading edge protector chordwise extend and chord length. Murooka defines “sheath length k” as the chordwise extend of the sheath (LL) and expresses it as a percentage of chord (Paragraph 39). The ratio is considered to be greater than or equal to 0.08 or less than or equal to 0.3 (10%-60% chord which substantially overlaps with the claimed range), and each of the set of composite airfoils extend spanwise between a root and a tip to define a span length and the APF is determined between 20% and 80% of the span length (Paragraphs 39 and 43). Stilin teaches a composite fan blade with a leading edge sheath (76) in an engine with a geared architecture (48).
Because Li discloses a composite fan blade with a leading edge sheath protector, and because Murooka teaches a fan blade with a leading edge sheath protector that relates the length of the protector with the chord of the blade measured at a spanwise location (and can optimize the sizing of the sheath), it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fan of Li such that the leading length (LL) is related to the chord length (CL) by an airfoil protection factor APF = LL/CL; and wherein the APF is greater than or equal to 0.08 and less than or equal to 0.3 (0.08<APF<0.3), wherein each of the set of composite airfoils extend spanwise between a root and a tip to define a span length and the APF is determined between 20% and 80% of the span length as taught by Murooka for the purposes of providing sufficient impact energy reduction while controlling sheath weight.
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 turbine engine of Li such that a speed reduction device driven by the turbine section for rotating the fan as taught by Stilin for the purposes of improving propulsive efficiency.
At the top of MPEP 2144.04, it explains that various modifications, including changes in size and proportion, are “common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients.” Specifically, §§IV. A cites, Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), wherein the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. The applicant has not disclosed that having the chord length between 9 and 77 cm solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above the fact that this is the designed blade chord length chosen. Further, there is no readily apparent significance or advantage to this limitation. Thus, a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the chord length of the blades of Li to have the an airfoil in the set of composite airfoils has a CL that is greater than or equal to 9 cm and less than or equal to 77 cm (9 cm<CL<77 cm) because this modification does not patentably distinguish the claimed device, nor cause the device to perform differently, and thus the modification of the dimensions would have been obvious; the sizing of the chord length is merely dependent on the sizing of the engine and context in which the blade operates.
Regarding claim 15, Li in view of Murooka and Stilin teaches the turbine engine according to claim 14 above. Li further discloses the LL is the same between 20% and 80% of the span length (see the delineation of the protector in Figure 8 of Li, the LL is the same along the cited length).
Regarding claim 16, Li in view of Murooka and Stilin teaches the turbine engine according to claim 14 above. Li as modified by Stilin further teaches the turbine section includes a fan drive turbine and a second turbine and the second turbine is disposed forward of the fan drive turbine and the fan drive turbine includes a plurality of fan drive turbine stages with the speed reduction device driven by the fan drive turbine (Li discloses multiple stages of turbine including an upstream and downstream section with their own respective shafts 23, 25, and as modified by Stilin teaches the multiple fan driving stages as seen in turbine section 28).
Regarding claim 20, Li in view of Murooka and Stilin teaches the turbine engine according to claim 14 above. Li further discloses the composite portion is formed from a polymer matrix composite and the leading edge protector is metallic (Paragraphs 27-28).
Regarding claims 21-22;
Li in view of Murooka and Stilin teaches the turbine engine according to claim 14 above.
Li fails to teach between 20% and 80% span length the LL is between 6-19 cm and 1.5-4 cm.
At the top of MPEP 2144.04, it explains that various modifications, including changes in size and proportion, are “common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients.” Specifically, §§IV. A cites, Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), wherein the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. The applicant has not disclosed that having the LL between 6 cm and 19 cm or 1.5 and 4 cm between 9 and 77 cm solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above the fact that this is the designed length based on the blade chord length chosen. Further, there is no readily apparent significance or advantage to this limitation. Thus, a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device. Additionally, with the combination of Murooka the LL is already a set percentage of the chord length, and would thus vary in size depending on how large/small the chord length of the blades are. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the LL of Li such that between 20% and 80% span length the LL is between 6-19 cm and 1.5-4 cm because this modification does not patentably distinguish the claimed device, nor cause the device to perform differently, and thus the modification of the dimensions would have been obvious; the sizing of the chord length is merely dependent on the sizing of the engine and context in which the blade operates.
Claims 10 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 20160208615) in view of Murooka (US 20130111908) and Stilin (US 20220136394), and further in view of Molesini (US 20220042462).
Li in view of Murooka and Stilin teaches the turbine engine according to claim 14 above.
Li fails to teach the turbine engine is an open rotor engine and the bypass ratio is between 25:1 and 125:1 or the speed reduction device is a power gearbox having a power gearbox reduction ratio between 6:1 and 12:1.
Molesini teaches an open rotor engine (Figure 1) with a fan (104) and a power gearbox having a gear ratio of the first rotational speed to the second rotational speed is within a range of 4.1-14 (abstract).
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 turbine engine of Li such that the turbine engine is an open rotor engine and the speed reduction device is a power gearbox having a power gearbox reduction ratio between 6:1 and 12:1 as taught by Molesini for the purposes of better propulsive efficiency at subsonic cruise and fuel burn reduction.
Claims 17 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 20160208615) in view of Murooka (US 20130111908) and Stilin (US 20220136394), and further in view of Drozdenko (US 20140219808).
Li in view of Murooka and Stilin teaches the turbine engine according to claim 14 above.
Li as modified fails to teach the bypass ratio between 10:1 and 22:1 and the power gearbox having a power gearbox ratio between 2:1 and 5:1, and the fan tip speed is less than 1400 fps.
Drozdenko teaches a gas turbine engine with a fan having a gearbox that has a reduction ratio between 2:1 and 5:1 (Paragraph 11), a bypass ratio between 10:1 and 22:1 (Paragraph 12), and a fan tip speed of less than 1400 fps (Paragraph 14).
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 turbine engine of Li such that the bypass ratio between 10:1 and 22:1 and the power gearbox having a power gearbox ratio between 2:1 and 5:1, and the fan tip speed is less than 1400 fps as taught by Drozdenko for the purposes of improving fuel efficiency for an amount of power output.
Claims 18-19 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 20160208615) in view of Murooka (US 20130111908) and Stilin (US 20220136394), and further in view of Barnett (US 20220120186).
Li in view of Murooka and Stilin teaches the turbine engine according to claim 14 above.
Li fails to teach the set of composite airfoils includes a set of fan blades and a set of outlet guide vanes and a first APF (APF1) for the set of fan blades is greater than or equal to 0.2 and less than or equal to 0.30 (0.2≤APF1≤0.3) and a second APF (APF2) for the set of outlet guide vanes is greater than or equal to 0.08 and less than or equal to 0.17 (0.08≤APF2≤0.17), the set of composite airfoils includes a first stage of composite airfoils and a second stage of composite airfoils downstream from the first stage of composite airfoils and wherein the first stage of composite airfoils has a first airfoil protection factor (APF1) and the second stage of composite airfoils has a second airfoil protection factor (APF2) and wherein the first airfoil protection factor (APF relates to the second airfoil protection factor (APF2) by an expression: APF1/APF2 to define a stage protection factor (SPF), wherein the SPF is greater APF2 than or equal to 0.7 and less than or equal to 4 (0.7<SPF<4), and the SPF is between 0.95 and 2.5.
Barnett teaches a composite guide vane with a metallic leading edge sheath for turbofan engine stator vanes. The vane body (26) is constructed of composite material (Paragraph 33) with a metallic sheath (28) and is applied to the leading edge, and is applicable in bypass duct as an outlet guide vane (Paragraph 30). Murooka establishes sheath chordwise extent as a fraction of chord as a result effective variable with a governing principle of selecting coverage within a range that impacts energy dictates the sheath extent (Paragraphs 24, 41, 44).
Li, Murooka, and Barnett all related to composite airfoils with metallic leading edge sheaths n gas turbine engines. OGV’s experience lower impact energy since they are stationary and positioned downstream of the fan which means they encounter fragments that have been deflected from the fan blades. Since the OGV’s experience lower impact, the OGV coverage can be sized accordingly with a range on the lower end of the cited range of Murooka because the impact energy is lower for the stationary guide vane in comparison to the fan blades. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the engine of Li such that the set of composite airfoils includes a set of fan blades and a set of outlet guide vanes and a first APF (APF1) for the set of fan blades is greater than or equal to 0.2 and less than or equal to 0.30 (0.2≤APF1≤0.3) and a second APF (APF2) for the set of outlet guide vanes is greater than or equal to 0.08 and less than or equal to 0.17 (0.08≤APF2≤0.17), the set of composite airfoils includes a first stage of composite airfoils and a second stage of composite airfoils downstream from the first stage of composite airfoils and wherein the first stage of composite airfoils has a first airfoil protection factor (APF1) and the second stage of composite airfoils has a second airfoil protection factor (APF2) and wherein the first airfoil protection factor (APF relates to the second airfoil protection factor (APF2) by an expression: APF1/APF2 to define a stage protection factor (SPF), wherein the SPF is greater APF2 than or equal to 0.7 and less than or equal to 4 (0.7<SPF<4), and the SPF is between 0.95 and 2.5 as taught by Barnett and Murooka for the purposes of protecting the downstream OGV’s while optimizing the ratio necessary for the impact.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN D SEABE whose telephone number is (571)272-4961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathaniel 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.
/JUSTIN D SEABE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights