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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/7/2026 has been entered.
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) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powell et al (US 20200386189 as referenced in OA dated 5/9/2025) in view of Vise et al (US 20180355822 as referenced in OA dated 5/9/2025) and Plant et al (US 20110265486)
Regarding claim 1, Powell discloses an assembly (Figure 3) for a turbine engine (Figure 3; 250, 220, 205, 224), comprising:
a supplemental thrust section (Figure 3; 218, 246) comprising a rotating detonation combustor (Figure 3; 274. Paragraph 0097); and
a duct (The duct forming Figure 3; 218, 246 which includes at least 270, the casing defining 254, 256, and 236) comprising a supplemental thrust section inlet (Figure 3; 218) fluidly coupled with and leading to the rotating detonation combustor,
a turbine section (Figure 3; 224, 226) fluidly coupled with and upstream of the duct;
a flow of gas (The flow of gas exhausted from the turbine section to the supplemental thrust section) exhausted from the turbine section into the supplemental thrust section.
Powell does not disclose the supplemental thrust section inlet comprising a flow area that decreases as at least a first portion of the supplemental thrust section inlet extends towards the rotating detonation combustor;
a flow regulator configured to regulate a flow of gas exhausted from the turbine section into the supplemental thrust section, the flow regulator comprising one or more variable stator vanes,
wherein each of the one or more variable stator vanes is configured to pivot about a respective radially extending pivot axis.
However, Vise teaches a rotating detonation combustor (The portion of Figure 12; 122 downstream of 128 of 202);
a rotating detonation combustor inlet (The portion of Figure 12; 122 with 128 of 202) comprising a flow area (The flow area of Figure 7; 148. Paragraph 0062) that decreases as at least a first portion (The converging portion of Figure 7; 150) of the rotating detonation combustor inlet extends towards the rotating detonation combustor;
a flow regulator (Figure 12; 210) configured to regulate a flow (The flow into the rotating detonation chamber) into the rotating detonation combustor (Functional Language), the flow regulator comprising one or more variable stator vanes (Paragraph 0083).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Powell to include a rotating detonation combustor inlet (In the context of Powell, the rotating detonation combustor is the supplemental thrust section) comprising a flow area that decreases as at least a first portion of the rotating detonation combustor inlet extends towards the rotating detonation combustor; a flow regulator configured to regulate a flow (In the context of Powell this is a flow of gas exhaust from the turbine section) into the rotating detonation combustor, the flow regulator comprising one or more variable stator vanes as taught by and suggested by Vise in order to direct or block the flow into the rotating detonation combustor (Paragraph 0083, The modification uses the RDC of Vise in Powell).
Powell in view of Vise does not teach wherein each of the one or more variable stator vanes is configured to pivot about a respective radially extending pivot axis.
However, Plant teaches an assembly (Figure 3A; 46) for a turbine engine (Figure 1; 10), comprising:
a flow regulator (Figure 3A; 60) configured to regulate a flow of gas (Functional Language, Paragraph 0019) into a combustor (Figure 1; 42), the flow regulator comprising one or more variable stator vanes (Figure 3A; 60 is a vane, Paragraph 0020),
wherein each of the one or more variable stator vanes is configured to pivot about a respective radially extending pivot axis (Figure 1; 61, This axis is radially extending with respect to the central axis of the combustor. Paragraph 0020).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Powell in view of Vise wherein each of the one or more variable stator vanes is configured to pivot about a respective radially extending pivot axis as taught by and suggested by Plant because it has been held that applying a known technique, in this case Plant’s use of a flow regulating vane according to the steps described immediately above, to a known device, in this case, Powerll in view of Vise’s assembly, ready for improvement to yield predictable results, in this case varying the pressure drop and mass flow into the combustor, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(D) (The modification uses the flow regulating vane of Plant instead of the flow regulating vane of Vise).
Regarding claim 2, Powell in view of Vise and Plant teaches the invention as claimed.
Powell further discloses wherein the turbine section is upstream of the supplemental thrust section.
Regarding claim 3, Powell in view of Vise and Plant teaches the invention as claimed.
Powell further discloses wherein the supplemental thrust section inlet comprises an annular supplemental thrust section inlet. (The supplemental thrust section inlet is annular)
Regarding claim 4, Powell in view of Vise and Plant teaches the invention as claimed.
Powell further discloses wherein the supplemental thrust section inlet comprises an inner wall (The inner wall defining Figure 3; 218) and an outer wall (The outer wall defining Figure 3; 218);
the inner wall extends circumferentially about a centerline (Figure 3; 206).
Powell does not disclose the inner wall extends radially outward towards the outer wall as the first portion of the supplemental thrust section inlet extends axially along the centerline towards the rotating detonation combustor.
However, Vise teaches wherein the rotating detonation combustor inlet comprises an inner wall and an outer wall (The top and bottom instances of Figure 7; 150, respectively);
the inner wall extends circumferentially about a centerline (Figure 12; 116); and
the inner wall extends radially outward towards the outer wall as the first portion of the rotating detonation combustor inlet extends axially along the centerline towards the rotating detonation combustor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Powell wherein the inner wall extends radially outward towards the outer wall as the first portion of the rotating detonation combustor inlet (In the context of Powell, the rotating detonation combustor is the supplemental thrust section) extends axially along the centerline towards the rotating detonation combustor as taught by and suggested by Vise in order to direct or block the flow into the rotating detonation combustor (Paragraph 0083, This is the same modification as claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, Powell in view of Vise and Plant teaches the invention as claimed.
Powell further discloses the supplemental thrust section inlet comprises an inner wall (The inner wall defining Figure 3; 218) and an outer wall (The outer wall defining Figure 3; 218);
the inner wall extends circumferentially about a centerline (Figure 3; 206).
Powell does not disclose the outer wall extends radially inward towards the inner wall as the first portion of the supplemental thrust section inlet extends axially along the centerline towards the rotating detonation combustor.
However, Vise teaches wherein the rotating detonation combustor inlet comprises an inner wall and an outer wall (The top and bottom instances of Figure 7; 150, centerline (Figure 12; 116);
the outer wall extends circumferentially about a centerline (Figure 12; 116); and
the outer wall extends radially inward towards the inner wall as the first portion of the rotating detonation combustor inlet extends axially along the centerline towards the rotating detonation combustor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Powell wherein the outer wall extends radially inward towards the inner wall as the first portion of the rotating detonation combustor inlet (In the context of Powell, the rotating detonation combustor is the supplemental thrust section) extends axially along the centerline towards the rotating detonation combustor as taught by and suggested by Vise in order to direct or block the flow into the rotating detonation combustor (Paragraph 0083, This is the same modification as claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Powell in view of Vise and Plant teaches the invention as claimed.
Powell does not disclose wherein the flow area increases as a second portion of the supplemental thrust section inlet extends away from the first portion of the supplemental thrust section inlet and towards the rotating detonation combustor.
However, Vise teaches wherein the flow area increases as a second portion (The divergent portion of Figure 7; 150) of the rotating detonation combustor inlet extends away from the first portion of the rotating detonation combustor inlet and towards the rotating detonation combustor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Powell wherein the flow area increases as a second portion of the rotating detonation combustor inlet (In the context of Powell, the rotating detonation combustor is the supplemental thrust section) extends away from the first portion of the rotating detonation combustor inlet and towards the rotating detonation combustor as taught by and suggested by Vise in order to direct or block the flow into the rotating detonation combustor (Paragraph 0083, This is the same modification as claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, Powell in view of Vise and Plant teaches the invention as claimed.
Powell does not disclose wherein the supplemental thrust section inlet forms a convergent-divergent diffuser inlet to the supplemental thrust section.
However, Vise teaches wherein the rotating detonation combustor inlet forms a convergent-divergent diffuser inlet (The convergent-divergent inlet formed by Figure 7; 150) to the rotating detonation combustor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Powell wherein rotating detonation combustor inlet (In the context of Powell, the rotating detonation combustor is the supplemental thrust section) forms a convergent-divergent diffuser inlet to the rotating detonation combustor (In the context of Powell, the rotating detonation combustor is the supplemental thrust section) as taught by and suggested by Vise in order to direct or block the flow into the rotating detonation combustor (Paragraph 0083, This is the same modification as claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, Powell in view of Vise and Plant teaches the invention as claimed.
Powell further discloses a variable area exhaust nozzle (Figure 2; 282. Paragraph 0100) fluidly coupled with and configured downstream of the supplemental thrust section.
Regarding claim 9, Powell in view of Vise and Plant teaches the invention as claimed.
Powell further discloses a combustor section (Figure 3; 205) fluidly coupled with and upstream of the turbine section; and
a bypass passage (The passage through Figure 3; 264 and 238) configured to provide gas to the supplemental thrust section that bypasses the combustor section and the turbine section (Functional Language).
Regarding claim 10, Powell in view of Vise and Plant teaches the invention as claimed.
Powell further discloses a compressor section (Figure 3; 250, 220. Paragraph 0089 states 250 increases the pressure of the inlet airflow so that it is a compressor) fluidly coupled with and upstream of the combustor section;
the bypass passage configured to receive the gas from the compressor section (Functional Language).
Regarding claim 11, Powell in view of Vise and Plant teaches the invention as claimed.
Powell does not disclose a bypass passage configured to direct at least a portion of gas flowing within the duct to bypass the supplemental thrust section; and
a valve configured with the bypass passage.
However, Vise teaches a bypass passage (Figure 12; 201, 203) configured to direct at least a portion of gas (The gas flowing to Figure 12; 100) flowing within a duct (The duct through Figure 1; 104 and feeding 100) to bypass the rotating detonation combustor (Functional Language); and
a valve (Figure 12; 102) configured with the bypass passage.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Powell to include a bypass passage configured to direct at least a portion of gas flowing within the duct to bypass the rotating detonation combustor (In the context of Powell, the rotating detonation combustor is the supplemental thrust section); and a valve configured with the bypass passage as taught by and suggested by Vise in order to direct or block the flow into the rotating detonation combustor (Paragraph 0083, This is the same modification as claim 1).
Regarding claim 12, Powell in view of Vise and Plant teaches the invention as claimed.
Powell does not disclose a bypass passage configured to direct at least a portion of gas flowing within the duct around the supplemental thrust section.
However, Vise teaches a bypass passage (Figure 12; 201, 203) configured to direct at least a portion of gas (The gas flowing to Figure 12; 100) flowing within a duct (The duct through Figure 1; 104 and feeding 100) around the rotating detonation combustor (Functional Language).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Powell to include a bypass passage configured to direct at least a portion of gas flowing within the duct around the rotating detonation combustor (In the context of Powell, the rotating detonation combustor is the supplemental thrust section) as taught by and suggested by Vise in order to direct or block the flow into the rotating detonation combustor (Paragraph 0083, This is the same modification as claim 1).
Regarding claim 13, Powell in view of Vise and Plant teaches the invention as claimed.
Powell does not disclose wherein the bypass passage comprises an annular inner duct arranged inward of and extending longitudinally along the rotating detonation combustor.
However, Vise teaches wherein the bypass passage comprises an annular inner duct (Figure 6; 203) arranged inward of and extending longitudinally along the rotating detonation combustor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Powell wherein the bypass passage comprises an annular inner duct arranged inward of and extending longitudinally along the rotating detonation combustor as taught by and suggested by Vise in order to direct or block the flow into the rotating detonation combustor (Paragraph 0083, This is the same modification as claim 1).
Regarding claim 14, Powell in view of Vise and Plant teaches the invention as claimed.
Powell does not disclose wherein the bypass passage further comprises an annular outer duct arranged outward of and extending longitudinally along the rotating detonation combustor.
However, Vise teaches wherein the bypass passage further comprises an annular outer duct (Figure 6; 201) arranged outward of and extending longitudinally along the rotating detonation combustor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Powell wherein the bypass passage further comprises an annular outer duct arranged outward of and extending longitudinally along the rotating detonation combustor as taught by and suggested by Vise in order to direct or block the flow into the rotating detonation combustor (Paragraph 0083, This is the same modification as claim 1).
Regarding claim 15, Powell in view of Vise and Plant teaches the invention as claimed.
Powell does not disclose an inner flow regulator configured to regulate an inner flow of the gas exhausted from the turbine section into the annular inner duct, the inner flow regulator comprising one or more inner variable stator vanes.
However, Vise teaches an inner flow regulator (Figure 12; 201 for blocking 203) configured to regulate an inner flow (The inner flow of the gas) of the gas into the annular inner duct (Functional Language), the inner flow regulator comprising one or more inner variable stator vanes (Paragraph 0083).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Powell to include an inner flow regulator configured to regulate an inner flow of the gas (In the combined invention, the gas of Vise is the gas exhaust from the turbine in Powell) into the annular inner duct, the inner flow regulator comprising one or more inner variable stator vanes as taught by and suggested by Vise in order to direct or block the flow into the rotating detonation combustor (Paragraph 0083, This is the same modification as claim 1).
Regarding claim 16, Powell in view of Vise and Plant teaches the invention as claimed.
Powell does not disclose wherein the bypass passage comprises an annular outer duct arranged outward of and extending longitudinally along the rotating detonation combustor.
However, Vise teaches wherein the bypass passage comprises an annular outer duct (Figure 6; 201) arranged outward of and extending longitudinally along the rotating detonation combustor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Powell wherein the bypass passage comprises an annular outer duct arranged outward of and extending longitudinally along the rotating detonation combustor as taught by and suggested by Vise in order to direct or block the flow into the rotating detonation combustor (Paragraph 0083, This is the same modification as claim 1).
Regarding claim 17, Powell in view of Vise and Plant teaches the invention as claimed.
Powell does not disclose an outer flow regulator configured to regulate an outer flow of the gas exhausted from the turbine section into the annular outer duct, the outer flow regulator comprising one or more outer variable stator vanes.
However, Vise teaches an outer flow regulator (Figure 12; 201 for blocking 201) configured to regulate an outer flow (The outer flow of the gas) into the annular outer duct (Functional Language), the outer flow regulator comprising one or more outer variable stator vanes (Paragraph 0083).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Powell to include an outer flow regulator configured to regulate an outer flow of the gas (In the combined invention, the gas of Vise is the gas exhaust from the turbine in Powell) into the annular outer duct, the outer flow regulator comprising one or more outer variable stator vanes as taught by and suggested by Vise in order to direct or block the flow into the rotating detonation combustor (Paragraph 0083, This is the same modification as claim 1).
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powell in view of Vise.
Regarding claim 18, Powell discloses an assembly (Figure 3) for a turbine engine (Figure 3; 250, 220, 205, 224), comprising:
a supplemental thrust section (Figure 3; 218, 246) comprising a rotating detonation combustor (Figure 3; 274. Paragraph 0097);
a duct (The duct forming Figure 3; 218, 246 which includes at least 270, the casing defining 254, 256, and 236) configured to direct gas into the supplemental thrust section during a first mode (Functional Language, The mode where Figure 3; 270 is open).
Powell does not disclose a bypass passage configured, during a second mode, to receive at least a portion of the gas from the duct and bypass at least a portion of the supplemental thrust section; and
direct the portion of the gas to bypass the supplemental thrust section; and
a flow regulation system configured to selectively direct at least the portion of the gas to the supplemental thrust section and/or the bypass passage, the flow regulation system comprising an array of variable stator vanes.
However, Powell teaches a rotating detonation combustor (The portion of Figure 13; 122 downstream of 128 of 202);
a duct (The duct through Figure 1; 104 and feeding 100) configured to direct gas into the rotating detonation combustor during a first mode (Functional Language, The mode where Figure 13; 202 is supplied with gas, Paragraph 0084);
a bypass passage (Figure 13; 201) configured, during a second mode (Functional Language, Figure 13), to receive at least a portion of the gas (The portion of gas through Figure 13; 201) from the duct and bypass at least a portion of the rotating detonation combustor (The gas wholly bypasses the rotating detonation combustor); and
direct the portion of the gas to bypass the rotating detonation combustor; and
a flow regulation system (Figure 13; 201) configured to selectively direct at least the portion of the gas to the rotating detonation combustor and/or the bypass passage (Functional Language, Paragraph 0083, 0084), the flow regulation system comprising an array of variable stator vanes (Paragraph 0083).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Powell to include a bypass passage configured, during a second mode, to receive at least a portion of the gas from the duct and bypass at least a portion of the supplemental thrust section; and direct the portion of the gas to bypass the rotating detonation combustor (In the context of Powell, the rotating detonation combustor is the supplemental thrust section); and a flow regulation system configured to selectively direct at least the portion of the gas to the rotating detonation combustor and/or the bypass passage, the flow regulation system comprising an array of variable stator vanes as taught by and suggested by Vise in order to direct or block the flow into the rotating detonation combustor (Paragraph 0083, The modification uses the RDC of Vise in Powell).
Regarding claim 19, Powell in view of Vise teaches the invention as claimed.
Powell does not disclose wherein the supplemental thrust section is operational during the first mode; and
the supplemental thrust section is non-operational during the second mode.
However, Vise teaches wherein the rotating detonation combustor is operational during the first mode; and
the rotating detonation combustor is non-operational during the second mode.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Powell wherein the rotating detonation combustor (In the context of Powell, the rotating detonation combustor is the supplemental thrust section) is operational during the first mode; and the rotating detonation combustor is non-operational during the second mode as taught by and suggested by Vise in order to direct or block the flow into the rotating detonation combustor (Paragraph 0083, This is the same modification as claim 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the bypass passage (Figure 13; 201 of Vise) does not bypass the rotating detonation combustor (The portion of Figure 12; 122 downstream of 128 of 202 of Vise). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph 0055 of Vise states “The RDC system 100 may generally define a first volume 201 corresponding to a first array 166 of combustors 112 and a second volume 202 corresponding to a second array 168 of combustors 112”, so that when Figure 13; 201 of Vise is open and 202 of Vise is closed, 201 of Vise bypasses 202 of Vise.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Haynes et al (US 20210164405) states in Paragraph 0028 that a rotating detonation combustor can be used in a supersonic propulsion system, a hypersonic propulsion system, a turbofan engine, a turboshaft engine, a turboprop engine, a turbojet engine, a ramjet engine, a scramjet engine, etc., or combinations thereof, such as combined-cycle propulsion system
Singh et al (US 20210108801) states in Paragraph 0084 that a rotating detonation combustor can be used in a supersonic propulsion system, a hypersonic propulsion system, a turbofan engine, a turboshaft engine, a turboprop engine, a turbojet engine, a ramjet engine, a scramjet engine, etc., or combinations thereof, such as combined-cycle propulsion system
Dyson et al (US 20210164660) states in Paragraph 0030 that a rotating detonation combustor can be used in a supersonic propulsion system, a hypersonic propulsion system, a turbofan engine, a turboshaft engine, a turboprop engine, a turbojet engine, a ramjet engine, a scramjet engine, etc., or combinations thereof, such as combined-cycle propulsion system
Singh et al (US 20210140641) states in Paragraph 0034 that a rotating detonation combustor can be used in a supersonic propulsion system, a hypersonic propulsion system, a turbofan engine, a turboshaft engine, a turboprop engine, a turbojet engine, a ramjet engine, a scramjet engine, etc., or combinations thereof, such as combined-cycle propulsion system
Pal et al (US 20200040843) states in Paragraph 0043 and 0044 that a similarly structured rotating detonation combustor can operate at hypersonic speeds
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN G KANG whose telephone number is (571)272-9814. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 PM EST.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached on (571) 272-7118. 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.
/EDWIN KANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights