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 .
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 1, 3−6, 10−13, and 15 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 8,573,530 to Cazals et al. (“Cazals“) in view of US Pre-Grant Pub. No. 2013/0001356 to Llamas Sandín et al. (“Llamas Sandín“).
Regarding claim 1, Cazals teaches an assembly for an aircraft, comprising:
an airframe including a body (fuselage 3), a first wing 2, a second wing 2 (fig. 1) and a vane (“fourth vertical aerodynamic surface 44” also referred to as “central rudder unit 44”), the body extending longitudinally along a longitudinal centerline from a forward end of the body to an aft end of the body (centerline parallel to x-axis in fig. 1), the first wing and the second wing disposed to opposing lateral sides of the body (fig. 1), the vane projecting vertically out from the body to a tip of the vane (fig. 2b), and the vane extending longitudinally along the body from a leading edge of the vane to a trailing edge of the vane (figs. 1−2b);
a first open rotor propulsion system 5a (col. 4 lines 64−67) vertically above and mounted to the body (fig. 2a); and
a second open rotor propulsion system 5b vertically above and mounted to the body (fig. 2a);
wherein the vane is configured as a structural barrier laterally between the first open rotor propulsion system and the second open rotor propulsion system (figs. 1−2b; col. 5 lines 1−4).
Cazals teaches that the vane “is advantageously reinforced to provide protection for an engine against debris projected by the other engine in the case of an explosion” (col. 5 lines 1−4), but fails to teach the vane longitudinally overlapping the entirety of the propulsion systems.
Llamas Sandín also teaches a vane 21 between two open-rotor propulsion systems (13, 15), and furthermore teaches a modified vane consisting of beam 41 and fairing (63, 65, or 67) for shielding each propulsion system from being damaged by debris thrown from the opposite propulsion system, where the modified vane longitudinally overlaps an entirety of the first and second open rotor propulsion systems (where one of ordinary skill in the art would understand figures 1a−1b and 2a as depicting the curved rear pressure bulkhead 27, and would understand from comparison of the forwardmost position of modified vane, shown at dashed line 37 in fig. 2a, with the positions of the propulsion systems relative to the curved bulkhead in figs. 1a−1b, that the modified vane longitudinally overlaps an entirety of the first and second open rotor propulsion systems).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the vane of Cazals as done in Llamas Sandín such that the modified vane longitudinally overlaps an entirety of the first and second open rotor propulsion systems, in order to provide shielding between the open rotors and a safe, redundant load path from vane to fuselage in the event that a rotor failure or blade release event damages the structures between both propulsion systems, as taught by Llamas Sandín (Llamas Sandín paras. [0036]−[0039]; see also “Response to Arguments” below), thereby providing a safer aircraft.
Regarding claim 3, Cazals as modified teaches that the vane vertically overlaps at least one of an entirety of the first open rotor propulsion system or an entirety of the second open rotor propulsion system (Cazals figs. 1−2b).
Regarding claim 4, Cazals as modified teaches that the vane blocks a direct line of sight from the first open rotor propulsion system to the second open rotor propulsion system (Cazals fig. 2a, where, for example, a line of sight extending along the rotor blades of engine 5a are blocked from the corresponding rotor blades of engine 5b).
Regarding claim 5, Cazals as modified teaches that the first open rotor propulsion system comprises a first open propulsor rotor and the second open rotor propulsion system comprises a second open propulsor rotor (each rotor consists of the blades in Cazals figs. 1−2b, which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand as being mounted to a rotor hub, where the hub is not depicted in the figures); and
the structural barrier is laterally between, longitudinally overlaps and vertically overlaps the first open propulsor rotor and the second open propulsor rotor (Cazals col. 5 lines 1−4 and figs. 1−2b, where Cazals as modified by Llamas Sandín as described above).
Regarding claim 6, Cazals as modified teaches that the first open rotor propulsion system comprises a first powerplant;
the second open rotor propulsion system comprises a second powerplant; and
the structural barrier is laterally between, longitudinally overlaps, and vertically overlaps the first powerplant and the second powerplant (Cazals col. 5 lines 1−4 and figs. 1−2b, where one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the engine as being within the engine casing depicted in the figures, where the barrier is laterally between and longitudinally and vertically overlapping the engines).
Regarding claim 10, Cazals as modified teaches that the vane is a first vane, and the airframe further includes a second vane (formed by aerodynamic surfaces 41a and 42a);
the second vane projects vertically out from the body to a tip of the second vane (Cazals fig. 2a);
the second vane extends longitudinally along the body from a leading edge of the second vane to a trailing edge of the second vane (Cazals fig. 2a); and
the first open rotor propulsion system is laterally between the first vane and the second vane (Cazals fig. 2a).
Regarding claim 11, Cazals as modified teaches that a centerline of the first vane is parallel with a centerline of the second vane (where the spanwise centerlines of 44 and 42a are parallel).
Regarding claim 12, Cazals as modified teaches that a centerline of the first vane is angularly offset from a centerline of the second vane by an acute offset angle (where the spanwise centerlines of 44 and 41a are offset by an acute angle).
Regarding claim 13, Cazals as modified teaches that the first open rotor propulsion system comprises a first open propulsor rotor rotatable about a first axis;
the second open rotor propulsion system comprises a second open propulsor rotor rotatable about a second axis; and
at least one of the first axis or the second axis is parallel to the longitudinal centerline (Cazals col. 5 lines 11−16).
Regarding claim 15, Cazals as modified teaches a rudder pivotally attached to the vane at the trailing edge of the vane (best seen in Cazals fig. 2b, where 44 is described as a “central rudder” in the disclosure).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Cazals and Llamas Sandín as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US Patent No. 10,442,541 to Miller et al. (“Miller“).
Regarding claim 14, Cazals as modified teaches a first propulsion system 5a (Cazals col. 4 lines 64−67) mounted to the body, the first propulsion system comprising a first open propulsor rotor rotatable about a first axis (x axis); and
a second propulsion system mounted to the body (Cazals col. 4 lines 64−67), the second propulsion system comprising a second open propulsor rotor rotatable about a second axis (x axis).
Cazals as modified fails to teach propulsion system axis offset angles. Miller teaches an aircraft having two propulsion systems (202, 212) each having open rotor propulsor rotors (204, 214), where the first propulsion system axis 206 is angularly offset from the longitudinal centerline (Miller figs. 3 and 5−7) by a first offset angle (228, 230) between 0.5 degrees and 30 degrees (Miller col. 3 line 43 to col. 4 line 6), and the second axis 216 angularly offset from the longitudinal centerline (Miller figs. 5−7) by a second offset angle (228, 230) between 0.5 degrees and 30 degrees (Miller col. 3 line 43 to col. 4 line 6). Additionally, Miller teaches embodiments where the second propulsion system is outside of a first reference plane perpendicular to the first axis at the first propulsor rotor; and the first propulsion system is outside of a second reference plane perpendicular to the second axis at the second propulsor rotor (figs. 8−9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Cazals in view of Llamas Sandín to give the propulsion systems offset angles as taught by Miller and non-coplanar rotor planes as taught by Miller, because Cazals in view of Llamas Sandín has a stated goal of avoiding damage from debris being thrown by one rotor towards the other, and Miller teaches that the orientation of the different offset angles and lateral propulsion system positions decreases the chances of debris from one rotor hitting the other (Miller col. 1 lines 10−20), thereby providing a safer aircraft.
Claims 1, 7−9, and 20 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Chinese Patent No. CN-107839893-B to Wu et al. (“Wu”) in view of Llamas Sandín.
Regarding claim 1, Wu teaches an assembly for an aircraft, comprising:
an airframe including a body 1, a first wing 2, a second wing 2 and a vane (two vanes 3), the body extending longitudinally along a longitudinal centerline from a forward end of the body to an aft end of the body, the first wing and the second wing disposed to opposing lateral sides of the body (Wu figs. 1−3), the vane projecting vertically out from the body to a tip of the vane, and the vane extending longitudinally along the body from a leading edge of the vane to a trailing edge of the vane (Wu figs. 1−3);
a first open rotor propulsion system 7 vertically above and mounted to the body (via wing 2); and
a second open rotor propulsion system 7 vertically above and mounted to the body (via wing 2);
wherein the vane is configured as a structural barrier laterally between the first open rotor propulsion system and the second open rotor propulsion system (fig. 3).
Wu fails to teach that the vane longitudinally overlaps at least one of an entirety of the first open rotor propulsion system or an entirety of the second open rotor propulsion system.
Llamas Sandín teaches a vane 21 between two open-rotor propulsion systems (13, 15), and furthermore teaches a modified vane consisting of beam 41 and fairing (63, 65, or 67) for shielding each propulsion system and the underlying airframe from being damaged by debris thrown from the opposite propulsion system, where the modified vane longitudinally overlaps an entirety of the first and second open rotor propulsion systems (where one of ordinary skill in the art would understand figures 1a−1b and 2a as depicting the curved rear pressure bulkhead 27, and would understand from comparison of the forwardmost position of modified vane, shown at dashed line 37 in fig. 2a, with the positions of the propulsion systems relative to the curved bulkhead in figs. 1a−1b, that the modified vane longitudinally overlaps an entirety of the first and second open rotor propulsion systems).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the two vanes 3 of Wu as done in Llamas Sandín such that the modified vanes longitudinally overlap an entirety of the first and second open rotor propulsion systems, in order to provide shielding between the open rotors and a safe, redundant load path from vanes to fuselage in the event that a rotor failure or blade release event damages the structures between both propulsion systems, as taught by Llamas Sandín (Llamas Sandín paras. [0036]−[0039]; see also “Response to Arguments” below). In such an arrangement, the vanes are configured even more as a structural barrier laterally between the first open rotor propulsion system and the second open rotor propulsion system as compared to Wu alone.
Regarding claim 7, Wu as modified teaches that the vane is a first vane, and the airframe further includes a second vane 3 (Wu figs. 1−3);
the second vane projects vertically out from the body to a tip of the second vane;
the second vane extends longitudinally along the body from a leading edge of the second vane to a trailing edge of the second vane (Wu figs. 1−3); and
the second vane is further configured as the structural barrier laterally between the first open rotor propulsion system and the second open rotor propulsion system (as noted above).
Regarding claim 8, Wu as modified teaches that a centerline of the first vane is parallel with a centerline of the second vane (Wu fig. 3, where the longitudinal centerlines are parallel).
Regarding claim 9, Wu as modified teaches that a centerline of the first vane is angularly offset from a centerline of the second vane by an acute offset angle (Wu figs. 1−3, where the spanwise centerlines of the vanes have an acute angle therebetween).
Regarding claim 20, Wu teaches an aircraft, comprising:
a blended wing body airframe extending longitudinally along a longitudinal centerline from a forward end of the blended wing body airframe to an aft end of the blended wing body airframe (blended wing body comprising body 1 blended with wings 2);
a first propulsion system 7 mounted to the blended wing body airframe, the first propulsion system comprising a first open propulsor rotor (figs. 1−3); and
a second propulsion system 7 mounted to the blended wing body airframe, the second propulsion system longitudinally aligned with the first propulsion system along the longitudinal centerline, and the second propulsion system comprising a second open propulsor rotor (figs. 1−3).
Wu fails to teach that the aircraft is configured such that debris thrown from the first open propulsor rotor will not hit the second propulsion system along a straight line trajectory; and debris thrown from the second open propulsor rotor will not hit the first propulsion system along a straight line trajectory.
Llamas Sandín teaches a vane 21 between two open-rotor propulsion systems (13, 15), and furthermore teaches a modified vane consisting of beam 41 and fairing (63, 65, or 67) for shielding each propulsion system and the underlying airframe from being damaged by debris thrown from the opposite propulsion system, such that debris thrown from the first open propulsor rotor will not hit the second propulsion system along a straight line trajectory, and debris thrown from the second open propulsor rotor will not hit the first propulsion system along a straight line trajectory (where debris thrown from one propulsion system is shielded from hitting the other by the vane).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the two vanes 3 of Wu as done in Llamas Sandín such that the modified vanes longitudinally overlap an entirety of the first and second open rotor propulsion systems, in order to provide shielding between the open rotors where debris thrown from one propulsion system is shielded from hitting the other by the vane, as taught by Llamas Sandín (Llamas Sandín paras. [0036]−[0039]; see also “Response to Arguments” below), thereby providing a safer aircraft.
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 8,608,109 to Campbell.
Regarding claim 16, Campbell teaches an assembly for an aircraft, comprising:
a blended wing body airframe (col. 2 lines 45−53) including a body (fuselage 10 and fairings 14), a first wing 16 and a second wing 16, the body extending longitudinally along a longitudinal centerline (major axis 30) from a forward end of the body to an aft end of the body (fig. 2), the first wing and the second wing disposed to opposing lateral sides of the body (fig. 2), the first wing projecting spanwise out from the body to a tip of the first wing (fig. 1), and the second wing projecting spanwise out from the body to a tip of the second wing (where only one wing is shown extending to a tip in fig. 1, but one of ordinary skill in the art would understand both wings as being so configured);
a first propulsion system 20 mounted to the body, the first propulsion system comprising a first propulsor rotor rotatable about a first axis (col. 2 lines 56−64); and
a second propulsion system 20 mounted to the body, the second propulsion system comprising a second propulsor rotor rotatable about a second axis (col. 2 lines 56−64).
MPEP § 2125(I) states that “drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.” While Campbell fails to explicitly teach offset angles, figure 5 of Campbell suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art to align the axes such that the first and second axes are angularly offset from the longitudinal centerline by an angle of 2.4° when measured.
PNG
media_image1.png
726
1431
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure Campbell to have the first axis angularly offset from the longitudinal centerline by a first offset angle between 0.5 degrees and 30 degrees (such as 2.4°) and the second axis angularly offset from the longitudinal centerline by a second offset angle between 0.5 degrees and 30 degrees (such as 2.4°) so that one of ordinary skill in the art can reduce to practice the design taught by Campbell as faithfully as possible, thereby ensuring a greater chance of successfully constructing the design taught by Campbell.
Regarding claim 18, Campbell as modified teaches that the first propulsor rotor is a first open propulsor rotor; and the second propulsor rotor is a second open propulsor rotor (fig. 5).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Campbell as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Miller.
Regarding claim 17, although Campbell teaches offset angles, Campbell fails to teach offset angles large enough that the second propulsion system is outside of a first reference plane perpendicular to the first axis at the first propulsor rotor; and the first propulsion system is outside of a second reference plane perpendicular to the second axis at the second propulsor rotor.
Miller teaches an aircraft having two propulsion systems (202, 212) each having open rotor propulsor rotors (204, 214), where the first propulsion system axis 206 is angularly offset from the longitudinal centerline (Miller figs. 3 and 5−7) by a first offset angle (Miller col. 3 line 43 to col. 4 line 6), and the second axis 216 angularly offset from the longitudinal centerline (Miller figs. 5−7) by a second offset angle (Miller col. 3 line 43 to col. 4 line 6). Additionally, Miller teaches embodiments where the second propulsion system is outside of a first reference plane perpendicular to the first axis at the first propulsor rotor; and the first propulsion system is outside of a second reference plane perpendicular to the second axis at the second propulsor rotor (figs. 8−9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the offset angles of Campbell to give the propulsion systems offset angles as taught by Miller and non-coplanar rotor planes as taught by Miller, in order to avoid damage from debris being thrown by one rotor towards the other, since Miller teaches that the orientation of the different offset angles and lateral propulsion system positions decreases the chances of debris from one rotor hitting the other (Miller col. 1 lines 10−20), thereby providing a safer aircraft.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Campbell as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Llamas Sandín.
Regarding claim 19, Campbell teaches a vane (see figs. 4−5) that is laterally between the first propulsion system and the second propulsion system.
Campbell fails to teach that the vane is longitudinally overlapping and vertically overlapping the first propulsion system and the second propulsion system.
Llamas Sandín teaches a vane 21 between two open-rotor propulsion systems (13, 15), and furthermore teaches a modified vane consisting of beam 41 and fairing (63, 65, or 67) for shielding each propulsion system from being damaged by debris thrown from the opposite propulsion system, where the modified vane longitudinally and vertically overlaps the first and second open rotor propulsion systems (where one of ordinary skill in the art would understand figures 1a−1b and 2a as depicting the curved rear pressure bulkhead 27, and would understand from comparison of the forwardmost position of modified vane, shown at dashed line 37 in fig. 2a, with the positions of the propulsion systems relative to the curved bulkhead in figs. 1a−1b, that the modified vane longitudinally and vertically overlaps the first and second open rotor propulsion systems).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the vane of Campbell as done in Llamas Sandín such that the modified vane longitudinally and vertically overlaps the first and second open rotor propulsion systems, in order to provide shielding between the open rotors and a safe, redundant load path from vane to fuselage in the event that a rotor failure or blade release event damages the structures between both propulsion systems, as taught by Llamas Sandín (Llamas Sandín paras. [0036]−[0039]; see also “Response to Arguments” below), thereby providing a safer aircraft.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 7 that incorporation of claim 2 into claim 1 overcomes the rejection of claims 1, 3−6, 10−13, and 15 under § 102(a)(1) by Cazals. This argument is moot, because claims 1, 3−6, 10−13, and 15 are now rejected under §103 by Cazals in view of Llamas Sandín. See above.
Applicant argues on pages 7−8 that the §102(a)(1) rejection of claims 1, 7−9, and 20 by Wu is overcome by amending claim 2 into claim 1. This argument is moot, because claims 1, 7−9, and 20 are now rejected under §103 by Wu in view of Llamas Sandín. See above.
Applicant argues on pages 9−10 that Llamas Sandín fails to teach a vane longitudinally overlapping the entirety of the propulsion systems 13. To support this argument, Applicant quotes from paragraph [0037] that the beam is “connected, respectively, to a zone 45 of the fuselage and to a zone 49 of the torsion box of the vertical tail plane 21 which are located outside to the main trajectories foreseen for detached blades from the propulsion system 13,” leading Applicant to the conclusion that “the beam 41 is not longitudinally overlapping the propulsion system 13.” In response, it is believed that Applicant has misinterpreted paragraph [0037]. To clarify, Examiner has produced an approximation for the locations of zones 45 and 49 onto figure 1a of Llamas Sandín (based on their locations in figure 2a):
PNG
media_image2.png
493
672
media_image2.png
Greyscale
When paragraph [0037] states that both zones 45 and 49 are “are located outside to the main trajectories foreseen for detached blades from the propulsion system 13,” one of ordinary skill in the art would understand Llamas Sandín as stating that Zone 45 is located forward of the main detached blade trajectories, while Zone 49 is located aft of the main detached blade trajectories. Thus, while the portions of beam 41 (and corresponding fairing 63) located in zones 45 and 49 are outside these predicted trajectories, the remainder of beam 41 is located between (and consequently longitudinally overlaps) the entirety of both propulsion systems 13.
Applicant argues that amendments to claim 16 overcome the rejection of claims 16−19 of Cazals in view of Miller. Applicant’s argument is moot in light of new rejections of claims 16 and 18 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 8,608,109 to Campbell, claim 17 of Campbell in view of Miller, and claim 19 of Campbell in view of Llamas Sandín. See above for §103 rejections.
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 B Kreiner whose telephone number is (571)270-5379. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
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, Joshua Michener can be reached at (571) 272-1467. 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.
/M.B.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/PHILIP J BONZELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642 4/13/2026
Prosecution Insights