DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 15 December 2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claims 5-7, 9-12, 14-15, 17 and 19-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-4, 8, 13, 16, and 18 are being considered.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Remarks
The arguments in response to the claims rejection under 35 U.S.C § 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are not found persuasive for the following reasons. The Applicant’s remarks pertaining to “shortest” are not found persuasive, since the arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim language, and the Prior Art still discloses the plurality of part span blades are all collectively the shortest blades, of the plurality of blades. The Applicant admits that the spans of the part span guide blades are equal, thus all of the part span blades meet the limitation of having a span not greater than the spans of the other outlet guide vanes. It is further noted, the claim language does not require the first outlet guide vane to have a span shorter than the plurality of outlet guide vanes. The Applicant’s remarks pertaining to the highest loaded rotor blade are not found persuasive, since the Applicant has mischaracterized the rejection of record. The Applicant’s disclosure was used to show that the highest loaded rotor blade of the Instant Application is merely a result of the intended use of the gas turbine engine, and there is no claimed structural difference between the Instant Application and the Prior Art associated with said intended use.
The original rejection is included in this Office Action.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Examiner note: no 112(f) invocations have been identified by the Office.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Breeze-Stringfellow et al (US 20210222575), hereafter referred to as Breeze-Stringfellow.
Regarding Claim 1, Breeze-Stringfellow discloses the following:
A turbofan engine (10) defining a circumferential direction, the turbofan engine (10) comprising:
a turbomachine (30);
an unducted rotor assembly (12) drivingly coupled to the turbomachine (30), the unducted rotor assembly (12) including a plurality of unducted rotor blades (16); and
a plurality of outlet guide vanes (20A, 20B; FIG. 2) positioned downstream of the plurality of unducted rotor blades (16), the plurality of outlet guide vanes (20A, 20B; FIG. 2) each defining a span, wherein the spans of the plurality of outlet guide vanes (20A, 20B; FIG. 2) are nonuniform,
wherein the unducted rotor assembly (12) defines a circumferential position, θ0 (As per [0113-114] of the Instant Application, a highest loaded blade may be located at the three o'clock position (FIG. 10) during a climbing mode operating condition or may be based on the position of a pylon fairing, wing, etc. during other operating conditions such as cruise, thus the highest loaded blade changes based on intended use of the engine and other factors beyond the engine itself. Since the Breeze-Stringfellow reference teaches same claimed structures of the Instant Application pertaining to "the highest loaded rotor blade", the highest loaded rotor blade may be in the same 3 o'clock position as the Instant Application, during the same intended use of the Instant Application, for example a climbing operating mode, in as much as the Instant Application .), of the highest loaded rotor blade at a first turbofan engine (10) operating condition, wherein a rotor blade of the unducted rotor assembly (12) further defines a tip radius, RTIP wherein the turbofan engine (10) defines an axial spacing, S, between the plurality of unducted rotor blades (16) and the plurality of outlet guide vanes (20A, 20B; FIG. 2) and an advance ratio, J, and wherein the turbofan engine (10) defines a circumferential swirl offset, θSWIRL_OFF, equal to
2
×
tan
-
1
(
π
×
S
f
×
R
T
I
P
)
and wherein the plurality of outlet guide vanes (20A, 20B; FIG. 2) includes a first outlet guide vane with a first span not greater than the spans of the other outlet guide vanes (20A, 20B; FIG. 2), the first outlet guide vane located at a circumferential position between θ0 and θSWIRL_OFF. (It is noted, FIG. 11 of the instant application shows the range of a circumferential position between θ0 and θSWIRL_OFF that is nearly 180 degrees, and the part span outlet guide vanes 20B of Breeze-Stringfellow are disclosed to be alternatingly disposed circumferentially around the engine with the full span outlet guide vanes 20A, thus at least one of the part span blades 20B would fall within the claimed range. Also see FIG. 2 of Breeze-Stringfellow which shows the alternating blades 20A, 20B.)
Regarding Claim 2, Breeze-Stringfellow discloses the following:
The turbofan engine (10) of claim 1,
wherein θSWIRL_OFF is defined in a direction of rotation of the unducted rotor assembly (12)(As discussed above, the position of θSWIRL_OFF is defined by intended use, and Breeze-Stringfellow discloses the same claimed structures that are capable of performing the intended use.).
Regarding Claim 3, Breeze-Stringfellow discloses the following:
The turbofan engine (10) of claim 1,
wherein the plurality of outlet guide vanes (20A, 20B; FIG. 2) includes a second outlet guide vane (20A) with a second span not shorter than the spans of the other outlet guide vanes (20A, 20B; FIG. 2), wherein the second outlet guide vane (20A) is located at a circumferential position between 150 degrees and 210 degrees offset from the first outlet guide vane (Based on FIG. 2 and paragraph [0036], which teaches the first and second guide vanes extend circumferentially, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that 16 blades, 8 of each of the first and second blades, are disclosed and would be spaced 22.5 degrees apart. Thus from any first blade at least two second blades would be within the 150 degree to 210 range, one being located at 157.5 degrees and the other at 202.5 degrees).
Regarding Claim 4, Breeze-Stringfellow discloses the following:
The turbofan engine (10) of claim 1,
wherein the turbofan engine (10) is configured to be mounted to an aircraft through a pylon at a pylon attachment location (see [0068, 120]),
wherein the circumferential position, θ0, of the highest loaded rotor blade is aligned circumferentially with the pylon attachment location (see [0068, 120]),
wherein the first outlet guide vane is aligned with the pylon attachment location (see [0068, 120]) or positioned within θSWIRL_OFF of the pylon attachment location (see [0068, 120]) in a direction of rotor rotation.
Regarding Claim 8, Breeze-Stringfellow discloses the following:
The turbofan engine (10) of claim 1,
wherein the spans of the plurality of outlet guide vanes (20A, 20B; FIG. 2) increases from the first span to a second span according to a function, and
wherein the function is one of a sinusoidally-varying function (as seen in FIG. 2).
Regarding Claim 13, Breeze-Stringfellow discloses the following:
The turbofan engine (10) of claim 1,
wherein the plurality of outlet guide vanes (20A, 20B; FIG. 2) includes at least one fixed-pitch (see [0056]) outlet guide vane.
Regarding Claim 16, Breeze-Stringfellow discloses the following:
An outlet guide vane assembly for a turbofan engine (10), the turbofan engine (10) defining a circumferential direction and including a turbomachine (30) and an unducted rotor assembly (12) drivingly coupled to the turbomachine (30), the outlet guide vane assembly comprising:
a plurality of outlet guide vanes (20A, 20B; FIG. 2) configured to be positioned downstream of a plurality of unducted rotor blades (16) of the unducted rotor assembly (12) when installed in the turbofan engine (10), the plurality of outlet guide vanes (20A, 20B; FIG. 2) each defining a span,
the spans of the plurality of outlet guide vanes (20A, 20B; FIG. 2) being nonuniform along the circumferential direction,
wherein the unducted rotor assembly (12) defines a circumferential position, θ0, of the highest loaded rotor blade (As per [0113-114] of the Instant Application, the highest loaded blade may be located at the three o'clock position (FIG. 10) during a climbing mode operating condition or may be based on the position of a pylon fairing, wing, etc. during other operating conditions such as cruise, thus the highest loaded blade changes based on intended use of the engine and other factors beyond the engine itself. Since the Breeze-Stringfellow reference teaches same claimed structures of the Instant Application pertaining to "the highest loaded rotor blade", the highest loaded rotor blade may be in the same 3 o'clock position as the Instant Application, during the same intended use of the Instant Application, for example a climbing operating mode, in as much as the Instant Application .) at a first turbofan engine (10) operating condition and a tip radius, RTIP, wherein the turbofan engine (10) defines an axial spacing, S, between the plurality of unducted rotor blades (16) and the plurality of outlet guide vanes (20A, 20B; FIG. 2) and an advance ratio, J, and wherein the turbofan engine (10) defines a circumferential swirl offset, θSWIRL_OFF, equal to
2
×
tan
-
1
(
π
×
S
f
×
R
T
I
P
)
and wherein a first outlet guide vane is located at a circumferential position between θ0 and θSWIRL_OFF, wherein θSWIRL_OFF is defined in a direction of rotation of the unducted rotor assembly (12)(It is noted, FIG. 11 of the instant application shows the range of a circumferential position between θ0 and θSWIRL_OFF that is nearly 180 degrees, and the part span outlet guide vanes 20B of Breeze-Stringfellow are disclosed to be alternatingly disposed circumferentially around the engine with the full span outlet guide vanes 20A, thus at least one of the part span blades 20B would fall within the claimed range. Also see FIG. 2 of Breeze-Stringfellow which shows the alternating blades 20A, 20B.)(As discussed above, the position of θSWIRL_OFF is defined by intended use, and Breeze-Stringfellow discloses the same claimed structures that are capable of performing the intended use.),
and wherein the first outlet guide vane (any one of the part span outlet guide vanes 20B) defines a first span not greater than the spans of the other outlet guide vanes (20A, 20B ) such that the first outlet guide vane is the shortest of the plurality of outlet guide vanes (since all of the part span vanes 20B have an equal length, they are all the shortest of the plurality of vanes 20A, 20B; it is noted, the claim language does not require the first outlet guide vane to have a span shorter than the plurality of outlet guide vanes.)
Double Patenting
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12276199. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 contains all the limitations of claim 18. With respect to the additional features in the Patent number 12276199, Claim 1 is obvious over the Instant Claim 18 as the Patent Claim 1 otherwise anticipates the Application Claim 18. (See MPEP 804 II. B. 1)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRIAN C DELRUE whose telephone number is (313)446-6567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Eastern).
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 E. Wiehe can be reached on (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.
/BRIAN CHRISTOPHER DELRUE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights