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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 33-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 33 recites the limitation "the angle between respective axis" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is further unclear from the claim what the “respective” is referring to.
Claim 33 recites the limitations “said respective axes” in line 14. It is further unclear from the claim what the “respective” is referring to.
Claim 33 recites the limitation "the blade" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is further unclear if this is referring to a blade from the “two adjacent blades” or “stators blades” recited in the claim.
Claim 33 recites the limitation “the other axis” in line 15. It is unclear which axis this is referring to.
Claim 33 recites the limitation "said adjacent blade" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 33 recites the limitation: “the latter” in line 18. It is unclear what this is referring to.
Claim 33 recites the limitation "this assembly" in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 33 recites the phrase "preferably" in line 31 which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 33 recites the limitation "said adjacent blades" in line 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that the claim recites “two adjacent blades”
Claim 34, recites the phrase "preferably" which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 36 recites the limitation "said blades" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant may amend to “said two blades”.
Claim 38 recites the limitation "the number V of blades" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant may amend to “a number V of blades”
Claim 38 recites the phrase "preferably” (2 occurrences) in line 2 which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 39 recites the limitation "the projection" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 42 recites "preferably" (2 occurrences) in line 2 which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 43 recites "preferably" (2 occurrences) in line 2 which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 45 recites the limitation "the two center planes". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 45 recites "preferably" which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 50 recites the limitation "the downstream annular row". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 52 recites the limitation "the two blades". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant may amend to the “the two adjacent blades”
Claims 35, 37, 40-41, 44, 46-49 and 51 are indefinite by virtue of their dependence on claim 33.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 33-52 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record, either alone or in combination is silent to each and every limitation required of claim 33. The prior art demonstrates various analogous unducted turbine engines including engines with rotors upstream of stators.
US 2023/0021836 A1 to Riddle et al. discloses:
an aeronautical thruster having a longitudinal axis (24) and comprising a casing (34) and, spaced apart from each other along said longitudinal axis, an upstream rotor row (22) of rotor blades (26) which are unducted and a downstream stator row of stator blades (32) (Figs. 1-2) which are unducted and extend around the casing (13), two adjacent blades of said downstream stator row of stator blades having an azimuthal spacing (Figs. 1-2) between them about the longitudinal axis, that is defined by the angle between respective axes.
Riddle et al. is silent on how the axes are defined as well as the azimuthal spacing equation of the two adjacent blades.
US 2017/0102006 A1 and 11,572,827 disclose similar structures as in Riddle et al. and also fail to teach what is lacking in Riddle et al.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAXIME M ADJAGBE whose telephone number is (571)272-4920. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-6.
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 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.
/MAXIME M ADJAGBE/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights