DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in response to the above application filed on 05/08/2025 which is a 371 of PCT/FR2023/051748 filed on 11/08/2023 which claims foreign priority to France application FR2211672 filed on 11/09/2022. Claims 1 – 19 are examined.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Per MPEP608.01(IV) “In order to minimize the necessity in the future for converting dimensions given in the English system of measurements to the metric system of measurements when using printed patents as research and prior art search documents, all patent applicants should use the metric (S.I.) units followed by the equivalent English units when describing their inventions in the specifications of patent applications.
The initials S.I. stand for "Le Système International d’ Unités," the French name for the International System of Units, a modernized metric system adopted in 1960 by the International General Conference of Weights and Measures based on precise unit measurements made possible by modern technology.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 4 and 18 are objected to because they recite the diameter of the fan rotor in inches; however, Claim 1, ll. 20 – 22 recites that the diameter of the fan rotor is expressed in meters. Therefore, Claim 1 and Claims 4 and 18 recite two different units of measurement for length which is confusing because one meter was equivalent to 39.370 inches. The claims should recite the same unit of measurement or the claim should recite the metric (S.I.) units followed by the equivalent English units.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 19 (incorporating Claim 1) of co-pending Application No. 19/128,432 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 1 of the instant application is generic to all that is recited in of Claim 19 (incorporating Claim 1) of co-pending Application No. 19/128,432. That is, Claim 19 of co-pending Application No. 19/128,432 falls entirely within the scope of Claim 1 of the instant application or, in other words, Claim 1 of the instant application is anticipated by Claim 19 of co-pending Application No. 19/128,432 because specific anticipates generic. As shown in Table 1 below, Claim 1 of the instant application is identical to or almost identical to Claim 19 of co-pending Application No. 19/128,432. Therefore Claim 1 of the instant application is anticipated by Claim 19 of co-pending Application No. 19/128,432 since specific anticipates generic.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Table 1
co-pending Application No. 19/128,432
Instant Application
1. A propulsion system comprising:
1. A propulsion system comprising:
a drive turbine connected to a drive shaft movable in rotation about an axis of rotation;
a drive shaft movable in rotation about an axis of rotation;
a fan section comprising a fan rotor connected to a fan shaft; and
a fan shaft;
a reduction structure coupling the drive shaft and the fan shaft in order to drive the fan shaft at a rotation speed lower than the rotation speed of the drive shaft;
a reduction mechanism coupling the drive shaft and the fan shaft in order to drive the fan shaft at a rotation speed lower than the rotation speed of the drive shaft;
wherein the propulsion system is configured so that a rotation speed of the drive shaft complies with the following formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
70
208
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where: N1 is a rotation speed of the drive shaft when the propulsion system is stationary in take-off rating in a standard atmosphere and at sea level and is expressed in revolutions per minute;
Te is an inlet temperature of the drive turbine when the propulsion system is stationary in take-off rating in a standard atmosphere and at sea level and is expressed in degrees Celsius and is greater than or equal to 700° C.;
Se is an inlet section of the drive turbine, in square meters; and
PNG
media_image2.png
64
422
media_image2.png
Greyscale
19. The propulsion system according to claim 1,
wherein the fan section is unducted and
a fan section comprising an unducted fan rotor driven in rotation by the fan shaft, the fan rotor comprising a plurality of blades; and
a thrust density per blade of the fan rotor of the propulsion system being greater than or equal to 5.0 x 104 N/m2 and less than or equal to 10.0 x 104 N/m2, where the thrust density per blade is defined by the following formula:
a thrust density per blade of the fan rotor of the propulsion system being greater than or equal to 5.0 x 104 N/m2 and less than or equal to 10.0 x 104 N/m2, where the thrust density per blade is defined by the following formula:
Thrust density = (FN / n * D2) * 100
Thrust density = (FN / n * D2) * 100
and where: FN is the thrust generated by the fan rotor and is measured when the propulsion system is stationary in take-off rating in a standard atmosphere and at sea level and is expressed in Newton;
and where: FN is a thrust generated by the fan rotor and is measured when the propulsion system is stationary in take-off rating in a standard atmosphere and at sea level and is expressed in Newton;
n is a number of blades in the fan rotor; and
n is a number of blades in the fan rotor; and
D is a diameter of the fan rotor, measured in a plane normal to the axis of rotation at an intersection between a tip and a leading edge of the blades of the fan rotor, and is expressed in meters.
D is a diameter of the fan rotor, measured in a plane normal to the axis of rotation at an intersection between a tip and a leading edge of the blades of the fan rotor, and is expressed in meters.
Claim 14 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 22 (incorporating Claim 21) of co-pending Application No. 19/128,432 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 14 of the instant application is generic to all that is recited in of Claim 22 (incorporating Claim 21) of co-pending Application No. 19/128,432. That is, Claim 22 of co-pending Application No. 19/128,432 falls entirely within the scope of Claim 14 of the instant application or, in other words, Claim 14 of the instant application is anticipated by Claim 22 of co-pending Application No. 19/128,432 because specific anticipates generic. As shown in Table 2 below, Claim 14 of the instant application is identical to or almost identical to Claim 22 of co-pending Application No. 19/128,432. Therefore Claim 14 of the instant application is anticipated by Claim 22 of co-pending Application No. 19/128,432 since specific anticipates generic.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Table 2
co-pending Application No. 19/128,432
Instant Application
21. A method for dimensioning a propulsion system comprising:
14. A method for dimensioning a propulsion system comprising
a reduction structure coupling a drive turbine and a fan rotor to drive the fan rotor at a speed lower than a speed of the drive turbine, the drive turbine configured so that a rotation speed of the drive shaft complies with the following formula:
a reduction mechanism coupling a drive shaft and a fan rotor to drive the unducted fan rotor at a speed lower than a speed of the drive shaft,
PNG
media_image1.png
70
208
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where: N1 is a rotation speed of the drive shaft when the propulsion system is stationary in take-off rating in a standard atmosphere and at sea level and is expressed in revolutions per minute;
Te is an inlet temperature of the drive turbine when the propulsion system is stationary in take-off rating in a standard atmosphere and at sea level and is expressed in degrees Celsius and is greater than or equal to 700° C.;
Se is an inlet section of the drive turbine, in square meters; and
PNG
media_image2.png
64
422
media_image2.png
Greyscale
22. A dimensioning method according to claim 21,
wherein the fan section is dimensioned such that a thrust density per blade of the fan rotor of the propulsion system is greater than or equal to 5.0 x 104 N/m2 and less than or equal to 17.0 x 104 N/m2, where the thrust density per blade is defined by the following formula:
wherein the fan rotor is dimensioned such that a thrust density per blade of the fan rotor of the propulsion system is greater than or equal to 5.0 x 104 N/m2 and less than or equal to 10.0 x 104 N/m2, where the thrust density per blade is defined by the following formula:
Thrust density = (FN / n * D2) * 100
Thrust density = (FN / n * D2) * 100
and where: FN is the thrust generated by the fan rotor and is measured when the propulsion system is stationary in take-off rating in a standard atmosphere and at sea level and is expressed in Newton;
and where: FN is a thrust generated by the fan rotor and is measured when the propulsion system is stationary in take-off rating in a standard atmosphere and at sea level and is expressed in Newton;
n is a number of blades in the fan rotor; and
n is a number of blades in the fan rotor; and
D is a diameter of the fan rotor, measured in a plane normal to the axis of rotation at an intersection between a tip and a leading edge of the blades of the fan rotor, and is expressed in meters.
D is a diameter of the fan rotor, measured in a plane normal to the axis of rotation at an intersection between a tip and a leading edge of the blades of the fan rotor, and is expressed in meters.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8 – 12, 14, and 16 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Ostdiek (11,492,918) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ostdiek (11,492,918), as evidenced by Schwarz et al. (2013/0219907).
Regarding Claim 1, Ostdiek discloses, in Figs. 1 - 3, the claimed invention, including a propulsion system (100 – Fig. 1, Col. 4, ll. 35 - 40) comprising: a drive shaft (138, aft of 155) movable in rotation about an axis of rotation (A, 112); a fan shaft (138, forward of 155); a fan section (150) comprising an unducted fan rotor (152 - Col. 4, ll. 35 - 40) driven in rotation by the fan shaft (138, forward of 155), the fan rotor (152) comprising a plurality of blades (154); and a reduction mechanism (155 - Col. 5, ll. 40 - 50) coupling the drive shaft (138, aft of 155) and the fan shaft (138, forward of 155) in order to drive the fan shaft (138, forward of 155) at a rotation speed lower than (Col. 12, ll. 50 – 55) the rotation speed of the drive shaft (138, aft of 155); a [The following is defining the numerical range and equation for “Thrust density”] thrust density per blade of the fan rotor of the propulsion system being greater than or equal to 5.0 x 104 N/m2 and less than or equal to 10.0 x 104 N/m2, where the thrust density per blade is defined by the following formula: Thrust density = (FN / n * D2) * 100
and where: FN is a thrust generated by the fan rotor and is measured when the propulsion system is stationary in take-off rating in a standard atmosphere and at sea level (Col. 2, l. 65 to Col. 3, l. 5) and is expressed in Newton; n is a number of blades in the fan rotor (Col. 11, l. 60 to Col. 12, l. 10); and D (2 * R1) is a diameter of the fan rotor (Col. 12, ll. 5 – 15), measured in a plane normal to the axis of rotation (A, 112) at an intersection between a tip and a leading edge of the blades of the fan rotor (152), and is expressed in meters. For example, if FN = 40,000 lbf = 179,920 N, n = 14, and D = 12 feet = 3.657 meters, then the Thrust density = 179,920 N / (14 * 3.657^2) * 100 = 95,005 N/m2 = 9.50 x 104 N/m2 which falls within the claimed range. MPEP2131.03(I) cited “If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim." UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023)”.
Alternatively, if one of ordinary skill in the prior art would not have understood that Ostdiek taught the claimed variables FN, n, and D that, when calculated, fell within the claimed thrust density range of greater than or equal to 5.0 x 104 N/m2 and less than or equal to 10.0 x 104 N/m2, then MPEP2144.05(I) cited “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”. As discussed in dependent Claims 4, 12, 18, and 19 below, Ostdiek taught ranges that encompassed the claimed ranges of the claimed variable. Furthermore, Applicant’s claimed “Thrust density” is not a ‘term of art’ because different inventors have defined the term differently. For example, Schwarz titled “GEARED TURBOFAN ARCHITECTURE FOR IMPROVED THRUST DENSITY” teaches, in Para. [0059], that “Increasing the number of low pressure turbine stages 46a, 46b, 46c at constant thrust slightly reduces the thrust density of the turbine section 28 but also increases power available to drive the low pressure compressor and the fan section 22”. Therefore, in Schwarz the “Thrust density” is a calculated parameter of a turbine section, whereas Applicant’s “Thrust density” is a calculated parameter of an unducted fan. In this case, Applicant’s “Thrust density” is basically a normalized measure of blade loading which means the amount of thrust generated per the swept area of an individual blade.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that Ostdiek taught ranges that encompassed the claimed ranges of the claimed variables FN, n, and D that, when calculated, fell within the claimed thrust density range of greater than or equal to 5.0 x 104 N/m2 and less than or equal to 10.0 x 104 N/m2 because MPEP2144.05(I) cited “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”.
Re Claims 3 and 17, Ostdiek teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the fan section further has a fan compression ratio (conventionally known in the prior art as the fan pressure ratio or FPR), corresponding to a pressure ratio between an outlet of the fan rotor and an inlet of the fan rotor (Claim 3) less than or equal to 1.45 and (Claim 17) less than or equal to 1.30. Ostdiek teaches, in Col. 12, ll. 45 – 50, “A fan pressure ratio (FPR) for the fan of the fan assembly can be 1.04 to 1.20…” which was within the claimed ranges.
Re Claims 4 and 18, Ostdiek teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the diameter of the fan rotor is comprised between (Claim 4) 80 inches and 185 inches inclusive and (Claim 18) 120 inches and 170 inches inclusive. As discussed in Claim 1 above, Ostdiek teaches, in Col. 12, ll. 5 – 15, “Further, in certain exemplary embodiments, the rotor assembly may define a rotor diameter (or fan diameter) of at least 10 feet, such as at least 11 feet, such as at least 12 feet, such as at least 13 feet, such as at least 15 feet, such as at least 17 feet, such as up to 28 feet, such as up to 26 feet, such as up to 24 feet, such as up to 18 feet.” 80 inches was equivalent to 6.67 feet and 185 inches was equivalent to 15.42 feet. MPEP2131.03(I) cited “If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim." UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023)”. MPEP2144.05(I) cited “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”.
Re Claims 12 and 19, Ostdiek teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the fan rotor comprises (Claim 12) at least ten fan blades and at most eighteen fan blades and (Claim 19) at least twelve fan blades and at most sixteen fan blades. As discussed in Claim 1 above, Ostdiek teaches, in Col. 11, l. 60 to Col. 12, l. 10, “In various exemplary embodiments, the fan may include twelve (12) fan blades. … In yet another suitable embodiment, the fan may have at least fifteen (15) blades. In yet another suitable embodiment, the fan may have at least eighteen (18) blades”. MPEP2131.03(I) cited “If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim." UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023)”. MPEP2144.05(I) cited “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”.
Re Claim 6, Ostdiek teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein a peripheral speed at the tip of the blades of the fan rotor, when the propulsion system is stationary in take-off rating in a standard atmosphere and at sea level (Col. 2, l. 65 to Col. 3, l. 5), is comprised between 210 m/s and 260 m/s. Ostdiek teaches, in Col. 12, ll. 40 – 45, fan rotor tip speed of less than 750 feet per second which was equivalent to 228.6 m/s. MPEP2131.03(I) cited “If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim." UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023)”.
Re Claim 8, Ostdiek teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including further comprising a drive turbine (134) and a compressor (126) directly connected by the drive shaft (138, shown in Fig. 1), the drive turbine (134) comprising at least three (shown in Fig. 1) and at most five stages. Ostdiek teaches, in Col. 13, ll. 1 - 20, that the low pressure/drive turbine may include three to seven stages. MPEP2144.05(I) cited “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”.
Re Claim 9, Ostdiek teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the compressor (126) comprises at least two (shown in Fig. 1) and at most four stages. Ostdiek teaches, in Col. 13, ll. 1 - 20, that the low pressure compressor may include one to eight stages. MPEP2144.05(I) cited “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”.
Re Claims 10 and 11, Ostdiek teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including further comprising (Claim 10) a high-pressure turbine (132) and a high-pressure compressor (128) connected via a high-pressure shaft (136), the high-pressure shaft (136) rotating faster than the drive shaft (138, conventional in the gas turbine art), the high-pressure turbine (132) being a two-stage turbine and (Claim 11) wherein the high-pressure compressor comprises at least eight and at most eleven stages. Ostdiek teaches, in Col. 13, ll. 1 - 20, “For example, in certain embodiments, an engine may include a one stage low pressure compressor, an 11 stage high pressure compressor, a two stage high pressure turbine, and 4 stages, or between 4 and 7 stages for the LPT.” MPEP2144.05(I) cited “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”.
Regarding Claim 14, Ostdiek discloses, in Figs. 1 - 3, the claimed invention, including a method for dimensioning a propulsion system (100 – Fig. 1, Col. 4, ll. 35 - 40) comprising a reduction mechanism (155 - Col. 5, ll. 40 - 50) coupling a drive shaft (138, aft of 155) and a fan rotor (152) to drive the unducted fan rotor (152 - Col. 4, ll. 35 - 40) at a speed lower than (Col. 12, ll. 50 – 55) a speed of the drive shaft, wherein the fan rotor (152) is dimensioned such that a thrust density a thrust density per blade of the fan rotor of the propulsion system being greater than or equal to 5.0 x 104 N/m2 and less than or equal to 10.0 x 104 N/m2, where [The following is defining the numerical range and equation for “Thrust density”] the thrust density per blade of the fan rotor is defined by the following formula: Thrust density = (FN / n * D2) * 100
and where: FN is a thrust generated by the fan rotor and is measured when the propulsion system is stationary in take-off rating in a standard atmosphere and at sea level (Col. 2, l. 65 to Col. 3, l. 5) and is expressed in Newton; n is a number of blades in the fan rotor (Col. 11, l. 60 to Col. 12, l. 10); and D (2 * R1) is a diameter of the fan rotor (Col. 12, ll. 5 – 15), measured in a plane normal to the axis of rotation (A, 112) at an intersection between a tip and a leading edge of the blades of the fan rotor (152), and is expressed in meters. For example, if FN = 40,000 lbf = 179,920 N, n = 14, and D = 12 feet = 3.657 meters, then the Thrust density = 179,920 N / (14 * 3.657^2) * 100 = 95,005 N/m2 = 9.50 x 104 N/m2 which falls within the claimed range. MPEP2131.03(I) cited “If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim." UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023)”.
Alternatively, if one of ordinary skill in the prior art would not have understood that Ostdiek taught the claimed variables FN, n, and D that, when calculated, fell within the claimed thrust density range of greater than or equal to 5.0 x 104 N/m2 and less than or equal to 10.0 x 104 N/m2, then MPEP2144.05(I) cited “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”. As discussed in dependent Claims 4, 18, and 19 above, Ostdiek taught ranges that encompassed the claimed ranges of the claimed variable. Furthermore, Applicant’s claimed “Thrust density” is not a ‘term of art’ because different inventors have defined the term differently. For example, Schwarz titled “GEARED TURBOFAN ARCHITECTURE FOR IMPROVED THRUST DENSITY” teaches, in Para. [0059], that “Increasing the number of low pressure turbine stages 46a, 46b, 46c at constant thrust slightly reduces the thrust density of the turbine section 28 but also increases power available to drive the low pressure compressor and the fan section 22”. Therefore, in Schwarz the “Thrust density” is a calculated parameter of a turbine section, whereas Applicant’s “Thrust density” is a calculated parameter of an unducted fan. In this case, Applicant’s “Thrust density” is basically a normalized measure of blade loading which means the amount of thrust generated per the swept area of an individual blade.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that Ostdiek taught ranges that encompassed the claimed ranges of the claimed variables FN, n, and D that, when calculated, fell within the claimed thrust density range of greater than or equal to 5.0 x 104 N/m2 and less than or equal to 10.0 x 104 N/m2 because MPEP2144.05(I) cited “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”.
Re Claim 16, Ostdiek teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including a method for manufacturing a propulsion system comprising the following steps: dimensioning the propulsion system according to claim 14 (discussed in Claim 14 above); and manufacturing the propulsion system (when the propulsion system of Ostdiek was manufactured).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to manufacture the propulsion system of Ostdiek because the designed and intended function of Ostdiek’s propulsion system was to generate propulsive thrust to propel an aircraft into flight which was impossible for a propulsion system that exists only as a description on several pieces of paper.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostdiek (11,492,918) in view of DePuy et al. (2022/0259985).
Re Claim 2, Ostdiek teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein a power density per blade of the fan rotor is greater than or equal to 3.65 x 106 W/m2 and less than or equal to 7.5 x 106 W/m2, where [The following is defining the numerical range and equation for “power density”] the power density per blade of the fan rotor is defined by the following formula: Power density = ((power of the fan) / n * D2) * 100, and where the power of the fan corresponds to a power of the fan rotor and is measured when the propulsion system is stationary in take-off rating in a standard atmosphere and at sea level and is expressed in Watts.
DePuy teaches, in Figs. 1 – 18, Para. [0013], and Para. [0129], a similar propulsion system having an unducted propulsor having a disk loading between 60 - 180 HP/ft2 at a takeoff flight condition. One horsepower (HP) = 745.7 Watts and one meter = 3.281 feet, so 100 HP/ft2 = 802,746.1 W/m2. As discussed above in Claim 1, n = 14 so (802,746.1 W/m2 / 14 ) * 100 = 5.73 x 106 W/m2 which falls within the claimed range.
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ostdiek with the power of the fan / * D2, i.e., disk loading, between 60 - 180 HP/ft2 at a takeoff flight condition, taught by DePuy, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the propulsion system comprising a drive shaft, a fan shaft, a fan section comprising an unducted fan/propulsor having a disk loading between 60 - 180 HP/ft2 at a takeoff flight condition, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the fan disk loading at a takeoff flight condition, taught by DePuy, for the non-disclosed fan disk loading at a takeoff flight condition of Ostdiek, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the fan disk loading at a takeoff flight condition of 100 HP/ft2 would have resulted in the power density of 5.73 x 106 W/m2 which falls within the claimed range. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Re Claim 15, Ostdiek teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein the fan rotor is further dimensioned such that a power density per blade of the fan rotor is greater than or equal to 3.65 x 106 W/m2 and less than or equal to 7.5 x 106 W/m2, where the power density per blade of the fan rotor is defined by the following formula: Power density = ((power of the fan) / n * D2) * 100, and where the power of the fan rotor is measured when the propulsion system is stationary in take-off rating in a standard atmosphere and at sea level and is expressed in Watts.
DePuy teaches, in Figs. 1 – 18, Para. [0013], and Para. [0129], a similar propulsion system having an unducted propulsor having a disk loading between 60 - 180 HP/ft2 at a takeoff flight condition. One horsepower (HP) = 745.7 Watts and one meter = 3.281 feet, so 100 HP/ft2 = 802,746.1 W/m2. As discussed above in Claim 14, n = 14 so (802,746.1 W/m2 / 14 ) * 100 = 5.73 x 106 W/m2 which falls within the claimed range.
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ostdiek with the power of the fan / * D2, i.e., disk loading, between 60 - 180 HP/ft2 at a takeoff flight condition, taught by DePuy, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the propulsion system comprising a drive shaft, a fan shaft, a fan section comprising an unducted fan/propulsor having a disk loading between 60 - 180 HP/ft2 at a takeoff flight condition, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the fan disk loading at a takeoff flight condition, taught by DePuy, for the non-disclosed fan disk loading at a takeoff flight condition of Ostdiek, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the fan disk loading at a takeoff flight condition of 100 HP/ft2 would have resulted in the power density of 5.73 x 106 W/m2 which falls within the claimed range. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostdiek (11,492,918) in view of Gaining Altitude: Airbus A380 to Test CFM's Open-Fan Architecture in Flight, GE Reports, 07/19/2022 [ https://www.geaerospace.com/news/articles/farnborough-airshow-technology/gaining-altitude-airbus-a380-test-cfms-open-fan accessed on 07/20/2026], hereinafter “CFM's Open-Fan”.
Re Claims 5 and 13, Ostdiek teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, (Claim 5) wherein a bypass ratio of the propulsion system is greater than or equal to 40 and (Claim 13) an aircraft comprising at least one propulsion system according to claim 1, fixed to the aircraft via a mast.
CFM's Open-Fan teaches, on Pg. 2, second to last paragraph and figure on Pg. 2, an unducted/open fan propulsion system with a bypass ratio of the propulsion system is greater than or equal to 40 (in this case 70:1) and an aircraft (A380 shown in the figure on Pg. 2) comprising at least one propulsion system according to claim 1, fixed to the aircraft via a mast (conventionally known in the prior art as a “pylon” as shown in the figure on Pg. 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ostdiek with an aircraft comprising at least one propulsion system fixed to the aircraft via a mast wherein a bypass ratio of the propulsion system is greater than or equal to 40, taught by CFM's Open-Fan because CFM's Open-Fan teaches, on Pg. 2, second to last paragraph, that a bypass ratio of around 70 facilitated a 20% reduction in fuel consumption and emission generation compared to the most advanced engines propelling aircraft at the time of publication, in this case 07/19/2022. As shown in the figure on Pg. 2, it was conventional in the prior art to attach an unducted/open fan propulsion system to an aircraft using a mast, conventionally known in the prior art as a “pylon”.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostdiek (11,492,918) in view of Breen (11,199,196).
Re Claim 7, Ostdiek teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein a hub-to-tip ratio of the fan rotor is comprised between 0.22 and 0.34.
Breen teaches, in Fig. 4, Col. 1, ll. 35 - 40, Col. 3, l. 60 to Col. 4, l. 15, and Col. 10, ll. 15 - 20, a fan rotor with a hub-to-tip ratio between 0.20 and 0.40 which encompassed the claimed range of 0.22 and 0.34.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ostdiek with the hub-to-tip ratio between 0.20 and 0.40, taught by Breen, because Breen teaches, in Col. 4, ll. 5 – 15, that said hub-to-tip ratios were particularly suitable for lower speed fans like those driven via a reduction gearbox and having a relatively larger fan tip diameter compared to the hub outer diameter.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORNE E MEADE whose telephone number is (571)270-7570. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. 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.
/LORNE E MEADE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights