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 .
This is the first Office action responsive to application 19134461 filed 5/30/2025. Claims 1-9 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “at least one first propeller and the first rotor vane are connected to a single shaft via a mechanical speed reduction gear” (see claim 8, note that the first rotor vane is part of the at least one compressor, the at least one compressor being recited as part of the gas generator) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Figs. 5-8 show the rotor vane 9 and the propeller 17 being connected to a single shaft S, but they are not connected to the shaft via a mechanical speed reduction gear. In Figs. 1 & 3, a reduction gear 12 is shown, but this is only shown connected to a propeller 16 and not to a rotor vane of the compressor.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1:
The recitations “the annular element” (at lines 11, 21, & 22) are believed to be in error for - - the at least one annular element - -.
The recitation “the first duct” (ll. 12-13) is believed to be in error for - - the internal annular duct - -.
The recitation “a casing” (l. 20) is believed to be in error for - - the casing - -.
The recitation “the first splitter nose” (l. 21) is believed to be in error for - - the first annular splitter nose - -.
Regarding Claim 2:
The recitation “between the gas generator and the annular element” (l. 2) is believed to be in error for - - between the casing of the gas generator and the at least one annular element - -.
The recitation “devoid of stator vane” (l. 3) is believed to be in error for - - devoid of any stator vane - -.
Regarding Claim 3:
The recitation “between the gas generator and the annular element” (l. 2) is believed to be in error for - - between the casing of the gas generator and the at least one annular element - -.
Regarding Claim 4:
The recitation “with leading edge of the blades of the second stator vane” (ll. 2-3) is believed to be in error for - - with a leading edge of the second stator vane - -.
The recitation “with leading edges of the blades of a first stator vane” (ll. 3-4) is believed to be in error for - - with a leading edge of a first stator vane - -.
Regarding Claim 5:
The recitation “the annular element” (l. 2) is believed to be in error for - - the at least one annular element - -.
The recitation “devoid of stator vane upstream of a first rotor vane” (l. 3) is believed to be in error for - - devoid of any stator vane upstream of the first rotor vane - -.
Regarding Claim 6:
The recitation “with leading edges of the blades of the first rotor vane” (ll. 2-3) is believed to be in error for - - with a leading edge of the first rotor vane - -.
The recitation “with trailing edges of the blades of a first stator vane” (ll. 3-4) is believed to be in error for - - with a trailing edge of a first stator vane - -.
Regarding Claim 7:
The recitation “vane comprises blades, an upstream portion of which comprises a leading edge is rotatable” (ll. 2-3) is believed to be in error for - - vane comprises an upstream portion comprising a leading edge rotatable - -.
The recitation “a downstream portion of which comprises a trailing edge is fixed” (ll. 3-4) is believed to be in error for - - a downstream portion comprising a fixed trailing edge - -.
Regarding Claim 8:
The recitation “the at least one first propeller” (ll. 1-2) is believed to be in error for - - the first propeller - -.
Regarding Claim 9:
The recitation “at least one propulsion assembly” (l. 1) is believed to be in error for - - at least one aircraft propulsion assembly - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, the recitation “a second stator vane extending radially between a casing of the gas generator and the annular element… and/or between the annular element and the nacelle” (6th to last line through 3rd to last line) is vague and indefinite because it is unclear whether the stator vane can be positioned in both locations simultaneously (the scope of the claim includes the possibility that the vane is on one side of the annular element and the other side of the annular element at the same time) or whether two different vanes would be required to be positioned in both locations.
Regarding Dependent Claim 8, the recitation “the at least one first propeller and the first rotor vane are connected to a single shaft via a mechanical speed reduction gear” is vague and indefinite because it is unclear whether the single shaft is (a) a shaft which extends between the rotor vane and the first propeller (this is the “single shaft” ‘S’ disclosed by Applicant and shown in Figs. 5-8 with no reduction gear) or (b) a shaft other than the shaft which extends between the rotor vane and the first propeller. If the single shaft is the former possibility, then it is unclear how the connection between each of the propeller and the rotor vane is made to the single shaft “via” the reduction gear (i.e. how do both the propeller and the rotor vane connect to the single shaft via the same gearbox, Applicant has disclosed no structure for this). If the single shaft is the latter possibility, then this is inconsistent with Applicant’s specification which discloses the single shaft as being a shaft extending between and connecting the propeller and the rotor vane.
Dependent Claims 2-7 & 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for their dependence from claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-4 & 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sibbach 20220252008.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Sibbach teaches an aircraft propulsion assembly (Figs. 1-2), comprising:
a triple-flow turbomachine (flows outside of 77, between 76 & 77, and inward of 76); and
a nacelle (77) surrounding the turbomachine, wherein the turbomachine comprises:
a gas generator comprising at least one compressor (45), one combustion chamber (28), and one turbine (29), the gas generator being arranged along a longitudinal axis (11);
a first propeller (40) mounted inside the nacelle and around the longitudinal axis and configured to accelerate an air inlet flow entering the nacelle;
at least one annular element (76) arranged radially between the gas generator and the nacelle and defining a first internal annular duct (radially inward from 76) for supplying the gas generator, and a second external annular duct (between 77 & 76) with the nacelle, the annular element comprising upstream a first annular splitter nose (leading edge of 76) which is configured to split the air inlet flow into a first air flow flowing in the first duct (air flow flowing radially inward of 76) and into a second air flow flowing in the second external annular duct (air flow flowing between 76 & 77);
a second propeller (21) mounted upstream of the nacelle and around the longitudinal axis and configured to accelerate a main air flow (air flow accelerated by 21), the nacelle comprising upstream a second annular splitter nose (leading edge of 77) which is configured to separate the main air flow into the inlet air flow flowing into the nacelle and into a third air flow flowing around the nacelle (air flow radially outward from 77);
a first stator vane (43) extending radially between a casing (static structure of 45 to which 43 is attached) of the gas generator and the nacelle upstream of the first annular splitter nose (upstream of leading edge of 76) and downstream of the first propeller (downstream of 40); and
a second stator vane (44) extending radially between a casing (static structure of 45 to which 44 is attached) of the gas generator and the annular element, downstream of the first splitter nose (downstream of leading edge of 76) and upstream of a first rotor vane (upstream of first rotor vane of 45) of the at least one compressor of the gas generator, and/or between the annular element and the nacelle, downstream of the first annular splitter nose (alternately, upstream-most heat exchanger 74 can be attached to a vane, which is between 76 and 77 and is downstream of the leading edge of 76; para. [0056]),
wherein at least one of the first and second stator vanes is a variable pitch vane or comprises at least one variable pitch portion (43 and 44 are variable pitch; paras. [0046] & [0059]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 2, Sibbach further teaches the second stator vane extends radially between the gas generator and the annular element (44 extends as claimed), and the second external annular duct is devoid of stator vane from the first annular splitter nose to a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis and passing substantially through a first stator vane of the at least one compressor of the gas generator (the heat exchangers 74 in the duct defined by 76 & 77 can be attached to a strut instead of a vane and thus there would be no stator vane present in duct defined by 76 & 77 between leading edge of 76 to a plane substantially at the leading edge of stator vane immediately downstream from first rotor blade of 45; para. [0056]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 3, Sibbach further teaches the second stator vane extends radially between the gas generator and the annular element (44 extends as claimed), and the second external annular duct comprises a third stator vane downstream of the first annular splitter nose (duct between 76 & 77 can have vane to which upstream heat exchanger 74 is mounted, which would be downstream of the leading edge of 76; para. [0056]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 4, Sibbach further teaches the third stator vane is located downstream of or in line with leading edges of the blades of the second stator vane (portion of vane to which upstream-most heat exchanger 74 is attached is in line with leading edges of blades of 44), and upstream of or in line with leading edges of the blades of a first stator vane of the at least one compressor of the gas generator (vane to which 74 is attached is upstream of the stator vane immediately downstream from the first rotor blade of 45).
Regarding Dependent Claim 8, Sibbach further teaches the at least one first propeller and the first rotor vane are connected to a single shaft via a mechanical speed reduction gear (40 and first rotor vane of 45 are connected to a single shaft to which 21 is attached via gearbox 60).
Regarding Dependent Claim 9, Sibbach further teaches an aircraft (para. [0033]) comprising at least one propulsion assembly according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sibbach, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dusa 4050242.
Regarding Dependent Claim 5, Sibbach teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Sibbach further teaches the second stator vane extends radially between the annular element and the nacelle (as discussed for claim 1 above, the alternative configuration includes a vane to which upstream-most heat exchanger 74 is attached between 76 & 77).
Sibbach fails to teach the first internal annular duct is devoid of stator vane upstream of a first rotor vane of the at least one compressor of the gas generator.
Dusa teaches a triple-flow turbomachine (Fig. 1) for aircraft propulsion, wherein the first internal annular duct (38) is devoid of any stator vane upstream of a first rotor vane of the compressor (compressor 26 lacks a stator vane upstream therefrom in 38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sibbach’s aircraft propulsion assembly such that the first internal annular duct is devoid of stator vane upstream of a first rotor vane of the at least one compressor of the gas generator, as taught by Dusa, because a) the prior art contained a device which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components with other components (Sibbach’s assembly with a stator vane in the first internal annular duct upstream of the first rotor vane of the compressor versus the claimed assembly without a stator vane in the first internal annular duct upstream of the first rotor vane of the compressor), b) the substituted components and their functions were known in the art (internal annular ducts with stator vanes upstream of the compressor and without stator vanes upstream of the compressor were known for providing airflow to a compressor of a gas turbine engine), and c) one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable (either Sibbach’s internal annular duct with a stator vane upstream of the compressor or Dusa’s internal annular duct without a stator vane upstream of the compressor could have been used to predictably provide airflow to a compressor of a gas turbine engine). It has been held that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., et al., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (citing United States v. Adams, 383 US 39, 50-51 (1966)). See MPEP 2143 I(B).
Regarding Dependent Claim 6, Sibbach in view of Dusa teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 5, and Sibbach further teaches the second stator vane is located downstream of or in line with leading edges of the blades of the first rotor vane of the at least one compressor of the gas generator (stator vane to which upstream-most heat exchanger 74 is attached is in line with leading edges of the first rotor vane of 45), and upstream of or in line with trailing edges of the blades of a first stator vane of the at least one compressor (stator vane to which upstream-most heat exchanger 74 is attached is in line with trailing edges of 44).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sibbach in view of Dusa, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Peck 20120171020.
Regarding Dependent Claim 7, Sibbach in view of Dusa teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 5, but Sibbach in view of Dusa fails to expressly teach the first stator vane and/or the second stator vane comprises blades, an upstream portion of which comprises a leading edge is rotatable about a substantially radial axis, and a downstream portion of which comprises a trailing edge is fixed.
Peck teaches a stator vane (Fig. 2A) with an upstream portion with a leading edge (72) and a downstream portion with a trailing edge (74), wherein the upstream portion is rotatable about a substantially radial axis and the trailing edge is fixed (para. [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sibbach in view of Dusa’s assembly such that the first stator vane and/or the second stator vane comprises blades, an upstream portion of which comprises a leading edge is rotatable about a substantially radial axis, and a downstream portion of which comprises a trailing edge is fixed, as taught by Peck, in order to provide a variable geometry vane system (Peck; para. [0019]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J WALTHOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-4999. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10 a.m.-6 p.m. 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, Devon Kramer can be reached at 571-272-7118. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SCOTT J WALTHOUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights