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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/6/2025 and 11/26/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 3 and 13 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 3 and 13 recite the term “about” in line 2 and they are a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-20 are allowed.
Claims 3 and 13 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art is Niergarth et al. US 20220275774 and Ryan et al. “Variable Pitch Fan System for NASA/NAVY Research and Technology Aircraft”. Niergarth discloses 27 different engines in figure 18. The following formulas were used to determine the calculated results in table below.
F
a
n
A
r
e
a
=
π
R
t
i
p
2
-
R
h
u
b
2
R
h
u
b
=
R
t
i
p
(
h
u
b
t
o
t
i
p
r
a
t
i
o
)
F
a
n
A
r
e
a
=
π
R
t
i
p
2
-
R
t
i
p
h
u
b
t
o
t
i
p
r
a
t
i
o
2
F
a
n
A
r
e
a
=
π
∙
R
t
i
p
2
1
-
h
u
b
t
o
t
i
p
r
a
t
i
o
2
R
t
i
p
=
F
a
n
A
r
e
a
π
∙
1
-
h
u
b
t
o
t
i
p
r
a
t
i
o
2
The scale drawing below and on page 11 from Ryan et al. “Variable Pitch Fan System for NASA/NAVY Research and Technology Aircraft” is used to show that the bearing radius is about 85.4% of the hub radius. Note: the Lift cruiser fan is a to scale schematic drawing of SK 92250 because of the recited dimensions. On the drawing, the radius of the hub is 1.58 inches and the radius of the thrust bearing is 1.35 inches, so thrust bearing radius is 85.4% of the radius.
PNG
media_image1.png
1075
1064
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This is then used to calculate the radius of the thrust bearing.
R
T
B
=
85.4
*
R
h
u
b
/
100
PNG
media_image2.png
375
469
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Then the proportions are then used to calculate the axial length from the tip of the hub to the bearing. The centerline to the bearing being 2” and the tip of the hub to the bearing in the axial direction being 3.06”.
L
a
x
i
a
l
=
3.06
*
R
T
B
/
2
The values are shown below of each engine of Niergarth and the fan actuation length envelope of each engine is also calculated to show if the engine would infringe on the envelope of the applications.
E
l
e
n
g
t
h
=
N
F
B
*
D
F
T
L
A
x
i
a
l
*
R
T
B
N
F
B
PNG
media_image3.png
626
936
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The envelope values were calculated using the length from the tip of the hub to a bearing of the blade as shown above, however, the envelopes calculated would not fall within the envelope range of 8.5 to 24 of applicants. The bearing being used to measure of applicants is also the blade bearing and not the fan bearing. In general the fan bearings are located further away from the tip than the blade bearing, therefore, the envelope values would be much larger and falling further away from the envelope ranges of applicants. Therefore, the subject matter of the envelope range of 8.5 to 24 using applicant’s formula to design the fan actuation system is considered allowable subject matter. There was not prior art found that discloses the radius of the thrust bearing in relation to the length from the tip of the hub to the fan bearing.
The subject matter of “a fan guide array having a plurality of fan guide vanes, wherein the fan guide array is positioned aft of the fan; a point (P) located at an intersection of the CL and a line (HP) perpendicular to the CL that passes through an axial midpoint between a rearward trailing edge at a root of the plurality of fan blades and a forward leading edge at a root of the plurality of fan guide vanes; and a position line (R) having a length (RL) and extending from the QC to the point P or at an angle θ, wherein 0.07 ≤ RL/DFT ≤ 2.0 and θ is in a range from 187° to 342°.” Is not taught by the prior art found.
When analysing the application for obvious type double patenting, The subject matter of the fan actuation system length is taught by the parent applications and child application in this family of applications. Carle et al. US 20250042537 (US Patent 12384522) or application 18/652052 was found to teach the range of the angles of the length of the position line extending from the QC to the point that is the intersect of the CL and HP. However, Carle et al. is not considered prior art. Therefore, a obviousness type double patenting rejection could not be made. The combination of the allowable subject matter creates a narrower turbofan engine from the parent/ other child applications in the family and Carle 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 Andrew J Marien whose telephone number is (469)295-9159. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am- 6:00 pm CST, Monday through Friday.
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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. 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.
/Andrew J Marien/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights