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 action is in response to the claims filed 5/18/2023.
Preliminary amendment is acknowledged. Claims 1-17 are presented for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/18/2023 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 § 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) 1-2 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kiiskila et al. in US Patent Application Publication 2015/0329191 (hereinafter “Kiiskila”).
Regarding claim 1, Kiiskila discloses an air diffuser configured to be installed in a cooling rotating interface of a propulsion oriented device (Abstract; Fig. 2), the propulsion oriented device being pivotable relative to a vessel around an axis of rotation (axis Y-Y in Fig. 2), the air diffuser capable of being attached to the propulsion oriented device, and including a main portion (see wall 13 or 100 in Fig. 2 defining a “main portion”) capable of being surrounded by an air box 410 attached to the vessel so as to delimit, inside a volume delimited by the air box, a first fluid path L1 for a cold fluid flow and a second fluid path L2 for a warm fluid flow from each other (Fig. 2; paragraphs [0038]-[0042]), wherein the main portion is a solid of revolution (simply – an annular body; see Fig. 4, 5) around the axis of rotation Y-Y.
Regarding claim 2, Kiiskila discloses the air diffuser according to claim 1, wherein the main portion includes an inner cylinder of revolution around the axis of rotation (see Fig. 2, 4, 5; element 100 could be considered an inner cylinder of revolution about axis Y-Y).
Regarding claim 14, Kiiskila discloses a cooling rotating interface for a propulsion oriented device pivotable relative to a vessel around an axis of rotation, the cooling rotating interface including an air box configured to be attached to the vessel, a first fluid path for a cold fluid flow, a second fluid path for a warm fluid flow, and an air diffuser according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the air diffuser delimits the first fluid path L1 and second fluid path L2 from each other (see Fig. 2; paragraphs [0038]-[0042]).
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiiskila alone.
Regarding claim 3, Kiiskila discloses the air diffuser according to claim 2, wherein the inner cylinder 100 has a circular axial cross section, the air box 410 has a circular axial cross section (see Fig. 4 and 5), but does not explicitly disclose that the axial cross section of the air box has a diameter equal to a diameter of the axial cross section of the inner cylinder multiplied by a factor within a range 1.3 to 1.5. However, the Court has held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04. Here, Kiiskila discloses the same device of claim 3 except the specific relative dimension of the air box to the inner cylinder. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select particular sizes for these structures (such as to achieve a particular cooling effect), or scale the structure up or down entirely for a desired specific mission, and would arrive at the structure of claim 3. Merely claiming a device that exists in the prior art but with specific relative dimensions of components of that device fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 15, Kiiskila discloses the cooling rotating interface according to claim 14, wherein the air boxes includes a part of revolution coaxial to the main portion (Fig. 2, 4 and 5), but does not explicitly disclose that the cooling rotating interface includes a labyrinth seal located axially between the air diffuser and the part of revolution. The Examiner is giving official notice that the use of labyrinth seals between relatively rotating components, exactly like the instantly disclosed structure, to limit air flow or leakage or pressure loss between the two relatively rotating structures is widely known and commonly employed and readily available for purchase. While Kiiskila does not explicitly disclose employment of a labyrinth seal, instead disclosing a “slewing seal” to seal between relatively moving surfaces, the use of labyrinth seals for the exact same purpose is commonly known and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that different seals could be used to seal between rotating interfaces like those of Kiiskila and the result would have been predictable. A claim to a device that is disclosed by Kiiskila but with a different type of commonly employed seal does not patentably distinguish over Kiiskila.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Claims 4-13 and 16-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art of record, either alone or in combination, is silent to the air diffuser according to claim 1, wherein the main portion includes a truncated cone having a first smaller diameter circular end and a second larger diameter circular end.
Kiiskila, applied above and considered the closest art of record, is silent to any analogous structure to the claimed main portion being a truncated cone. Instead, Kiiskila discloses a cylindrical structure which can be equated to the claimed main structure. While one of ordinary skill would certainly be motivated to consider various different engineering aspects while designing an air diffuser like that recited in claim 1, particularly air flow characteristics and pressures, none of the art of record suggests a structure equatable to the claimed main structure being a truncated cone. Claims 5-13 and 16-17 depend ultimately from claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.Relevant Prior Art:
US5403216 to Salmi et al. discloses a ship propulsion arrangement with a relatively rotating stack of cylinders and various cooling air channels through the structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELDON T BROCKMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3263. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm 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, Court 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.
/ELDON T BROCKMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799