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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters et al (US 20070186555 as referenced in OA dated 11/21/2024) in view of Bruynes et al (US 2558816 as referenced in OA dated 11/21/2024).
PNG
media_image1.png
350
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4 of Bruynes
Regarding claim 1, Peters discloses an apparatus (Figure 1A; 10) for directing combustion products from a jet engine (Intended use, the combustion products from the gas turbine engine, Paragraph 0002, 0032), comprising:
a convergent portion (Figure 2A; 30) constructed to receive the combustion products from the jet engine (Functional Language, Paragraph 0002, 0032), wherein a cross-sectional diameter (The cross sectional diameter of Figure 2A; 30) of the convergent portion decreases in a flow direction (The flow direction of Figure 2A; F) of the combustion products;
a divergent portion (Figure 2A; 32) constructed to receive the combustion products from the convergent portion (Functional Language, Paragraph 0002, 0032. The divergent portion receives the combustion products from the convergent portion), the divergent portion includes:
a plurality of seals (Figure 1A; 21),
a plurality of flaps (Figure 2A; 18), wherein the plurality of seals and the plurality of flaps are interconnected and circumferentially arranged, and
a throat (Figure 2A; 34) separating the convergent portion and the divergent portion; and
a nozzle exit (Figure 2A; 26) located at an end (The end of the divergent portion where the nozzle exit is located) of the divergent portion distal from the throat.
Peters does not disclose a plurality of micro-vortex generator pairs respectively disposed in a circumferential manner on an interior surface of the plurality of seals, wherein each of the plurality of micro-vortex generator pairs includes: a first micro-vortex generator and a second micro-vortex generator;
wherein a distance from the nozzle exit to a proximate portion of the plurality of micro- vortex generator pairs is between 80% and 30% of a seal length.
However, Bruynes teaches an apparatus (Figure 4), comprising:
a plurality of micro-vortex generator pairs (The pairs of Figure 4; 12a and 12b) respectively disposed in a circumferential manner (The circumferential manner of Figure 4; 12a and 12b) on an interior surface (The interior surface of Figure 4; 11) of a divergent duct (Figure 4; 11), wherein each of the plurality of micro-vortex generator pairs includes: a first micro-vortex generator (Figure 4; 12a) and a second micro-vortex generator (Figure 4; 12b);
wherein a distance (The distance from the nozzle exit to the vortex generator pairs) from a nozzle exit (The exit of Figure 4; 10) to a proximate portion (The portion of the vortex generators proximate the nozzle exit) of the plurality of micro- vortex generator pairs is between 80% and 30% of a length (Annotated, Figure 4; labeled length. The distance appears to be between 30% and 80% of the length. Figure 6 shows 11 being linear).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Peters to include a plurality of micro-vortex generator pairs respectively disposed in a circumferential manner on an interior surface of a divergent duct, wherein each of the plurality of micro-vortex generator pairs includes: a first micro-vortex generator and a second micro-vortex generator; wherein a distance from the nozzle exit to a proximate portion of the plurality of micro- vortex generator pairs is between 80% and 30% of a length as taught by and suggested by Bruynes in order to cause steady mixing between the main stream and boundary layer (Column 1, line 27-35. The modification adds vortex generator pairs to at least the plurality of seals. Applying the vortex generator pairs to the plurality of seals makes the length of Bruynes, the seal length of Peters).
Regarding claim 12, Peters in view of Bruynes teaches the invention as claimed
Peters does not disclose wherein the first micro-vortex generator and the second micro-vortex generator are symmetrically arranged.
However, Bruynes teaches wherein the first micro-vortex generator and the second micro-vortex generator are symmetrically arranged (The first and second micro-vortex generators are symmetrically arranged).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Peters wherein the first micro-vortex generator and the second micro-vortex generator are symmetrically arranged as taught by and suggested by Bruynes in order to cause steady mixing between the main stream and boundary layer (Column 1, line 27-35. This is the same modification as claim 1).
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters in view of Bruynes as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Simonetti et al (US 20200024983 as referenced in OA dated 1/23/2024).
Regarding claim 2, Peters in view of Bruynes teaches the invention as claimed.
Peters in view of Bruynes does not teach wherein the first micro-vortex generator is a scalene triangle comprising a first base leg, a first primary leg, and a first secondary leg, and wherein a length of the first secondary leg is less than or equal to a length of the first primary leg.
However, Simonetti teaches an apparatus (Figure 5; 38) for directing combustion products (The combustion products from Figure 2; 32) from an engine (Figure 2; E), comprising:
a plurality of micro-vortex generators pairs (The pairs of Figure 5; 70) respectively disposed in a circumferential manner (The circumferential manner of Figure 5; 70) on an interior surface (Figure 5; 49) of a stationary body (Figure 5; 48), wherein each of the plurality of micro-vortex generator pairs includes: a first micro-vortex generator (A first vortex generator of a pair of Figure 5; 70) and a second micro-vortex generator (A second vortex generator of a pair of Figure 5; 70);
wherein the first micro-vortex generator is a scalene triangle (The first micro-vortex generator appears to be a scalene triangle) comprising a first base leg (The leg attached to Figure 5; 49), a first primary leg (The hypotenuse of the first micro-vortex generator), and a first secondary leg (The other, third leg of the first micro-vortex generator), and wherein a length (The length of the first secondary leg) of the first secondary leg is less than or equal to a length (The length of the first primary leg) of the first primary leg.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Peters in view of Bruynes wherein the first micro-vortex generator is a scalene triangle comprising a first base leg, a first primary leg, and a first secondary leg, and wherein a length of the first secondary leg is less than or equal to a length of the first primary leg as taught by and suggested by Simonetti because it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element (The vortex generator pairs of Bruynes), for another (The vortex generator pairs of Simonetti), to obtain predictable results, to generate vortices was an obvious extension of prior art teachings. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421; MPEP 2141 III B (The modification uses the vortex generator pairs of Simonetti instead of the vortex generator pairs of Bruynes).
Regarding claim 3, Peters in view of Bruynes teaches the invention as claimed.
Peters in view of Bruynes does not teach wherein the base leg is attached to one of the plurality of seals.
However, Simonetti teaches wherein the base leg is attached to a portion of the interior surface (The portion of the interior surface that attaches to the base leg)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Peters in view of Bruynes wherein the base leg is attached portion of the interior surface (In the combined invention of Peteres in view of Bruynes, the vortex generator pairs are attached to the plurality of seals) as taught by and suggested by Simonetti because it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element (The vortex generator pairs of Bruynes), for another (The vortex generator pairs of Simonetti), to obtain predictable results, to generate vortices was an obvious extension of prior art teachings. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421; MPEP 2141 III B (This is the same modification as claim 2).
Regarding claim 4, Peters in view of Bruynes teaches the invention as claimed.
Peters in view of Bruynes does not teach wherein the second micro-vortex generator is a scalene triangle comprising a second base leg, a second primary leg, and a second secondary leg, and wherein a length of the second secondary leg is less than or equal to a length of the second primary leg.
However, Simonetti teaches wherein the second micro-vortex generator is a scalene triangle (The second micro-vortex generator appears to be a scalene triangle) comprising a second base leg (The leg attached to Figure 5; 49), a second primary leg (The hypotenuse of the first micro-vortex generator), and a second secondary leg (The other, third leg of the first micro-vortex generator), and wherein a length (The length of the first secondary leg) of the second secondary leg is less than or equal to a length (The length of second primary leg) of the second primary leg.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Peters in view of Bruynes wherein the second micro-vortex generator is a scalene triangle comprising a second base leg, a second primary leg, and a second secondary leg, and wherein a length of the second secondary leg is less than or equal to a length of the second primary leg as taught by and suggested by Simonetti because it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element (The vortex generator pairs of Bruynes), for another (The vortex generator pairs of Simonetti), to obtain predictable results, to generate vortices was an obvious extension of prior art teachings. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421; MPEP 2141 III B (This is the same modification as claim 2).
Claim(s) 5, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters in view of Bruynes as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kin et al (Supersonic flow over rounded contour bumps with vortex generators or passive longitudinal jets as referenced in OA dated 1/23/2024).
Regarding claim 5, Peters in view of Bruynes teaches the invention as claimed.
Peters in view of Bruynes does not teach wherein the first micro-vortex generator and the second micro-vortex generator are scalene triangles that each include a curved leg oriented upstream in a flow direction.
However, Kin teaches at least one micro-vortex generators pair (Figure 2; b) wherein each of the at least one micro-vortex generators pair includes: a first micro-vortex generator (A first vortex generator of a pair of Figure 2; b) and a second micro-vortex generator (A second vortex generator of a pair of Figure 2; b),
wherein the first micro-vortex generator and the second micro-vortex generator are scalene triangles (Figure 2; b. The first and second micro-vortex generators are scalene triangles. Section 2.2 states two rounded, three-dimensional contour bumps are known as the VG bump) that each include a curved leg (The left slanted left of Figure 2; a) oriented upstream in a flow direction (The flow direction shown in Figure 1; a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Peters in view of Bruynes wherein the first micro-vortex generator and the second micro-vortex generator are scalene triangles that each include a curved leg oriented upstream in a flow direction as taught by and suggested by Kin in order to enhance mixing between the wake region and freestream (6. Conclusions, The modification uses shape of the vortex generators of Kin).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters in view of Bruynes and Simonetti as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Althaus et al (US 5573395 as referenced in OA dated 1/23/2024).
Regarding claim 6, Peters in view of Bruynes and Simonetti teaches the invention as claimed.
Peters in view of Bruynes and Simonetti does not teach wherein a height of the scalene triangle is greater than 0.025 times a diameter of the nozzle exit.
However, Althaus teaches a height (Figure 7; h) of a scalene triangle (The scalene triangle formed by Figure 7; 9) is greater than 0.025 times a diameter (Figure 7; H) of a nozzle exit (The nozzle exit having Figure 7; H).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Peters in view of Bruynes and Simonetti wherein a height of the scalene triangle is greater than 0.025 times a diameter of the nozzle exit as taught by and suggested by Althaus in order to provide uniform velocity distribution (Column 5, lines 8-20, The modification uses a vortex generator that is greater than 0.025 times the diameter).
Claim(s) 7, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters in view of Bruynes and Simonetti as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kin et al (Supersonic flow over rounded contour bumps with vortex generators or passive longitudinal jets as referenced in OA dated 1/23/2024).
Regarding claim 7, Peters in view of Bruynes and Simonetti teaches the invention as claimed.
Peters in view of Bruynes and Simonetti does not teach wherein a distance between the first micro-vortex generator and the second micro-vortex generator is greater than 20% of a seal width.
However, Kin teaches at least one micro-vortex generators pair (Figure 2; b) wherein each of the at least one micro-vortex generators pair includes: a first micro-vortex generator (A first vortex generator of a pair of Figure 2; b) and a second micro-vortex generator (A second vortex generator of a pair of Figure 2; b),
wherein a distance (The distance between the first and second micro-vortex generator) between the first micro-vortex generator and the second micro-vortex generator is greater than 20% (The distance between the first and second micro-vortex generator is greater than 20% of the width of the plate in Figure 2; b) of a width (The width of the plate in Figure 2; b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Peters in view of Bruynes and Simonetti wherein a distance between the first micro-vortex generator and the second micro-vortex generator is greater than 20% of a width (In the combined invention of Peteres in view of Bruynes and Simonetti, the width of Kin is the seal width) as taught by and suggested by Kin in order to enhance mixing between the wake region and freestream (6. Conclusions, The modification uses the arrangement of Kin with respect to the surface).
Claim(s) 8, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters in view of Bruynes as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gutmark et al (US 20120047873 as referenced in OA dated 1/23/2024).
Regarding claim 8, Peters in view of Bruynes teaches the invention as claimed.
Peters in view of Bruynes does not teach wherein a first angle between a face of the first micro-vortex generator and a seal surface on which the first micro-vortex generator is disposed is between 45 degrees and 145 degrees, inclusive.
However, Gutmark teaches at least one of micro-vortex generators pairs (Figure 10: 49) respectively , wherein each of the at least one micro-vortex generators pair includes: a first micro-vortex generator (The left Figure 10; 49) and a second micro-vortex generator (The right Figure 10; 49);
wherein a first angle between a face (The face of the first micro-vortex generator that makes the angle Figure 10; F) of the first micro-vortex generator and a surface (The surface that makes the angle Figure 10; F) on which the first micro-vortex generator is disposed is between 45 degrees and 145 degrees, inclusive (Paragraph 0037).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Peters in view of Bruynes wherein a first angle between a face of the first micro-vortex generator and a seal surface on which the first micro-vortex generator is disposed is between 45 degrees and 145 degrees, inclusive as taught by and suggested by Kin in order to enhance a turbulence fluid flow (Paragraph 0037, The modification uses the an angle from 90 to 30 degrees).
Claim(s) 9, 10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters in view of Bruynes as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wurth et al (US 20140219810 as referenced in OA dated 1/23/2024).
Regarding claim 9, Peters in view of Bruynes teaches the invention as claimed.
Peters in view of Bruynes does not teach wherein a second angle between a face of the first micro-vortex generator and a face of the second micro-vortex generator is between 0 and 120 degrees, inclusive.
However, Wurth teaches at least one of micro-vortex generators pair (Figure 4; 102, 104) respectively, wherein each of the at least one of micro-vortex generators pair includes: a first micro-vortex generator (Figure 4; 102) and a second micro-vortex generator (Figure 4;);
wherein a second angle (Two times Figure 4; β) between a face (The face of the first micro-vortex generator used to measure Figure 4; β) of the first micro-vortex generator and a face (The face of the second micro-vortex generator used to measure Figure 4; β) of the second micro-vortex generator is between 0 and 120 degrees, inclusive (Paragraph 0019 states β is between 6 and 16 degrees, so that the second angle ranges from 12 and 32 degrees).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Peters in view of Bruynes wherein a second angle between a face of the first micro-vortex generator and a face of the second micro-vortex generator is between 0 and 120 degrees, inclusive as taught by and suggested by Wurth in order to reduce drag (Paragraph 0034, the modification uses the second angle in the combined invention of Peters in view of Bruynes).
Regarding claim 10, Peters in view of Bruynes and Wurth teaches the invention as claimed.
Peters in view of Bruynes does not teach wherein the second angle is between 25 and 50 degrees, inclusive.
However, Wurth teaches wherein the second angle is between 25 and 50 degrees, inclusive (Paragraph 0019 states β is between 6 and 16 degrees, so that the second angle ranges from 12 and 32 degrees).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Peters in view of Bruynes wherein the second angle is between 25 and 50 degrees, inclusive as taught by and suggested by Wurth in order to reduce drag (Paragraph 0034, This is the same modification as claim 9).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters in view of Bruynes and Bagheri et al (Effects of micro-vortex generators on shock wave structure in a low aspect ratio duct, numerical investigation as referenced in OA dated 1/23/2024).
Regarding claim 14, Peters discloses a method of operating a nozzle section (Figure 1; 10) of a jet engine (The gas turbine engine of Paragraph 0002), the method comprising:
providing a divergent portion (Figure 2A; 32) that includes:
a plurality of seals surfaces (The interior surface of Figure 1A; 21).
Peters does not disclose providing a plurality of micro-vortex generator pairs on a plurality of seal surfaces of the nozzle section, respectively, wherein each of the plurality of micro-vortex generator pairs is constructed to generate two vortices adjacent to an interior surface of the nozzle section and extending in a direction towards a nozzle exit,
wherein the vortices generated by the plurality of micro-vortex generator pairs reduce shock-cell strength within the nozzle section, and
wherein a distance from the nozzle exit to a proximate portion of the plurality of micro- vortex generator pairs is between 80% and 30% of a seal length.
However, Bruynes teaches a method of generating a plurality of vortices (Figure 5) in a nozzle section (Figure 4; 10), the method comprising:
providing a plurality of micro-vortex generator pairs (The pairs of Figure 4; 12a and 12b) on an interior surface (The interior surface of Figure 4; 11) of a nozzle section (Figure 4; 11), wherein each of the plurality of micro-vortex generator pairs is constructed to generate two vortices (Figure 5; vortices) adjacent to the interior surface of the nozzle section and extending in a direction (The direction of the vortices is towards the nozzle exit) towards a nozzle exit (The exit of Figure 4; 10),
wherein a distance (The distance from the nozzle exit to the vortex generator pairs) from the nozzle exit to a proximate portion (The portion of the vortex generators proximate the nozzle exit) of the plurality of micro- vortex generator pairs is between 80% and 30% of a length (The length along Figure 4; 11. The distance appears to be between 30% and 80% of the length. Figure 6 shows 11 being linear).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the invention of Peters wherein providing a plurality of micro-vortex generator pairs on the nozzle section, respectively, wherein each of the plurality of micro-vortex generator pairs is constructed to generate two vortices adjacent to an interior surface of the nozzle section and extending in a direction towards a nozzle exit, wherein a distance from the nozzle exit to a proximate portion of the plurality of micro- vortex generator pairs is between 80% and 30% of a length as taught by and suggested by Bruynes in order to cause steady mixing between the main stream and boundary layer (Column 1, line 27-35. The modification adds vortex generator pairs to at least the plurality of seal surfaces. Applying the vortex generator pairs to the plurality of seal surfaces makes the length of Bruynes, the seal length of Peters).
Peters in view of Bruynes does not teach wherein the vortices generated by the plurality of micro-vortex generator pairs reduce shock-cell strength within the nozzle section.
However, Bagheri teaches a method of generating a plurality of vortices (The vortices from Figure 4; C3, C4, C5) in a nozzle section (The low-aspect ratio duct in the Abstract is a nozzle section), the method comprising
providing at least one micro-vortex generators pair (Figure 4; C3, C4, C5) wherein each of the at least one micro-vortex generators pair is constructed to generate two vortices (Functional Language, despite being a method claim, the recitation of “constructed to” renders the following limitations as functional language. Each pair of vortex generators forms two vortices. Since the vortex generators are passive features and the prior art has similar structure to the instant application, each pair of micro-vortex generators form two vortices adjacent the inner surface and extending toward the nozzle exit);
wherein the vortices generated by the at least one micro-vortex generator pair reduce shock-cell strength (Abstract) within the nozzle section.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Peters in view of Bruynes wherein the vortices generated by the plurality of micro-vortex generator pairs reduce shock-cell strength within the nozzle section as taught by and suggested by Bagheri in order to reduce energy loss across the flow (Abstract, the modification has the pairs of micro-vortex generators decreasing shock strength).
Claim(s) 15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters in view of Bruynes as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bergholz et al (US 20160186660).
Regarding claim 15, Peters in view of Bruynes teaches the invention as claimed.
Peters further discloses a seal width (The width of the seal).
Peters does not disclose wherein a width of a secondary leg of the first micro-vortex generator and a width of a secondary leg of the second micro-vortex generator are between 3% and 5% of a seal width, inclusive.
However, Bruynes teaches a secondary leg (The trailing edge of the first micro-vortex generator) of the first micro-vortex generator and a width of a secondary leg (The trailing edge of the second micro-vortex generator) of the second micro-vortex generator.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Peters to include a secondary leg of the first micro-vortex generator and a width of a secondary leg of the second micro-vortex generator as taught by and suggested by Bruynes in order to cause steady mixing between the main stream and boundary layer (Column 1, line 27-35. This is the same modification as claim 1).
Peters in view of Bruynes does not teach wherein a width of a secondary leg of the first micro-vortex generator and a width of a secondary leg of the second micro-vortex generator are between 3% and 5% of a seal width, inclusive.
However, Bergolz teaches in Paragraph in Paragraph 0042 that a ratio of a width of a vortex generator to a width of a mounting surface is a results-effective variable that controls vorticity. A particular parameter is a result-effective variable when the variable is known to achieve a recognized result. See In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620, 195 USPQ 6,8 (CCPA 1977). Therefore, an ordinary skilled worker would recognize that a ratio of a width of a vortex generator to a width of a mounting surface is a results-effective variable that controls vorticity. Thus, the claimed limitation of wherein a width of a secondary leg of the first micro-vortex generator and a width of a secondary leg of the second micro-vortex generator are between 3% and 5% of a seal width, inclusive is found to be an obvious optimization of the prior art obtainable by an ordinary skilled worker through routine experimentation. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the apparatus of Peters in view of Bruynes to have the required ratio, as it involves only adjusting a width of the vortex generator and/or seal of Peters in view of Bruynes disclosed to require adjustment.
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”, In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The presence of a known result-effective variable would be a motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. See KSR; MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Peters in view of Bruynes wherein a width of a secondary leg of the first micro-vortex generator and a width of a secondary leg of the second micro-vortex generator are between 3% and 5% of a seal width, inclusive in order to optimize vorticity.
Claim(s) 16-17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters in view of Bruynes and Bagheri as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Simonetti.
Regarding claim 16, Peters in view of Bruynes and Bagheri teaches the invention as claimed.
Peters in view of Bruynes and Bagheri does not teach wherein each of the plurality of micro-vortex generator pairs includes a first micro-vortex generator in the form of a scalene triangle comprising a first base leg, a first primary leg, and a first secondary leg, and wherein a length of the first secondary leg is less than or equal to a length of the first primary leg.
However, Simonetti teaches an apparatus (Figure 5; 38) for directing combustion products (The combustion products from Figure 2; 32) from an engine (Figure 2; E), comprising:
a plurality of micro-vortex generators pairs (The pairs of Figure 5; 70) respectively disposed in a circumferential manner (The circumferential manner of Figure 5; 70) on an interior surface (Figure 5; 49) of a stationary body (Figure 5; 48),
wherein each of the plurality of micro-vortex generator pairs includes a first micro-vortex generator (A first vortex generator of a pair of Figure 5; 70) in the form of a scalene triangle (The first micro-vortex generator appears to be a scalene triangle) comprising a first base leg (The leg attached to Figure 5; 49), a first primary leg (The hypotenuse of the first micro-vortex generator), and a first secondary leg (The other, third leg of the first micro-vortex generator), and wherein a length of the first secondary leg is less than or equal to a length (The length of the first primary leg) of the first primary leg.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Peters in view of Bruynes and Bagheri wherein each of the plurality of micro-vortex generator pairs includes a first micro-vortex generator in the form of a scalene triangle comprising a first base leg, a first primary leg, and a first secondary leg, and wherein a length of the first secondary leg is less than or equal to a length of the first primary leg as taught by and suggested by Simonetti because it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element (The vortex generator pairs of Bruynes), for another (The vortex generator pairs of Simonetti), to obtain predictable results, to generate vortices was an obvious extension of prior art teachings. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421; MPEP 2141 III B (The modification uses the vortex generator pairs of Simonetti instead of the vortex generator pairs of Bruynes).
Regarding claim 17, Peters in view of Bruynes and Bagheri and Simonetti teaches the invention as claimed.
Peters in view of Bruynes and Bagheri does not teach wherein each of the plurality of micro-vortex generator pairs includes a second micro-vortex generator in the form of a scalene triangle comprising a second base leg, a second primary leg, and a second secondary leg, and wherein a length of the second secondary leg is less than or equal to a length of the second primary leg.
However, Simonetti teaches wherein each of the plurality of micro-vortex generator pairs includes a second micro-vortex generator (A second vortex generator of a pair of Figure 5; 70) in the form of a scalene triangle (The second micro-vortex generator appears to be a scalene triangle) comprising a second base leg (The leg attached to Figure 5; 49), a second primary leg (The hypotenuse of the first micro-vortex generator), and a second secondary leg (The other, third leg of the first micro-vortex generator), and wherein a length (The length of the first secondary leg) of the second secondary leg is less than or equal to a length (The length of second primary leg) of the second primary leg.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Peters in view of Bruynes and Bagheri wherein each of the plurality of micro-vortex generator pairs includes a second micro-vortex generator in the form of a scalene triangle comprising a second base leg, a second primary leg, and a second secondary leg, and wherein a length of the second secondary leg is less than or equal to a length of the second primary leg as taught by and suggested by Simonetti because it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element (The vortex generator pairs of Bruynes), for another (The vortex generator pairs of Simonetti), to obtain predictable results, to generate vortices was an obvious extension of prior art teachings. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421; MPEP 2141 III B (This is the same modification as claim 16).
Regarding claim 19, Peters in view of Bruynes and Bagheri and Simonetti teaches the invention as claimed.
Peters does not disclose wherein the first micro-vortex generator and the second micro-vortex generator are symmetrically arranged.
However, Simonetti teaches wherein the first micro-vortex generator and the second micro-vortex generator are symmetrically arranged (The first and second micro-vortex generators are symmetrically arranged).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Peters wherein the first micro-vortex generator and the second micro-vortex generator are symmetrically arranged as taught by and suggested by Bruynes in order to cause steady mixing between the main stream and boundary layer (Column 1, line 27-35. This is the same modification as claim 14).
Regarding claim 20, Peters in view of Bruynes and Bagheri and Simonetti teaches the invention as claimed.
Peters in view of Bruynes and Bagheri does not teach wherein an angle between a face of the first micro- vortex generator and a face of the second micro-vortex generator is between 0 and 120 degrees, inclusive.
However, Simonetti teaches wherein an angle between a face (The face of the first micro-vortex generator closest to the second micro-vortex generator) of the first micro- vortex generator and a face (The face of the second micro-vortex generator closest to the first micro-vortex generator) of the second micro-vortex generator is between 0 and 120 degrees (The angle between the faces is between 0 and 120 degrees), inclusive.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Peters in view of Bruynes and Bagheri wherein an angle between a face of the first micro- vortex generator and a face of the second micro-vortex generator is between 0 and 120 degrees, inclusive as taught by and suggested by Simonetti because it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element (The vortex generator pairs of Bruynes), for another (The vortex generator pairs of Simonetti), to obtain predictable results, to generate vortices was an obvious extension of prior art teachings. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421; MPEP 2141 III B (This is the same modification as claim 16).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters in view of Bruynes and Bagheri as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Simonetti.
Regarding claim 18, Peters in view of Bruynes and Bagheri and Simonetti teaches the invention as claimed.
Peters in view of Bruynes and Bagheri and Simonetti does not teach wherein a distance between the first micro-vortex generator and the second micro-vortex generator is greater than 20% of a seal width.
However, Kin teaches at least one micro-vortex generators pair (Figure 2; b) wherein each of the at least one micro-vortex generators pair includes: a first micro-vortex generator (A first vortex generator of a pair of Figure 2; b) and a second micro-vortex generator (A second vortex generator of a pair of Figure 2; b)
wherein a distance (The distance between the first and second micro-vortex generator) between the first micro-vortex generator and the second micro-vortex generator is greater than 20% (The distance between the first and second micro-vortex generator is greater than 20% of the width of the plate in Figure 2; b) of a width (The width of the plate in Figure 2; b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Peters in view of Bruynes and Bagheri and Simonetti wherein a distance between the first micro-vortex generator and the second micro-vortex generator is greater than 20% of a width (In the combined invention of Peters in view of Bruynes and Bagheri and Simonetti, the width of Kin is the seal width) as taught by and suggested by Kin in order to enhance mixing between the wake region and freestream (6. Conclusions, The modification uses the arrangement of Kin with respect to the surface).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that Bruynes does not disclose a nozzle exit. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Figure 1; 10 of Bruynes is a diffuser section of a wind tunnel which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize is a nozzle exit, see pertinent, but not relied upon art Heyson (US 3620076), Barna et al (US 5211057), Kroeger et al (US 3552202) which shows that the diffuser section of a wind tunnel is a nozzle exit.
Applicant asserts that there is not motivation to add the vortex generators of Bruynes to Peters. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Adding the vortex generators of Bruynes to Peters causes steady mixing between the main stream and boundary layer which is a known benefit, see relied upon art Simonetti which states in Paragraph 0046 that vortex generators cause mixing, and pertinent, but not relied upon art Ireland (US 20160052621 as referenced in OA dated 7/28/2025) which states in Paragraph 0055 that vortex generators cause mixing and Farokhi et al (US 5598990 as referenced in OA dated 7/28/2025) which states in Column 5, lines 30-46 that vortex generators cause mixing.
Applicant asserts that the prior art does not disclose a distance from a nozzle exit to a proximate portion of the plurality of micro-vortex generator pairs is between 80% and 30% of a seal length. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in this OA, Bruynes teaches this claim limitation. Furthermore, this argument is conclusory and thus not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ireland (US 20160052621 as referenced in OA dated 7/28/2025) shows in Figure 8 that vortex generators in an exhaust duct are known
Simonetti (US 20200024983 as referenced in OA dated 7/28/2025) states in Paragraph 0007 that vortex generators in an exhaust duct are known
Braga Da Costa Campos (US 6705547 as referenced in OA dated 7/28/2025) states in Claim 2 that vortex generators in an exhaust duct are known
Farokhi et al (US 5598990 as referenced in OA dated 7/28/2025) shows in Figure 7 that vortex generators in an exhaust duct are known
Heyson (US 3620076) shows in Figure 1 that the diffuser section of a wind tunnel is a nozzle exit
Barna et al (US 5211057) shows at least in Figure 1 that the diffuser section 22 of a wind tunnel is a nozzle exit
Kroeger et al (US 3552202) shows at least in Figure 1 that the diffuser section 14 of a wind tunnel is a nozzle exit
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN G KANG whose telephone number is (571)272-9814. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 PM 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, 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.
/EDWIN KANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741