DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the Amendment filed 6/18/2025 wherein claims 2-4 and 9-21 are canceled and claims 1 and 5-8 are presented for examination.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/20/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant claims “a time steps 4) and 5) are each ongoing is for at least two minutes, and less than or equal to thirty minutes” in lines 13-14 of claim 1. Applicant’s specification states, in Paragraph 0058, “At step 206, shutdown eventually occurs. This may occur after the steps 202, 203 and 204 have gone on for a period of several minutes. In embodiments the steps 202, 203 and 204 would occur for a time between 2 and 30 minutes”. Applicant’s specification does not state, however, that the claimed step 4 (then running the engine for a period of time) occurs for a period of time between 2 and 30 minutes by itself, nor does Applicant’s specification discuss that step 5 (closing the bleed valve and opening the fan air valve to allow fan cooling air to continue passing through the precooler, and into the engine to cool the internal components) occurs for a time period of between 2 and 30 minutes by itself. Therefore, Applicant’s claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one having ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
Claims 5-7 are rejected for the same reasons discussed above based on their dependency to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evetts et al. (US 2017/0363003) in view of Ullyott (US 2005/0109016), Smith (US 2015/0016949), Bellis (US 2023/0008605), Bayraktar et al. (US 2017/0191419), and Stevenson (US 2019/0186359).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Evetts teaches (Figures 1-5) a method of operating an air system (110) on an aircraft (Paragraph 0025) comprising the steps of:
providing an engine (10) with a compressor (22), and a tap (84) for tapping compressed tapped air (Paragraphs 0033-0034) from the compressor (22) and passing the compressed tapped air (Paragraphs 0033-0035) through a bleed valve (94, 92), and through a precooler (64), the compressed tapped air (from 84) downstream of the precooler (64) passing to a use (52, via 100; see Paragraph 0036) on an associated aircraft (Paragraph 0025);
providing fan cooling air (via 60) through a fan air valve (62) across the precooler (64) to cool the compressed tapped air (Paragraph 0033-0035) before passing to the use (via 100) and passing the fan cooling air (via 62) to a core engine (30) downstream of the precooler (64) to cool internal components (Paragraph 0031); and
closing the bleed valve (302, 502; Paragraph 0038) and opening the fan air valve (314, 512; see Paragraph 0038) to allow fan cooling air (via 62) to continue passing through the precooler (64), and to the engine (30, 34) to cool the components (Paragraph 0031).
Although Evetts teaches if the core compartment temperature is greater than the target core compartment temperature, the fan air valve is opened to pass through the pre-cooler and into the core compartment to cool the core engine components to aid in maintaining or controlling the turbine clearances between the case assembly and tips of the turbine blades (Paragraphs 0031 and 0049), Evetts does not teach that the cooling air is passed into a core engine or that the method includes determining that a shutdown of the engine is coming, running the engine for a period, then shutting down the engine, wherein the time that running the engine and closing/opening the valves are each ongoing is for at least two minutes, and less than or equal to thirty minutes.
Ullyott teaches (Figures 1-5) cooling airflow (174) used to aid control turbine tip clearances (Paragraph 0021), wherein the airflow (174) passed into a core engine (32; see Figures 1-2). Ullyott further teaches that the cooling airflow is supplied by utilizing solenoid “on-off” valves (Paragraph 0009).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Evetts to have the cooling air being passed into the core engine, as taught by Ullyott, in order to re-use cooling air flow and improve cooling efficiency (Paragraph 0021 of Ullyott). Evetts in view of Ullyott does not teach that the method includes determining that a shutdown of the engine is coming, running the engine for a period of time, then shutting down the engine, wherein the total combined time that running the engine and closing/opening the valves are ongoing is for at least two minutes, and less than or equal to thirty minutes.
Smith teaches (Figures 1-3) cooling core engine components (Paragraph 0068) using a method of determining that shutdown of the engine is coming (at 48; see Paragraph 0075), running the engine for a period of time (the period of time to run steps 42 and 44 a final time; see Paragraph 0075), cooling the engine components (46 and 68), and shutting down the engine (54). Smith further teaches that immediately prior to a shutdown sequence (beginning at step 48 of Figure 3), the case cooling is performed by controlling operation of valves (at step 46; see Paragraph 0073 and Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Evetts in view of Ullyott to have the method include determining that shutdown of the engine is coming, running the engine for a period of time, then shutting the engine down, as taught by Smith, in order to lead to closer adherence to a target tip clearance and improve performance and reduce loss of the liner between the rotor blades and the casing (Paragraph 0012 of Smith).
Evetts in view of Ullyott, and Smith does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the time that running the engine for a period of time and closing/opening the valves to allow fan cooling air into the engine to cool the internal components are each ongoing is for at least two minutes, and less than or equal to thirty minutes.
Bellis teaches that “the engine is operated in a reduced idle mode during or shortly prior to a shutdown sequence. Typically, that sustained operation of a gas turbine engine in flight results in significant heat input to the engine and its components. These components are cooled by one or more of air flow, oil flow and fuel flow in operation. However, when the engine is shut-down, the high temperature components such as turbine blades and discs will continue to transmit heat to other components. In particular, it has been known for engine shafts to become overheated and warp when the engine is shutdown from a high temperature condition. As such, it is typical practice in some circumstances to continue to run the engine at idle for several minutes prior to shutdown following a flight, to avoid heat damage to components” (Paragraph 0063 of Bellis). Therefore, the amount of time that the engine is run during or shortly prior to a shutdown sequence for the engine is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that increasing the time that the engine is run during or shortly prior to a shutdown sequence for the engine leads to avoiding damage to the engine and its high temperature components.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the duration that the engine is run prior to shutting down the engine can be increased, were disclosed in the prior art by Bellis, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the duration of running the engine prior to shutdown, as taught by Bellis, in order to avoid heat damage to the engine and its components. It has been held that “[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); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Evetts in view of Ullyott, Smith, and Bellis does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the time that closing/opening the valves to allow fan cooling air into the engine to cool the internal components are each ongoing is for at least two minutes, and less than or equal to thirty minutes.
Bayraktar teaches (Figures 1-2) flowing air into the gas turbine engine (110) to cool components of the gas turbine engine (see Paragraphs 0027-0028 and Figure 1) and that the flow of air into the gas turbine engine may be determined based on the flowrate required to cool a rotor of the gas turbine engine to a predetermined temperature in a predetermined amount of time and may be determined based on the flowrate required to cool a rotor of the gas turbine engine before the rotor bows (see Paragraph 0028 of Bayraktar) and it is evidenced by Stevenson (Figures 1-5) that the bowing of a rotor in a gas turbine engine can become evident in a manner of minutes, e.g., 10 minutes (see Paragraph 0005 of Stevenson).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Evetts in view of Ullyott, Smith, and Bellis to have the time that closing/opening the valves to allow fan cooling air into the engine to cool the internal components are each ongoing is for between two minutes and thirty minutes, as taught by Bayraktar and Stevenson, in order to cool the rotor of the gas turbine engine before the rotor bows (Paragraph 0028 of Bayraktar). It is additionally noted that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the step of closing the bleed valve and opening the fan air valve to allow fan cooling air to continue passing through the precooler, and into the engine to cool the internal components to occur for a time that is at least two minutes and less than or equal to thirty minutes, since applicant has not disclosed that this amount of time solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the amount of time as taught by Evetts in view of Ullyott, Smith, and Bellis.
Regarding Claim 5, Evetts in view of Ullyott, Smith, Bellis, Bayraktar, and Stevenson teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Evetts further teaches (Figures 1-5) wherein the use is an environmental control system (52; see Paragraph 0036) on the aircraft (Paragraph 0025).
Regarding Claim 7, Evetts in view of Ullyott, Smith, Bellis, Bayraktar, and Stevenson teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. As discussed above, Evetts teaches closing the bleed valve (302, 502; Paragraph 0038) and opening the fan air valve (314, 512; see Paragraph 0038) to allow fan cooling air (via 62) to continue passing through the precooler (64), and to the engine (30, 34) to cool the components (Paragraph 0031). Evetts in view of Ullyott, Smith, Bellis, Bayraktar, and Stevenson does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the step 5) occurs prior to step 4).
Smith teaches (Figures 1-3) wherein cooling the engine components (at 46) occurs prior to running the engine for a period of time (at 49; see Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Evetts in view of Ullyott, Smith, Bellis, Bayraktar, and Stevenson to have cooling the engine components occurs prior to running the engine for a period of time, as taught by Smith, for the same reasons discussed above in claim 1.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evetts et al. (US 2017/0363003) in view of Ullyott (US 2005/0109016), Smith (US 2015/0016949), Bellis (US 2023/0008605), Bayraktar et al. (US 2017/0191419), and Stevenson (US 2019/0186359) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Elbibary et al. (US 2017/0184026).
Regarding Claim 6, Evetts in view of Ullyott, Smith, Bellis, Bayraktar, and Stevenson teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Evetts in view of Ullyott, Smith, Bellis, Bayraktar, and Stevenson does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein in step 4) the engine is run at an idle speed.
Elbibary teaches that cooling undercowl components requires the engine to remain in ground idle for at least 3 minutes after flight (Paragraph 0002).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Evetts in view of Ullyott, Smith, Bellis, Bayraktar, and Stevenson to include the engine to be run at idle speed, as taught by Elbibary, in order to protect the structure that is sensitive to increasing core undercowl temperatures both during gas turbine engine operation and during soakback after engine shutdown (Paragraph 0002 of Elbibary).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 5-7 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references being applied in this office action, necessitated by amendment. However, to the extent possible, Applicant’s arguments have been addressed in the body of the rejection above, at the appropriate locations.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS P BURKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5407. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 PM.
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 on (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.
/THOMAS P BURKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741