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 .
Reopening of Prosecution After Appeal Brief
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on 4/20/2026 PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejection are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Claim Objections
Claim 16, line 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a geometry” should be - -the geometry- -. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-8, 12-17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slawinska et al (US 20190048798) in view of Suzuki et al (US 20230078944).
PNG
media_image1.png
402
568
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3(A) of Suzuki
Regarding claim 1, Slawinska discloses a system (Figure 2; 80) for an aircraft (Paragraph 0031), comprising:
an aircraft engine (Figure 1; 10) with a flowpath (The flowpath for Figure 1; 50 through 10) projecting into the aircraft engine from an airflow inlet (Figure 2; 52);
an inlet guard (Figure 2; 54) arranged at the airflow inlet and extending across the flowpath, the inlet guard extending circumferentially about and axially along an axis (Figure 1; 12), the inlet guard including a first screen (Figure 2; 94), the first screen comprising a first screen element (One of Figure 2; 96).
Slawinska does not disclose a second screen and a plurality of perforations, the first screen radially adjacent the second screen, the second screen comprising a second screen element, and the plurality of perforations projecting through the inlet guard and formed by the first screen and the second screen, and each of the plurality of perforations projecting radially through the inlet guard;
an actuation system configured to move the first screen axially along the axis relative to the second screen, the actuation system further configured to move the first screen circumferentially about the axis relative to the second screen, wherein the movement of the first screen along the second screen changes a geometry of each of the plurality of perforations.
However, Suzuki teaches an inlet guard (Figure 1; 10 using Figure 3), the inlet guard including a first screen (One of Figure 3(A); 12 or 13), a second screen (The other of Figure 3(A); 12 or 13), and a plurality of perforations (Figure 3(A); 11), the first screen adjacent the second screen, the first screen comprising a first screen element (One of Annotated Figure 3(A) labeled; screen element for the first screen. Both 12 and 13 are formed by these screen elements), the second screen comprising a second screen element (One of Annotated Figure 3(A) labeled; screen element for the second screen. Both 12 and 13 are formed by these screen elements), and the plurality of perforations projecting through the inlet guard and formed by the first screen and the second screen, and each of the plurality of perforations projecting through the inlet guard; and
an actuation system (The MEMS actuator of Paragraph 0030) configured to move the first screen relative to the second screen (Functional Language, Paragraph 0030), the actuation system further configured to move the first screen relative to the second screen, wherein the movement of the first screen along the second screen changes a geometry of each of the plurality of perforations (Functional Language, Paragraph 0030).
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 Slawinska to include a second screen and a plurality of perforations, the first screen adjacent the second screen (In Slawinska, Figure 2; 94 forms a plane in the axial and circumferential direction with respect to the axis. In Suzuki, Paragraph 0030 describes Figure 3(A); 12, 13 as planes in the y and x-directions. In Suzuki, Figure 3(A); 12 is above 13 in the z-direction which in the context of Slawinska is the radial direction, so that in the combined invention, the first screen is radially adjacent the second screen), the second screen comprising a second screen element, and the plurality of perforations projecting through the inlet guard and formed by the first screen and the second screen, and each of the plurality of perforations projecting (In Suzuki, Figure 3(A); 11 project through the z-direction which in the context of Slawinska is the radial direction, so that in the combined invention, the perforations project radially through the inlet guard) through the inlet guard; an actuation system configured to move the first screen relative to the second screen (Paragraph 0030 of Suzuki states that the screens are movable in the x and y-directions which in the context of Slawinska, are the axial and circumferential directions, so that in the combined invention, the first screen is moved axially along the axis relative of the second screen), the actuation system further configured to move the first screen relative to the second screen (Paragraph 0030 of Suzuki states that the screens are movable in the x and y-directions which in the context of Slawinska, are the axial and circumferential directions, so that in the combined invention, the first screen is moved circumferentially along the axis relative of the second screen), wherein the movement of the first screen along the second screen changes a geometry of each of the plurality of perforations as taught by and suggested by Suzuki in order to vary the size of the perforations and vary the blockage of different size objects (Paragraph 0022, The modification adds another, identical screen (identical to Figure 2; 94 of Slawinska) on top of the first screen of Slawinska with both screens being movable in the circumferential and axial directions).
Regarding claim 2, Slawinska in view of Suzuki teach the invention as claimed.
Slawinska does not disclose wherein the movement of the first screen along the second screen changes a size of each of the plurality of perforations.
However, Suzuki teaches wherein the movement of the first screen along the second screen changes a size of each of the plurality of perforations (Functional Language, Paragraph 0030, the left and right pictures of Figure 3(A) shows changing the size of each of the perforations).
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 Slawinska wherein the movement of the first screen along the second screen changes a size of each of the plurality of perforations as taught by and suggested by Suzuki in order to vary the size of the perforations and vary the blockage of different size objects (Paragraph 0022, This is the same modification as claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Slawinska in view of Suzuki teach the invention as claimed.
Slawinska does not disclose wherein the movement of the first screen along the second screen changes a shape of each of the plurality of perforations.
However, Suzuki teaches wherein the movement of the first screen along the second screen changes a shape of each of the plurality of perforations (Functional Language, Paragraph 0030, the left and right pictures of Figure 3(A) shows changing the shape of each of the perforations).
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 Slawinska wherein the movement of the first screen along the second screen changes a shape of each of the plurality of perforations as taught by and suggested by Suzuki in order to vary the size of the perforations and vary the blockage of different size objects (Paragraph 0022, This is the same modification as claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Slawinska in view of Suzuki teach the invention as claimed.
Slawinska does not disclose wherein the actuation system is configured to
move the first screen in a first direction along the second screen; and
move the first screen in a second direction along the second screen, wherein the second direction is angularly offset from the first direction.
However, Suzuki teaches wherein the actuation system is configured to
move the first screen in a first direction (Functional Language, The vertical component of the arrow showing the movement of the one of Figure 3(A); 12 or 13) along the second screen; and
move the first screen in a second direction (Functional Language, The horizontal component of the arrow showing the movement of the one of Figure 3(A); 12 or 13) along the second screen, wherein the second direction is angularly offset from the first direction (The second direction is angularly offset from the first direction).
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 Slawinska wherein the actuation system is configured to
move the first screen in a first direction along the second screen; and move the first screen in a second direction along the second screen, wherein the second direction is angularly offset from the first direction as taught by and suggested by Suzuki in order to vary the size of the perforations and vary the blockage of different size objects (Paragraph 0022, This is the same modification as claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, Slawinska in view of Suzuki teach the invention as claimed.
Slawinska does not disclose wherein the actuation system is configured to
move the first screen in a first direction along the second screen; and
move the second screen in a second direction along the first screen, wherein the second direction is angularly offset from the first direction.
However, Suzuki teaches wherein the actuation system is configured to
move the first screen in a first direction (Functional Language, The arrow showing the movement of the one of Figure 3(A); 12 or 13) along the second screen; and
move the second screen in a second direction (Functional Language, The arrow showing the movement of the other of Figure 3(A); 12 or 13) along the first screen, wherein the second direction is angularly offset from the first direction (The second direction is angularly offset from the first direction).
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 Slawinska wherein the actuation system is configured to
move the first screen in a first direction along the second screen; and move the second screen in a second direction along the first screen, wherein the second direction is angularly offset from the first direction as taught by and suggested by Suzuki in order to vary the size of the perforations and vary the blockage of different size objects (Paragraph 0022, This is the same modification as claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Slawinska in view of Suzuki teach the invention as claimed.
Slawinska does not disclose wherein the second screen is a stationary screen.
However, Suzuki teaches wherein the second screen is a stationary screen (Functional Language, the other of Figure 3(A); 12 or 13 can remain stationary while the one of Figure 3(A); 12 or 13 moves. Paragraph 0007 states at least one of the screens move, so that one screen moves while the other screen is stationary)
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 Slawinska wherein the second screen is a stationary screen as taught by and suggested by Suzuki in order to vary the size of the perforations and vary the blockage of different size objects (Paragraph 0022, This is the same modification as claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, Slawinska in view of Suzuki teach the invention as claimed.
Slawinska does not disclose wherein the plurality of perforations comprise a first perforation, and the first perforation is laterally bounded by and between the first screen element and the second screen element; and
a lateral distance between the first screen element and the second screen element changes during the movement of the first screen along the second screen.
However, Suzuki teaches wherein the plurality of perforations comprise a first perforation (An instance of Figure 3(A); 11), and the first perforation is laterally bounded by and between the first screen element and the second screen element (The first perforation is laterally bounded by and between the first and second screen element); and
a lateral distance (The lateral distance between the first and second screen elements) between the first screen element and the second screen element changes during the movement of the first screen along the second screen (Functional Language, in comparing the left and right pictures of Figure 3(A), the lateral distance between the first and second screen element changes).
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 Slawinska wherein the plurality of perforations comprise a first perforation, and the first perforation is laterally bounded by and between the first screen element and the second screen element; and a lateral distance between the first screen element and the second screen element changes during the movement of the first screen along the second screen as taught by and suggested by Suzuki in order to vary the size of the perforations and vary the blockage of different size objects (Paragraph 0022, This is the same modification as claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, Slawinska in view of Suzuki teach the invention as claimed.
Slawinska further discloses wherein the first screen element is one of a plurality of first screen elements (Figure 2; 96) arranged together to form the first screen.
Slawinska does not disclose wherein the second screen element is one of a plurality of second screen elements arranged together to form the second screen.
However, Suzuki teaches wherein the first screen element is one of a plurality of first screen elements (Annotated Figure 3(A); labeled screen element for the first screen) arranged together to form the first screen; and
the second screen element is one of a plurality of second screen elements (Annotated Figure 3(A); labeled screen element for the second screen) arranged together to form the second screen
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 Slawinska wherein the second screen element is one of a plurality of second screen elements arranged together to form the second screen as taught by and suggested by Suzuki in order to vary the size of the perforations and vary the blockage of different size objects (Paragraph 0022, This is the same modification as claim 1).
Regarding claim 12, Slawinska in view of Suzuki teach the invention as claimed.
Slawinska does not disclose wherein the first screen is radially outboard of the second screen.
However, Suzuki teaches wherein the first screen (Figure 3(A); 13) is outboard of the second screen (Figure 3(A); 12).
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 Slawinska wherein the first screen is outboard (As described in claim 1, in Suzuki, Figure 3(A); 12 is above 13 in the z-direction which in the context of Slawinska is the radial direction, so that in the combined invention, the first screen is radially outboard the second screen) of the second screen as taught by and suggested by Suzuki in order to vary the size of the perforations and vary the blockage of different size objects (Paragraph 0022, This is the same modification as claim 1).
Regarding claim 13, Slawinska in view of Suzuki teach the invention as claimed.
Slawinska does not disclose wherein the second screen is radially outboard of the first screen.
However, Suzuki teaches wherein the second screen (Figure 3(A); 13) is radially outboard of the first screen (Figure 3(A); 12).
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 Slawinska wherein the second screen is outboard (As described in claim 1, in Suzuki, Figure 3(A); 12 is above 13 in the z-direction which in the context of Slawinska is the radial direction, so that in the combined invention, the second screen is radially outboard the first screen) of the first screen as taught by and suggested by Suzuki in order to vary the size of the perforations and vary the blockage of different size objects (Paragraph 0022, This is the same modification as claim 1).
Regarding claim 14, Slawinska in view of Suzuki teach the invention as claimed.
Slawinska further discloses wherein the aircraft engine comprises a gas turbine engine (Paragraph 0025).
Regarding claim 15, Slawinska in view of Suzuki teach the invention as claimed.
Slawinska does not disclose wherein the actuation system is configured to periodically move the first screen along the second screen to shed ice accretion on the inlet guard.
However, Suzuki teaches wherein the actuation system is configured to periodically move the first screen along the second screen to shed ice accretion on the inlet guard (Functional Language, the actuation system can move the first screen along the second screen to shed ice accretion on the inlet).
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 Slawinska wherein the actuation system is configured to periodically move the first screen along the second screen to shed ice accretion on the inlet guard as taught by and suggested by Suzuki in order to vary the size of the perforations and vary the blockage of different size objects (Paragraph 0022, This is the same modification as claim 1).
Regarding claim 16, Slawinska discloses a system (Figure 2; 80) for an aircraft (Paragraph 0031), comprising:
a gas turbine engine (Figure 1; 10, Paragraph 0025) including a compressor section (Figure 1; 22), a flowpath (The flowpath for Figure 1; 50 through 10) projecting longitudinally into the gas turbine engine from an airflow inlet (Figure 2; 52) and longitudinally through the compressor section;
an inlet guard (Figure 2; 54) located at the airflow inlet and extending laterally across the flowpath longitudinally upstream of the compressor section, the inlet guard including a first screen (Figure 2; 94).
Slawinska does not disclose a second screen and a plurality of perforations, the first screen extending laterally along the second screen, each of the first screen and the second screen forming a porous web structure, and the plurality of perforations projecting longitudinally through the inlet guard and formed by the first screen and the second screen; and
an actuation system configured to shift the first screen laterally along the second screen in a first lateral direction to change a geometry of each of the plurality of perforations, the actuation system further configured to shift the first screen laterally along the second screen in a second lateral direction to change the geometry of each of the plurality of perforations, and the second lateral direction is perpendicular to the first lateral direction.
However, Suzuki teaches an inlet guard (Figure 1; 10 using Figure 3), the inlet guard including a first screen (Figure 3(A); 12), a second screen (Figure 3(A); 13) and a plurality of perforations (Figure 3(A); 11), the first screen extending laterally along the second screen, each of the first screen and the second screen forming a porous web structure (The porous web structure of each of the first and second screen), and the plurality of perforations projecting longitudinally (The longitudinal direction is the z-direction) through the inlet guard and formed by the first screen and the second screen; and
an actuation system (The MEMS actuator of Paragraph 0030) configured to shift the first screen laterally along the second screen in a first lateral direction (Functional Language, Paragraph 0030, The vertical component of the arrow showing the movement of Figure 3(A); 12) to change a geometry of each of the plurality of perforations (Functional Language, moving the first screen in the first lateral direction changes the geometry of each of the perforations, see the left and right pictures of Figure 3(A)), the actuation system further configured to shift the first screen laterally along the second screen in a second lateral direction (Functional Language, Paragraph 0030, The horizontal component of the arrow showing the movement of Figure 3(A); 12) to change the geometry of each of the plurality of perforations (Functional Language, moving the first screen in the second lateral direction changes the geometry of each of the perforations, see the left and right pictures of Figure 3(A)), and the second lateral direction is perpendicular to the first lateral direction (The first and second lateral direction are perpendicular to one another).
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 Slawinska to include a second screen and a plurality of perforations, the first screen extending laterally along the second screen, each of the first screen and the second screen forming a porous web structure, and the plurality of perforations projecting longitudinally through the inlet guard and formed by the first screen and the second screen; and an actuation system configured to shift the first screen laterally along the second screen in a first lateral direction to change a geometry of each of the plurality of perforations, the actuation system further configured to shift the first screen laterally along the second screen in a second lateral direction to change the geometry of each of the plurality of perforations, and the second lateral direction is perpendicular to the first lateral direction as taught by and suggested by Suzuki in order to vary the size of the perforations and vary the blockage of different size objects (Paragraph 0022, The modification adds another, identical screen (identical to Figure 2; 94 of Slawinska) on top of the first screen of Slawinska with both screens being movable in the circumferential and axial directions).
Regarding claim 17, Slawinska in view of Suzuki teach the invention as claimed.
Slawinska does not disclose wherein the actuation system is further configured to shift the second screen laterally along the first screen to change the geometry of each of the plurality of perforations.
However, Suzuki teaches wherein the actuation system is further configured to shift the second screen laterally along the first screen to change the geometry of each of the plurality of perforations (Functional language, Paragraph 0030. The actuation system shifts the second screen laterally along the first screen to change the geometry of each of the perforations).
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 Slawinska wherein the actuation system is further configured to shift the second screen laterally along the first screen to change the geometry of each of the plurality of perforations as taught by and suggested by Suzuki in order to vary the size of the perforations and vary the blockage of different size objects (Paragraph 0022, This is the same modification as claim 16).
Regarding claim 19, Slawinska discloses a system (Figure 2; 80) for an aircraft (Paragraph 0031), comprising:
an aircraft engine (Figure 1; 10) including an airflow inlet (Figure 2; 52) and a flowpath (The flowpath for Figure 1; 50 from 52 through 10), the flowpath projecting into the aircraft engine from the airflow inlet;
an inlet guard (Figure 2; 54) arranged at the airflow inlet and extending across the flowpath, the inlet guard configured to reduce ingestion of foreign objects debris by the aircraft engine (Functional Language, Paragraph 0065), the inlet guard comprising a planar lattice structure (The planar lattice structure of Figure 2; 94) forming a plurality of perforations (The perforations formed by Figure 2; 96) projecting through the inlet guard, and the aircraft engine configured to pull air through the plurality of perforations (Functional Language, Paragraph 0028); the inlet guard arranged about an axis (Figure 1; 12).
Slawinska does not disclose an actuation system configured to move the inlet guard to change a size of each of the plurality of perforations, the inlet guard movable axially along an axis, and the inlet guard movable circumferentially about the axis;
wherein movement of the inlet guard maintains an open area of the inlet guard.
However, Suzuki teaches an inlet guard (Figure 1; 10 using Figure 3), the inlet guard comprising a planar lattice structure (The planar lattice structure of Figure 3(A); 12 and 13) forming a plurality of perforations (Figure 3(A); 11) projecting through the inlet guard; and
an actuation system (The MEMS actuator of Paragraph 0030) configured to move the inlet guard to change a size of each of the plurality of perforations (Functional language, Paragraph 0030, comparing the left and right pictures of Figure 3(A) show movement of the inlet guard changing the size of each perforation), the inlet guard movable axially along an axis (Either the y or z-direction in Figure 3(A), and the inlet guard movable (Functional Language, Paragraph 0030);
wherein movement of the inlet guard maintains an open area (The open area of the inlet guard) of the inlet guard (Functional Language, the movement of the inlet guard maintains an open area).
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 Slawinska to include an actuation system configured to move the inlet guard to change a size of each of the plurality of perforations, the inlet guard movable axially along an axis (In Slawinska, Figure 2; 94 forms a plane in the axial and circumferential direction with respect to Figure 1; 12. In Suzuki, Paragraph 0030 describes Figure 3(A); 12, 13 as planes in the y and x-directions. The y and x-directions of Suzuki in the context of Slawinska are the axial and circumferential direction, so that in the combined invention, the inlet guard is movable axially along Figure 1; 12 of Slawinska), and the inlet guard movable (In Slawinska, Figure 2; 94 forms a plane in the axial and circumferential direction with respect to Figure 1; 12. In Suzuki, Paragraph 0030 describes Figure 3(A); 12, 13 as planes in the y and x-directions. The y and x-directions of Suzuki in the context of Slawinska are the axial and circumferential direction, so that in the combined invention, the inlet guard is movable circumferentially about Figure 1; 12 of Slawinska); wherein movement of the inlet guard maintains an open area of the inlet guard as taught by and suggested by Suzuki in order to vary the size of the perforations and vary the blockage of different size objects (Paragraph 0022, The modification adds another, identical screen (identical to Figure 2; 94 of Slawinska) on top of Figure 2; 94 of Slawinska with both screens being movable in the circumferential and axial directions. As a note the perforations of Suzuki are the perforations).
Regarding claim 20, Slawinska in view of Suzuki teach the invention as claimed.
Slawinska further discloses wherein the inlet guard comprises a screen (The inlet guard is a screen).
Slawinska does not disclose wherein the inlet guard comprises a screen formed by a first screen and a second screen.
However, Suzuki teaches wherein the inlet guard comprises a screen (Figure 3(A); 12 and 13) formed by a first screen (Figure 3(A); 12) and a second screen (Figure 3(A); 13).
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 Slawinska wherein the inlet guard comprises a screen formed by a first screen and a second screen as taught by and suggested by Suzuki in order to vary the size of the perforations and vary the blockage of different size objects (Paragraph 0022, This is the same modification as claim 19).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 16, 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nash et al (US 5136840) shows in Figure 3 that an actuation system moving a cylindrical structure in an axial and circumferential direction is known
Dibenedetto et al (US 20190101061 as referenced in OA dated 11/20/2025) shows in Figure 5 and 6 that an actuation system moving a cylindrical structure in an axial and circumferential direction is known
Even-Nur et al (US 5307624) shows in Figure 2 that an actuation system moving a cylindrical structure in an axial and circumferential direction is known
Gekht et al (US 20170241341 as referenced in OA dated 4/12/2024) states in Paragraph 0038 that a gas turbine engine can be used in an aircraft or power generation
Gekht et al (US 20170241342 as referenced in OA dated 4/12/2024) states in Paragraph 0038 that a gas turbine engine can be used in an aircraft or power generation
Vick (US 20160195017 as referenced in OA dated 4/12/2024) states in Paragraph 0003 that a gas turbine engine can be used in an aircraft or power generation
Page et al (US 20100080711 as referenced in OA dated 4/12/2024) states in Paragraph 0019 that a gas turbine engine can be used in an aircraft or power generation
Starkweather (US 20120102959 as referenced in OA dated 11/21/2024) states in Paragraph 0008 that pores form a lattice
Starkweather (US 20130269354 as referenced in OA dated 11/21/2024) states in Paragraph 0008 that pores form a lattice
Griachen et al (US 20170211807 as referenced in OA dated 11/21/2024) states in Paragraph 0009 that pores form a lattice
Chan et al (US 20160369633 as referenced in OA dated 11/21/2024) states in Paragraph 0007 that pores form a lattice
Hudson et al (US 20210189959 as referenced in OA dated 11/21/2024) states in Claim 1 that the nacelle is part of the gas turbine engine
Dean et al (US 7690191 as referenced in OA dated 11/21/2024) states in Claim 1 that the nacelle is part of the gas turbine engine
Joshi et al (US 9416752 as referenced in OA dated 11/21/2024) states in Claim 12 that the nacelle is part of the gas turbine engine
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
Prosecution Insights