DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in response to Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 06/25/2026 canceling Claim 21 and amending Claims 1 and 19. Claims 1, 4 – 9, 11 – 20, 22, and 23 are examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “system of claim 4, wherein the airflow inlet is a first airflow inlet, and the flowpath further projects longitudinally into the gas turbine engine from a second airflow inlet; the first screen is circumferentially aligned with the first airflow inlet about the axis; and the third screen is circumferentially aligned with the second airflow inlet about the axis” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from Claim 5 which depends from Claim 4 which depends from Claim 1. Original Fig. 5 is the only drawing that shows a first airflow inlet and a second airflow inlet. Original Fig. 5 does not show the first airflow inlet having the configuration recited in amended Claim 1. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Amended Claim 1, ll. 17 – 19 recites “wherein the airflow inlet extends circumferentially between airflow inlet ends, …, and a first airflow inlet end is circumferentially aligned with a circumferential end portion of the second screen”. A text search of the original written description failed to find the claimed limitations “inlet end”, “airflow inlet end”, and “first airflow inlet end”.
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, 4 – 9, 11 – 14, 19, 20, 22, and 23 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.
Regarding amended Claim 1, ll. 17 – 19 recites “wherein the airflow inlet extends circumferentially between airflow inlet ends, the airflow inlet circumferentially overlaps the first screen, and a first airflow inlet end is circumferentially aligned with a circumferential end portion of the second screen”. Applicant’s 06/25/2026 reply failed to point out where the amended claim limitations is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation “airflow inlet ends” and “a first airflow inlet end is circumferentially aligned with a circumferential end portion of the second screen” in the application as filed. As discussed in the Specification objection above, a text search of the original written description failed to find the claimed limitations “inlet end”, “airflow inlet end”, and “first airflow inlet end”. Similarly, a text search of the original written description failed to find an explicit description that “a first airflow inlet end is circumferentially aligned with a circumferential end portion of the second screen” as claimed. Written description Para. [0049] disclosed “The structure inlet 66 of FIG. 2, for example, is disposed radially outboard of and circumferentially and/or axially overlaps at least a center portion or the entirety of the fine screen 72A.”. If the airflow inlet (66 – open space for airflow shown in Figs. 2, 4, and 5) circumferentially overlaps only the center portion of the fine/first screen (72A), then the opposite end portions of the coarse/second screen (72B) that abut respective end portions of the fine/first screen (72A) would not be overlapped by the airflow inlet (66). If the airflow inlet (66 – open space for airflow shown in Figs. 2, 4, and 5) circumferentially overlaps the entirety of the fine/first screen (72A), then the opposite end portions of the coarse/second screen (72B) that abut respective end portions of the fine/first screen (72A) would also be overlapped by the airflow inlet (66). Written description Para. [0049] also disclosed “By contrast, the coarse screen 72B may be circumferentially offset from the structure inlet 66.” Written description Para. [0049] also disclosed “The structure inlet 66 of FIG. 2, for example, may only circumferentially overlap one or more circumferential end portions of the coarse screen 72B, or may not circumferentially overlap the coarse screen 72B at all. The coarse screen 72B of FIG. 2 is thereby located to circumferential peripheral sides of the direct line-of-sight 94 from the structure inlet 66 to the engine inlet 62.” If the coarse/second screen (72B) was circumferentially offset from the airflow inlet (66 – open space for airflow shown in Figs. 2, 4, and 5), then the opposite end portions of the coarse/second screen (72B) that abut respective end portions of the fine/first screen (72A) would not be overlapped by the airflow inlet (66) since the airflow inlet (66) did not circumferentially overlap the coarse/second screen (72B) at all. Written description Para. [0049] also disclosed “The structure inlet 66 of FIG. 2, for example, may only circumferentially overlap one or more circumferential end portions of the coarse screen 72B, or may not circumferentially overlap the coarse screen 72B at all.” If the airflow inlet (66 – open space for airflow shown in Figs. 2, 4, and 5) circumferentially overlaps one or more circumferential end portions of the coarse/second screen (72B), then a circumferential end portion of the coarse/second screen (72B) would not be circumferentially aligned with a first airflow inlet end of the airflow inlet. A text search of the original written description revealed that the word “aligned” was only used five (5) times. None of the five (5) times described amended Claim 1, ll. 18 – 19 recitation “a first airflow inlet end is circumferentially aligned with a circumferential end portion of the second screen”. Written description Para. [0010] disclosed “The first screen may be circumferentially aligned with the airflow inlet about the axis. The second screen may be circumferentially offset from the airflow inlet about the axis.” Written description Para. [0013] disclosed “The first screen may be circumferentially aligned with the first airflow inlet about the axis. The third screen may be circumferentially aligned with the second airflow inlet about the axis.” Written description Para. [0045] disclosed “The inlet guard screens 72A and 72B are thereby axially aligned along the axis 34.” Written description Para. [0049] disclosed “Referring to FIG. 2, the fine screen 72A is circumferentially and axially aligned with the structure inlet 66.” Therefore, the five (5) times that the word “aligned” was used in the original written description failed to provide written description support for amended Claim 1, ll. 18 – 19 recitation “a first airflow inlet end is circumferentially aligned with a circumferential end portion of the second screen”. The original drawings are not labeled as being drawn to scale and the original written description failed to state that the original drawings were drawn to scale. Consequently, Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 4 – 9, 11 – 14, 22, and 23 depend from Claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons. Claims 1, 4 – 9, 11 – 14, 22, and 23 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.
Regarding amended Claim 19, ll. 15 – 17 recites “wherein a first end of the airflow inlet is circumferentially aligned with a first circumferential end of the first screen and a second end of the airflow inlet is circumferentially aligned with a second circumferential end of the first screen”. Applicant’s 06/25/2026 reply failed to point out where the amended claim limitations is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation “a first end of the airflow inlet is circumferentially aligned with a first circumferential end of the first screen” and “a second end of the airflow inlet is circumferentially aligned with a second circumferential end of the first screen” in the application as filed. As discussed in the Specification objection above, a text search of the original written description failed to find the claimed limitations “first end of the airflow inlet” and “second end of the airflow inlet”. Similarly, a text search of the original written description failed to find an explicit description that “a first end of the airflow inlet is circumferentially aligned with a first circumferential end of the first screen and a second end of the airflow inlet is circumferentially aligned with a second circumferential end of the first screen” as claimed. Written description Para. [0049] disclosed “The structure inlet 66 of FIG. 2, for example, is disposed radially outboard of and circumferentially and/or axially overlaps at least a center portion or the entirety of the fine screen 72A.”. If the airflow inlet (66 – open space for airflow shown in Figs. 2, 4, and 5) circumferentially overlaps only the center portion of the fine/first screen (72A), then the opposite ends, i.e., first circumferential end and second circumferential end, of the fine/first screen (72A) would not have been overlapped by nor aligned with the first end of the airflow inlet and the second end of the airflow inlet, respectively. If the airflow inlet (66 – open space for airflow shown in Figs. 2, 4, and 5) circumferentially overlaps the entirety of the fine/first screen (72A), then first circumferential end and second circumferential end of the fine/first screen (72A) would not be aligned with the first end of the airflow inlet and the second end of the airflow inlet, respectively. Written description Para. [0049] also disclosed “The structure inlet 66 of FIG. 2, for example, may only circumferentially overlap one or more circumferential end portions of the coarse screen 72B, or may not circumferentially overlap the coarse screen 72B at all.” If the airflow inlet (66 – open space for airflow shown in Figs. 2, 4, and 5) circumferentially overlaps one or more circumferential end portions of the coarse/second screen (72B), then first circumferential end and second circumferential end of the fine/first screen (72A) would not be circumferentially aligned with the first end of the airflow inlet and the second end of the airflow inlet, respectively. A text search of the original written description revealed that the word “aligned” was only used five (5) times. None of the five (5) times described Claim 19, ll. 15 – 17 recites “wherein a first end of the airflow inlet is circumferentially aligned with a first circumferential end of the first screen and a second end of the airflow inlet is circumferentially aligned with a second circumferential end of the first screen”. Written description Para. [0010] disclosed “The first screen may be circumferentially aligned with the airflow inlet about the axis. The second screen may be circumferentially offset from the airflow inlet about the axis.” Written description Para. [0013] disclosed “The first screen may be circumferentially aligned with the first airflow inlet about the axis. The third screen may be circumferentially aligned with the second airflow inlet about the axis.” Written description Para. [0045] disclosed “The inlet guard screens 72A and 72B are thereby axially aligned along the axis 34.” Written description Para. [0049] disclosed “Referring to FIG. 2, the fine screen 72A is circumferentially and axially aligned with the structure inlet 66.” Therefore, the five (5) times that the word “aligned” was used in the original written description failed to provide written description support for amended Claim 19, ll. 15 – 17 recites “wherein a first end of the airflow inlet is circumferentially aligned with a first circumferential end of the first screen and a second end of the airflow inlet is circumferentially aligned with a second circumferential end of the first screen”. The original drawings are not labeled as being drawn to scale and the original written description failed to state that the original drawings were drawn to scale. Consequently, Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claim 20 depends from Claim 19 and is rejected for the same reasons. Claims 19 and 20 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 23 recites “The system of claim 22, wherein the airflow inlet circumferentially overlaps an entirety of the first screen”. Claim 22 depends from Claim 1. Claim 1, ll. 17 – 18 recites “the airflow inlet circumferentially overlaps the first screen”. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Adding “an entirety” in Claim 23 fails to further limit the subject matter of Claim 1 since Claim 1 does not recite that --the airflow inlet circumferentially overlaps only a portion of the first screen--. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 11 – 13, 19, 20, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leblanc (6,959,552) in view of Ritchie (3,319,402) in view of Foreman et al. (4,989,807) in view of Lefebvre, A.H., Gas Turbine Combustion, Second Edition, Taylor & Francis, Philadelphia, 1998, hereinafter “Lefebvre”.
Regarding Claim 1, [Refer to the 112(a) written description rejection above.] Leblanc teaches, in Fig. 1 – 3B, the invention as claimed, including a system for an aircraft (Col. 2, ll. 50 - 55), comprising: a gas turbine engine (10 – Fig. 1) including a compressor section (18); a flowpath projecting longitudinally into the gas turbine engine (10) from an airflow inlet (30) and longitudinally through the compressor section (18 – shown in Fig. 1); and an inlet guard (36) extending across the flowpath longitudinally upstream of the compressor section (18 – shown in Figs. 1, 3A, and 3B), the inlet guard (36) extending circumferentially (shown in Fig. 2) about an axis (center of 19 shown in Figs. 1 and 2), the inlet guard (36) including a first screen (sector A - shown in Fig. 2) that is circumferentially aligned with the airflow inlet (30, 48 - open top end), and a second screen (sectors C-D-B-F-E - shown in Fig. 2) that is circumferentially offset from the airflow inlet (30, 48 - open top end), the first screen comprising a plurality of first perforations (38) with a first perforation size (Col. 3, l. 62 to Col. 4, l. 5 teaches smallest perforation diameter), the second screen (sectors C-D-B-F-E - shown in Fig. 2) circumferentially adjacent the first screen (sector A - shown in Fig. 2) about the axis (center of 19 shown in Figs. 1 and 2), and the second screen (sectors C-D-B-F-E - shown in Fig. 2) comprising a plurality of second perforations (38) with a second perforation size (Col. 3, l. 62 to Col. 4, l. 5 teaches largest perforation diameter in sector B and teaches the smallest perforation diameter of sector A) that is greater than the first perforation size (Col. 3, l. 62 to Col. 4, l. 5 teaches smallest perforation diameter in sector A), and wherein the airflow inlet (30) extends circumferentially between airflow inlet ends (labeled), the airflow inlet (30) circumferentially overlaps the first screen (sector A - shown in Fig. 2). Leblanc teaches, in Col. 3, l. 62 to Col. 4, l. 5, “In another embodiment, it is also considered to vary the effective area by using a uniform distribution of holes 38, i.e. the same number of holes in each region, but with holes having a larger surface area where the airflow 40 is weaker. Thus, the hole size would be progressively increased toward the bottom end of the plate 36”.); wherein the first screen (sector A - shown in Fig. 2) has a first circumferential width (approximately 60° arc) about the axis; and wherein the second screen (sectors C-D-B-F-E - shown in Fig. 2) has a second circumferential width (approximately 300° arc) about the axis that is greater than the first circumferential width (approximately 60° arc). Leblanc teaches, in Col. 3, l. 62 – 65, that the inlet guard/plate (36) can be separated into any number of regions.
PNG
media_image1.png
860
974
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ritchie teaches, in Figs. 1 – 6, a similar inlet guard (12, 12a) having a first screen (12) and a second screen (12a) circumferentially adjacent the first screen (12). Ritchie teaches, in Col. 1, ll. 30 – 35 and Col. 2, ll. 35 – 45, that the inlet guard (12, 12a) could be made from two separate screens (12 and 12a – shown in Figs. 1 and 3) or more than two separate screens depending on requirements and conditions of assembly.
Thus, improving a particular device (inlet guard), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Leblanc and Ritchie, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying these known improvement techniques in the same manner to the inlet guard of Leblanc, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that modifying the inlet guard to be assembled out of a plurality of separate screens, e.g., first screen having a first circumferential width and a second screen having a second circumferential width greater than the first circumferential width, would have facilitated easier assemble and disassembly of the inlet guard around the air inlet of the gas turbine engine. As shown in Leblanc – Figs 1, 3A, and 3B, it would have been very difficult if not impossible to install or remove an inlet guard (36) around the radial inlet (34) of the gas turbine engine if said inlet guard (36) was manufactured as a single continuous annular piece which had a smaller diameter that the maximum diameter of the air inlet assembly (30), i.e., plenum wall (46 – Fig. 2). Furthermore, assembling the 360° inlet guard out of a plurality of separate screens would have facilitated easier repair/replacement of a damaged section of screen, since only the damage screen(s) would have needed to be removed and replaced with a new screen(s), while the undamaged screens would have been left untouched thus reducing the cost and time required for the repair/replacement. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Leblanc, i.v., Ritchie, as discussed above, is silent on wherein the second screen is located to circumferential peripheral sides of a direct line-of-sight from the airflow inlet to the compressor section.
Foreman teaches, in Col. 1, ll. 10 – 20, that a diffuser in air intake ducts reduced air velocity entering a jet engine compressor intake so that the engine thrust is maximized. Lefebvre teaches, in Chapter 3 – Diffusers, on Pg. 71, last paragraph, that a diffuser was merely a diverging passage in which the flow was decelerated and the reduction in velocity head was converted to a rise in static pressure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Leblanc, i.v., Ritchie, with the diffuser, taught by Foreman and Lefebvre, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the gas turbine engine having a compressor section, the flowpath projecting longitudinally into the gas turbine engine from an airflow inlet, and a diffuser in an air intake duct to reduce air velocity entering a jet engine compressor intake while also increasing the static pressure, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., integrating a diffuser section upstream of the plenum section, as shown in Fig. B above, would have facilitated increasing the static pressure and decreasing the air velocity entering a jet engine compressor intake so that the engine thrust, i.e., power output, was maximized. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Leblanc, i.v., Ritchie, Foreman, and Lefebvre, as discussed above, is silent on wherein a first airflow inlet end is circumferentially aligned with a circumferential end portion of the second screen.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Leblanc, i.v., Ritchie, Foreman, and Lefebvre, to have a first airflow inlet end is circumferentially aligned with a circumferential end portion of the second screen because Applicant has not disclosed that the first airflow inlet end is circumferentially aligned with a circumferential end portion of the second screen provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. In fact, as discussed in the 112(a) written description rejection above, a text search of the original written description failed to find an explicit description that “a first airflow inlet end is circumferentially aligned with a circumferential end portion of the second screen” as claimed. Furthermore, as discussed in the 112(a) written description rejection above, original written description Para. [0049] disclosed “The structure inlet 66 of FIG. 2, for example, may only circumferentially overlap one or more circumferential end portions of the coarse screen 72B, or may not circumferentially overlap the coarse screen 72B at all.” A text search of the original written description revealed that the word “aligned” was only used five (5) times. None of the five (5) times described amended Claim 1, ll. 18 – 19 recitation “a first airflow inlet end is circumferentially aligned with a circumferential end portion of the second screen”. The original written description’s failure to describe the claimed “first airflow inlet end is circumferentially aligned with a circumferential end portion of the second screen” and failure to describe any advantage of the claimed circumferential alignment or any advantage of the other possible circumferential arrangements of the non-disclosed airflow inlet ends relative to the ends of the first screen and/or second screen is indicative of the fact that the claimed circumferential alignment is indeed a “Design Choice”, as all options perform equally well, and none of the options exhibits an advantage over the others and over Leblanc, i.v., Ritchie, Foreman, and Lefebvre. One of ordinary skill furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the arrangement of Leblanc, i.v., Ritchie, Foreman, and Lefebvre, because Applicant failed to disclose any criticality of the claimed arrangement, as discussed above.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Leblanc, i.v., Ritchie, Foreman, and Lefebvre, to obtain the invention as specified in Claim 1.
As shown in Fig. B below, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that in the combination of Leblanc, i.v., Ritchie, Foreman, and Lefebvre, the second screen would have been located to circumferential peripheral sides of a direct line-of-sight from the diffuser section of the airflow inlet to the compressor section, the first screen would have been located along a direct line-of-sight from the diffuser section of the airflow inlet, and the first airflow inlet end would have been circumferentially aligned with a circumferential end portion (any end portion) of the second screen.
PNG
media_image2.png
806
1217
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 11, Leblanc, i.v., Ritchie, Foreman, and Lefebvre, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Leblanc further teaches, in Fig. 2, wherein at least one of the first screen (sector A - shown in Fig. 2) extends less than one-hundred and eighty degrees about the axis (approximately 60°); or the second screen (sectors C-D-B-F-E - shown in Fig. 2) extends more than one-hundred and eighty degrees about the axis (approximately 300° arc).
Re Claim 12, Leblanc, i.v., Ritchie, Foreman, and Lefebvre, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Leblanc further teaches, in Fig. 2, wherein at least one of the first screen (sector A - shown in Fig. 2) extends less than one-hundred and twenty degrees about the axis (approximately 60°); or the second screen (sectors C-D-B-F-E - shown in Fig. 2) extends more than one-hundred and twenty degrees about the axis (approximately 300° arc).
Re Claim 13, Leblanc, i.v., Ritchie, Foreman, and Lefebvre, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Leblanc further teaches, in Figs. 1 and 2, wherein the inlet guard (36) extends circumferentially about the gas turbine engine (10).
Re Claim 22, Leblanc, i.v., Ritchie, Foreman, and Lefebvre, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above including wherein the airflow inlet does not circumferentially overlap the second screen, shown in Fig. B above.
Re Claim 23, [Refer to the 112(d) rejection above.] Leblanc, i.v., Ritchie, Foreman, and Lefebvre, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the airflow inlet circumferentially overlaps an entirety of the first screen (shown in Fig. B marked-up above).
Regarding Claim 19, [Refer to the 112(a) written description rejection above.] Leblanc teaches, in Fig. 1 – 3B, the invention as claimed, including a system for an aircraft (Col. 2, ll. 50 - 55), comprising: an aircraft engine (10 – Fig. 1) with a flowpath projecting into the aircraft engine (10) from an airflow inlet (30); and an inlet guard (36) arranged at the airflow inlet (30) and extending across the flowpath, (shown in Figs. 1, 3A, and 3B) the inlet guard (36) extending circumferentially about an axis (center of 19 shown in Figs. 1 and 2), the inlet guard (36) including a first screen (sector A - shown in Fig. 2) that is circumferentially aligned with the airflow inlet (30, 48 - open top end), and a second screen (sectors C-D-B-F-E - shown in Fig. 2) that is circumferentially offset from the airflow inlet (30, 48 - open top end), the first screen comprising a plurality of first perforations (38) with a first perforation size (Col. 3, l. 62 to Col. 4, l. 5 teaches smallest perforation diameter), the second screen (sectors C-D-B-F-E - shown in Fig. 2) comprising a plurality of second perforations (38) with a second perforation size (Col. 3, l. 62 to Col. 4, l. 5 teaches largest perforation diameter in sector B and teaches the smallest perforation diameter of sector A) that is greater than the first perforation size (Col. 3, l. 62 to Col. 4, l. 5 teaches smallest perforation diameter in sector A), and the second screen (sectors C-D-B-F-E - shown in Fig. 2) arranged circumferentially next to the first screen (sector A - shown in Fig. 2) about the axis (center of 19 shown in Figs. 1 and 2) (Col. 3, l. 62 to Col. 4, l. 5 teaches smallest perforation diameter in sector A. Leblanc teaches, in Col. 3, l. 62 to Col. 4, l. 5, “In another embodiment, it is also considered to vary the effective area by using a uniform distribution of holes 38, i.e. the same number of holes in each region, but with holes having a larger surface area where the airflow 40 is weaker. Thus, the hole size would be progressively increased toward the bottom end of the plate 36”.); wherein the first screen (sector A - shown in Fig. 2) has a first circumferential width (approximately 60° arc) about the axis; and wherein the second screen (sectors C-D-B-F-E - shown in Fig. 2) has a second circumferential width (approximately 300° arc) about the axis that is greater than the first circumferential width (approximately 60° arc). Leblanc teaches, in Col. 3, l. 62 – 65, that the inlet guard/plate (36) can be separated into any number of regions.
Ritchie teaches, in Figs. 1 – 6, a similar inlet guard (12, 12a) having a first screen (12) and a second screen (12a) circumferentially adjacent the first screen (12). Ritchie teaches, in Col. 1, ll. 30 – 35 and Col. 2, ll. 35 – 45, that the inlet guard (12, 12a) could be made from two separate screens (12 and 12a – shown in Figs. 1 and 3) or more than two separate screens depending on requirements and conditions of assembly.
Thus, improving a particular device (inlet guard), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Leblanc and Ritchie, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying these known improvement techniques in the same manner to the inlet guard of Leblanc, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that modifying the inlet guard to be assembled out of a plurality of separate screens, e.g., first screen having a first circumferential width and a second screen having a second circumferential width greater than the first circumferential width, would have facilitated easier assemble and disassembly of the inlet guard around the air inlet of the gas turbine engine. As shown in Leblanc – Figs 1, 3A, and 3B, it would have been very difficult if not impossible to install or remove an inlet guard (36) around the radial inlet (34) of the gas turbine engine if said inlet guard (36) was manufactured as a single continuous annular piece which had a smaller diameter that the maximum diameter of the air inlet assembly (30), i.e., plenum wall (46 – Fig. 2). Furthermore, assembling the 360° inlet guard out of a plurality of separate screens would have facilitated easier repair/replacement of a damaged section of screen, since only the damage screen(s) would have needed to be removed and replaced with a new screen(s), while the undamaged screens would have been left untouched thus reducing the cost and time required for the repair/replacement. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Leblanc, i.v., Ritchie, Foreman, and Lefebvre, as discussed above, is silent on said second screen being located to circumferential peripheral sides of a direct line-of-sight from the airflow inlet to the aircraft engine.
Foreman teaches, in Col. 1, ll. 10 – 20, that a diffuser in air intake ducts reduced air velocity entering a jet engine, i.e., aircraft engine, compressor intake so that the engine thrust is maximized. Lefebvre teaches, in Chapter 3 – Diffusers, on Pg. 71, last paragraph, that a diffuser was merely a diverging passage in which the flow was decelerated and the reduction in velocity head was converted to a rise in static pressure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Leblanc, i.v., Ritchie, Foreman, and Lefebvre, with the diffuser, taught by Foreman and Lefebvre, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the aircraft gas turbine engine having a compressor section, the flowpath projecting longitudinally into the gas turbine engine from an airflow inlet, and a diffuser in an air intake duct to reduce air velocity entering a jet engine compressor intake while also increasing the static pressure, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., integrating a diffuser section upstream of the plenum section, as shown in Fig. B above, would have facilitated increasing the static pressure and decreasing the air velocity entering a jet engine compressor intake so that the engine thrust, i.e., power output, was maximized. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Leblanc, i.v., Ritchie, Foreman, and Lefebvre, as discussed above, is silent on wherein a first end of the airflow inlet is circumferentially aligned with a first circumferential end of the first screen and a second end of the airflow inlet is circumferentially aligned with a second circumferential end of the first screen.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Leblanc, i.v., Ritchie, Foreman, and Lefebvre, to have a first end of the airflow inlet is circumferentially aligned with a first circumferential end of the first screen and a second end of the airflow inlet is circumferentially aligned with a second circumferential end of the first screen because Applicant has not disclosed that the first end of the airflow inlet is circumferentially aligned with a first circumferential end of the first screen and a second end of the airflow inlet is circumferentially aligned with a second circumferential end of the first screen provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. In fact, as discussed in the 112(a) written description rejection above, a text search of the original written description failed to find an explicit description that “a first end of the airflow inlet is circumferentially aligned with a first circumferential end of the first screen and a second end of the airflow inlet is circumferentially aligned with a second circumferential end of the first screen” as claimed. Furthermore, as discussed in the 112(a) written description rejection above, original written description Para. [0049] disclosed “The structure inlet 66 of FIG. 2, for example, is disposed radially outboard of and circumferentially and/or axially overlaps at least a center portion or the entirety of the fine screen 72A.”. If the airflow inlet (66 – open space for airflow shown in Figs. 2, 4, and 5) circumferentially overlaps only the center portion of the fine/first screen (72A), then the opposite ends, i.e., first circumferential end and second circumferential end, of the fine/first screen (72A) would not have been overlapped by nor aligned with the first end of the airflow inlet and the second end of the airflow inlet, respectively. If the airflow inlet (66 – open space for airflow shown in Figs. 2, 4, and 5) circumferentially overlaps the entirety of the fine/first screen (72A), then first circumferential end and second circumferential end of the fine/first screen (72A) would not be aligned with the first end of the airflow inlet and the second end of the airflow inlet, respectively. Written description Para. [0049] also disclosed “The structure inlet 66 of FIG. 2, for example, may only circumferentially overlap one or more circumferential end portions of the coarse screen 72B, or may not circumferentially overlap the coarse screen 72B at all.” If the airflow inlet (66 – open space for airflow shown in Figs. 2, 4, and 5) circumferentially overlaps one or more circumferential end portions of the coarse/second screen (72B), then first circumferential end and second circumferential end of the fine/first screen (72A) would not be circumferentially aligned with the first end of the airflow inlet and the second end of the airflow inlet, respectively. A text search of the original written description revealed that the word “aligned” was only used five (5) times. None of the five (5) times described Claim 19, ll. 15 – 17 recitation “a first end of the airflow inlet is circumferentially aligned with a first circumferential end of the first screen and a second end of the airflow inlet is circumferentially aligned with a second circumferential end of the first screen”. The original written description’s failure to describe the claimed “a first end of the airflow inlet is circumferentially aligned with a first circumferential end of the first screen and a second end of the airflow inlet is circumferentially aligned with a second circumferential end of the first screen” and failure to describe any advantage of the claimed circumferential alignments or any advantage of the other possible circumferential arrangements of the non-disclosed “first end of the airflow inlet” and “second end of the airflow inlet” relative to the ends of the first screen and/or second screen is indicative of the fact that the claimed circumferential alignments are indeed a “Design Choice”, as all options perform equally well, and none of the options exhibits an advantage over the others and over Leblanc, i.v., Ritchie, Foreman, and Lefebvre. One of ordinary skill furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the arrangement of Leblanc, i.v., Ritchie, Foreman, and Lefebvre, because Applicant failed to disclose any criticality of the claimed arrangement, as discussed above.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Leblanc, i.v., Ritchie, Foreman, and Lefebvre, to obtain the invention as specified in Claim 19.
As shown in Fig. B above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that in the combination of Leblanc, i.v., Ritchie, Foreman, and Lefebvre, Foreman, and Lefebvre, the second screen would have been located to circumferential peripheral sides of a direct line-of-sight from the diffuser section of the airflow inlet to the aircraft engine, the first screen would have been located along a direct line-of-sight from the diffuser section of the airflow inlet, and a first end of the airflow inlet is circumferentially aligned with a first circumferential end of the first screen and a second end of the airflow inlet is circumferentially aligned with a second circumferential end of the first screen.
Re Claim 20, Leblanc, i.v., Ritchie, Foreman, and Lefebvre, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Leblanc further teaches, in Fig. 1, wherein the aircraft engine comprises a gas turbine engine (10 – Col. 2, ll. 50 - 65).
Claims 4 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leblanc (6,959,552) in view of Ritchie (3,319,402) in view of Foreman et al. (4,989,807) in view of Lefebvre, A.H., Gas Turbine Combustion, Second Edition, Taylor & Francis, Philadelphia, 1998, hereinafter “Lefebvre” in view of Marrano et. al. (11,536,196).
Re Claim 4, Leblanc, i.v., Ritchie, Foreman, and Lefebvre, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein the inlet guard further includes a third screen comprising a plurality of third perforations with a third perforation size that is different than the second perforation size; and the second screen is arranged circumferentially between the first screen and the third screen about the axis. As discussed in the Claim 1 rejection above, Leblanc teaches, in Col. 3, l. 62 to Col. 4, l. 5, a plurality of screen regions (A to E) where the screen regions had a plurality of different perforation sizes where screen region (A) directly facing the inlet air flow (40) had the smallest perforation size, where screen region (B) directly opposite of the inlet air flow (40) had the largest perforation size, where the screen regions (C and E) had larger perforation size than screen region (A), and where the screen regions (D and F) had larger perforation size than screen regions (C and E) but smaller than the perforation size of screen region (B). Leblanc teaches, in Col. 1, ll. 40 – 50 and Col. 3, l. 62 to Col. 4, l. 5, using a plurality of perforation sizes to circumferentially redistribute the airflow in a more symmetric manner around the radial inlet.
Marrano teaches, in Figs. 1 and 5, a similar gas turbine engine (10 – Fig. 1) having first airflow inlet and a second airflow inlet (120, as shown in Fig. 5 the first airflow inlet on the left-hand side and the second airflow inlet on the right-hand side) where said second airflow inlet would have provided airflow to a 180° portion of the compressor radial air inlet (I – Fig. 1, 130 – Fig. 5) spanning, in a clockwise direction, from the 12 o’clock position to the 6 o’clock position and where said first airflow inlet would have provided airflow to a 180° portion of the compressor radial air inlet (I – Fig. 1, 130 – Fig. 5) spanning, in a clockwise direction, from the 6 o’clock position to the 12 o’clock position.
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Leblanc, i.v., Ritchie, Foreman, and Lefebvre, with the airflow inlet having first airflow inlet and a second airflow inlet, taught by Marrano, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the gas turbine engine having a compressor section, the flowpath projecting longitudinally into the gas turbine engine from an airflow inlet, and the airflow inlet having first airflow inlet and a second airflow inlet, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the airflow inlet having first airflow inlet and a second airflow inlet, taught by Marrano, for the airflow inlet having a single open end (48) of Leblanc, i.v., Ritchie, Foreman, and Lefebvre, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the first airflow inlet and a second airflow inlet would have provided two independent airflow streams to the gas turbine engine which would have facilitated increased redundancy since, if the first airflow inlet gets blocked or restricted, airflow would have still been provided to the gas turbine engine by the second airflow inlet. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
PNG
media_image3.png
672
997
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the combination of Leblanc, i.v., Ritchie, Foreman, Lefebvre, and Marrano, teaches wherein the inlet guard further includes a third screen (labeled “3rd screen” directly facing the airflow from the second airflow inlet) comprising a plurality of third perforations (38 – Fig. 2, Leblanc) with a third perforation size that is different than the second perforation size; and the second screen (labeled “2nd screen” which does not directly face the airflow from the first airflow inlet or the second airflow inlet) is arranged circumferentially between the first screen (labeled “1st screen” directly facing the airflow from the first airflow inlet) and the third screen (labeled “3rd screen” directly facing the airflow from the second airflow inlet) about the axis because Leblanc teaches, in Col. 1, ll. 40 – 50 and Col. 3, l. 62 to Col. 4, l. 5, using a plurality of perforation sizes to circumferentially redistribute the airflow in a more symmetric manner around the radial inlet which required the screen regions directly facing the airflow to have the smallest perforation diameter while the screen regions which do not directly face the airflow had perforation diameter greater than the smallest perforation diameter.
Re Claim 5, Leblanc, i.v., Ritchie, Foreman, Lefebvre, and Marrano, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including (refer to Claim 4 rejection above) wherein the airflow inlet is a first airflow inlet (Fig. A marked-up above), and the flowpath further projects longitudinally into the gas turbine engine from a second airflow inlet (Fig. A marked-up above); the first screen (labeled “1st screen” directly facing the airflow from the first airflow inlet) is circumferentially aligned with the first airflow inlet about the axis; and the third screen (labeled “3rd screen” directly facing the airflow from the second airflow inlet) is circumferentially aligned with the second airflow inlet about the axis.
Re Claim 6, Leblanc, i.v., Ritchie, Foreman, Lefebvre, and Marrano, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including (refer to Claim 4 rejection above) wherein the third perforation size is equal to the first perforation size. As discussed in the Claim 4 rejection above, Leblanc teaches, in Col. 1, ll. 40 – 50 and Col. 3, l. 62 to Col. 4, l. 5, using a plurality of perforation sizes to circumferentially redistribute the airflow in a more symmetric manner around the radial inlet which required the screen regions directly facing the airflow to have the smallest perforation diameter while the screen regions which do not directly face the airflow had perforation diameter greater than the smallest perforation diameter.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the combination of Leblanc, i.v., Ritchie, Foreman, Lefebvre, and Marrano, would have had the third perforation size is equal to the first perforation size because both the first screen and the third screen directly faced the airflow from their respective airflow inlet.
Re Claim 7, Leblanc, i.v., Ritchie, Foreman, Lefebvre, and Marrano, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including (refer to Claim 4 rejection above) wherein the inlet guard further includes a fourth screen (labeled “4th screen” Fig. A marked-up above) comprising a plurality of fourth perforations (38) with a fourth perforation size that is different than the first perforation size and the second perforation size; the third screen (labeled “3rd screen” Fig. A marked-up above) is arranged circumferentially between the second screen (labeled “2nd screen” Fig. A marked-up above) and the fourth screen (labeled “4th screen”) about the axis; and the fourth screen (labeled “4th screen”) is arranged circumferentially between the first screen (labeled “1st screen”) and the third screen (labeled “3rd screen”) about the axis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the combination of Leblanc, i.v., Ritchie, Foreman, Lefebvre, and Marrano, teaches the claim limitations because Leblanc teaches, in Col. 1, ll. 40 – 50 and Col. 3, l. 62 to Col. 4, l. 5, using a plurality of perforation sizes to circumferentially redistribute the airflow in a more symmetric manner around the radial inlet which required the screen regions directly facing the airflow to have the smallest perforation diameter while the screen regions which do not directly face the airflow had perforation diameter greater than the smallest perforation diameter and as sized to circumferentially redistribute the airflow in a more symmetric manner.
Re Claim 8, Leblanc, i.v., Ritchie, Foreman, Lefebvre, and Marrano, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the first screen (labeled “1st screen”) has the first circumferential width about the axis (shown in Fig. A marked-up above); the second screen (labeled “2nd screen”) has the second circumferential width about the axis (shown in Fig. A marked-up above); the third screen (labeled “3rd screen”) has a third circumferential width about the axis (shown in Fig. A marked-up above); and the fourth screen (labeled “4th screen”) has a fourth circumferential width about the axis.
Leblanc, i.v., Ritchie, Foreman, Lefebvre, and Marrano, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein said second circumferential width is greater than said first circumferential width; said third circumferential width is equal to said first circumferential width; and said fourth circumferential width is different than said first circumferential width.
Leblanc further teaches, in Fig. 2, that the screen region (A) directly facing the airflow (40) had a circumferential width (approximately 60° arc) while the screen regions (C-D and E-F) oblique to the airflow (40) had a circumferential width (approximately 120° arc), and the screen region (B) directly opposite the airflow (40) had a circumferential width (approximately 60° arc).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Leblanc, i.v., Ritchie, Foreman, Lefebvre, and Marrano, to have said second circumferential width (approximately 120° arc) is greater than said first circumferential width (approximately 60° arc); said third circumferential width (approximately 60° arc) is equal to said first circumferential width (approximately 60° arc); and said fourth circumferential width (approximately 120° arc) is different than said first circumferential width (approximately 60° arc) because Leblanc teaches, in Col. 1, ll. 40 – 50 and Col. 3, l. 62 to Col. 4, l. 5, using a plurality of perforation sizes distributed in different circumferential screen regions/widths to circumferentially redistribute the airflow in a more symmetric manner around the radial inlet which required the screen regions directly facing the airflow to have the smallest perforation diameter while the screen regions which do not directly face the airflow had perforation diameter greater than the smallest perforation diameter and as sized to circumferentially redistribute the airflow in a more symmetric manner.
Re Claim 9, Leblanc, i.v., Ritchie, Foreman, Lefebvre, and Marrano, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein at least one of the second circumferential width is smaller than the fourth circumferential width; or the fourth circumferential width (approximately 120° arc) is greater than the first circumferential width (approximately 60° arc).
Claim 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leblanc (6,959,552) in view of Ritchie (3,319,402) in view of Foreman et al. (4,989,807) in view of Lefebvre, A.H., Gas Turbine Combustion, Second Edition, Taylor & Francis, Philadelphia, 1998, hereinafter “Lefebvre” in view of Marrano et. al. (11,536,196) in view of Millman (2,846,023).
Re Claim 14, Leblanc, i.v., Ritchie, Foreman, and Lefebvre, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Leblanc further teaches, in Figs. 1, 3A, and 3B, wherein the inlet guard (36) extends axially along the axis. Leblanc, i.v., Ritchie, Foreman, and Lefebvre, as discussed above, is silent on the first screen axially overlaps the second screen along the axis.
Milliman teaches, in Figs. 1 – 4, a similar inlet guard having a first screen (18 – Col. 2, ll. 35 – 45) axially overlaps a second screen (19 – Col. 2, ll. 35 – 45) along an axis.
Thus, improving a particular device (inlet guard), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Milliman, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying this known improvement technique in the same manner to the inlet guard of Leblanc, i.v., Ritchie, Foreman, and Lefebvre, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that modifying the inlet guard to have the first screen (smaller perforation diameter) axially overlaps the second screen (larger perforation diameter), would have facilitated the smaller perforation diameter first screen reducing the airflow through said first screen while the larger perforation diameters of said second screen would not have affected the airflow from said first screen. Additionally, said second screen would have structurally supported said first screen. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Claims 15 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leblanc (6,959,552) in view of Ritchie (3,319,402) in view of Millman (2,846,023) in view of Hartman (4,644,746).
Regarding Claim 15, Leblanc teaches, in Fig. 1 – 3B, the invention as claimed, including a system for an aircraft (Col. 2, ll. 50 - 55), comprising: a gas turbine engine (10 – Fig. 1) including an airflow inlet (30) that is upstream (during operation of the gas turbine engine air flowed into the airflow inlet and then downstream to the compressor section) of a compressor section (18); an inlet guard (36) extending circumferentially (shown in Fig. 2) about and axially along (shown in Figs. 1, 3A, and 3B) an axis, the inlet guard (36) including a first screen (sector A - shown in Fig. 2) that is circumferentially aligned with the airflow inlet (30, 48 - open top end), and a second screen (sectors C-D-B-F-E - shown in Fig. 2) that is circumferentially offset from the airflow inlet (30, 48 - open top end), the first screen (sector A - shown in Fig. 2) comprising a first percentage of open area (Col. 3, l. 62 to Col. 4, l. 5 teaches smallest open area), the second screen (sectors C-D-B-F-E - shown in Fig. 2) comprising a second percentage of open area that is greater than the first percentage of open area (Col. 3, l. 62 to Col. 4, l. 5), the second screen extending circumferentially about the axis to the first screen (shown in Fig. 2); and a flowpath projecting longitudinally from an airflow inlet, through the inlet guard (36), to the compressor section (18); wherein the first screen (sector A - shown in Fig. 2) has a first circumferential width (approximately 60° arc) about the axis; and wherein the second screen (sectors C-D-B-F-E - shown in Fig. 2) has a second circumferential width (approximately 300° arc) about the axis that is greater than the first circumferential width (approximately 60° arc). Leblanc teaches, in Col. 3, l. 62 to Col. 4, l. 5, “In another embodiment, it is also considered to vary the effective area by using a uniform distribution of holes 38, i.e. the same number of holes in each region, but with holes having a larger surface area where the airflow 40 is weaker. Thus, the hole size would be progressively increased toward the bottom end of the plate 36.”. From basic math it would have been clear that having the same number of holes, i.e., open area, in each of the six (6) regions/sectors would have meant that the second screen (sectors C-D-B-F-E - shown in Fig. 2) would have had at least five (5) times the open area percentage than the first screen (sector A) because the second screen would have had five (5) times the number of hole compared to the first screen. Furthermore, the hole size, i.e., diameter, of the holes of the second screen (sectors C-D-B-F-E - shown in Fig. 2) would have larger than the first screen (sector A) hole size, i.e., diameter. From basic math it would have been clear that having progressively large hole sizes, i.e., diameters, of holes, i.e., larger open area, in the second screen compared to the smallest hole size, i.e., diameter, the first screen would have meant that the second screen would have had the second percentage of open area that was greater than the first percentage of open area. Leblanc teaches, in Col. 3, l. 62 – 65, that the inlet guard/plate (36) can be separated into any number of regions.
Ritchie teaches, in Figs. 1 – 6, a similar inlet guard (12, 12a) having a first screen (12) and a second screen (12a) circumferentially adjacent the first screen (12). Ritchie teaches, in Col. 1, ll. 30 – 35 and Col. 2, ll. 35 – 45, that the inlet guard (12, 12a) could be made from two separate screens (12 and 12a – shown in Figs. 1 and 3) or more than two separate screens depending on requirements and conditions of assembly.
Thus, improving a particular device (inlet guard), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Leblanc and Ritchie, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying these known improvement techniques in the same manner to the inlet guard of Leblanc, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that modifying the inlet guard to be assembled out of a plurality of separate screens, e.g., first screen having a first circumferential width and a second screen having a second circumferential width greater than the first circumferential width, would have facilitated easier assemble and disassembly of the inlet guard around the air inlet of the gas turbine engine. As shown in Leblanc – Figs 1, 3A, and 3B, it would have been very difficult if not impossible to install or remove an inlet guard (36) around the radial inlet (34) of the gas turbine engine if said inlet guard (36) was manufactured as a single continuous annular piece which had a smaller diameter that the maximum diameter of the air inlet assembly (30), i.e., plenum wall (46 – Fig. 2). Furthermore, assembling the 360° inlet guard out of a plurality of separate screens would have facilitated easier repair/replacement of a damaged section of screen, since only the damage screen(s) would have needed to be removed and replaced with a new screen(s), while the undamaged screens would have been left untouched thus reducing the cost and time required for the repair/replacement. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Leblanc, i.v., Ritchie, is silent on the second screen extending axially along the first screen.
Milliman teaches, in Figs. 1 – 4, a similar inlet guard having a first screen (18 – Col. 2, ll. 35 – 45) axially overlaps/extends along a second screen (19 – Col. 2, ll. 35 – 45).
Thus, improving a particular device (inlet guard), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Milliman, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying this known improvement technique in the same manner to the inlet guard of Leblanc, i.v., Ritchie, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that modifying the inlet guard to have the first screen (smaller perforation diameter) axially overlaps/extends along the second screen (larger perforation diameter), would have facilitated the smaller perforation diameter first screen reducing the airflow through said first screen while the larger perforation diameters of said second screen would not have affected the airflow from said first screen. Additionally, said second screen would have structurally supported said first screen. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Leblanc, i.v., Ritchie and Milliman, is silent on said airflow inlet configured as a venturi comprising a converging inlet, a throat and diverging outlet, and wherein the first screen is circumferentially aligned with the throat and the second screen is circumferentially offset from the throat.
Hartman teaches, in Fig. 1, Col. 2, l. 67 to Col. 3, l. 5, and Col. 5, ll. 30 - 35, an aircraft engine having an airflow inlet configured as a venturi comprising a converging inlet (32), a throat (34) and diverging outlet (36) to facilitate using the geometry of the throat to control the mass flow rate of the inlet air.
PNG
media_image4.png
798
1052
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Leblanc, i.v., Ritchie and Milliman, with the airflow inlet configured as a venturi comprising a converging inlet, a throat and diverging outlet, taught by Hartman, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the gas turbine engine having a compressor section, the flowpath projecting longitudinally into the gas turbine engine from an airflow inlet, and an airflow inlet configured as a venturi comprising a converging inlet, a throat and diverging outlet, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., configuring said airflow inlet as a venturi comprising a converging inlet, a throat and diverging outlet, as shown in Fig. D above, would have facilitated using the geometry of the throat to control the mass flow rate of the air through the airflow inlet. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A). As shown in Fig. D above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that in the combination of Leblanc, i.v., Ritchie, Milliman, and Hartman, the first screen would have been circumferentially aligned with the throat and the second screen would have been circumferentially offset from the throat.
Re Claim 16, Leblanc, i.v., Ritchie, Milliman, and Hartman, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the flowpath projects radially through the first screen and the second screen into the gas turbine engine, refer to the Claim 15 rejection above.
Re Claim 17, Leblanc, i.v., Ritchie, Milliman, and Hartman, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Leblanc further teaches wherein the first screen comprises a plurality of first perforations (38), and each of the plurality of first perforations has a first cross-sectional area (inherent); and the second screen comprises a plurality of second perforations (38), and each of the plurality of second perforations has a second cross-sectional area that is different than the first cross-sectional area, refer to the Claim 15 rejection above.
Re Claim 18, Leblanc, i.v., Ritchie, Milliman, and Hartman, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Leblanc further teaches, in Fig. 1, wherein the airflow inlet extends circumferentially about the axis between opposing circumferential sides; and the airflow inlet is radially outboard of and circumferentially overlaps the first screen (region A – Fig. 2).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/25/2026 have been fully considered. To the extent possible they have been addressed in the rejections above at the appropriate locations, and furthermore they were found not persuasive for the following reasons.
Applicant argues on Pg. 10, first full paragraph continuing on to Pg. 12 that the proposed modification of Leblanc with the teachings of Foreman are conclusory and would be disadvantageous without additional features disclosed by Foreman. Applicant further argues on Pg. 12, second to last paragraph that “A skilled practitioner in the art would not seek the disclosure of Foreman to provide the claimed subject matter of independent claim 1. Foreman does not seek to provide its alleged diffuser to "increase[e] the static pressure and decreas[e] the air velocity entering a jet engine compressor intake so that the engine thrust, i.e., power output, was maximized" as alleged by the Office Action.” These arguments are not persuasive because the Supreme Court held in KSR that "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP2141(II)(C). Therefore all of Foreman’s teachings did not have to be combined with Leblanc as argued by Applicant. Furthermore, Foreman explicitly teaches, in Col. 1, ll. 10 – 20, that it was known in the art that a diffuser in air intake ducts reduced air velocity entering a jet engine compressor intake so that the engine thrust is maximized. Lefebvre explicitly teaches, in Chapter 3 – Diffusers, on Pg. 71, last paragraph, that a diffuser was merely a diverging passage in which the flow was decelerated and the reduction in velocity head was converted to a rise in static pressure. Consequently, the other teachings of Foreman were not needed in the rejections of the claimed invention which explains why Foreman’s other teachings were not applied in the rejections. The rejections are maintained.
Applicant arguments on Pg. 13 regarding Claims 19 and 20 are addressed in the rejections above at the appropriate locations.
Applicant argues on Pg. 15 continuing on to Pg. 17 that the proposed modification of Leblanc with the teachings of Hartman are allegedly incompatible. Applicant argues on Pg. 17, first paragraph that “There is no disclosure, teaching or suggestion that Hartman's alleged throat could be suitably modified to be arranged at "an airflow inlet that is upstream of a compressor section, the airflow inlet configured as a venturi comprising a converging inlet, a throat and diverging outlet" as recited in claim 15. A skilled practitioner in the art would not seek to modify the alleged air intake of Leblanc with the alleged throat within a combustor section of Hartman, as there is no disclosure that such a proposed modification would even operate as intended”. These arguments are not persuasive because the Supreme Court held in KSR that "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP2141(II)(C). Hartman’s venturi comprising a converging inlet, a throat, and diverging outlet was located in the air inlet section of Hartman’s jet engine to control the mass flow rate of inlet air by controlling the geometry of the throat, as taught in Col. 5, ll. 30 - 35. Using a venturi comprising a converging inlet, a throat, and diverging outlet to control the mass flow rate of fluid like inlet air flowing through said venturi was well known in the gas turbine art. Therefore, contrary to Applicant’s attorney arguments, one skilled in the gas turbine art could have combined Hartman’s venturi comprising a converging inlet, a throat, and diverging outlet with Leblanc’s air inlet by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., configuring said airflow inlet as a venturi comprising a converging inlet, a throat and diverging outlet would have facilitated using the geometry of the throat to control the mass flow rate of the air through the airflow inlet. The rejections are maintained.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORNE E MEADE whose telephone number is (571)270-7570. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at 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.
/LORNE E MEADE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights