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 .
Claim Objections
Claim(s) is 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
change claim 1 line 9 accordingly: “from the aircraft engine”
change claim 1 line 13 accordingly: “from the aircraft engine”
change claim 1 line 18 accordingly: “from the aircraft engine”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant has not pointed out where the amended claim 1 is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation “an aft-facing façade which is substantially perpendicular to a flow of exhaust air from an aircraft engine” in the application as filed. As best understood applicant is relying on the drawings for support of the instant amended limitation. However there is not support for the instant amendment. For example the aft-facing façade shown in fig. 1C does not appear to be perpendicular to an exhaust flow from the engine at 104 (see annotated figure below)
PNG
media_image1.png
479
621
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (an aft-facing façade)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (exhaust)]
Additionally the aft-facing façade in fig. 6B for example appears to be at a slight angle different than a 90 degree angle with the engine jet flow (see annotated figure below). Applicant has argued that the term substantially refers to manufacturing imperfections. However the engine jet flow appears to be at an acute angle to the engine jet flow exhaust that is intentional rather than a result of machining or assembly uncertainties or tolerances. In addition the drawings are not labeled to being to scale. The aft-facing façade 102 in fig. 4 does not provide additional support because façade 102 also appears to be at an acute angle to the outlet of the engine. Therefore the instant limitation is considered new matter.
PNG
media_image3.png
543
519
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (aft-facing façade)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (acute angle)][AltContent: arc][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
Claim 1 recites “the fairing is configured to substantively improve: … an aerodynamic efficiency of the aircraft, where the aerodynamic efficiency of the aircraft is increased by: …” is considered new matter. There is no discussion of an aerodynamic efficiency or any other type of efficiency in Applicant’s originally filed disclosure, or any discussion how to improve or increase such efficiency. Newly amended claims must be supported by express, implicit or inherent disclosure (MPEP 2163 I. B.). The bottom portion of claim 1 including the above quoted text is not inherent. Further there is no express discussion in applicant disclosure. In the final office action instant recitation was treated as an implicit disclosure because the claim defined what is meant improving the aerodynamic efficiency. However in the Remarks filed 10/14/2025 (at page 7, middle) Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach such increase in aerodynamic efficiency even though the prior art taught the “configuring the air …” and “configuring the curvature …” recitations. Thus this appears to be new matter in light of Applicant arguments and a lack of corresponding discussion in Applicant disclosure.
Claims dependent thereon are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “substantially perpendicular” in claim 1 line 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example, the aft-facing façade in fig. 6B for example appears to be at a slight angle different than a 90 degree angle with the engine jet flow. There is no discussion in applicant disclosure regarding a standard relating to substantially and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not be appraised of how to avoid infringing the claim. The term substantially is interpreted as “Considerable in importance, value, degree, amount, or extent” (The Free Dictionary online).
The term “substantively improve” in line 10 of claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantively” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example, the specification does not provide a discussion regarding how much improvement constitutes a substantial improvement regarding improving the effectiveness of the vent and regarding improving an aerodynamic efficiency.
Claim 1 lines 11-13 recites “an effectiveness of the vent, where the effectiveness of the vent is improved by an induced airflow caused by the vent's proximity to the exhaust flow from the engine”. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear because there is no discussion in Applicant disclosure regarding how much improvement is required to infringe the claim. In addition, there is no discussion regarding a baseline effectiveness upon which an improvement is based upon.
The term “substantially parallel” in line 17 of claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example, the specification does not provide a discussion regarding how parallel the vent airflow has to be compared to the engine exhaust flow. For example, substantially parallel could communicate a 5 degree divergence from parallel, a 10 degree divergence and so on.
The term “substantially in a center” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example, the specification does not provide a discussion regarding how much in the center the vent must be in the aft-facing facade. For example, substantially in the center could communicate the vent being offset from the center by various amounts.
The term “substantially trapezoidal geometry” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example, the specification does not provide a discussion regarding how close to a trapezoid the vent must be. In addition the term trapezoidal already implies a shape may not be exactly a trapezoidal. For example, substantially trapezoidal could (1) communicate the two parallel sides of a trapezoid may diverge from being parallel by various amounts or (2) a shape having three or five sides rather than the four sides of a trapezoid.
Claims dependent thereon are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 6,126,118 (Fujino) in view of Pub. No. US 2020/0031483 A1 (Guillois) and Pub. No.: US 2007/0245739 A1 (Stretton).
Regarding claim 1, Fujino discloses a low drag (see fig. 3 wherein a vane 6 at the nacelle reduces flow separation that is a source of drag; see col. 4, ll. 10-20) nacelle 3 and pylon fairing system for an aircraft (see col. 1, ll. 5-10) comprising: a fairing (see annotated figure below) having an aft-facing façade (see annotated figure below), a flow of exhaust air (one of ordinary skill understands that a flow of exhaust air exits from the aircraft engine at the aft portion of the nacelle 333; see shaded arrow) from an aircraft engine (engine nacelle 3 comprises an aircraft engine, see col. 1, ll. 10-15; this is evidenced for example by Stretton par. 25), wherein the fairing (see annotated figure below) is configured to aerodynamically couple (one of ordinary skill understands that this is the purpose of a fairing and thus Fujino meets the instant limitation; for example, one of ordinary skill is knowledgeable that smooth contours couple a nacelle to the trailing edge of a pylon fairing, see pertinent prior art of the nonfinal office action mailed 12/18/2025) an engine nacelle 3 comprising the aircraft engine to a trailing edge (see annotated figure below) of a pylon 2; and configuring a curvature of the fairing (see annotated figure below) to be smooth and continuous (see annotated figure below). Fujino does not explicitly disclose the aft-facing façade is substantially perpendicular to the flow of exhaust air, and a single vent disposed in the aft-facing façade.
Guillois teaches (see figs. 3 or 5) a pylon/fairing 7 and further teaches (see annotated figure below) an aft-facing façade is substantially perpendicular (see annotated figure below) to a flow of exhaust air (see shaded annotated arrow at downstream end of gas turbine engine 201) from an aircraft engine 201. It is further noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 at 1395 (U.S. 2007) (MPEP 2143 I.B.).
PNG
media_image5.png
365
631
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (aft facing façade)][AltContent: arrow]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to substitute the angle (i.e. the aft-facing façade is substantially perpendicular to the flow of exhaust air from the aircraft engine) of Guillois for the angle (i.e. the angle of the aft-facing façade to the flow of exhaust air from the aircraft engine) of Fujino for the purpose of substituting one known element for another in order to provide the expected result of providing an engine mounting configuration.
Stretton teaches a nacelle 42 (see fig. 9 and fig. 2a showing reference character 42) teaches (see figs. 9 and 10) a single vent 119 (venting exhaust 93a from bypass duct 32, see fig. 3, of turbofan engine 100, i.e., engine with fan 94 and corresponding bypass duct 32) disposed in a facing façade (see annotated figure below), wherein the vent 119 is configured to exhaust air 93a into a space aft (aft wards), wherein the exhaust 93a is directionally parallel with a flow of exhaust air from an engine 100 (vent 119 directs the exhaust 93a via a “hinged door or flap”, see par. 53, middle; such hinged door 122 is shown in fig. 10 wherein the door 122 opens towards the engine exhaust 124; fig. 10 shows exhaust 124 is fan exhaust in the bypass duct 32 shown in fig. 3, however this is applicable to exhaust from the core in fig. 9 by way of cited par. 53). It is further noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 at 1395 (U.S. 2007) (MPEP 2143 I.B.).
PNG
media_image7.png
297
295
media_image7.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (aft-facing facade)][AltContent: textbox (trailing edge of pylon)][AltContent: textbox (first vertex)][AltContent: textbox (second vertex)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (first side)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (fairing)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (exhaust; exhaust outlet)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (fairing)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (smooth and continuous curvature)]
PNG
media_image8.png
63
185
media_image8.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (smooth and continuous curvature connects smoothly with trailing edge)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (third vertex)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image11.png
476
944
media_image11.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (facing façade)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (exhaust outlet of engine)][AltContent: arrow]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to substitute the turbofan engine of Stretton for the engine of Fujino in view Guillois of for the purpose of substituting one known element for another in order to provide the expected result of providing propulsive thrust for an aircraft of Fujino in view of Guillois and Stretton.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Fujino in view of Guillois and Stretton with a single vent disposed in the aft-facing façade, wherein the vent is configured to exhaust air into a space aft of the fairing, wherein the exhaust is directionally parallel with exhaust flow from the engine as taught by Stretton in order to facilitate providing cooled compressed air for cabin cooling (see par. 2, top) and for improved thrust recovery (see par. 53). This results in the flap 122 being located at the aft-facing façade of Fujino in view of Guillois and Stretton (see annotated figure of Fujino above) extending from the aft facing façade of Fujino in view of Guillois and Stretton. For example, vent 119 taught by Stretton is disposed in the facing façade just aft of the exhaust outlet (see annotated figure 9 of Stretton above). Likewise the single vent of Fujino in view Guillois and Stretton would be disposed in the aft-facing façade just aft of the exhaust outlet (see annotated figure 3 of Fujino above) providing thrust by way of combined fan and core exhaust of a long duct turbofan. One of ordinary skill in the art is familiar with such a configuration (see Pertinent Prior Art section of the nonfinal office action mailed 12/18/2025 regarding short and long duct turbofan engines; and turbofan engines in aircraft similar to that of Fujino).
The phrase “wherein the single vent is configured to exhaust air into a space aft of the fairing, wherein the single vent’s exhaust air is directionally parallel with flow of exhaust air from the aircraft engine; and wherein the geometry of the fairing is configured to substantively improve: an effectiveness of the single vent, where the effectiveness of the single vent is improved by an induced airflow caused by the single vent's proximity to the flow of exhaust air from the aircraft engine; and an aerodynamic efficiency of the aircraft, where the aerodynamic efficiency of the aircraft is increased by: configuring the exhaust air from the single vent to add airflow behind the façade which is substantially parallel to the flow of exhaust air from the engine; and configuring a curvature of the fairing to be smooth and continuous such that aerodynamic drag is reduced by maintaining a boundary layer of airflow attached to a surface of the fairing” is intended use and the combination of Fujino in view of Guillois and Stretton is capable of performing the intended use as described below.
The vent (see location of vent at 119 in Stretton fig. 9, the location being at the exhaust of engine 101) of the combination is located proximate the exhaust of the engine of Fujino (see annotated fig. above). The fan exhaust creates an ejector effect drawing or inducing flow from the vent of Fujino in view of Guillois and Stretton. Therefore the exhaust flow of the combination would induce flow from the vent of the combination thereby improving the effectiveness of the vent. This is a meaningful improvement. The ejector effect helps exhaust heated fluids 23a from the vent thereby preventing the fluids from accumulating in the engine after going through the heat exchanger 21 in fig. 9 of Stretton (see par. 2, bottom), thus making the vent more efficient. A more efficient vent also can reduce the need for a larger size vent which can decrease aerodynamic efficiency (see Stretton abstract).
The combination of Fujino in view of Guillois and Stretton teaches the geometry of the fairing is configured to substantively improve an aerodynamic efficiency of the aircraft, where the aerodynamic efficiency of the aircraft is increased by: configuring the exhaust air from the single vent (see vent 119 in Stretton fig. 9) to add airflow (heated air 93a in Stretton fig. 9) behind the aft-facing façade (see Fujino annotated figure above) which is substantially parallel to the flow of exhaust air from the engine (this was taught by Stretton in this claim analysis above); and configuring a curvature of the fairing to be smooth and continuous (see annotated figure above) such that aerodynamic drag is reduced by maintaining a boundary layer of airflow attached to a surface of the fairing. One of ordinary skill is knowledgeable that (this is discussed in the pertinent prior art of the nonfinal office action mailed 12/18/2025) smooth curvature from a wider position to the trailing edge of a pylon fairing reduces flow separation and thus reduces drag. Because the flow separation is reduced then a boundary layer is maintained. One of ordinary skill is further knowledgeable (see pertinent prior art of the nonfinal office action mailed 12/18/2025) that nacelle system surfaces have smooth curvature to avoid boundary layer separation that causes drag in order to maintain laminar boundary flow.
It is noted a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 2, Fujino in view of Guillois and Stretton teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Stretton further teaches (see fig. 9) the single vent 119 is configured to exhaust air from an aircraft system (cooled compressed air 27 is used for aircraft cabin ventilation system, see par. 26) heat exchanger 91.
Regarding claim 3, The combination of Fujino in view of Guillois and Stretton teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Reference(s) of the combination teach the aft-facing façade is adjacent to the trailing edge of the pylon (see Fujino annotated figure above), and a shape of the aft-facing façade comprises a continuous curvature (see Fujino annotated figure above) configured to smoothly connect with the trailing edge (see Fujino annotated figure above).
Regarding claim 4, The combination of Fujino in view of Guillois and Stretton teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Reference(s) of the combination teach the fairing has a first vertex (see Fujino annotated figures above), a second vertex (see Fujino annotated figures above), and a third vertex (see Fujino annotated figures above), wherein the first vertex and the second vertex provide a smooth connection (see Fujino annotated figures above; there are no nozzle flaps for example and thus there is a smooth transition from the two instant vertexes to the nacelle) to the engine nacelle 3 and the third vertex provides a smooth connection to the trailing edge of the pylon (see smooth curvature at third vertex extending downward to trailing edge; see Fujino annotated figures above).
Regarding claim 5, Fujino in view of Guillois and Stretton teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Fujino further discloses a first side (see annotated figures above) extending between the first vertex (see annotated figures above) and the second vertex (see annotated figures above), wherein the first side conforms to a curved profile (see annotated figures above) of the engine nacelle 3.
Regarding claim 7, Fujino in view of Guillois and Stretton teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Fujino discloses the pylon 2 is mounted on an aft portion of a fuselage (see par. 3, ll. 15-20; and annotated figure below) of an aircraft (see col. 2, ll. 66-67 fig.1). The pylon 2 is indirectly mounted to the aft portion of the fuselage (see annotated figure below) via the wing 1.
PNG
media_image13.png
331
596
media_image13.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (aft portion of fuselage)][AltContent: arrow]
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujino in view of Guillois and Stretton, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20110155847 A1 (Journade).
Regarding claim 6, Fujino in view of Guillois and Stretton teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Fujino does not disclose the fairing is fabricated from aluminum or a carbon composite.
Journade teaches (see fig. 1) a fairing 30,50,52 is fabricated from aluminum or a carbon composite (see par. 97).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Fujino in view of Guillois and Stretton with the fairing is fabricated from aluminum or a carbon composite as taught by Journade in order to facilitate reducing the fairing mass and its manufacturing cost (see Journade par. 97).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujino in view of Guillois and Stretton, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pub. No.: US 2011/0120075 A1 (Diaz).
Regarding claim 9, Fujino in view of Guillois and Stretton teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Fujino does not explicitly disclose the single vent is disposed substantially in a center of the aft-facing façade.
Diaz teaches (see fig. 3) a nacelle 10 and fairing 70 and further teaches a single vent 48 is disposed substantially in a center (see fig. 3) of the aft-facing façade 70. It is further noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 at 1395 (U.S. 2007) (MPEP 2143 I.B.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to substitute the mounting location of the vent of Diaz for the mounting location of the vent of Fujino in view of Guillois and Stretton for the purpose of substituting one known element for another in order to provide the expected result of providing a location to mount a vent in order to exhaust thermal air and order to prevent excessive heat build-up in a sensible manner (see Diaz par. 7-8).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujino in view of Guillois and Stretton, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DE 102009053002 A1 (Clemen).
The combination of Fujino in view of Guillois and Stretton teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. The combination teaches the vent configured to fit a shape of the facing façade (the vent 119 taught by Stretton in the claim 1 analysis above is configured to fit a shape of the aft-facing façade of Stretton, see annotated figure above). Fujino does not disclose the vent comprises a substantially trapezoidal geometry.
Clemen teaches (see fig. 1) a nacelle 2 and fairing 3 and further teaches a corresponding vent 1 comprises a substantially trapezoidal geometry (see fig. 1 and 7th par. of the Description). It is further noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 at 1395 (U.S. 2007).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to substitute the shape of the vent of Clemen for the shape of the vent of Fujino in view of Guillois and Stretton for the purpose of substituting one known element for another in order to the predictable result of exhausting air from vent of the combination. It is further noted that changes of shape of a base shape are obvious variances absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed structure was significant (MPEP 2144.04 IV. B.).
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9505484 B1 (Al-Sabah) in view of Stretton.
Al-Sabah discloses (see fig. 5) a low drag nacelle and pylon fairing system for an aircraft 100 comprising: a fairing (see annotated figure below; also see discussion of structure 62 being a “fairing” in col. 7, ll. 1-5) having an aft-facing façade (see annotated figure below) which is substantially perpendicular (one of ordinary skill in the art when viewing fig. 5 would understand this limitation to be met) to a flow of exhaust air (one of ordinary skill understands that a flow of exhaust air exits from the engine within nacelle at location “60” at the aft portion of the nacelle; see shaded arrow in annotated figure below) from an aircraft engine (see “turbojet engine” at col. 4, ll. 25-30 regarding the engine within nacelle at “60”), wherein the fairing is configured to aerodynamically couple an engine nacelle (see annotated figure below) comprising the aircraft engine to a trailing edge (see annotated figure below) of a pylon (see annotated figure below; this structure is used to mount the engine to the aircraft, see fig. 10; i.e. engine module 26 shown in fig. 5 includes engine mount 70a, see col. 8, ll. 20-25); a space aft of the fairing (space just below shaded arrow in annotated figure below, such space just downstream or aft of the instant façade); and a the geometry of the fairing (see geometry of fairing in annotated figures below); and configuring a curvature of the fairing to be smooth and continuous (see annotated figures below); and a surface (see annotated figure below; this is similar to applicant fig. 5A wherein because there is no vent at this instant surface then lessens flow separation discussed at applicant par. 31) of the fairing.
Al-Sabah does not disclose and a single vent disposed in the aft-facing façade, wherein the single vent is configured to exhaust air and wherein the single vent's exhaust air is directionally parallel with the flow of exhaust air from the engine.
Stretton teaches a nacelle 42 (see fig. 9 and fig. 2a showing reference character 42) teaches (see figs. 9 and 10) a single vent 119 (venting exhaust 93a from bypass duct 32, see fig. 3, of turbofan engine 100, i.e., engine with fan 94 and corresponding bypass duct 32) disposed in a facing façade (see annotated figure above), wherein the vent 119 is configured to exhaust air 93a into a space aft (aft wards), wherein the exhaust 93a is directionally parallel with a flow of exhaust air from an engine 100 (vent 119 directs the exhaust 93a via a “hinged door or flap”, see par. 53, middle; such hinged door 122 is shown in fig. 10 wherein the door 122 opens towards the engine exhaust 124; fig. 10 shows exhaust 124 is fan exhaust in the bypass duct 32 shown in fig. 3, however this is applicable to exhaust from the core in fig. 9 by way of cited par. 53). It is further noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 at 1395 (U.S. 2007) (MPEP 2143 I.B.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to substitute the turbofan engine of Stretton for the turbojet engine of Al-Sabah (Al-Sabah is silent whether the turbojet engine is a turbofan engine or a non-fan turbojet engine) of for the purpose of substituting one known element for another in order to provide the expected result of providing propulsive thrust for an aircraft of Al-Sabah in view of Stretton.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Al-Sabah in view of Stretton with a single vent disposed in the aft-facing façade, wherein the vent is configured to exhaust air into the space aft of the fairing, wherein the exhaust is directionally parallel with exhaust flow from the engine as taught by Stretton in order to facilitate providing cooled compressed air for cabin cooling (see par. 2, top) and for improved thrust recovery (see par. 53). This results in the flap 122 being located at the aft-facing façade of Al-Sabah in view of Stretton (see annotated figure of Al-Sabah below) extending from the aft facing façade of Al-Sabah in view of Stretton. For example, vent 119 taught by Stretton is disposed in the facing façade just aft of the exhaust outlet (see annotated figure 9 of Stretton above). Likewise the single vent of Al-Sabah in view of Stretton would be disposed in the aft-facing façade just below the flow of exhaust air from the engine of Al-Sabah in view of Stretton providing thrust by way of combined fan and core exhaust of a long duct turbofan. One of ordinary skill in the art is familiar with such a configuration (see Pertinent Prior Art section of the nonfinal office action mailed 12/18/2025 regarding short and long duct turbofan engines).
The phrase “wherein the single vent is configured to exhaust air into a space aft of the fairing, wherein the single vent’s exhaust air is directionally parallel with flow of exhaust air from the aircraft engine; and wherein the geometry of the fairing is configured to substantively improve: an effectiveness of the single vent, where the effectiveness of the single vent is improved by an induced airflow caused by the single vent's proximity to the flow of exhaust air from the aircraft engine; and an aerodynamic efficiency of the aircraft, where the aerodynamic efficiency of the aircraft is increased by: configuring the exhaust air from the single vent to add airflow behind the façade which is substantially parallel to the flow of exhaust air from the engine; and configuring a curvature of the fairing to be smooth and continuous such that aerodynamic drag is reduced by maintaining a boundary layer of airflow attached to a surface of the fairing” is intended use and the combination of Al-Sabah in view of Stretton is capable of performing the intended use as described below.
The vent (see location of vent at 119 in Stretton fig. 9, the location being at the exhaust of engine 101) of the combination is located proximate the engine exhaust of the engine of Al-Sabah (see annotated figs. below). The engine exhaust creates an ejector effect drawing or inducing flow from the vent of Al-Sabah in view of Stretton. Therefore the engine exhaust flow of the combination would induce flow from the vent of the combination thereby improving the effectiveness of the vent. This is a meaningful improvement. The ejector effect helps exhaust heated fluids 23a from the vent thereby preventing the fluids from accumulating in the engine after going through the heat exchanger 21 in fig. 9 of Stretton (see par. 2, bottom), thus making the vent more efficient. A more efficient vent also can reduce the need for a larger size vent which can decrease aerodynamic efficiency (see Stretton abstract).
The combination of Al-Sabah in view of Stretton teaches the geometry of the fairing is configured to substantively improve an aerodynamic efficiency of the aircraft, where the aerodynamic efficiency of the aircraft is increased by: configuring the air exhausted from the vent (see vent 119 in Stretton fig. 9) to add airflow (heated air 93a in Stretton fig. 9) behind the aft-facing façade (see Al-Sabah annotated figure below) which is substantially parallel to the engine's exhaust flow (this was taught by Stretton in this claim analysis above); and configuring the curvature of the fairing to be smooth and continuous (see annotated figures below) such that aerodynamic drag is reduced by maintaining a boundary layer of airflow attached to a surface of the fairing. One of ordinary skill is knowledgeable that (this is discussed in the pertinent prior art of the nonfinal office action mailed 12/18/2025) smooth curvature from a wider position to the trailing edge of a pylon fairing reduces flow separation and thus reduces drag. Because the flow separation is reduced then a boundary layer is maintained. One of ordinary skill is further knowledgeable (see pertinent prior art of the nonfinal office action mailed 12/18/2025) that nacelle system surfaces have smooth curvature to avoid boundary layer separation that causes drag in order to maintain laminar boundary flow.
It is noted a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
PNG
media_image15.png
200
289
media_image15.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (aft-facing facade)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (pylon)][AltContent: textbox (nacelle)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (fairing)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (trailing edge of pylon)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image16.png
43
140
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image19.png
334
510
media_image19.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (smooth and continuous curvature of fairing)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (example surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (first and second vertexes)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (third vertex)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (first side)][AltContent: arrow]
Regarding claim 2, Al-Sabah in view of Stretton teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Stretton further teaches (see fig. 9) the single vent 119 is configured to exhaust air from an aircraft system (cooled compressed air 27 is used for aircraft cabin ventilation system, see par. 26) heat exchanger 91.
Regarding claim 3, The combination of Al-Sabah in view of Stretton teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Reference(s) of the combination teach the aft-facing façade is adjacent to the trailing edge of the pylon (see Al-Sabah annotated figure above in particular the most aft smooth curvature), and a shape of the aft-facing façade comprises a continuous curvature (see Al-Sabah annotated figure above) configured to smoothly connect with the trailing edge (see Al-Sabah annotated figure above).
Regarding claim 4, Al-Sabah in view of Stretton teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Al-Sabah further discloses wherein the fairing has a first vertex (see annotated figures above), a second vertex (see annotated figures above), and a third vertex, wherein the first vertex and the second vertex provide a smooth connection (see smooth curvature extending upward to the first and second vertexes) to the engine nacelle (see annotated figures above) and the third vertex provides a smooth connection (see annotated figure above) to the trailing edge of the pylon (see annotated figure above).
Regarding claim 5, Al-Sabah in view of Stretton teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Al-Sabah further discloses a first side (see annotated figures above) extending between the first vertex (see annotated figures above) and the second vertex (see annotated figures above), wherein the first side conforms to a curved profile (see annotated figures above) of the engine nacelle (see annotated figures above).
Regarding claim 7, Al-Sabah in view of Stretton teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Al-Sabah further discloses wherein the pylon (see annotated figure above) is mounted (see annotated figures above) on an aft portion (for example a front portion can be located at location “10” in fig. 5 and an aft portion can be at location “60”) of a fuselage 10 of the aircraft 100.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Sabah in view of Stretton, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Journade.
Regarding claim 6, Al-Sabah in view of Stretton teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Al-Sabah does not disclose the fairing is fabricated from aluminum or a carbon composite.
Journade teaches (see fig. 1) a fairing 30,50,52 is fabricated from aluminum or a carbon composite (see par. 97).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Al-Sabah in view of Stretton with the fairing is fabricated from aluminum or a carbon composite as taught by Journade in order to facilitate reducing the fairing mass and its manufacturing cost (see Journade par. 97).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Sabah in view of Stretton, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Diaz.
Regarding claim 9, Al-Sabah in view of Stretton teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Al-Sabah does not explicitly disclose the single vent is disposed substantially in a center of the aft-facing façade.
Diaz teaches (see fig. 3) a nacelle 10 and fairing 70 and further teaches a single vent 48 is disposed substantially in a center (see fig. 3) of the aft-facing façade 70. It is further noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 at 1395 (U.S. 2007) (MPEP 2143 I.B.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to substitute the mounting location of the vent of Diaz for the mounting location of the vent of Al-Sabah in view of Stretton for the purpose of substituting one known element for another in order to provide the expected result of providing a location to mount a vent in order to exhaust thermal air and order to prevent excessive heat build-up in a sensible manner (see Diaz par. 7-8).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Sabah in view of Stretton, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DE 102009053002 A1 (Clemen).
The combination of Al-Sabah in view of Stretton teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. The combination teaches the vent configured to fit a shape of the aft-facing façade (the vent 119 taught by Stretton in the claim 1 analysis above is configured to fit a shape of the facing façade of Stretton, see annotated figure above). Al-Sabah does not disclose the vent comprises a substantially trapezoidal geometry.
Clemen teaches (see fig. 1) a nacelle 2 and fairing 3 and further teaches a corresponding vent 1 comprises a substantially trapezoidal geometry (see fig. 1 and 7th par. of the Description). It is further noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 at 1395 (U.S. 2007).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to substitute the shape of the vent of Clemen for the shape of the vent of Al-Sabah for the purpose of substituting one known element for another in order to the predictable result of exhausting air from vent of the combination. It is further noted that changes of shape of a base shape are obvious variances absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed structure was significant (MPEP 2144.04 IV. B.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
112(a):
Regarding 112(a) applicant argues that the rejection is improper because applicant par. 23 states that applicant invention results in reductio in drag and therefore there is an improvement or an increase in aerodynamic efficiency. In response applicant disclosure does not discuss aerodynamic efficiency. Such efficiency involves many factors regarding pylons such as both lift and drag. There is no disclosure in applicant disclosure of an improvement to the overall aerodynamic efficiency. For example applicant has changed the shape of the pylon and fairing and replaced the “ninety-degree” angle prior art feature (see applicant par. 24) with a wider fillet feature (see annotated figure below). While applicant appears to argue the fillet feature along with the single vent reduces drag there is no evidence that this change improves overall aerodynamic efficiency. Diaz (Pub. No. US 20220307417) explains in par. 12 that decreasing the width of a strut (such as strut 4 in fig. 5) of a gas turbine engine can increase aerodynamic efficiency. Applicant appears to have increased the width of the pylon strut that points to a decrease in aerodynamic efficiency.
PNG
media_image21.png
502
608
media_image21.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (applicant fillet)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (prior art “ninety-degree”)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
In addition there is a difference between improving and increasing. The claim explains how to increase an aerodynamic efficiency but there is no discussion in applicant disclosure regarding ways of improvement that are not a numerical increase.
The aerodynamic efficiency of an aircraft is not determined solely by a drag reduction of an engine mounting fairing. One metric of “aerodynamic efficiency” is the lift to drag ratio (L/D) of the aircraft (see NPL NASA, page 2, top). The mounting of an engine to an aircraft affects the L/D as discussed in Butler (Pub. No. 20080149760) par. 7 and 36. For example Butler states that a fairing of Butler’s pylon 114 “neither adds to the drag nor detracts from the lift of the inventive aircraft 100”. Thus regarding pylon fairings in order to increase aircraft aerodynamic efficiency both lift and drag should be considered. Applicant’s disclosure is silent regarding both “lift” and “aerodynamic efficiency”. Further Applicant’s instant recitation in claim 1 makes a jump from “reduces the drag between the nacelle and pylon” (applicant par. 23) to improving aircraft aerodynamic efficiency (claim 1) without corresponding support.
Applicant argues that applicant response of 10/14/2025 does not undermine applicant argument against new matter rejection. In response, it was stated in the final office action mailed 07/14/2025 (as shown within the bold brackets below):
[The combination (US Patent 6,126,118 (Fujino) in view of Pub. No.: US 2019/0061966 A1 (West), Pub. No.: US 2007/0245739 A1 (Stretton) and Pub. No.: US 2011/0120075 A1 (Diaz), as evidenced by US Patent 4825644 (Bubello), Pub. No.: US 2016/0272335 A1 (Chen) and US Patent 4,799,633 (Lahti)) teaches the geometry of the fairing is configured to substantively improve an aerodynamic efficiency of the aircraft, where the aerodynamic efficiency of the aircraft is increased by: configuring the air exhausted from the vent (see vent 48 in Diaz fig. 3) to add airflow (heated air 23a in Stretton fig. 2A) behind the facade (see West annotated figure below) which is substantially parallel to the engine's exhaust flow (see fig. 3; Stretton teaches the general concept of venting directionally parallel to engine exhaust; one of ordinary skill would understand the arrows 101 and 23a to be directionally parallel to the engine exhaust just radially inward from the arrows); and configuring the curvature of the fairing to be smooth and continuous (see annotated figure below) such that aerodynamic drag is reduced by maintaining a boundary layer of airflow attached to a surface of the fairing. Chen points out in pars. 14 and 29 and that smooth curvature from a wider position to the trailing edge of a pylon fairing 20 reduces flow separation and thus reduces drag. Because the flow separation is reduced then a boundary layer is maintained. Lahti discusses that in order to maintain laminar boundary flow, nacelle 52 system surfaces should have smooth curvature to avoid boundary layer separation that causes drag (see abstract, col. 7, ll. 15-20 and col. 9, ll. 10-15).
PNG
media_image23.png
377
636
media_image23.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (aft facing facade)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (trailing edge of pylon)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (pylon)][AltContent: textbox (engine nacelle 200)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image25.png
253
279
media_image25.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (smooth and continuous curvature connects smoothly with trailing edge)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (smooth and continuous curvature)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (trailing edge)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (third vertex)][AltContent: arrow]
]
Thus it was explained that the prior art is capable of performing the instant intended use claim limitations. In the applicant 10/14 response applicant argued this was not persuasive because the cited prior art and evidentiary references in the office action do not explain "an aerodynamic efficiency of the aircraft, where the aerodynamic efficiency of the aircraft is increased by: configuring the air exhausted from the vent to add airflow behind the facade which is substantially parallel to the engine 's exhaust flow...". Further applicant argues on page 7 “None of the references cited actually teach or suggest that the design of a single vent exhaust is configured to improve the efficiency of the total aircraft as is done by the instant invention”. Thus applicant is arguing the prior art does not teach aerodynamic efficiencies even though the prior art is capable of performing claim 1’s recipe for such efficiency. This appears to undermine applicant argument that claim 1 is fully supported under 112(a).
112(b)
Applicant discusses Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901. It is first noted that Nautilus pertains to the scenario of an infringement after a patent has been granted. Patented claims are not given the broadest reasonable interpretation during court proceedings involving infringement and validity, and can be interpreted based on a fully developed prosecution record. In contrast, an examiner must construe claim terms in the broadest reasonable manner during prosecution as is reasonably allowed in an effort to establish a clear record of what applicant intends to claim. Thus, the Office does not interpret claims when examining patent applications in the same manner as the courts. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (MPEP 2111).
However the general principles discussed in Nautilus appear to favor indefiniteness regarding the instant 112(b) rejections. Nautilus states “The standard we adopt accords with opinions of this Court stating that "the certainty which the law requires in patents is not greater than is reasonable, having regard to their subject-matter." Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261,270 (1916). See also United Carbon, 317 U.S., at 236 ("claims must be reasonably clear-cut"); Markman, 517 U. S., at 389 (claim construction calls for "the necessarily sophisticated analysis of the
whole document,". The Court further pointed out “a patent must be precise enough to afford clear notice of what is claimed, thereby" 'appris[ing] the public of what is still open to them.' " Markman, 517 U.S., at 373 (quoting McClain v.Ortmayer, 141 U.S. 419,424 (1891)). Thus claims should be reasonably clear cut when considering applicant whole disclosure such that clear notice is provided to the public regarding how to avoid infringing patented claims.
“substantively improve”
Applicant argues against the rejection regarding “substantively improve”. When a term of degree is used in the claim, the examiner should determine whether the specification provides some standard for measuring that degree. Hearing Components, Inc. v. Shure Inc., 600 F.3d 1357, 1367, 94 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Enzo Biochem, Inc., v. Applera Corp., 599 F.3d 1325, 1332, 94 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Seattle Box Co., Inc. v. Indus. Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 574 (Fed. Cir. 1984). If the specification does not provide some standard for measuring that degree, a determination must be made as to whether one of ordinary skill in the art could nevertheless ascertain the scope of the claim (e.g., a standard that is recognized in the art for measuring the meaning of the term of degree). For example, in Ex parte Oetiker, 23 USPQ2d 1641 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992), the phrase “substantial portion" was held to be indefinite because the specification lacked some standard for measuring the degree intended.
Applicant argues that an improvement that meets the claim is “meaningful” and an improvement that does not meet the claim is “minor”. There is no standard in applicant disclosure as to how to determine meaningful or minor. The term “meaningful” is relative terminology (i.e. is a subjective term under MPEP 2173.05(b) IV.) and appears to be additionally indefinite. “Minor” is a term of degree (MPEP 2173.05(b)I.) for which no standard is provided in applicant disclosure. Thus one of ordinary skill after reading Nautilus could look to applicant disclosure to determine the scope of substantively improve and would not be provided clarification and there would not be clear notice of how the claim is infringed.
Applicant argues examiner has not met the burden regarding 112(b). In response the burden on the examiner as pointed out above is to (1) determine whether the specification provides some standard for measuring a term degree and if there is no such standard then (2) a determination must be made as to whether one of ordinary skill in the art could nevertheless ascertain the scope of the claim (e.g., a standard that is recognized in the art for measuring the meaning of the term of degree). In this instant scenario (1) applicant disclosure is silent the use of the term “substantively” and no recognized standard was found for “substantively improve” in the gas turbine engine arts and related pylon mounting arts. Regarding a standard applicant has only provided attorney opinion. Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.") (MPEP 2145 I.).
“an effectiveness of the vent, where the effectiveness of the vent is improved by an induced airflow caused by the vent's proximity to the exhaust flow from the engine”
The above phrase is coupled to “substantively improve” and is not read in a vacuum. This would be confusing regarding trying to understand how not to infringe claim 1. It is not clear how does one of ordinary skill would determine the difference between an improvement in effectiveness and a substantial improvement in effectiveness and how “proximate” must the vent to achieve either an improvement or substantial improvement.
“substantially parallel”
Applicant argues that a POSITA would know a standard upon which to measure the scope of substantially parallel because divergences from parallel are due to manufacturing imperfections. In response there is no discussion in applicant disclosure regarding manufacturing tolerances and as such the term substantially may not refer to assembly tolerances. Thus when following Nautilus and looking to applicant disclosure for guidance the public would not be informed regarding infringement. In addition there was no requirement of mathematical precision in the office action as alleged by applicant.
Regarding further explanation Pub. No. 20210247739 relating to aircraft in par. 25 for example states in par. 29 that” “the [claim 1] phrase ‘substantially parallel’ can mean within 10 degrees of parallel, not accounting for any tolerances within the system.” Further US 20250313283 A1 relating to fairings in abstract states regarding claim 9 “the first elongated panel and the second elongated panel each being within +/−10 degrees of parallel alignment” (see par. 130). Thus it is thought that there is not an ordinary and customary standard for substantially parallel regarding manufacturing and thus the rejection has been maintained.
“substantially in a center”
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill when looking to applicant disclosure for a standard regarding “substantially” would be apprised that the term refers to minute changes that are not consequential. However, there is no discussion that substantially refers to performance. For example one of ordinary skill when reading US 20140326831 would understand what is meant by the claim 6 “substantially on the center line of the main wing” as discussed in par. 80: “For instance, the portion may be on the centerline 852C or a deviation from on the centerline 852C that does not cause the kite 850 to operate in a significantly different manner from when the portion is on the centerline 852C”. There is no similar statement in applicant disclosure that informs the public what applicant intended to communicate by substantially in the center.
“substantially trapezoidal geometry”
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill would understand the scope of the substantial trapezoid. However the claim does not recite a trapezoid. For example, substantially trapezoidal could (1) communicate the two parallel sides of a trapezoid may diverge from being parallel by various amounts or (2) a shape having three or five sides rather than the four sides of a trapezoid. Thus a term recited with some uncertainty is modified with a term degree and this results in a precision less than that required for 35 USC 112(b).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
aft facing facades: US 3212733 20170088276 20190112060 20230264801 8628040 11111029.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC J AMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-9948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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.
/MARC AMAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3741 /DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights