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 07/28/2026 amending Claims 1, 15, 20, 24, and 25 and canceling Claims 23 and 27. Claims 1, 5 – 6,11 – 16, 18, 20 – 22, 24 – 26, and 28 are examined.
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, 5 – 6,11 – 16, 18, 20 – 22, 24 – 26, and 28 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 “high thermal conductivity material” in Claim 1, l. 21 and Claim 20, l. 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high thermal conductivity material” 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. Original Specification Para. [0046] discloses “OGVs (outlet guide vanes) are typically composite - which have poor thermal conductivity, but a ribbon of high thermal conductivity material might be laid into the suction side or a thin layer could be bonded to it.” The relative term “high thermal conductivity material” only appears a single time in the eleven page original Specification, i.e., in Para. [0046]. The original disclosure failed to describe a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of thermal conductivity encompassed by the relative term “high thermal conductivity”. The relative term “high thermal conductivity material” renders the claim limitation “ribbon of high thermal conductivity material” indefinite. Claims 5 – 6, 11 – 14, 21, 22, and 24 depend from Claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons. Claim 25 depends from Claim 20 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 1, 5 – 6,11 – 14, 21, 22, and 24 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. Claim 1, ll. 20 – 21 recites “…the outlet guide vane is comprised of composite material and a ribbon of high thermal conductivity material,”. Claim 1, ll. 22 – 23 recites “the heat sink is integrated into the outlet guide vanes so that heat discharged from the thermoelectric cooler is passed to the flow of air moving from the turbofan to the bypass duct”. It is unclear if the “heat sink” and the “ribbon of high thermal conductivity material” are two different structures or just different names for the same structure. MPEP 608.01(o) states "The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted”. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention. Claims 5 – 6, 11 – 14, 21, 22, and 24 depend from Claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 20 and 25 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. Claim 20, l. 7 recites “heat sink integrated into aero surfaces of components included in a gas turbine engine”. Claim 20, ll. 12 – 13 recites “…the outlet guide vane is comprised of composite material and a ribbon of high thermal conductivity material,”. It is unclear if the “heat sink” and the “ribbon of high thermal conductivity material” are two different structures or just different names for the same structure. MPEP 608.01(o) states "The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted”. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention. Claim 25 depends from Claim 20 and is rejected for the same reasons.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the following limitations in the following claims:
Claim 15, l. 13 recites the limitation "the fan case".
Claim 20, l. 17 recites the limitation "the fan case".
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, 5, 6, 11 – 14, 21, 22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brantley (5,319,922) in view of Kweder et al. (8,734,925) in view of Niergarth et al. (11,022,037) in view of Moore et al. (2020/0180771A1) in view of Akin (10,472,986), as evidenced by Sakala et al. (10,815,804), in view of Hansen (5,158,661) in view of Kendrick et al (5,042,257) in view of Faneuf et al. (10,945,353) in view of Ketola et al. (12,545,442).
Regarding Claim 1, [Refer to the 112(b) rejections above.] Brantley teaches, in Figs. 1 - 3, the invention as claimed, a turbine-powered system (4 - aircraft turbofan – Col. 4, ll. 1 - 10), the system comprising a gas turbine engine (4) configured to accelerate air (46, 50) along an engine axis (5), powered electronics (13 – FADEC – Col. 4, ll. 55 - 60) mounted adjacent (best seen in Figs. 1 and 2) to the gas turbine engine (4) and [Examiner notes that the phrase “configured to generate heat during use” is a statement of intended use and the structure of the device as taught by Brantley can perform the function because, when operating, electronics like the FADEC turn a portion of the consumed electricity into waste heat.] configured to generate heat during use,
wherein the gas turbine engine is a turbofan engine (4) including an engine core (22), a bypass duct (labeled) arranged around the engine core, and a turbofan (labeled) configured to accelerate air moving both into the engine core (46 – core air, Col. 5, ll. 15 - 20) and through the bypass duct (50 – bypass air, Col. 5, ll. 15 - 20),
wherein the turbofan (labeled) includes a fan case (48), a fan rotor (labeled) with blades (labeled) for accelerating the air, and a fan discharge splitter (labeled),
wherein the fan discharge splitter includes an annular split ring that [designed and intended function] separates air moving from the turbofan (labeled) to the engine core (46 – core air) from air moving from the turbofan to the bypass duct (50 – bypass air), a number of core inlet vanes (labeled) that extend radially-inward from the annular split ring to interact with and [designed and intended function] smooth the flow of air moving from the turbofan to the engine core (22), and outlet guide vanes (labeled ‘fan outlet guide vanes’) that extend radially-outward from the annular split ring to interact with and [designed and intended function] smooth the flow of air (50) moving from the turbofan to the bypass duct,
wherein the powered electronics (13) are located radially outward of the fan discharge splitter (labeled).
PNG
media_image1.png
486
563
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Brantley is silent on wherein the outlet guide vane is comprised of composite material and a ribbon of high thermal conductivity material.
Kweder teaches, in Figs. 1 – 8, a similar turbofan gas turbine engine (10 – Col. 4, ll. 15 - 20) including a plurality of outlet guide vanes (16) that were comprised of composite material (Col. 4, ll. 45 - 50) and a ribbon (64 – Fig. 6) of high thermal conductivity material (Col. 4, ll. 45 – 50 and Col. 8, ll. 60 – 65, Examiner takes Official Notice that it was a well known scientific fact that metals and metal alloys had high thermal conductivity relative to standard composite materials which were known to have low thermal conductivity. Applicant’s original Specification disclosed, in Para. [0046] “OGVs (outlet guide vanes) are typically composite - which have poor thermal conductivity, but a ribbon of high thermal conductivity material might be laid into the suction side or a thin layer could be bonded to it. The front frame intermediate case may be magnesium, titanium, or aluminum - with aluminum providing good conductivity.” Magnesium, Titanium, or Aluminum were all metals used in conventional turbofan gas turbine engines.)
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Brantley with the outlet guide vane is comprised of composite material and a ribbon of high thermal conductivity material, taught by Kweder, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the turbofan gas turbine engine including an engine core, a bypass duct arranged around the engine core, and a turbofan configured to accelerate air moving both into the engine core and through the bypass duct, a fan case, a fan rotor with blades for accelerating the air, and a fan discharge splitter, wherein the fan discharge splitter includes an annular split ring that separates air moving from the turbofan to the engine core from air moving from the turbofan to the bypass duct, a number of core inlet vanes that extend radially-inward from the annular split ring, and outlet guide vanes that extend radially-outward from the annular split ring, and outlet guide vanes comprising a composite material and a ribbon of high thermal conductivity material, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the outlet guide vane comprised of composite material and a ribbon of high thermal conductivity material, taught by Kweder, for the non-disclosed material composition of the outlet guide vane of Brantley, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the outlet guide vane comprised of composite material and a ribbon of high thermal conductivity material would have facilitated a lighter, i.e., reduced weight, outlet guide vane compared to all metal outlet guide vanes which were relatively heavy, Kweder - Col. 1, ll. 45 - 50. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Brantley, i.v., Kweder, teaches a turbine-powered system, i.e., base system, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. Brantley, i.v., Kweder, is silent on a heat sink mounted in said flow path of said air accelerated by said gas turbine engine, wherein the heat sink is integrated into the outlet guide vanes so that heat discharged from a cooling system is passed to the flow of air moving from the turbofan to the bypass duct, and wherein the heat sink extends radially through an outlet guide vane of the outlet guide vanes.
Niergarth teaches, in Figs. 1 – 5 and Col. 9, l. 60 to Col. 10, l. 5, a similar gas turbine engine (10) configured to accelerate air (64, 62) along an engine axis (12) wherein a heat sink (108) was mounted in (52 - fan outlet guide vanes) said flow path of said air (62) accelerated by said gas turbine engine. Niergarth further teaches, in Fig. 3, Col. 2, ll. 25 – 35, Col. 9, ll. 45 – 60, a heat sink (106) is integrated into aero surfaces (130) of components included in the gas turbine engine (10) that interface with the flow path of the air (64) accelerated by the gas turbine engine (10) and wherein the heat sink (106) extends radially through an outlet guide vane (52 – Figs. 2 and 5) of the outlet guide vanes (52). Moore teaches, in Fig. 4 and Para. [0069], a similar cooling system configured to selectively carry heat away from a powered electronics (112 – electric motor) to air moving through the flowpath (124) via a heat sink (148) integrated in fan outlet guide vanes (130) upon energizing of the cooling system and wherein the heat sink (148) extends radially through an outlet guide vane (130) of the outlet guide vanes (130).
Thus, improving a particular system (turbine-powered system), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Niergarth and Moore, 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 turbine-powered system, of Brantley, i.v., Kweder, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that integrating a heat sink into aero surfaces of the fan outlet guide vanes so that the heat sink extends radially through the outlet guide vane, of Brantley, i.v., Kweder, would have facilitated cooling said heat sink by directly exposing said heat sink to the lower temperature air flow accelerated by said turbofan through the bypass duct of said gas turbine engine. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Brantley, i.v., Kweder, Niergarth, and Moore, as discussed above, is silent on a thermoelectric cooler configured to selectively carry heat away from said powered electronics to said air moving through said gas turbine engine upon energizing of the thermoelectric cooler, the thermoelectric cooler including a cooling plate coupled to the powered electronics, a heat sink, and alternating P- and N-type semiconductor pillars extending between the cooling plate and the heat sink, wherein the thermoelectric cooler was the cooling system that discharged heat to said heat sink.
Akin teaches, in Figs. 1 and 2, Col. 3, ll. 20 – 50, and Col. 4, ll. 5 – 30, a similar a turbine-powered system having a cooling system being a thermoelectric cooler (200) configured to selectively carry heat away from a heat source (206) to a heat sink (208) upon energizing of the thermoelectric cooler (200), the thermoelectric cooler (200) including a cooling plate (202) coupled to any heat source (206), the heat sink (208, Col. 4, ll. 25 – 36 teaches the heat sink could be any “cool” surface.), and alternating P-type (210b, 210d, 210f, 210h) and N-type (210a, 210c, 210e, 210g, 210i) semiconductor pillars extending between the cooling plate (202) and the heat sink (208). Akin teaches, in Col. 6, ll. 39 – 55, that the thermoelectric cooler (200 – Fig. 2) could be located between any two locations of a gas turbine engine where a temperature gradient existed, e.g., a first high temperature location and a second lower temperature location.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Brantley, i.v., Kweder, Niergarth, and Moore, with the thermoelectric cooler including a cooling plate coupled to a heat source, a heat sink, and alternating P- and N-type semiconductor pillars extending between the cooling plate and the heat sink, taught by Akin, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the gas turbine engine having powered electronics, the heat sink integrated into aero surfaces of gas turbine engine components (fan outlet guide vanes) that interface with the flow path of the air accelerated by the gas turbine engine, and the thermoelectric cooler including a cooling plate coupled to a heat source, a heat sink, and alternating P- and N-type semiconductor pillars extending between the cooling plate and the heat sink, 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 the thermoelectric cooler between the powered electronics (heat source) and the heat sink would have facilitated selectively carrying heat away from said powered electronics and into the heat sink integrated in fan outlet guide vanes when the thermoelectric cooler was energizing thereby dumping the carried heat to the flow of air moving from the turbofan, around the fan outlet guide vanes, and through the bypass duct, Moore – Paras. [0069] and [0077]. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Brantley, i.v., Kweder, Niergarth, Moore, and Akin, as discussed above, is silent on the powered electronics being axially aligned with the fan discharge splitter.
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 Brantley, i.v., Kweder, Niergarth, Moore, and Akin, to have said powered electronics being axially aligned with the fan discharge splitter because Applicant has not disclosed that “said powered electronics being axially aligned with the fan discharge splitter” provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. In fact, Para. [0009] of Applicant’s Specification disclosed “The power electronics may be located radially outward of and axially aligned with the fan discharge splitter.” In fact, Para. [0011] of Applicant’s Specification disclosed “The power electronics may be located radially outward of and axially align with the fan case”. Applicant’s different axial alignments are indicative of the fact that the claimed axial alignments are indeed a “Design Choice”, as all options perform equally well as Brantley’s powered electronics axial alignment, and none of the options exhibits an advantage over the others and over Brantley’s powered electronics axial alignment. One of ordinary skill furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the axial alignment location of Brantley, i.v., Kweder, Niergarth, Moore, and Akin, because Applicant disclosed that the powered electronics may be located radially outward of and axially align with the fan case (spans the axial distance between the fan case inlet end to the fan case outlet end).
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Brantley, i.v., Kweder, Niergarth, Moore, and Akin, to obtain the invention as specified in Claim 1.
Brantley, i.v., Kweder, Niergarth, Moore, and Akin, as discussed above, is silent on the heat sink extends radially out of the outlet guide vane such that a first end of the heat sink is in thermal communication with the thermoelectric cooler, wherein the heat sink extends radially through the fan case such that the first end of the heat sink is arranged radially outward of the fan case.
Brantley further teaches, in Figs. 1 and 2, the powered electronics (13 – FADEC – Col. 4, ll. 55 - 60) mounted radially outward of the fan case (48). As evidenced by Sakala, in Figs. 1 – 7, Col. 5, ll. 55 – 67, and Col. 6, ll. 1 – 15, an annular fan case (102) had a through-hole opening (110) axially aligned with outlet guide vane (33) where a plurality of fasteners (37) coupled the outlet guide vane (33) and engine mounting structure (35) to a structural attachment member (104). As evidenced by Sakala, radial through-hole openings in an annular fan case of a turbofan gas turbine engine (10 – Fig. 1) were known in the art.
Hansen teaches, in Figs. 1 – 7 and Col. 6, l. 50 to Col. 7, l. 15, a similar thermoelectric cooler (74 – four shown in Fig. 4) having a “plate-fin” type of heat sink (82, 78) where the first end (82) of the heat sink (82, 78) was in thermal communication with the thermoelectric cooler (74) and the “fin” part (78) of the heat sink (82, 78) are attached to the “plate” part (82) of the heat sink (82, 78) and extends radially away from said first end (82). Hansen teaches, in Col. 6, l. 65 to Col. 7, l. 15 and Col. 7, ll. 25 - 35, that the plurality of fins (78) provided high surface area to dissipate heat to the environment via a fan (96) that blew air through gaps (80) between the plurality of fins (78). Hansen teaches, in Col. 7, l. 1 – 15, that the heat sink (82, 78) abuts the thermoelectric coolers (74) which were snugly sandwiched between the aluminum block (82) of the heat sink (82, 78) and the aluminum block (68 – equivalent to the cooling plate) of the heat source. Hansen teaches, in Figs. 4 and 5, that the heat sink (82, 78) abutted the thermoelectric coolers (74) through an opening in a wall (44 - Col. 5, l. 30 – 35). Kendrick teaches, in Figs. 1 and 2 and Col. 1, ll. 35 – 40, a similar “plate-fin” type of heat sink that must be attached to the hot side of a thermoelectric cooler (TEC) to dissipate heat from the TEC to the surrounding environment because without said “plate-fin” type of heat sink, the TEC would overheat and fail within seconds.
Thus, improving a particular system (turbine-powered system), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Hansen and Kendrick, 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 turbine-powered system, of Brantley, i.v., Kweder, Niergarth, Moore, and Akin, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that extending the “fin” part of the heat sink radially out of the outlet guide vane such that a first end of the heat sink, i.e., the “plate” part of the heat sink, would have been in thermal communication with the thermoelectric cooler which was in thermal communication with the powered electronics (in this case, the FADEC of Brantley) located radially outward of the fan case, of Brantley, i.v., Kweder, Niergarth, Moore, and Akin, would have facilitated cooling the hot side (in thermal contact with the FADEC) of said thermoelectric cooler by conducting the heat to the first end of the heat sink which conducts said heat to the “fin” part of the heat sink that was integrated into the outlet guide vanes so that the conducted heat discharged from the thermoelectric cooler would have been passed to the flow of air moving from the turbofan through the bypass duct via convection to prevent said thermoelectric cooler from overheating. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C). 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 Brantley, i.v., Kweder, Niergarth, Moore, Akin, Hansen, and Kendrick, as evidenced by Sakala, would have required the heat sink to extend radially through the fan case such that the first end of the heat sink, i.e., the “plate” part of the heat sink, would have been arranged radially outward of the fan case because the powered electronics (the FADEC of Brantley) was located radially outward of the fan case. Therefore, to conduct heat from the powered electronics that was located radially outward of the fan case to the heat sink portion integrated into the outlet guide vanes located radially inside the fan case it would have been obvious that a portion of the heat sink (the portion that extended radially out of the outlet guide vane) had to extend radially through the fan case such that the first end of the heat sink would have been arranged radially outward of the fan case where it would have been in thermal communication with the thermoelectric cooler (TEC) that would have been snugly sandwiched between the cooling plate and the first end of the heat sink.
Brantley, i.v., Kweder, Niergarth, Moore, Akin, Hansen, and Kendrick, as evidenced by Sakala, as discussed above, is silent on wherein a second end of the heat sink opposite the first end is located at a radially innermost side of the outlet guide vane such that the heat sink extends across a radial extent of the outlet guide vane.
Faneuf teaches, in Figs. 1 and 4 – 8 and Col. 7, ll. 20 – 30, a similar “plate-fin” type heat sink where a longer fin structure may allow for more heat transfer, thus a higher powered electronics, i.e., generated more heat, may be cooled in the same volume than air cooling otherwise may support. Ketola teaches, Figs. 6 – 8 and Col. 10, ll. 60 – 65, a similar “plate-fin” type heat sink where the longer the fin, the larger the heat transfer area and thus the higher the rate of heat transfer from the fin.
Therefore, the heat sink fin length, e.g., radial distance between the first end and the second end, is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that the greater the heat sink fin length the higher the rate of heat transfer. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the heat sink fin length, were disclosed in the prior art by Faneuf and Ketola, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the heat sink fin length integrated into the outlet guide vane taught by Brantley, i.v., Kweder, Niergarth, Moore, Akin, Hansen, and Kendrick, as evidenced by Sakala, to have the second end of the heat sink opposite the first end is located at a radially innermost side of the outlet guide vane such that the heat sink extends across a radial extent of the outlet guide vane to facilitate maximizing the heat transfer rate by maximizing the radial length of the heat sink fin. It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) the Supreme Court held that “a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent". It was held that "It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.", In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Re Claim 5, Brantley, i.v., Kweder, Niergarth, Moore, Akin, Hansen, Kendrick, Faneuf, and Ketola, as evidenced by Sakala, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, wherein the heat sink extends along and forms part of an aero surface of the outlet guide vane, refer to the Claim 1 rejection above.
Re Claim 6, Brantley, i.v., Kweder, Niergarth, Moore, Akin, Hansen, Kendrick, Faneuf, and Ketola, as evidenced by Sakala, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein the outlet guide vane is formed to include a recess along the suction side aero surface and the heat sink is arranged in the recess. Niergarth further teaches, in Fig. 3 (marked-up below), a vane (118) is formed to include a recess along the suction side aero surface (labeled) and the heat sink (106) is arranged in the recess (shown in Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
580
739
media_image2.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 the outlet guide vane of Brantley, i.v., Kweder, Niergarth, Moore, Akin, Hansen, Kendrick, Faneuf, and Ketola, as evidenced by Sakala, to have a recess formed along the suction side aero surface and the heat sink is arranged in the recess, further taught by Niergarth, to facilitate directly cooling said heat sink by directly exposing said heat sink to the lower temperature air accelerated by said gas turbine engine, Niergarth - Col. 2, ll. 25 – 35.
Re Claim 11, Brantley, i.v., Kweder, Niergarth, Moore, Akin, Hansen, Kendrick, Faneuf, and Ketola, as evidenced by Sakala, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the alternating P- and N-type semiconductor pillars are electrically coupled in series (Akin – Col. 3, ll. 45 - 50), and the system further comprises an electrical power source (304 - Akin – Fig. 3, Col. 4, ll. 10 - 45) and a controller (306) [Designed and intended function of thermoelectric cooler] configured to selectively energize the alternating P- and N-type semiconductor pillars to activate the thermoelectric cooler and transport heat from the cooling plate to the heat sink.
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 Brantley, i.v., Kweder, Niergarth, Moore, Akin, Hansen, Kendrick, Faneuf, and Ketola, as evidenced by Sakala, would have had an electrical power source and a controller because they were necessary for the thermoelectric cooler to perform its designed and intended function of transporting heat from the cooling plate to the heat sink.
Re Claim 12, Brantley, i.v., Kweder, Niergarth, Moore, Akin, Hansen, Kendrick, Faneuf, and Ketola, as evidenced by Sakala, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the electrical power source and the controller are configured to activate the thermoelectric cooler based at least in part on information received from a temperature sensor (Akin – Col. 6, ll. 10 - 25) indicative of a temperature being greater than a threshold high temperature.
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 Brantley, i.v., Kweder, Niergarth, Moore, Akin, Hansen, Kendrick, Faneuf, and Ketola, as evidenced by Sakala, would have had the electrical power source and the controller configured to activate the thermoelectric cooler based at least in part on information received from a temperature sensor indicative of powered electronics temperature being greater than a threshold high temperature because Akin teaches, in Col. 4, ll. 35 – 40, Col. 5, ll. 45 – 50, and Col. 6, ll. 1 – 25, analyzing data from a temperature sensor to determine if adjustments should be made to the thermoelectric cooler, e.g., supplying electricity to activate the thermoelectric cooler if the cooling plate temperature was greater than a threshold high temperature, i.e., too high.
Re Claim 13, Brantley, i.v., Kweder, Niergarth, Moore, Akin, Hansen, Kendrick, Faneuf, and Ketola, as evidenced by Sakala, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the electrical power source and the controller are configured to de-activate the thermoelectric cooler based at least in part on information received from the temperature sensor (Akin – Col. 6, ll. 10 - 25) indicative of the powered electronics temperature being less than a threshold low temperature.
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 Brantley, i.v., Kweder, Niergarth, Moore, Akin, Hansen, Kendrick, Faneuf, and Ketola, as evidenced by Sakala, would have had the electrical power source and the controller configured to de-activate the thermoelectric cooler based at least in part on information received from a temperature sensor indicative of powered electronics temperature being less than a threshold low temperature because Akin teaches, in Col. 4, ll. 35 – 40, Col. 5, ll. 45 – 50, and Col. 6, ll. 1 – 25, analyzing data from a temperature sensor to determine if adjustments should be made to the thermoelectric cooler, e.g., stopping the supply of electricity to de-activate the thermoelectric cooler if the cooling plate temperature was less than a threshold low temperature, i.e., too low.
Re Claim 14, Brantley, i.v., Kweder, Niergarth, Moore, Akin, Hansen, Kendrick, Faneuf, and Ketola, as evidenced by Sakala, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the electrical power source and the controller are configured to activate the thermoelectric cooler based at least in part on information associated with power draw currently applied to the electrical power source indicative of power available for activation of the thermoelectric cooler in addition to other active electrical elements.
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 Brantley, i.v., Kweder, Niergarth, Moore, Akin, Hansen, Kendrick, Faneuf, and Ketola, as evidenced by Sakala, would have had the electrical power source and the controller configured to activate the thermoelectric cooler based at least in part on information associated with power draw currently applied to the electrical power source indicative of power available for activation of the thermoelectric cooler in addition to other active electrical elements because Akin teaches, in Abstract, Col. 5, ll. 45 – 67, Col. 6, ll. 1 – 25, and Col. 6, ll. 60 – 65, activate the thermoelectric cooler based at least in part on information associated with power draw (power input data from surrounding thermoelectric cooler) currently applied to the electrical power source (provided power to a plurality of different thermoelectric coolers) indicative of power available for activation of the thermoelectric cooler (approximately 20 – 200 Watts typically required to power a single thermoelectric cooler) in addition to other active electrical elements (other thermoelectric coolers). Akin teaches, in Abstract, the controller was configured to control an input power provided to each TEC of the array of TECs, such that the array of TECs facilitates controlled cooling of the aircraft jet propulsion system in response to the input power provided to each TEC of the array of TECs. 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 Brantley, i.v., Kweder, Niergarth, Moore, Akin, Hansen, Kendrick, Faneuf, and Ketola, as evidenced by Sakala, the electrical power source would have had a maximum output power, e.g., 1,500 Watts, that would have been distributed among a plurality of thermoelectric cooler, e.g., seven thermoelectric coolers each drawing 200 Watts for a total of 1,400 Watts, leaving only 100 Watts that could have been drawn by an eighth thermoelectric cooler.
Re Claim 21, Brantley, i.v., Kweder, Niergarth, Moore, Akin, Hansen, Kendrick, Faneuf, and Ketola, as evidenced by Sakala, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the first end of the heat sink contacts the thermoelectric cooler, refer to the rejections of Claim 1 above.
Re Claim 22, Brantley, i.v., Kweder, Niergarth, Moore, Akin, Hansen, Kendrick, Faneuf, and Ketola, as evidenced by Sakala, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the heat sink extends entirely radially from the outlet guide vane to the thermoelectric cooler, refer to the rejection of Claim 1 above. As discussed in the rejection of Claim 1 above, in the combination of Brantley, i.v., Kweder, Niergarth, Moore, Akin, Hansen, Kendrick, Faneuf, and Ketola, as evidenced by Sakala, the heat sink would have extended entirely radially from the outlet guide vane to the thermoelectric cooler to facilitate cooling the hot side of said thermoelectric cooler by conducting the heat to the first end of the heat sink which conducts said heat to the “fin” part of the heat sink that was integrated into the outlet guide vanes so that the conducted heat discharged from the thermoelectric cooler would have been passed to the flow of air moving from the turbofan through the bypass duct via convection to prevent said thermoelectric cooler from overheating.
Re Claim 24, Brantley, i.v., Kweder, Niergarth, Moore, Akin, Hansen, Kendrick, Faneuf, and Ketola, as evidenced by Sakala, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein the thermoelectric cooler is arranged radially outside of and axially aligned with the first end of the heat sink.
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 Brantley, i.v., Kweder, Niergarth, Moore, Akin, Hansen, Kendrick, Faneuf, and Ketola, as evidenced by Sakala, the thermoelectric cooler would have been arranged radially outside of and axially aligned with the first end of the heat sink because the powered electronics (13 – Brantley Fig. 2) was located radially outside of the fan case (48 – Brantley Fig. 2) while the “fin” part of the heat sink integrated into the outlet guide vanes was located radially inside of the fan case (48 – Brantley Fig. 2) which meant that the thermoelectric cooler would have been arranged radially outside of and axially aligned with the first end of the heat sink, i.e., the “plate” part of the heat sink, to facilitate cooling the hot side of said thermoelectric cooler by conducting the heat to the first end of the heat sink which conducts said heat to the “fin” part of the heat sink that was integrated into the outlet guide vanes so that the conducted heat discharged from the thermoelectric cooler would have been passed to the flow of air moving from the turbofan through the bypass duct via convection to prevent said thermoelectric cooler from overheating.
Claims 15, 16, 18, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brantley (5,319,922) in view of Niergarth et al. (11,022,037) in view of Moore et al. (2020/0180771A1) in view of Akin (10,472,986), as evidenced by Sakala et al. (10,815,804), in view of Hansen (5,158,661) in view of Kendrick et al (5,042,257).
Regarding Claim 15, Brantley teaches, in Figs. 1 - 3, the invention as claimed, including a turbine-powered system (4 - aircraft turbofan – Col. 4, ll. 1 - 10), the system comprising a gas turbine engine (4) arranged along an engine reference axis (5), a fan case (48), powered electronics (13 – FADEC – Col. 4, ll. 55 - 60) mounted to a radially outer surface of the fan case (48) so that the powered electronics (13) was located radially outward of the fan case (48), and aero surfaces of components (labeled ‘fan outlet guide vanes’) included in the gas turbine engine (4), wherein the aero surfaces of components includes an outlet guide vane (labeled ‘fan outlet guide vanes’).
Brantley teaches a turbine-powered system, i.e., base system, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. Brantley is silent on a heat sink is integrated into said aero surfaces of components, i.e., outlet guide vane, included in the gas turbine engine.
Niergarth teaches, in Figs. 1 – 5 and Col. 9, l. 60 to Col. 10, l. 5, a similar gas turbine engine (10) arranged along an engine reference axis (12) wherein a heat sink (108) was mounted in (52 - fan outlet guide vanes) said flow path of said air (62) accelerated by said gas turbine engine. Niergarth further teaches, in Fig. 3, Col. 2, ll. 25 – 35, Col. 9, ll. 45 – 60, a heat sink (106) is integrated into aero surfaces (130) of components included in the gas turbine engine (10) that interface with the flow path of the air (64) accelerated by the gas turbine engine (10) and wherein the heat sink (106) extends radially through an outlet guide vane (52 – Figs. 2 and 5) of the outlet guide vanes (52). Moore teaches, in Fig. 4 and Para. [0069], a similar cooling system configured to selectively carry heat away from a powered electronics (112 – electric motor) to air moving through the flowpath (124) via a heat sink (148) integrated in fan outlet guide vanes (130) upon energizing of the cooling system and wherein the heat sink (148) extends radially through an outlet guide vane (130) of the outlet guide vanes (130).
Thus, improving a particular system (turbine-powered system), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Niergarth and Moore, 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 turbine-powered system, of Brantley, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that integrating a heat sink extending radially into aero surfaces of the fan outlet guide vanes of Brantley, would have facilitated cooling said heat sink by directly exposing said heat sink to the lower temperature air accelerated by said gas turbine engine. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Brantley, i.v., Niergarth and Moore, as discussed above, is silent on a thermoelectric cooler including a cooling plate coupled to the powered electronics, a heat sink, and alternating P- and N-type semiconductor pillars extending between the cooling plate and the heat sink.
Moore further teaches, in Fig. 4 and Para. [0069], a similar cooling system configured to selectively carry heat away from a powered electronics (112 – electric motor) to air moving through the flowpath (124) via a heat sink (148) integrated in fan outlet guide vanes (130) upon energizing of the cooling system. Akin teaches, in Figs. 1 and 2, Col. 3, ll. 20 – 50, and Col. 4, ll. 5 – 30, a similar turbine-powered system having a thermoelectric cooler (200) including a cooling plate (202) coupled to any heat source (206), the heat sink (208, Col. 4, ll. 25 – 36 teaches the heat sink could be any “cool” surface.), and alternating P-type (210b, 210d, 210f, 210h) and N-type (210a, 210c, 210e, 210g, 210i) semiconductor pillars extending between the cooling plate (202) and the heat sink (208).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Brantley, i.v., Niergarth and Moore, with the thermoelectric cooler including a cooling plate coupled to a heat source, a heat sink, and alternating P- and N-type semiconductor pillars extending between the cooling plate and the heat sink, taught by Akin, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the gas turbine engine having powered electronics, a fan case, and aero surfaces of gas turbine engine components (fan outlet guide vanes) that interface with the air flow path inside the fan case, and the thermoelectric cooler including a cooling plate coupled to a heat source, a heat sink, and alternating P- and N-type semiconductor pillars extending between the cooling plate and the heat sink, 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 the thermoelectric cooler between the powered electronics (heat source) and the heat sink would have facilitated selectively carrying heat away from said powered electronics and into the heat sink integrated in fan outlet guide vanes when the thermoelectric cooler was energizing thereby dumping the carried heat to the air flowing around the fan outlet guide vanes, Moore – Paras. [0069] and [0077]. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Brantley, i.v., Niergarth, Moore, and Akin, as discussed above, is silent on the powered electronics being located radially outward of and axially aligned with the heat sink. However, Brantley further teaches the powered electronics (13 – FADEC – Col. 4, ll. 55 - 60) being located radially outward of and almost axially aligned (best seen in Fig. 2) with the components (labeled ‘fan outlet guide vanes’) that the heat sink would be integrated into in the combination of Brantley, i.v., Niergarth, Moore, and Akin. Moore further teaches, in Fig. 4, the powered electronics (112) being axially aligned with the heat sink (148) integrated in fan outlet guide vanes (130). Akin further teaches, in Fig. 2, the thermoelectric cooler (200) heat source (206) being axially aligned with the heat sink (208). Akin further teaches, in Col. 6, ll. 39 – 55 that “Any suitable portion of aircraft propulsion system 100 may be equipped with a TEC array 302. For example, any portion of aircraft propulsion system 100 in which a temperature gradient exists between a first portion of aircraft propulsion system 100 and a second portion of aircraft propulsion system 100 may be equipped with a TEC array 302. Further, and more generally as described herein, a TEC array 302 may be suitably equipped on any portion of aircraft propulsion system 100 that experiences a temperature gradient and benefits from controlled cooling.” Therefore, Akin’s thermoelectric cooler (200 – Fig. 2) could have been located radially between and axially aligned with heat source (206, in this case the powered electronics of Brantley) and the heat sink (208, in this case the heat sink integrated into the ‘fan outlet guide vanes’ of Brantley, i.v., Niergarth and Moore).
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 Brantley, i.v., Niergarth, Moore, and Akin, to have said powered electronics being axially aligned with the heat sink because Applicant has not disclosed that “said powered electronics are axially aligned with the heat sink” provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. In fact, Para. [0009] of Applicant’s Specification disclosed “The power electronics may be located radially outward of and axially aligned with the fan discharge splitter.” In fact, Para. [0011] of Applicant’s Specification disclosed “The power electronics may be located radially outward of and axially align with the fan case”. Applicant’s different axial alignments are indicative of the fact that the claimed axial alignments are indeed a “Design Choice”, as all options perform equally well as Brantley’s powered electronics axial alignment, and none of the options exhibits an advantage over the others and over Brantley’s powered electronics axial alignment. One of ordinary skill furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the axial alignment location of Brantley, i.v., Niergarth, Moore, and Akin, because Applicant disclosed that the powered electronics may be located radially outward of and axially align with the fan case (spans the axial distance between the fan case inlet end to the fan case outlet end).
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Brantley, i.v., Niergarth, Moore, and Akin, to obtain the invention as specified in Claim 15.
Brantley, i.v., Niergarth, Moore, and Akin, as discussed above, is silent on said heat sink extends radially out of the outlet guide vane such that a first end of the heat sink is in thermal communication with the thermoelectric cooler, wherein the heat sink extends radially through the fan case such that the first end of the heat sink is arranged radially outward of the fan case.
Brantley further teaches, in Figs. 1 and 2, the powered electronics (13 – FADEC – Col. 4, ll. 55 - 60) mounted radially outward of the fan case (48). As evidenced by Sakala, in Figs. 1 – 7, Col. 5, ll. 55 – 67, and Col. 6, ll. 1 – 15, an annular fan case (102) had a through-hole opening (110) axially aligned with outlet guide vane (33) where a plurality of fasteners (37) coupled the outlet guide vane (33) and engine mounting structure (35) to a structural attachment member (104). As evidenced by Sakala, radial through-hole openings in an annular fan case of a turbofan gas turbine engine (10 – Fig. 1) were known in the art.
Hansen teaches, in Figs. 1 – 7 and Col. 6, l. 50 to Col. 7, l. 15, a similar thermoelectric cooler (74 – four shown in Fig. 4) having a “plate-fin” type of heat sink (82, 78) where the first end (82) of the heat sink (82, 78) was in thermal communication with the thermoelectric cooler (74) and the “fin” part (78) of the heat sink (82, 78) are attached to the “plate” part (82) of the heat sink (82, 78) and extends radially away from said first end (82). Hansen teaches, in Col. 6, l. 65 to Col. 7, l. 15 and Col. 7, ll. 25 - 35, that the plurality of fins (78) provided high surface area to dissipate heat to the environment via a fan (96) that blew air through gaps (80) between the plurality of fins (78). Hansen teaches, in Col. 7, l. 1 – 15, that the heat sink (82, 78) abuts the thermoelectric coolers (74) which were snugly sandwiched between the aluminum block (82) of the heat sink (82, 78) and the aluminum block (68 – equivalent to the cooling plate) of the heat source. Hansen teaches, in Figs. 4 and 5, that the heat sink (82, 78) abutted the thermoelectric coolers (74) through an opening in a wall (44 - Col. 5, l. 30 – 35). Kendrick teaches, in Figs. 1 and 2 and Col. 1, ll. 35 – 40, a similar “plate-fin” type of heat sink that must be attached to the hot side of a thermoelectric cooler (TEC) to dissipate heat from the TEC to the surrounding environment because without said “plate-fin” type of heat sink, the TEC would overheat and fail within seconds.
Thus, improving a particular system (turbine-powered system), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Hansen and Kendrick, 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 turbine-powered system, of Brantley, i.v., Niergarth, Moore, and Akin, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that extending the “fin” part of the heat sink radially out of the outlet guide vane such that a first end of the heat sink, i.e., the “plate” part of the heat sink, would have been in thermal communication with the thermoelectric cooler which was in thermal communication with the powered electronics (in this case, the FADEC of Brantley) located radially outward of the fan case, of Brantley, i.v., Niergarth, Moore, and Akin, would have facilitated cooling the hot side (in thermal contact with the FADEC) of said thermoelectric cooler by conducting the heat to the first end of the heat sink which conducts said heat to the “fin” part of the heat sink that was integrated into the outlet guide vanes so that the conducted heat discharged from the thermoelectric cooler would have been passed to the flow of air moving from the turbofan through the bypass duct via convection to prevent said thermoelectric cooler from overheating. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C). 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 Brantley, i.v., Niergarth, Moore, and Akin, Hansen, and Kendrick, as evidenced by Sakala, would have required the heat sink to extend radially through the fan case such that the first end of the heat sink, i.e., the “plate” part of the heat sink, would have been arranged radially outward of the fan case because the powered electronics (the FADEC of Brantley) was located radially outward of the fan case. Therefore, to conduct heat from the powered electronics that was located radially outward of the fan case to the heat sink portion integrated into the outlet guide vanes located radially inside the fan case it would have been obvious that a portion of the heat sink (the portion that extended radially out of the outlet guide vane) had to extend radially through the fan case such that the first end of the heat sink would have been arranged radially outward of the fan case where it would have been in thermal communication with the thermoelectric cooler (TEC) that would have been snugly sandwiched between the cooling plate and the first end of the heat sink.
Re Claim 16, Brantley, i.v., Niergarth, Moore, and Akin, Hansen, and Kendrick, as evidenced by Sakala, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Brantley further teaches, in Fig. 2, wherein the gas turbine engine is a turbofan engine (4) including a fan, an engine core (22), and a bypass duct (labeled) arranged around the engine core (22), and wherein the aero surface (labeled ‘fan outlet guide vanes’) into which the heat sink is integrated is located radially outward of the engine core (22).
Re Claim 18, Brantley, i.v., Niergarth, Moore, and Akin, Hansen, and Kendrick, as evidenced by Sakala, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Brantley further teaches, in Fig. 2, wherein the aero surface into which the heat sink (in the labeled ‘fan outlet guide vanes’) is integrated is an airfoil (‘fan outlet guide vanes’ were airfoils).
Re Claim 26, Brantley, i.v., Niergarth, Moore, and Akin, Hansen, and Kendrick, as evidenced by Sakala, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the first end of the heat sink contacts the thermoelectric cooler, refer to the rejections of Claim 15 above.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brantley (5,319,922) in view of Kweder et al. (8,734,925) in view of Niergarth et al. (11,022,037) in view of Moore et al. (2020/0180771A1) in view of Akin (10,472,986), as evidenced by Sakala et al. (10,815,804), in view of Hansen (5,158,661) in view of Kendrick et al (5,042,257).
Regarding Claim 20, Brantley teaches, in Figs. 1 - 3, the invention as claimed, including a method of cooling powered electronics (13 – FADEC – Col. 4, ll. 55 - 60) in a turbine-powered system (4 - aircraft turbofan – Col. 4, ll. 1 - 10) the method comprising aero surfaces of components (labeled ‘fan outlet guide vanes’) included in the gas turbine engine (4) associated with the system, wherein the aero surfaces of components includes an outlet guide vane (labeled ‘fan outlet guide vanes’).
Brantley is silent on wherein the outlet guide vane is comprised of composite material and a ribbon of high thermal conductivity material.
Kweder teaches, in Figs. 1 – 8, a similar turbofan gas turbine engine (10 – Col. 4, ll. 15 - 20) including a plurality of outlet guide vanes (16) that were comprised of composite material (Col. 4, ll. 45 - 50) and a ribbon (64 – Fig. 6) of high thermal conductivity material (Col. 4, ll. 45 – 50 and Col. 8, ll. 60 – 65, Examiner takes Official Notice that it was a well known scientific fact that metals and metal alloys had high thermal conductivity relative to standard composite materials which were known to have low thermal conductivity. Applicant’s original Specification disclosed, in Para. [0046] “OGVs (outlet guide vanes) are typically composite - which have poor thermal conductivity, but a ribbon of high thermal conductivity material might be laid into the suction side or a thin layer could be bonded to it. The front frame intermediate case may be magnesium, titanium, or aluminum - with aluminum providing good conductivity.” Magnesium, Titanium, or Aluminum were all metals used in conventional turbofan gas turbine engines.)
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Brantley with the outlet guide vane is comprised of composite material and a ribbon of high thermal conductivity material, taught by Kweder, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the turbofan gas turbine engine including an engine core, a bypass duct arranged around the engine core, and a turbofan configured to accelerate air moving both into the engine core and through the bypass duct, a fan case, a fan rotor with blades for accelerating the air, and a fan discharge splitter, wherein the fan discharge splitter includes an annular split ring that separates air moving from the turbofan to the engine core from air moving from the turbofan to the bypass duct, a number of core inlet vanes that extend radially-inward from the annular split ring, and outlet guide vanes that extend radially-outward from the annular split ring, and outlet guide vanes comprising a composite material and a ribbon of high thermal conductivity material, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the outlet guide vane comprised of composite material and a ribbon of high thermal conductivity material, taught by Kweder, for the non-disclosed material composition of the outlet guide vane of Brantley, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the outlet guide vane comprised of composite material and a ribbon of high thermal conductivity material would have facilitated a lighter, i.e., reduced weight, outlet guide vane compared to all metal outlet guide vanes which were relatively heavy, Kweder - Col. 1, ll. 45 - 50. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Brantley, i.v., Kweder, teaches a method of cooling powered electronics, i.e., base method, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. Brantley, i.v., Kweder, is silent on a heat sink integrated into said aero surfaces of components included in the gas turbine engine and wherein the heat sink extends radially through the outlet guide vane of the outlet guide vanes.
Niergarth teaches, in Figs. 1 – 5 and Col. 9, l. 60 to Col. 10, l. 5, a similar gas turbine engine (10) configured to accelerate air (64, 62) along an engine axis (12) wherein a heat sink (108) was mounted in (52 - fan outlet guide vanes) said flow path of said air (62) accelerated by said gas turbine engine. Niergarth further teaches, in Fig. 3, Col. 2, ll. 25 – 35, Col. 9, ll. 45 – 60, a heat sink (106) is integrated into aero surfaces (130) of components included in the gas turbine engine (10) that interface with the flow path of the air (64) accelerated by the gas turbine engine (10) and wherein the heat sink (106) extends radially through an outlet guide vane (52 – Figs. 2 and 5) of the outlet guide vanes (52). Moore teaches, in Fig. 4 and Para. [0069], a similar cooling system configured to selectively carry heat away from a powered electronics (112 – electric motor) to air moving through the flowpath (124) via a heat sink (148) integrated in fan outlet guide vanes (130) upon energizing of the cooling system and wherein the heat sink (148) extends radially through an outlet guide vane (130) of the outlet guide vanes (130).
Thus, improving a particular method (of cooling powered electronics), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Niergarth and Moore, 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 method of cooling powered electronics, of Brantley, i.v., Kweder, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that integrating a heat sink into aero surfaces of the fan outlet guide vanes so that the heat sink extends radially through the outlet guide vane, of Brantley, i.v., Kweder, would have facilitated cooling said heat sink by directly exposing said heat sink to the lower temperature air flow accelerated by said turbofan through the bypass duct of said gas turbine engine. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Brantley, i.v., Kweder, Niergarth, and Moore, as discussed above, is silent on determining that cooling of the powered electronics is desired, and activating a thermoelectric cooler by supplying electrical power to the thermoelectric cooler, wherein the thermoelectric cooler includes a cooling plate coupled to the powered electronics, a heat sink, and alternating P- and N-type semiconductor pillars extending between the cooling plate and the heat sink.
Moore further teaches, in Fig. 4 and Para. [0069], a similar method of cooling powered electronics (112 – electric motor, i.e., heat source) by moving heat generated by said powered electronics to air moving through the flowpath (124) via a heat sink (148) integrated in fan outlet guide vanes (130) upon energizing of the cooling system. Akin teaches, in Figs. 1 and 2, Col. 3, ll. 20 – 50, and Col. 4, ll. 5 – 30, a similar method of cooling a heat source (206) by means of a thermoelectric cooler (200) configured to selectively carry heat away from a heat source (206) to a heat sink (208) upon energizing of the thermoelectric cooler (200), the thermoelectric cooler (200) including a cooling plate (202) coupled to any heat source (206), the heat sink (208, Col. 4, ll. 25 – 36 teaches the heat sink could be any “cool” surface.), and alternating P-type (210b, 210d, 210f, 210h) and N-type (210a, 210c, 210e, 210g, 210i) semiconductor pillars extending between the cooling plate (202) and the heat sink (208). Akin further teaches, in Abstract, Col. 4, ll. 35 – 40, Col. 5, ll. 45 – 50, and Col. 6, ll. 1 – 25, determining that cooling of the heat source (206) is desired (a controller received and analyzed data from at least one temperature sensor and then determined if adjustments should be made to the thermoelectric cooler to control the temperature of the cooling plate), and activating said thermoelectric cooler (200) by supplying electrical power to the thermoelectric cooler (200), e.g., supplying electricity to activate the thermoelectric cooler if the cooling plate temperature was greater than a threshold high temperature, i.e., too high.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Brantley, i.v., Kweder, Niergarth, and Moore, with the thermoelectric cooler including a cooling plate coupled to a heat source, a heat sink, and alternating P- and N-type semiconductor pillars extending between the cooling plate and the heat sink, determining that cooling of the heat source is desired, and activating a thermoelectric cooler by supplying electrical power to the thermoelectric cooler, taught by Akin, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the gas turbine engine having powered electronics, the heat sink integrated into aero surfaces of gas turbine engine components (fan outlet guide vanes) that interface with the flow path of the air accelerated by the gas turbine engine, and the thermoelectric cooler including a cooling plate coupled to a heat source, a heat sink, and alternating P- and N-type semiconductor pillars extending between the cooling plate and the heat sink, said thermoelectric cooler activated by supplying electrical power to the thermoelectric cooler when a controller determined that cooling of the heat source was desired, 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., coupling the cooling plate of the thermoelectric cooler to the powered electronics (heat source) and utilizing the heat sink integrated in fan outlet guide vanes as the thermoelectric cooler heat sink would have facilitated carrying heat away from said powered electronics and into the heat sink thereby dumping the carried heat to the air flowing around the fan outlet guide vanes, Moore – Paras. [0069] and [0077], when a controller supplied electrical power to the thermoelectric cooler after determining that cooling of the powered electronics was required. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Brantley, i.v., Kweder, Niergarth, Moore, and Akin, as discussed above, is silent on the powered electronics being located radially outward of and axially aligned with the heat sink. However, Brantley further teaches the powered electronics (13 – FADEC – Col. 4, ll. 55 - 60) being located radially outward of and almost axially aligned (best seen in Fig. 2) with the components (labeled ‘fan outlet guide vanes’) that the heat sink would be integrated into in the combination of Brantley, i.v., Kweder, Niergarth, Moore, and Akin,. Moore further teaches, in Fig. 4, the powered electronics (112) being axially aligned with the heat sink (148) integrated in fan outlet guide vanes (130). Akin further teaches, in Fig. 2, the thermoelectric cooler (200) heat source (206) being axially aligned with the heat sink (208). Akin further teaches, in Col. 6, ll. 39 – 55 that “Any suitable portion of aircraft propulsion system 100 may be equipped with a TEC array 302. For example, any portion of aircraft propulsion system 100 in which a temperature gradient exists between a first portion of aircraft propulsion system 100 and a second portion of aircraft propulsion system 100 may be equipped with a TEC array 302. Further, and more generally as described herein, a TEC array 302 may be suitably equipped on any portion of aircraft propulsion system 100 that experiences a temperature gradient and benefits from controlled cooling.” Therefore, Akin’s thermoelectric cooler (200 – Fig. 2) could have been located radially between and axially aligned with heat source (206, in this case the powered electronics of Brantley) and the heat sink (208, in this case the heat sink integrated into the ‘fan outlet guide vanes’ of Brantley, i.v., Kweder, Niergarth, Moore, and Akin).
MPEP2144.04(VI)(C) Rearrangement of Parts cited In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice) for the holding that mere rearrangement of parts was an obvious matter of design choice when such a rearrangement would not have modified the operation of the device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to rearrange the parts of Brantley, i.v., Kweder, Niergarth, Moore, and Akin, so that the powered electronics was located radially outward of (taught by Brantley) and axially aligned with (taught by Moore and Akin) the heat sink because it has been held that mere rearrangement of parts was an obvious matter of design choice when such a rearrangement would not have modified the operation of the device. In this case, the operation of the gas turbine engine, powered electronics, and thermoelectric cooler would have remained the same. During operation the gas turbine engine would have generated airflows (46 and 50 – Fig. 2, Col. 5, ll. 15 - 20) through the interior flow ducts of said gas turbine engine. The powered electronics would have received electricity and converted a portion of said electricity into heat like all conventional electronics do. The thermoelectric cooler would have absorbed said heat from the powered electronics via a cooling plate coupled to the powered electronics, and then transferred said absorbed heat to a heat sink integrated into aero surfaces of components (labeled ‘fan outlet guide vanes’) so that the transferred heat would have been absorbed by the airflow (50 – Fig. 2) that carried the absorbed heat though and out of the gas turbine engine. Consequently, during operation the gas turbine engine, the powered electronics would have been cooled by the thermoelectric cooler transferring the heat generated by said powered electronics to the airflow, e.g., heat sink cooling fluid. As discussed above, Akin taught, in Col. 6, ll. 39 – 55, that the thermoelectric cooler (200 – Fig. 2) could be located between any two locations of a gas turbine engine where a temperature gradient existed, e.g., a first high temperature location and a second lower temperature location.
Brantley, i.v., Kweder, Niergarth, Moore, and Akin, as discussed above, is silent on the heat sink extends radially out of the outlet guide vane such that a first end of the heat sink is in thermal communication with the thermoelectric cooler, wherein the heat sink extends radially through the fan case such that the first end of the heat sink is arranged radially outward of the fan case.
Brantley further teaches, in Figs. 1 and 2, the powered electronics (13 – FADEC – Col. 4, ll. 55 - 60) mounted radially outward of the fan case (48). As evidenced by Sakala, in Figs. 1 – 7, Col. 5, ll. 55 – 67, and Col. 6, ll. 1 – 15, an annular fan case (102) had a through-hole opening (110) axially aligned with outlet guide vane (33) where a plurality of fasteners (37) coupled the outlet guide vane (33) and engine mounting structure (35) to a structural attachment member (104). As evidenced by Sakala, radial through-hole openings in an annular fan case of a turbofan gas turbine engine (10 – Fig. 1) were known in the art.
Hansen teaches, in Figs. 1 – 7 and Col. 6, l. 50 to Col. 7, l. 15, a similar thermoelectric cooler (74 – four shown in Fig. 4) having a “plate-fin” type of heat sink (82, 78) where the first end (82) of the heat sink (82, 78) was in thermal communication with the thermoelectric cooler (74) and the “fin” part (78) of the heat sink (82, 78) are attached to the “plate” part (82) of the heat sink (82, 78) and extends radially away from said first end (82). Hansen teaches, in Col. 6, l. 65 to Col. 7, l. 15 and Col. 7, ll. 25 - 35, that the plurality of fins (78) provided high surface area to dissipate heat to the environment via a fan (96) that blew air through gaps (80) between the plurality of fins (78). Hansen teaches, in Col. 7, l. 1 – 15, that the heat sink (82, 78) abuts the thermoelectric coolers (74) which were snugly sandwiched between the aluminum block (82) of the heat sink (82, 78) and the aluminum block (68 – equivalent to the cooling plate) of the heat source. Hansen teaches, in Figs. 4 and 5, that the heat sink (82, 78) abutted the thermoelectric coolers (74) through an opening in a wall (44 - Col. 5, l. 30 – 35). Kendrick teaches, in Figs. 1 and 2 and Col. 1, ll. 35 – 40, a similar “plate-fin” type of heat sink that must be attached to the hot side of a thermoelectric cooler (TEC) to dissipate heat from the TEC to the surrounding environment because without said “plate-fin” type of heat sink, the TEC would overheat and fail within seconds.
Thus, improving a particular method (of cooling powered electronics), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Hansen and Kendrick, 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 method of cooling powered electronics, of Brantley, i.v., Kweder, Niergarth, Moore, and Akin, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that extending the “fin” part of the heat sink radially out of the outlet guide vane such that a first end of the heat sink, i.e., the “plate” part of the heat sink, would have been in thermal communication with the thermoelectric cooler which was in thermal communication with the powered electronics (in this case, the FADEC of Brantley) located radially outward of the fan case, of Brantley, i.v., Kweder, Niergarth, Moore, and Akin, would have facilitated cooling the hot side (in thermal contact with the FADEC) of said thermoelectric cooler by conducting the heat to the first end of the heat sink which conducts said heat to the “fin” part of the heat sink that was integrated into the outlet guide vanes so that the conducted heat discharged from the thermoelectric cooler would have been passed to the flow of air moving from the turbofan through the bypass duct via convection to prevent said thermoelectric cooler from overheating. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C). 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 Brantley, i.v., Kweder, Niergarth, Moore, Akin, Hansen, and Kendrick, as evidenced by Sakala, would have required the heat sink to extend radially through the fan case such that the first end of the heat sink, i.e., the “plate” part of the heat sink, would have been arranged radially outward of the fan case because the powered electronics (the FADEC of Brantley) was located radially outward of the fan case. Therefore, to conduct heat from the powered electronics that was located radially outward of the fan case to the heat sink portion integrated into the outlet guide vanes located radially inside the fan case it would have been obvious that a portion of the heat sink (the portion that extended radially out of the outlet guide vane) had to extend radially through the fan case such that the first end of the heat sink would have been arranged radially outward of the fan case where it would have been in thermal communication with the thermoelectric cooler (TEC) that would have been snugly sandwiched between the cooling plate and the first end of the heat sink.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brantley (5,319,922) in view of Kweder et al. (8,734,925) in view of Niergarth et al. (11,022,037) in view of Moore et al. (2020/0180771A1) in view of Akin (10,472,986), as evidenced by Sakala et al. (10,815,804), in view of Hansen (5,158,661) in view of Kendrick et al (5,042,257) as applied to Claim 20 above, and further in view of Faneuf et al. (10,945,353) in view of Ketola et al. (12,545,442).
Re Claim 25, Brantley, i.v., Kweder, Niergarth, Moore, and Akin, Hansen, and Kendrick, as evidenced by Sakala, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein a second end of the heat sink opposite the first end is located at a radially innermost side of the outlet guide vane such that the heat sink extends across a radial extent of the outlet guide vane.
Faneuf teaches, in Figs. 1 and 4 – 8 and Col. 7, ll. 20 – 30, a similar “plate-fin” type heat sink where a longer fin structure may allow for more heat transfer, thus a higher powered electronics, i.e., generated more heat, may be cooled in the same volume than air cooling otherwise may support. Ketola teaches, Figs. 6 – 8 and Col. 10, ll. 60 – 65, a similar “plate-fin” type heat sink where the longer the fin, the larger the heat transfer area and thus the higher the rate of heat transfer from the fin.
Therefore, the heat sink fin length, e.g., radial distance between the first end and the second end, is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that the greater the heat sink fin length the higher the rate of heat transfer. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the heat sink fin length, were disclosed in the prior art by Faneuf and Ketola, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the heat sink fin length integrated into the outlet guide vane taught by Brantley, i.v., Kweder, Niergarth, Moore, and Akin, Hansen, and Kendrick, as evidenced by Sakala, to have the second end of the heat sink opposite the first end is located at a radially innermost side of the outlet guide vane such that the heat sink extends across a radial extent of the outlet guide vane to facilitate maximizing the heat transfer rate by maximizing the radial length of the heat sink fin. It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) the Supreme Court held that “a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent". It was held that "It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.", In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brantley (5,319,922) in view of Niergarth et al. (11,022,037) in view of Moore et al. (2020/0180771A1) in view of Akin (10,472,986), as evidenced by Sakala et al. (10,815,804), in view of Hansen (5,158,661) in view of Kendrick et al (5,042,257) as applied to Claim 15 above, and further in view of Faneuf et al. (10,945,353) in view of Ketola et al. (12,545,442).
Re Claim 28, Brantley, i.v., Niergarth, Moore, and Akin, Hansen, and Kendrick, as evidenced by Sakala, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein a second end of the heat sink opposite the first end is located at a radially innermost side of the outlet guide vane such that the heat sink extends across a radial extent of the outlet guide vane.
Faneuf teaches, in Figs. 1 and 4 – 8 and Col. 7, ll. 20 – 30, a similar “plate-fin” type heat sink where a longer fin structure may allow for more heat transfer, thus a higher powered electronics, i.e., generated more heat, may be cooled in the same volume than air cooling otherwise may support. Ketola teaches, Figs. 6 – 8 and Col. 10, ll. 60 – 65, a similar “plate-fin” type heat sink where the longer the fin, the larger the heat transfer area and thus the higher the rate of heat transfer from the fin.
Therefore, the heat sink fin length, e.g., radial distance between the first end and the second end, is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that the greater the heat sink fin length the higher the rate of heat transfer. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the heat sink fin length, were disclosed in the prior art by Faneuf and Ketola, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the heat sink fin length integrated into the outlet guide vane taught by Brantley, i.v., Niergarth, Moore, and Akin, Hansen, and Kendrick, as evidenced by Sakala, to have the second end of the heat sink opposite the first end is located at a radially innermost side of the outlet guide vane such that the heat sink extends across a radial extent of the outlet guide vane to facilitate maximizing the heat transfer rate by maximizing the radial length of the heat sink fin. It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) the Supreme Court held that “a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent". It was held that "It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.", In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
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 07/28/2026 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’s argument on Pg. 9, middle paragraph that “Akin, however, teaches the opposite of what the Office Action proposes:” is not persuasive. It has been held that “the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed….” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004); MPEP 2145(X)(D)(1). One embodiment taught by Akin does not equate to teaching away from all the other embodiments taught by Akin. Akin teaches, in Col. 6, ll. 39 – 55, that the thermoelectric cooler (200 – Fig. 2) could be located between any two locations of a gas turbine engine where a temperature gradient existed, e.g., a first high temperature location and a second lower temperature location. Therefore, Akin does not teach away from the proposed combination of references in the Office Action. The rejections are maintained.
Applicant’s argument on Pg. 9, last paragraph that “A person skilled in the art would certainly not look to experimental, laboratory TEC's and heat sinks, such as taught by Hansen and Kendrick, for teachings regarding how to transfer heat with a TEC”. This is not persuasive because the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. 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. Applicant has failed to cite factual evidence in the record to support Applicant’s attorney arguments. In response to applicant's argument that implying that Hansen and Kendrick were nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Hansen and Kendrick were in the field of the inventor’s endeavor (using a TEC to facilitate heat transfer from a heat source to a coolant source using a heat sink) and Hansen and Kendrick were reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned (facilitating the operation of a TEC by using a heat sink with fins exposed to cooling airflow to transfer heat from the hot-side of the TEC using a combination of conduction and convection). The Supreme Court in KSR held that “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007) at 417. The rejections are maintained.
Applicant argues on Pg. 10, first paragraph the alleged difficulty of “…modifying components of a gas turbine engine such as an outlet guide vane and fan case to allow a heat sink to extend through and out of both components would impart significant design hurdles and tradeoffs”. This is not persuasive because the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. 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. Applicant has failed to cite factual evidence in the record to support Applicant’s attorney arguments. Furthermore, Applicant’s allegations are refuted by Sakala. Sakala teaches, in Figs. 1 – 7, Col. 5, ll. 55 – 67, and Col. 6, ll. 1 – 15, an annular fan case (102) had a through-hole opening (110) axially aligned with outlet guide vane (33) where a plurality of fasteners (37) coupled the outlet guide vane (33) and engine mounting structure (35) to a structural attachment member (104). As evidenced by Sakala, radial through-hole openings in an annular fan case of a turbofan gas turbine engine (10 – Fig. 1) were known in the art. The rejections are maintained.
Applicant’s argument on Pg. 10, second paragraph that “Even further, no cited reference teaches embedding a heat sink inside a vane or other aerodynamic component.” This argument is not persuasive. MPEP2141(II)(C) cited "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. Furthermore, Niergarth teaches, in Col. 9, l. 65 to Col. 10, l. 5, “More particularly, for the embodiment of FIG. 2, the heat sink heat exchanger 108 is integrated into, or couple to, one or more components exposed to the bypass airflow passage, and more specifically, is integrated into, or couple to, an outlet guide vane 52.” 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