Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “each of the primary beams comprises two secondary beams connected to each other by a fin” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Applicant’s specification teaches: “a structural piece 48 connecting the primary beam 41A and secondary beam 41B to each other. In this example, the structural piece 48 forms flow-diversion fins.” (page 9 of the specification). This disclosure does not teach two secondary beams connected by a fin as claimed; it teaches a primary beam connected to a secondary beam by a fin.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-10 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. The original disclosure fails to teach “each of the primary beams comprises two secondary beams connected to each other by a fin” (claims 1, 10). Applicant’s specification teaches: “a structural piece 48 connecting the primary beam 41A and secondary beam 41B to each other. In this example, the structural piece 48 forms flow-diversion fins.” (page 9 of the specification). This disclosure does not teach two secondary beams connected by a fin as claimed; it teaches a primary beam connected to a secondary beam by a fin.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0109644 (Pretty) in view of US 2016/0025039 (Boileau), US 2020/0277916 (Caruel), US 4442987 (Legrand), and GB2570913 (Mitchell).
Regarding claims 1-2, 5-7, 9, Pretty teaches a propulsion unit for an aircraft (Fig 1A, para 31), comprising a mast (mast/pylon 110); an internal fairing (Fig 3; 137), an external fairing (141) and a lateral fairing (242), the internal fairing delimiting radially inwards a flow conduit of a secondary flow (para 33-34; bypass flowpath is the flow conduit), the external fairing delimiting the conduit radially outwards (Fig 3, para 33-34), the lateral fairing extending on either side of the mast so as to delimit two circumferential ends of the conduit (para 33-37, Fig 3; only one side shown but the other side of the mast comprises the same arrangement, including the lateral fairing; the bypass flowpath extends around the circumference of the engine, and therefore the lateral fairing delimits the circumferential ends); a thrust reverser that comprises a structure able to move between an advanced position, making it possible to direct the secondary flow towards the rear of the propulsion unit in order to generate a thrust, and a retracted position, making it possible to redirect part of the secondary flow towards the front of the propulsion unit in order to generate a counter-thrust (para 33-37; thrust reverser structure comprising 130, 136, 138, 141); a support structure connected to the mast and being intended to be connected to a turbine engine of the propulsion unit so as to be able to follow the movements of the turbine engine with respect to the mast (para 31-37; support structure 135 is connected to the turbine engine and therefore follows the movements of the turbine engine); and wherein the lateral fairing comprises a plurality of panels arranged on either side of the mast and each connected to the mast in a connection defining at least one degree of freedom (Fig 3, para 35-38; lateral fairing is connected to the mast 110 via a pivot hinge to provide access to the engine; there are a plurality of panels – one on either side of the mast), wherein the movable structure of the reverser is supported by the support structure forming a cradle including two longitudinal members extending respectively on either side of the mast, each of the two longitudinal members being fixed to the mast, and forming respectively two primary beams that comprise respectively means for guiding the movable structure of the reverser (135 is construed as a “cradle” which includes two longitudinal members, forming two primary beams, one on each side of the mast and fixed to the mast – see para 37; Fig 3 shows the cradle supporting the thrust reverser cowl 141), wherein said connection is a pivot, slide or sliding pivot connection (Fig 3, para 35-37; pivot connection), wherein the external fairing forms one or more cowls of the movable structure of the reverser (para 33-37), a turbine engine (para 32-33), wherein the turbine engine is a turbojet engine (para 31-33).
Pretty implies but does not explicitly teach operation of the thrust reverser (e.g. the advanced and retracted positions), or the means for guiding the movable structure of the reverser and in that said panels are secured to the primary beams by securing means, or the movable structure of the reverser comprises diversion cascades, or each of the primary beams comprises two secondary beams connected to each other by a fin. However, Boileau teaches a thrust reverser that comprises a structure able to move between an advanced position, making it possible to direct the secondary flow towards the rear of the propulsion unit in order to generate a thrust, and a retracted position, making it possible to redirect part of the secondary flow towards the front of the propulsion unit in order to generate a counter-thrust and means for guiding the movable structure of the reverser and the movable structure of the reverser comprises diversion cascades (para 12-17, 69-72, Fig 1-2; thrust reverser moves from an advanced, direct jet position to a retracted, indirect jet position; means for guiding the movable cowl and cascades includes rails – para 31-36, 80), and each of the primary beams comprises two secondary beams connected to each other by a fin (annotated below, para 77-78). Legrand teaches that panels of a lateral fairing and beams may be secured by securing means (Fig 2; col 2 l. 61-col 3 l. 3; securing means including bolts or screws securing lateral fairing 2 to a beam 15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a thrust reverser that comprises a structure able to move between an advanced position, making it possible to direct the secondary flow towards the rear of the propulsion unit in order to generate a thrust, and a retracted position, making it possible to redirect part of the secondary flow towards the front of the propulsion unit in order to generate a counter-thrust and means for guiding the movable structure of the reverser and securing means securing the panels to the primary beams, and the movable structure of the reverser comprises diversion cascades, and each of the primary beams comprises two secondary beams connected to each other by a fin, as taught by Boileau and Legrand. It has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, providing a thrust reverser that comprises a structure able to move between an advanced position, making it possible to direct the secondary flow towards the rear of the propulsion unit in order to generate a thrust, and a retracted position, making it possible to redirect part of the secondary flow towards the front of the propulsion unit in order to generate a counter-thrust and means for guiding the movable structure of the reverser and securing means securing the panels to the primary beams, and the movable structure of the reverser comprises diversion cascades, and each of the primary beams comprises two secondary beams connected to each other by a fin, yields predictable results.
PNG
media_image1.png
369
579
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Pretty in view of Legrand and Boileau fails to teach each of the two longitudinal members being fixed to each other. However, Caruel teaches two longitudinal beams that are fixed to each other (para 91-92, Fig 5-6; connecting rods 47 and 48 fix two longitudinal beams 44, 45 to each other). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make each of the two longitudinal members being fixed to each other in order to take up mechanical forces, as taught by Caruel. It has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, making each of the two longitudinal members being fixed to each other yields predictable results (structural support).
Pretty in view of Boileau, Legrand, and Caruel fails to teach said panels of the lateral fairing are axially spaced along a respective one of the longitudinal members. However, Mitchell teaches a lateral fairing comprising axially spaced panels (annotated below, pages 8-12 of the specification; panels are connected to the mast in a connection with at least one degree of freedom – hinged; panels may also have a beam or track for a translating thrust reverser element). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a plurality of panels of the lateral fairing axially spaced along a respective one of the longitudinal members in order to reduce weight and cost and increase efficiency, as taught by Mitchell. It has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, providing a plurality of panels of the lateral fairing axially spaced along a respective one of the longitudinal members yields predictable results (thrust reversal, structural support, noise reduction).
PNG
media_image2.png
587
560
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0109644 (Pretty) in view of US 2016/0025039 (Boileau), US 2020/0277916 (Caruel), US 4442987 (Legrand) and GB2570913 (Mitchell) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2006/0038065 (Howe).
Regarding claim 3, Pretty in view of Boileau, Caruel, Legrand, and Mitchell fails to teach one or more linkages and/or cross members extending transversely so as to connect one or more of said panels extending on a first side of the mast to one or more others of said panels extending on a second side of the mast. However, Howe teaches one or more linkages and/or cross members extending transversely so as to connect one or more of said panels extending on a first side of the mast to one or more others of said panels extending on a second side of the mast (Fig 5, para 27, linkage 240 connecting upper bifurcation panels 244 on opposite sides of the mast). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide one or more linkages and/or cross members extending transversely so as to connect one or more of said panels extending on a first side of the mast to one or more others of said panels extending on a second side of the mast in order to maintain clearance, as taught by Howe. It has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, providing one or more linkages and/or cross members extending transversely so as to connect one or more of said panels extending on a first side of the mast to one or more others of said panels extending on a second side of the mast yields predictable results.
Claim(s) 4, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0109644 (Pretty) in view of US 2016/0025039 (Boileau), US 2020/0277916 (Caruel), US 4442987 (Legrand) and GB2570913 (Mitchell) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2015/0098810 (Soria) and US 2017/0284216 (Khidekel).
Regarding claim 4, 8, Pretty in view of Boileau, Caruel, Legrand, and Mitchell fails to teach one or more of said panels are configured to crush a sealing member interposed between this or these panels and the internal fairing, wherein the sealing member is a gasket. However, Soria teaches that the making the panels separate from the internal fairing may reduce stress concentrations (para 29) and that seals may be placed between the panels (Fig 7A-D, para 39; 120) and the internal fairing (110). Khidekel teaches that gaskets may be used to seal between nacelle sections (para 31; bulb seal 320 construed as a gasket). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the panels separate from the internal fairing and provide one or more of said panels configured to crush a sealing member interposed between this or these panels and the internal fairing, wherein the sealing member is a gasket in order to reduce stress, and prevent leakage of secondary flow, as taught by Soria and Khidekel. It has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, making one or more of said panels separate from the internal fairing and configured to crush a sealing member interposed between this or these panels and the internal fairing, wherein the sealing member is a gasket yields predictable results.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0109644 (Pretty) in view of US 2016/0025039 (Boileau), GB2570913 (Mitchell), and US 4442987 (Legrand).
Regarding claim 10, Pretty teaches a propulsion unit for an aircraft (Fig 1A, para 31), comprising a mast (mast/pylon 110); an internal fairing (Fig 3; 137), an external fairing (141) and a lateral fairing (242), the internal fairing delimiting radially inwards a flow conduit of a secondary flow (para 33-34; bypass flowpath is the flow conduit), the external fairing delimiting the conduit radially outwards (Fig 3, para 33-34), the lateral fairing extending on either side of the mast so as to delimit two circumferential ends of the conduit (para 33-37, Fig 3; only one side shown but the other side of the mast comprises the same arrangement, including the lateral fairing; the bypass flowpath extends around the circumference of the engine, and therefore the lateral fairing delimits the circumferential ends); a thrust reverser that comprises a structure able to move between an advanced position, making it possible to direct the secondary flow towards the rear of the propulsion unit in order to generate a thrust, and a retracted position, making it possible to redirect part of the secondary flow towards the front of the propulsion unit in order to generate a counter-thrust (para 33-37; thrust reverser structure comprising 130, 136, 138, 141); a support structure connected to the mast and being intended to be connected to a turbine engine of the propulsion unit so as to be able to follow the movements of the turbine engine with respect to the mast (para 31-37; support structure 135 is connected to the turbine engine and therefore follows the movements of the turbine engine); and wherein the lateral fairing comprises a plurality of panels arranged on either side of the mast and each connected to the mast in a connection defining at least one degree of freedom (Fig 3, para 35-38; lateral fairing is connected to the mast 110 via a pivot hinge to provide access to the engine; there are a plurality of panels – one on either side of the mast), wherein the movable structure of the reverser is supported by the support structure forming a cradle including two longitudinal members extending respectively on either side of the mast, each of the two longitudinal members being fixed to the mast, and forming respectively two primary beams that comprise respectively means for guiding the movable structure of the reverser (135 is construed as a “cradle” which includes two longitudinal members, forming two primary beams, one on each side of the mast; Fig 3 shows the cradle supporting the thrust reverser cowl 141).
Pretty implies but does not explicitly teach operation of the thrust reverser (e.g. the advanced and retracted positions), or the means for guiding the movable structure of the reverser and in that said panels are secured to the primary beams by securing means, or each of the primary beams comprises two secondary beams connected to each other by a fin. However, Boileau teaches a thrust reverser that comprises a structure able to move between an advanced position, making it possible to direct the secondary flow towards the rear of the propulsion unit in order to generate a thrust, and a retracted position, making it possible to redirect part of the secondary flow towards the front of the propulsion unit in order to generate a counter-thrust and means for guiding the movable structure of the reverser (para 12-17, 69-72, Fig 1-2; thrust reverser moves from an advanced, direct jet position to a retracted, indirect jet position; means for guiding the movable cowl and cascades includes rails – para 31-36, 80), each of the primary beams comprises two secondary beams connected to each other by a fin (annotated below, para 77-78). Legrand teaches that panels of a lateral fairing and beams may be secured by securing means (Fig 2; col 2 l. 61-col 3 l. 3; securing means including bolts or screws securing lateral fairing 2 to a beam 15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a thrust reverser that comprises a structure able to move between an advanced position, making it possible to direct the secondary flow towards the rear of the propulsion unit in order to generate a thrust, and a retracted position, making it possible to redirect part of the secondary flow towards the front of the propulsion unit in order to generate a counter-thrust and means for guiding the movable structure of the reverser and securing means securing the panels to the primary beams, wherein each of the primary beams comprises two secondary beams connected to each other by a fin, as taught by Boileau and Legrand. It has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, providing a thrust reverser that comprises a structure able to move between an advanced position, making it possible to direct the secondary flow towards the rear of the propulsion unit in order to generate a thrust, and a retracted position, making it possible to redirect part of the secondary flow towards the front of the propulsion unit in order to generate a counter-thrust and means for guiding the movable structure of the reverser and securing means securing the panels to the primary beams, wherein each of the primary beams comprises two secondary beams connected to each other by a fin, yields predictable results (thrust reversal, structural support).
PNG
media_image1.png
369
579
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Pretty in view of Boileau and Legrand fails to teach said panels of the lateral fairing are axially spaced along a respective one of the longitudinal members. However, Mitchell teaches a lateral fairing comprising axially spaced panels (annotated below, pages 8-12 of the specification; panels are connected to the mast in a connection with at least one degree of freedom – hinged; panels may also have a beam or track for a translating thrust reverser element). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a plurality of panels of the lateral fairing axially spaced along a respective one of the longitudinal members in order to reduce weight and cost and increase efficiency, as taught by Mitchell. It has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, providing a plurality of panels of the lateral fairing axially spaced along a respective one of the longitudinal members yields predictable results (thrust reversal, structural support, noise reduction).
PNG
media_image2.png
587
560
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to Applicant’s argument that “Mitchell does not teach axially spaced panels” and “[a]t most, the Office action identifies portions of a single, rectangular structure for this feature”, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As annotated above, the fairing clearly forms multiple axially spaced panels defined by the recesses and ribs. The structure is a lateral fairing and may be coupled to a thrust reverser cowl. Therefore, the claimed structure was known in the art and used in the same claimed component and would have yielded predictable results (connection to a thrust reverser and structural support for connection to other fairing structures and the mast and noise reduction elements).
With regards to Applicant’s argument that “neither reference discloses implementing axially spaced panels to improve structural support”, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The predictable results are the connections to the other elements of the thrust reverser, thereby providing a functioning thrust reverser and the necessary structural support thereof, as well as connection to skins, honeycomb material, the mast, etc. and therefore the necessary structural support for proper functioning thereof. Furthermore, Mitchell teaches the paneled structure reducing weight, reducing cost, and increasing efficiency (page 12 of the specification).
With regards to Applicant’s argument that “[n]either of these allege primary beams comprises two secondary beams, much less a fin connecting the two”, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Boileau as annotated above teaches two secondary beams connected to each other by a fin in the same manner as Applicant (e.g. one beam at the mast, the other beam at a rail, flow diversion fins between them).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANDREW NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5063. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 4 pm, Monday-Friday.
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 (Pat) Wongwian can be reached on 571-270-5426. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREW H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741