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 .
Applicant’s Amendment dated October 30, 2025 has been carefully considered, but is non-persuasive. The specification has been amended to remove the new matter in paragraph [0000.1], and the specification has been amended to correct the informalities therein. The Replacement Sheets of Drawings dated October 30, 2025 overcome the drawing objections. The claims have been amended to correct most of the informalities therein, and to overcome the rejections under 35 USC 112(b). Correction of these matters is noted with appreciation.
Applicant has argued with regard to the rejection of claims 15-18, 26, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0 469 827 A1 (Franklin) in view of FR 2867506 A1 (Ory) that “neither Franklin nor Ory, independently or in combination, describe, show or suggest the circumferentially repeating diffusion-corridor network as recited in amended Claim 15. Particularly, neither Franklin nor Ory, independently or in combination, describe, show or suggest a circumferentially repeating diffusion-corridor network that is:
(i) formed between two circumferentially adjacent vanes
(ii) radially delimited by at least one fin carried by at least one of those two vanes,
(iii) located upstream of, and
(iv) functionally integrated with, a downstream heat exchanger to achieve axial compactness while conditioning the flow, as recited in amended Claim 15.
Specifically, EP 0 469 827 Al lacks any diffusion corridors defined between adjacent vanes upstream of the heat exchanger. FR 2 867 506 Al discloses fins only on a single vane, not defining a circumferential corridor with a vane adjacent thereto, and without functional integration with a heat exchanger. Harvey also fails to provide such a corridor configuration upstream of a heat exchanger.
Moreover, Applicant respectfully submits that combination of Franklin and Ory would require restructuring the cited architectures and altering their principles of operation, which is not a predictable variation.”
Respectfully, these arguments are non-persuasive. Applying the teachings of FR 2867506 A1 to the turbomachine of EP 0 469 827 A1 results in providing each guide vane of EP 0 469 827 A1 with a fin as taught by FR 2867506 A1, such that a plurality of diffusion corridors are upstream of the at least one exchanger, each corridor being delimited circumferentially by an intrados and by an extrados of two circumferentially adjacent vanes, and each corridor being delimited radially by at least one fin carried by at least one of the two circumferentially adjacent vanes, for the purpose of dampening vibrations of the vanes.
It has been held that a rational for combination that differs from Applicant’s is permissible; “The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings.”); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991).” See also MPEP 2144(IV). The proposed modification would not require restructuring the cited architectures and altering their principles of operation.
Applicant has argued with regard to the rejection of claims 15-18, 20-21, 23, 26, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0 469 827 A1 (Franklin) in view of Harvey et al. 2017/0184053 (Harvey 2), that “neither Franklin nor Harvey 2, independently or in combination, describe, show or suggest each and every feature and functional limitation recited in amended Claim 15.
For example, Applicant respectfully submits that neither Franklin nor Harvey 2, independently or in combination, describe, show or suggest the circumferentially repeating diffusion-corridor network as recited in amended Claim 15. Particularly, neither Franklin nor Harvey 2, independently or in combination, describe, show or suggest a circumferentially repeating diffusion-corridor network that is:
(i) formed between two circumferentially adjacent vanes
(ii) radially delimited by at least one fin carried by at least one of those two vanes,
(iii) located upstream of, and
(iv) functionally integrated with, a downstream heat exchanger to achieve axial compactness while conditioning the flow, as recited in amended Claim 15.
Specifically, EP 0 469 827 Al lacks any diffusion corridors defined between adjacent vanes upstream of the heat exchanger. FR 2 867 506 Al discloses fins only on a single vane, not defining a circumferential corridor with a vane adjacent thereto, and without functional integration with a heat exchanger. Harvey also fails to provide such a corridor configuration upstream of a heat exchanger.
Moreover, Applicant respectfully submits that combination of Franklin and Harvey 2 would require restructuring the cited architectures and altering their principles of operation, which is not a predictable variation.”
Respectfully, these arguments are non-persuasive. Applying the teachings of Harvey 2017/0184053 to the turbomachine of EP 0 469 827 A1 results in providing each guide vane of EP 0 469 827 A1 with a fin as taught by Harvey 2017/0184053, such that a plurality of diffusion corridors are formed upstream of the at least one exchanger, each corridor being delimited circumferentially by an intrados and by an extrados of two circumferentially adjacent vanes, and each corridor being delimited radially by at least one fin carried by at least one of the two circumferentially adjacent vanes, for the purpose of improving flow characteristics in the passage, by helping flow stay attached to an inner wall of the flow passage in the region of and downstream of the fins, and providing a more even flow distributions in terms of pressure and velocity across the radial extent of the passage. FR 2 867 506 Al is not utilized in this rejection.
It has been held that a rational for combination that differs from Applicant’s is permissible; “The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings.”); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991).” See also MPEP 2144(IV). The proposed modification would not require restructuring the cited architectures and altering their principles of operation.
Lastly, with regard to the provisional obviousness-type patenting rejections, Applicant has requested that these be held in abeyance of a substantive response until the trigger condition in MPEP 804.I.B.1 becomes satisfied. This request is noted, however the provisional obviousness-type patenting rejections are still in effect.
Claim Objections
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities: Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 28, line 2, -- at least one -- should be inserted before “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.
Claims 15-18, 26, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0 469 827 A1 in view of FR 2867506 A1.
EP 0 469 827 A1 (figures 2-7) discloses a turbomachine 10 for an aircraft shown generally at 46 substantially as claimed, said turbomachine comprising: a rotor 32; an annular passage (not shown, inside of annular nacelle 38) for a flow of air downstream of the rotor; an annular row of guide vanes 42 arranged in the annular passage, each vane having a concave intrados and a convex extrados; and at least one heat exchanger 60 arranged in the annular passage downstream of the annular row of guide vanes (claim 15).
However, EP 0 469 827 A1 does not disclose a plurality of diffusion corridors upstream of the at least one exchanger, each diffusion corridor being delimited circumferentially by an intrados and by an extrados of two circumferentially adjacent guide vanes, and each diffusion corridor being delimited radially by at least one fin carried by at least one of the two circumferentially adjacent guide vanes (claim 15), does not disclose that the at least one fin is carried by the upper surface of a vane of the two circumferentially adjacent guide vanes, and has a circumferential end cantilevered facing the intrados of the other of the two guide vanes (claim 16), does not disclose that the at least one fin is carried by the intrados of a vane of the two circumferentially adjacent guide vanes, and has a circumferential end cantilevered facing the extrados of the other of the two guide vanes (claim 17), does not disclose that the at least one fin is carried by the intrados of a vane of the two circumferentially adjacent guide vanes and by the extrados on the other of the two guide vanes (claim 18), does not disclose that the annular row of vanes comprises vanes supporting at least one fin and vanes without fins, the latter extending axially over a length shorter than the vanes supporting the at least one fin (claim 26), and does not disclose that the vane carrying the fin comprises an upstream portion without fins and extending over at least a quarter of the axial length of the vane (claim 29).
FR 2867506 A1 (note the attached English machine translation) shows a turbomachine (a turbojet engine) having a guide vane 2 arranged in an unnumbered passage, the vane having a concave intrados and a convex extrados, which defines a plurality of diffusion corridors, the corridor being delimited circumferentially by an intrados and by an extrados of the vane, and each corridor being delimited radially by at least one fin 3 carried by the vane, the at least one fin is carried by the upper surface of a vane, and has a pointed circumferential end which is cantilevered, the at least one fin is carried by the intrados of the vanes, and has a pointed circumferential end cantilevered opposite the intrados, the at least one fin is carried by the intrados of a vane, and by the extrados of the vane, the vane comprises a right hand side supporting at least one fin and a left hand side without fins, the latter extending axially over a length shorter than the vanes supporting the at least one fin, and the vane carrying the fin comprises an upstream portion without fins and extending over at least a quarter of the axial length of the vane. The arrangement is provided for the purpose of dampening vibrations of the vane.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide each guide vane of EP 0 469 827 A1 with a fin as taught by FR 2867506 A1, such that a plurality of diffusion corridors are upstream of the at least one exchanger, each diffusion corridor being delimited circumferentially by an intrados and by an extrados of two circumferentially adjacent guide vanes, and each diffusion corridor being delimited radially by at least one fin carried by at least one of the two circumferentially adjacent guide vanes, such that the at least one fin is carried by the upper surface of a vane of the two circumferentially adjacent guide vanes, and has a circumferential end cantilevered facing the intrados of the other of the two guide vanes, such that the at least one fin is carried by the intrados of a vane of the two circumferentially adjacent guide vanes, and has a circumferential end cantilevered facing the extrados of the other of the two guide vanes, such that the at least one fin is carried by the intrados of a vane of the two circumferentially adjacent guide vanes and by the extrados on the other of the two guide vanes, such that the annular row of vanes comprises vanes supporting at least one fin and vanes without fins, the latter extending axially over a length shorter than the vanes supporting the at least one fin, and such that the vane carrying the fin comprises an upstream portion without fins and extending over at least a quarter of the axial length of the vane, as taught by FR 2867506 A1, for the purpose of dampening vibrations of the vanes.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0 469 827 A1 and FR 2867506 A1 as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Harvey et al. 2002/0136639.
The modified turbomachine of EP 0 469 827 A1 shows all of the claimed subject matter except for the interface between the at least one fin and the extrados, or between the at least one fin and the intrados of the vane carrying it, is aerodynamically optimized, by a connection fillet.
Harvey et al. shows a stator vane 34 having a fin 44 attached to an intrados 42, having unnumbered fillets at the interface with the intrados, which reduces stress at the interface.
It would have been further obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the modified turbomachine of EP 0 469 827 A1 such that the interface between the at least one fin and the extrados, and between the at least one fin and the intrados of the vane carrying it, as aerodynamically optimized, by a connection fillet, as taught by Harvey et al., for the purpose of reducing stress at the interface.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0 469 827 A1 and FR 2867506 A1 as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Harvey et al. 2017/0184053.
The modified turbomachine of EP 0 469 827 A1 shows all of the claimed subject matter except for the two circumferentially adjacent vanes as well as the at least one fin delimiting the corridor between these two vanes, are in one piece.
Harvey et al. (figure 10) shows a turbomachine 10 having circumferentially adjacent guide vanes 300 with fins 400, the two circumferentially adjacent vanes as well as the fins delimiting the corridor between these two vanes, are in one piece (paragraph [0018]), for the purpose of reducing the number of separate parts and simplifying assembly.
It would have been further obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the modified turbomachine of EP 0 469 827 A1 such that the two circumferentially adjacent vanes as well as the at least one fin delimiting the corridor between these two vanes, are in one piece, as taught by Harvey et al., for the purpose of reducing the number of separate parts and simplifying assembly.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0 469 827 A1 and FR 2867506 A1 as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Deparis et al. 2019/0153940.
The modified turbomachine of EP 0 469 827 A1 shows all of the claimed subject matter including structural arms 40 which are arranged at an axial position which at least partially overlaps that of the at least one exchanger, and a vane 42 with a flared trailing profile.
However, the modified turbomachine of EP 0 469 827 A1 does not show each vane of the annular row of vanes being aligned circumferentially with each structural arm.
Deparis et al. shows a turbomachine 1 having vanes 16 of an annular row of vanes 24, and structural arms 19, the vanes being aligned circumferentially with each structural arm, for the purpose of providing for smooth flow across the structural arms.
It would have been further obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the modified turbomachine of EP 0 469 827 A1 such that the vanes of the annular row of vanes are aligned circumferentially with each structural arm, as taught by Deparis, for the purpose of providing for smooth flow across the structural arms.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0 469 827 A1 and FR 2867506 A1 as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art
The modified turbomachine of EP 0 469 827 A1 shows all of the claimed subject matter except for the vanes are distributed angularly irregularly, the vanes being more spaced circumferentially from each other in occupied angular portion(s) by the heat exchanger(s).
Official Notice was taken in the first Office action that guide vanes in turbomachines commonly have irregular angular distributions, for the purpose of reducing noise. Applicant did not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice. Pursuant to MPEP 2144.03, the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice.
It would have been further obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the modified turbomachine of EP 0 469 827 A1 such that the vanes are distributed angularly irregularly, resulting in the vanes being more spaced circumferentially from each other in occupied angular portion(s) by the heat exchanger(s), as taught by Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art, for the purpose of reducing noise.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0 469 827 A1 and FR 2867506 A1 as applied to claim 26 above.
The modified turbomachine of EP 0 469 827 A1 shows all of the claimed subject matter except for the latter extending axially over a length at least two times shorter than the first.
The recitation of the latter extending axially over a length at least two times shorter than the first, is an obvious engineering expedient. It would have been further obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the modified turbomachine of EP 0 469 827 A1 such that the fins are very long, such that the length of the portions devoid of fins are very small, for example the length of the portions devoid of fins extending axially over a length at least two times shorter than the finned portions, for the purpose of providing more of an air guiding effect by virtue of the increased length of the finned portions, as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the a longer fin length provides a greater air guiding effect.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0 469 827 A1 and FR 2867506 A1 as applied to claim 15 above.
The modified turbomachine of EP 0 469 827 A1 shows all of the claimed subject matter except for the fin extends axially over a length of at least two thirds of the axial length of the vane.
The recitation of the fin extending axially over a length of at least two thirds of the axial length of the vane, is an obvious engineering expedient. It would have been further obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the modified turbomachine of EP 0 469 827 A1 such that the fins are very long, such that the length of the portions devoid of fins are very small, for example the fin extends axially over a length of at least two thirds of the axial length of the vane, for the purpose of providing more of an air guiding effect by virtue of the increased length of the finned portions, as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the a longer fin length provides a greater air guiding effect.
Claims 15-18, 20-21, 23, 26, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0 469 827 A1 in view of Harvey et al. 2017/0184053.
EP 0 469 827 A1 (figures 2-7) discloses a turbomachine 10 for an aircraft shown generally at 46 substantially as claimed, said turbomachine comprising: a rotor 32; an annular passage (not shown, inside of annular nacelle 38) for a flow of air downstream of the rotor; an annular row of guide vanes 42 arranged in the annular passage, each vane having a concave intrados and a convex extrados; and at least one heat exchanger 60 arranged in the annular passage downstream of the annular row of guide vanes (claim 15).
However, EP 0 469 827 A1 does not disclose a plurality of diffusion corridors upstream of the at least one exchanger, each diffusion corridor being delimited circumferentially by an intrados and by an extrados of two circumferentially adjacent guide vanes, and each diffusion corridor being delimited radially by at least one fin carried by at least one of the two circumferentially adjacent guide vanes (claim 15), does not disclose that the at least one fin is carried by the upper surface of a vane of the two circumferentially adjacent guide vanes, and has a circumferential end cantilevered facing the intrados of the other of the two guide vanes (claim 16), does not disclose that the at least one fin is carried by the intrados of a vane of the two circumferentially adjacent guide vanes, and has a circumferential end cantilevered facing the extrados of the other of the two guide vanes (claim 17), does not disclose that the at least one fin is carried by the intrados of a vane of the two circumferentially adjacent guide vanes and by the extrados on the other of the two guide vanes (claim 18), does not disclose that each corridor is delimited radially internally and/or radially externally by two fins, one of which is carried by the extrados of a vane and the other is carried by the intrados of a circumferentially adjacent vane, each of the two fins extending circumferentially over half of the circumferential distance between the two adjacent vanes (claim 20), does not disclose that each of the two fins has a free end, the free end of a fin being arranged in the vicinity of the free end of the other fin (claim 21), does not disclose that the two circumferentially adjacent vanes as well as the at least one fin delimiting the corridor between these two vanes, are in one piece (claim 23), does not disclose that the annular row of vanes comprises vanes supporting at least one fin and vanes without fins, the latter extending axially over a length shorter than the vanes without fins (claim 26), and does not disclose that the vane carrying the fin comprises an upstream portion without fins and extending over at least a quarter of the axial length of the vane (claim 29).
Harvey et al. (figure 10) shows a turbomachine 10 having guide vanes 300 arranged in a passage 100, the vanes having a concave intrados and a convex extrados, the guide vanes forming a plurality of diffusion corridors, each corridor being delimited circumferentially by an intrados and by an extrados of two circumferentially adjacent vanes, and each corridor being delimited radially by at least one fin 400 carried by at least one of the two circumferentially adjacent vanes, the at least one fin is carried by the upper surface (the right hand surface) of a vane of the two circumferentially adjacent vanes, and has a circumferential end cantilevered facing the intrados of the other of the two vanes, the at least one fin is carried by the intrados of a vane of the two circumferentially adjacent vanes, and has a circumferential end cantilevered facing the extrados of the other of the two vanes, the at least one fin is carried by the intrados of a vane of the two circumferentially adjacent vanes and by the extrados on the other of the two vanes, each corridor is delimited radially internally and radially externally by two fins, one of which is carried by the extrados of a vane and the other is carried by the intrados of a circumferentially adjacent vane, each of the two fins extending circumferentially over approximately half of the circumferential distance between the two adjacent vanes (paragraph [0084]), each of the two fins has a free end, the free end of a fin being arranged in the vicinity of the free end of the other fin, the two circumferentially adjacent vanes as well as the at least one fin delimiting the corridor between these two vanes, are in one piece (paragraph [0018]), the annular row of vanes comprises vanes supporting at least one fin and vane portions (the left hand side) without fins, the latter extending axially over a length shorter than the vanes supporting the at least one fin, and the vane carrying the fin comprises an upstream without fins and extending over at least a quarter of the axial length of the vane. The arrangement is provided for the purpose of improving flow characteristics in the passage, by helping flow stay attached to an inner wall of the flow passage in the region of and downstream of the fins, and providing a more even flow distributions in terms of pressure and velocity across the radial extent of the passage.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide each guide vane of EP 0 469 827 A1 with a fin, such that a plurality of diffusion corridors are formed upstream of the at least one exchanger, each diffusion corridor being delimited circumferentially by an intrados and by an extrados of two circumferentially guide adjacent vanes, and each corridor being delimited radially by at least one fin carried by at least one of the two circumferentially adjacent guide vanes, such that the at least one fin is carried by the upper surface of a vane of the two circumferentially adjacent guide vanes, and has a circumferential end cantilevered facing the intrados of the other of the two guide vanes, such that the at least one fin is carried by the intrados of a vane of the two circumferentially adjacent guide vanes, and has a circumferential end cantilevered facing the extrados of the other of the two guide vanes, such that the at least one fin is carried by the intrados of a vane of the two circumferentially adjacent guide vanes and by the extrados on the other of the two guide vanes, such that each of the two fins has a free end, the free end of a fin being arranged in the vicinity of the free end of the other fin, such that the two circumferentially adjacent vanes as well as the at least one fin delimiting the corridor between these two vanes, are in one piece, such that the annular row of vanes comprises vanes supporting at least one fin and vanes without fins, the latter extending axially over a length shorter than the vanes supporting the at least one fin, and such that the vane carrying the fin comprises an upstream portion without fins and extending over at least a quarter of the axial length of the vane, as taught by Harvey et al., for the purpose of improving flow characteristics in the passage, by helping flow stay attached to an inner wall of the flow passage in the region of and downstream of the fins, and providing a more even flow distributions in terms of pressure and velocity across the radial extent of the passage.
With regard to claim 20, in light of the teachings of Harvey, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to further modify EP 0 469 827 A1 such that each corridor is delimited radially internally and/or radially externally by two fins, one of which is carried by the extrados of a vane and the other is carried by the intrados of a circumferentially adjacent vane, each of the two fins extending circumferentially over half of the circumferential distance between the two adjacent vanes, since Applicant has not disclosed that such a circumferential distance solves any stated problem, is for any particular purpose, or has any criticality, and it appears that the modified turbomachine of EP 0 469 827 A1 would perform equally as well the two fins extending circumferentially over many circumferential distances between the two adjacent vanes.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0 469 827 A1 and Harvey et al. 2017/0184053 as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Harvey et al. 2002/0136639.
The modified turbomachine of EP 0 469 827 A1 shows all of the claimed subject matter except for the interface between the at least one fin and the extrados, or between the at least one fin and the intrados of the vane carrying it, is aerodynamically optimized, by a connection fillet.
Harvey et al. shows a stator vane 34 having a fin 44 attached to an intrados 42, having unnumbered fillets at the interface with the intrados, which reduces stress at the interface.
It would have been further obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the modified turbomachine of EP 0 469 827 A1 such that the interface between the at least one fin and the extrados, and between the fin and the intrados of the vane carrying it, as aerodynamically optimized, by a connection fillet, as taught by Harvey et al., for the purpose of reducing stress at the interface.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0 469 827 A1 and Harvey et al. 2017/0184053 as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of FR 2867506 A1.
The modified turbomachine of EP 0 469 827 A1 shows all of the claimed subject matter except for the free ends are tapered to be aerodynamically optimized.
FR 2867506 A1 (note the attached English machine translation) shows a turbomachine (a turbojet engine) having a guide vane 2 arranged in an unnumbered passage, the vane having a concave intrados and a convex extrados, which defines a plurality of diffusion corridors, the corridor being delimited circumferentially by an intrados and by an extrados of the vane, and each corridor being delimited radially by at least one fin 3 carried by the vane, with the fin having a triangular shaped free end such as at 5 (figure 2) and unnumbered (figure 3), the free end being tapered, for the purpose of providing an aerodynamically optimized shape at the free end.
It would have been further obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the modified turbomachine of EP 0 469 827 A1 such that free ends are tapered to be aerodynamically optimized, as taught by FR 2867506 A1, for the purpose of providing an aerodynamically optimized shape at the free end.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0 469 827 A1 and Harvey et al. 2017/0184053 as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Deparis et al 2019/0153940.
The modified turbomachine of EP 0 469 827 A1 shows all of the claimed subject matter including structural arms 40 which are arranged at an axial position which at least partially overlaps that of the at least one exchanger, and a vane 42 with a flared trailing profile.
However, the modified turbomachine of EP 0 469 827 A1 does not show each vane of the annular row of vanes being aligned circumferentially with each structural arm.
Deparis et al. shows a turbomachine 1 having vanes 16 of an annular row of vanes 24, and structural arms 19, each vane being aligned circumferentially with each structural arm, for the purpose of providing for smooth flow across the structural arms.
It would have been further obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the modified turbomachine of EP 0 469 827 A1 such that each vane of the annular row of vanes is aligned circumferentially with each structural arm, as taught by Deparis, for the purpose of providing for smooth flow across the structural arms.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0 469 827 A1 and Harvey et al. 2017/0184053 as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art.
The modified turbomachine of EP 0 469 827 A1 shows all of the claimed subject matter except for the vanes are distributed angularly irregularly, the vanes being more spaced circumferentially from each other in occupied angular portion(s) by the exchanger(s).
Official Notice was taken in the first Office action that guide vanes in turbomachines commonly have irregular angular distributions, for the purpose of reducing noise. Applicant did not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice. Pursuant to MPEP 2144.03, the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice.
It would have been further obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the modified turbomachine of EP 0 469 827 A1 such that the vanes are distributed angularly irregularly, resulting in the vanes being more spaced circumferentially from each other in occupied angular portion(s) by the heat exchanger(s), as taught by Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art, for the purpose of reducing noise.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0 469 827 A1 and Harvey et al. 2017/0184053 as applied to claim 26 above.
The modified turbomachine of EP 0 469 827 A1 shows all of the claimed subject matter except for the latter extending axially over a length at least two times shorter than the first.
The recitation of the latter extending axially over a length at least two times shorter than the first, is an obvious engineering expedient. It would have been further obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the modified turbomachine of EP 0 469 827 A1 such that the fins are very long, such that the length of the portions devoid of fins are very small, for example the length of the portions devoid of fins extending axially over a length at least two times shorter than the finned portions, for the purpose of providing more of an air guiding effect by virtue of the increased length of the finned portions, as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the a longer fin length provides a greater air guiding effect.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0 469 827 A1 and Harvey et al. 2017/0184053 as applied to claim 15 above.
The modified turbomachine of EP 0 469 827 A1 shows all of the claimed subject matter except for the fin extends circumferentially from at least one of the two vanes with a width at least equal to 5 times the maximum thickness of said vane, the maximum thickness being defined between the intrados surface and the extrados surface.
The recitation that the fin extends circumferentially from at least one of the two vanes with a width at least equal to 5 times the maximum thickness of said vane, the maximum thickness being defined between the intrados surface and the extrados surface, is a matter of choice in design. Applicant has not disclosed that this specific relationship solves any stated problem, is for any particular purpose, or has any criticality. It would have been further obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the modified turbomachine of EP 0 469 827 A1 such that the fin extends circumferentially from at least one of the two vanes with a width at least equal to 5 times the maximum thickness of the vane, for the purpose of adjusting the flow guiding effect of the fins, as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a wider fin width provides for more of an air guiding effect.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0 469 827 A1 and Harvey et al. 2017/0184053 as applied to claim 15 above.
The modified turbomachine of EP 0 469 827 A1 shows all of the claimed subject matter except for the fin extends axially over a length of at least two thirds of the axial length of the vane.
The recitation of the fin extending axially over a length of at least two thirds of the axial length of the vane, is an obvious engineering expedient. It would have been further obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the modified turbomachine of EP 0 469 827 A1 such that the fins are very long, such that the length of the portions devoid of fins are very small, for example the fin extends axially over a length of at least two thirds of the axial length of the vane, for the purpose of providing more of an air guiding effect by virtue of the increased length of the finned portions, as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the a longer fin length provides a greater air guiding effect.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 22, respectively, of copending Application No. 18/580,346 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the reference application “anticipates” application claim 1. Accordingly, application claim 1 is not patentably distinct from claim 1 of the reference application. Here, claim 1 of the reference application requires additional elements such as a compressor for compressing primary flow, a fan (corresponding to the claimed rotor of the present application), and an unducted propeller providing a tertiary flow, for example, while application claim 1 does not require these elements. Thus it is apparent that the more specific reference application claim 1 encompasses application claim 1. Following the rationale in In re Goodman cited in the preceding paragraph, where applicant has once been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific or narrower invention, applicant may not then obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer. Note that since application claim 1 is anticipated by reference application claim 1 and since anticipation is the epitome of obviousness, then application claim 1 is obvious over reference application claim 1.
Claim 16 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of copending Application No. 18/580,346 (reference application) in view of Harvey et al. 2017/0184053.
Claim 13 of the reference application claims substantially the same subject matter as claim 16 of the instant application, but does not claim that the at least one fin is carried by the upper surface of a vane of the two circumferentially guide adjacent vanes.
Harvey et al. (figure 10) shows a turbomachine 10 having guide vanes 300 arranged in a passage 100, the vanes having a concave intrados and a convex extrados, the guide vanes forming a plurality of diffusion corridors, each corridor being delimited circumferentially by an intrados and by an extrados of two circumferentially adjacent vanes, and each corridor being delimited radially by at least one fin 400 carried by at least one of the two circumferentially adjacent vanes, the at least one fin is carried by the upper surface (the right hand surface) of a vane of the two circumferentially adjacent guide vanes, for the purpose of improving flow characteristics in the passage, by helping flow stay attached to an inner wall of the flow passage in the region of and downstream of the fins, and providing a more even flow distributions in terms of pressure and velocity across the radial extent of the passage.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the turbomachine of claim 11 of the reference application such that the at least one fin is carried by the upper surface of a vane of the two circumferentially adjacent guide vanes, as taught by Harvey et al., for the purpose of improving flow characteristics in the passage, by helping flow stay attached to an inner wall of the flow passage in the region of and downstream of the fins, and providing a more even flow distributions in terms of pressure and velocity across the radial extent of the passage.
Claim 28 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of copending Application No. 18/580,346 (reference application) in view of Harvey et al. 2017/0184053.
Claim 11 of the reference application claims substantially the same subject matter as claim 28 of the instant application, but does not claim that the fin extends circumferentially from at least one of the two vanes with a width at least equal to 5 times the maximum thickness of said vane, the maximum thickness being defined between the intrados surface and the extrados surface.
Harvey et al. (figure 10) shows a turbomachine 10 having guide vanes 300 arranged in a passage 100, the vanes having a concave intrados and a convex extrados, the guide vanes forming a plurality of diffusion corridors, each corridor being delimited circumferentially by an intrados and by an extrados of two circumferentially adjacent vanes, and each corridor being delimited radially by at least one fin 400 carried by at least one of the two circumferentially adjacent vanes, the at least one fin is carried by the upper surface (the right hand surface) of a vane of the two circumferentially adjacent vanes, the fin extends circumferentially from at least one of the two vanes with a width, for the purpose of improving flow characteristics in the passage, by helping flow stay attached to an inner wall of the flow passage in the region of and downstream of the fins, and providing a more even flow distributions in terms of pressure and velocity across the radial extent of the passage.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the turbomachine of claim 11 of the reference application such that the fin extends circumferentially from at least one of the two vanes with a width, as taught by Harvey et al., for the purpose of improving flow characteristics in the passage, by helping flow stay attached to an inner wall of the flow passage in the region of and downstream of the fins, and providing a more even flow distributions in terms of pressure and velocity across the radial extent of the passage.
The recitation that the fin extends circumferentially from at least one of the two vanes with a width at least equal to 5 times the maximum thickness of said vane, the maximum thickness being defined between the intrados surface and the extrados surface, is a matter of choice in design. Applicant has not disclosed that this specific relationship solves any stated problem, is for any particular purpose, or has any criticality. It would have been further obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the modified turbomachine of claim 11 of the reference application such that the fin extends circumferentially from at least one of the two vanes with a width at least equal to 5 times the maximum thickness of the vane, for the purpose of adjusting the flow guiding effect of the fins, as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a wider fin width provides for more of an air guiding effect.
Claim 29 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of copending Application No. 18/580,346 (reference application) in view of FR 2867506 A1.
Claim 11 of the reference application claims substantially the same subject matter as claim 29 of the instant application, but does not claim that the vane carrying the fin comprises an upstream portion without fins and extending over at least a quarter of the axial length of the vane.
FR 2867506 A1 (note the attached English machine translation) shows a turbomachine (a turbojet engine) having a guide vane 2 arranged in an unnumbered passage, the vane having a concave intrados and a convex extrados, which defines a plurality of diffusion corridors, the corridor being delimited circumferentially by an intrados and by an extrados of the vane, and each corridor being delimited radially by at least one fin 3 carried by the vane, and the vane carrying the fin comprises an upstream portion without fins and extending over at least a quarter of the axial length of the vane. The arrangement is provided for the purpose of dampening vibrations of the vane.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the turbomachine of claim 11 of the reference application such that the vane carrying the fin comprises an upstream portion without fins and extending over at least a quarter of the axial length of the vane, as taught by FR 2867506 A1, for the purpose of dampening vibrations of the vanes.
Claim 30 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of copending Application No. 18/580,346 (reference application) in view of FR 2867506 A1.
Claim 11 of the reference application claims substantially the same subject matter as claim 30 of the instant application, but does not claim that the fin extends axially over a length of at least two thirds of the axial length of the vane.
FR 2867506 A1 (note the attached English machine translation) shows a turbomachine (a turbojet engine) having a guide vane 2 arranged in an unnumbered passage, the vane having a concave intrados and a convex extrados, which defines a plurality of diffusion corridors, the corridor being delimited circumferentially by an intrados and by an extrados of the vane, and each corridor being delimited radially by at least one fin 3 carried by the vane, and the fin extends axially over a length less than the axial length of the vane.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the turbomachine of claim 11 of the reference application such that the fin extends axially over a length less than the axial length of the vane, as taught by FR 2867506 A1, for the purpose of dampening vibrations of the vanes.
The recitation of the fin extending axially over a length of at least two thirds of the axial length of the vane, is an obvious engineering expedient. It would have been further obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the modified turbomachine of claim 11 of the reference application such that the fins are very long, such that the length of the portions devoid of fins are very small, for example the fin extends axially over a length of at least two thirds of the axial length of the vane, for the purpose of providing more of an air guiding effect by virtue of the increased length of the finned portions, as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the a longer fin length provides a greater air guiding effect.
These are provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher Verdier whose telephone number is (571)272-4824. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00-3:30.
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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at 571-270-3508. 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.
/Christopher Verdier/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights