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 .
Receipt and entry of Applicant’s Preliminary Amendment dated January 18, 2024 is acknowledged. The Substitute Specification dated January 18, 2024 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed January 18, 2024 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The addition in paragraph [0000.1] of “the contents of which (text, drawings and claims) are incorporated here by reference in its entirety.”
The filing date of the present application is the international filing date of July 21, 2021. Because the Preliminary Amendment filed January 18, 2024 is after the filing date of the present application, it adds new matter as previously indicated. Additionally, the newly added subject matter of “the contents of which (text, drawings and claims) are incorporated here by reference in its entirety.” is not supported in the prior filed application.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 C.F.R. 1.84(i) because figures 2 and 3 contain multiple views in the same figure (a top view and a bottom view). Note that “One view must not be placed upon another or within the outline of another.” The specification should also be amended accordingly to remove references to these multiple views (note the reference to the top in paragraph [0044], the bottom part in in paragraph [0049], and the lower part in paragraph [0052], for example).
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.
Figure 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Appropriate correction is required.
In paragraph [0002], line 5, “hot.” should be deleted.
In paragraph [0014], line 3, “.” should be deleted.
In paragraph [0016], line 3, “.” should be deleted.
In paragraph [0055], line 1, “devoid of fin” is non-idiomatic.
In paragraph [0072], line 4, “22.7” should be deleted.
In paragraph [0072], line 5, -- 22.7 -- should be inserted after “surface”.
In paragraph [0074], line 2, -- edges -- should be inserted after “downstream”.
Claim Objections
Claims 12-22 are objected to because they are replete with incomplete portions of prior recited elements, and grammatical errors, too numerous to mention in each and every instance. The following are several examples of incomplete portions of prior recited elements, and grammatical errors. The claims should be carefully reviewed for additional instances of incomplete portions of prior recited elements, and grammatical errors, and require extensive revisions. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 12, line 7, -- annular -- should be inserted before “passage”.
In claim 12, line 9, -- annular -- should be inserted before “passage”.
In claim 12, line 9, -- annular -- should be inserted before “row”.
In claim 12, line 9, -- guide -- should be inserted before “vanes”.
In claim 12, line 11, and all other appropriate instances throughout the claims, -- heat -- should be inserted before “exchanger”.
In claim 12, line 13, and all other appropriate instances throughout the claims, -- diffusion -- should be inserted before “corridor”.
In claim 12, line 13, and all other appropriate instances throughout the claims, -- guide -- should be inserted before “vanes”.
In claim 16, line 2 (both occurrences), and all other appropriate instances throughout the claims, -- at least one -- should be inserted before “fin”.
In claim 21, line 3, and all other appropriate instances throughout the claims, -- heat -- should be inserted before “exchanger(s)”.
In claim 22, line 2, “vanes devoid of fin” is non-idiomatic.
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 17-18 and 20-22 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 claims are replete with inaccurate and confusing language, too numerous to mention in each and every instance. The following are several examples of inaccurate and confusing language. The claims should be carefully reviewed for additional instances of inaccurate and confusing language, and require extensive revisions.
In claim 17, line 2, “two fins” is unclear if this is in addition to the at least one fin recited in claim 12, resulting in three fins, or if the two fins refers to the total number of fins.
In claim 17, lines 3-4, “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” is unclear if this refers to the circumferentially adjacent vanes referred to in claim 12, or different circumferentially adjacent vanes.
The term “approximately half of the circumferential distance between the two adjacent vanes” in claim 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately half of the circumferential distance between the two adjacent vanes” 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. The specification does not include any ranges or tolerances for what is encompassed by “approximately half of the circumferential distance between the two adjacent vanes”. For example, would a 40% or 60% circumferential distance between the two adjacent vanes be considered as “approximately half of the circumferential distance between the two adjacent vanes”?
Claim 20, which recites a vane of the annular row of vanes being circumferentially aligned with each structural arm, is inaccurate. One vane 22 cannot be circumferentially aligned with each structural arm 20. Rather, each respective vane is aligned circumferentially with a respective structural arm.
Claim 21, which recites “in the occupied angular portion(s) by the exchanger(s)” lacks antecedent basis, and it unclear as to what is meant by this.
In claim 22, line 2, it is unclear how there can be vanes supporting the one or more fin, and vanes devoid of fin, since all of the vanes have at least one fin 28.
In claim 22, line 2, “one or more fin” is unclear if this is intended to refer to the at least one fin recited in claim 15, or additional fins.
In claim 22, line 3, “the first” is unclear as to what this refers to,
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 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 3074476A1 in view of FR 2867506A1.
FR 3074476 A1 (figures 1-2) discloses a turbomachine 1 for an aircraft shown generally at 22, substantially as claimed, the turbomachine comprising a compressor 7 compressing a primary flow F1; a fan 15 propelling a secondary flow F2; an annular passage (unnumbered, inside of nacelle 17) for the flow of the secondary flow downstream of the fan; and an unducted propeller 14 propelling a tertiary flow F3, the primary, secondary and tertiary flows being distinct from each other, an annular row of guide vanes 18 arranged in the passage, each vane inherently having an intrados and an extrados, and at least one heat exchanger arranged in the passage (in the guide vanes) downstream of the row of vanes (claim 12).
Note the attached English machine translation.
However, FR 3074476 A1 does not disclose a plurality of diffusion corridors 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 (claim 12), does not disclose that the at least one fin is carried by the extrados 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 (claim 13), does not disclose that the at least one fin is carried by the intrados of a blade of the two circumferentially adjacent vanes, and has a circumferential end cantilevered facing the extrados of the other of the two vanes (claim 14), and does not disclose that 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 (claim 15).
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. The concave intrados and the convex extrados 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 extrados of a vane, and has a circumferential end cantilevered facing the intrados of the vane, the at least one fin is carried by the intrados of a blade the vane, and has a circumferential end cantilevered facing the extrados of the vane, and the at least one fin is carried by the intrados of the vane and by the extrados on 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 FR 3074476 A1 with a fin as taught by FR 2867506 A1, such that each vane has a plurality of diffusion corridors 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, such that the at least one fin is carried by the extrados 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, such that the at least one fin is carried by the intrados of a blade of the two circumferentially adjacent vanes, and has a circumferential end cantilevered facing the extrados of the other of the two vanes, and such that 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, as taught by FR 2867506 A1, for the purpose of dampening vibrations of the vanes.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 3074476A1 and FR 2867506A1 as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Harvey et al. 2002/0136639.
The modified turbomachine of FR 3074476 A1 shows all of the claimed subject matter except for the interface between the fin and the extrados, or between the 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 FR 3074476 A1 such that the interface between the 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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 3074476A1 and FR 2867506A1 as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Harvey et al. 2017/0184053.
The modified turbomachine of FR 3074476 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 FR 3074476 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 20, as far as it is definite and understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 3074476A1 and FR 2867506A1 as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Deparis et al. 2019/0153940.
The modified turbomachine of FR 3074476 A1 shows all of the claimed subject matter except for structural arms are arranged at an axial position which at least partially overlaps that of the at least one exchanger, a vane of the annular row of vanes being circumferentially aligned with each structural arm, said vane having the flared trailing profile.
Deparis et al. shows a turbomachine 1 having vanes 16 of an annular row of vanes 24, and structural arms 19, a vane of the annular row of vanes being circumferentially aligned with each structural arm, the vane having a flared trailing profile, for the purpose of providing structural support for the turbomachine and 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 FR 3074476 A1 such that it includes structural arms arranged at an axial position which at least partially overlaps that of the at least one exchanger, a vane of the annular row of vanes being circumferentially aligned with each structural arm, the vane having a flared trailing profile, as taught by Deparis et al., for the purpose of providing structural support for the turbomachine and smooth flow across the structural arms.
Claim 21, as far as it is definite and understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 3074476A1 and FR 2867506A1 as applied to claim 12 above.
The modified turbomachine of FR 3074476 A1 shows all of the claimed subject matter except for the vanes are distributed angularly in an irregular manner, the vanes being more spaced circumferentially from each other in the occupied angular portion(s) by the exchanger(s).
Official Notice is taken that guide vanes in turbomachines commonly have irregular angular distributions, for the purpose of reducing noise.
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 FR 3074476 A1 such that the vanes are distributed angularly in an irregular manner, the vanes being more spaced circumferentially from each other in the occupied angular portion(s) by the exchanger(s), for the purpose of reducing noise.
Claim 22, as far as it is definite and understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 3074476A1 and FR 2867506A1 as applied to claim 12 above.
The modified turbomachine of FR 3074476 A1 shows all of the claimed subject matter, the annular row of vanes comprises vanes supporting one or more fin(s) and portions of the vanes devoid of fins, but does not show the latter extending axially over a length shorter, at least twice or at least three times shorter, than the first (claim 22).
The recitation of the latter extending axially over a length at least twice or at least three 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 FR 3074476 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 twice or at least three 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.
Claims 12-15, 17, and 19 (as far as claim 17 is definite and understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 3074476A1 in view of Harvey et al. 2017/0184053.
FR 3074476 A1 (figures 1-2) discloses a turbomachine 1 for an aircraft shown generally at 22, substantially as claimed, the turbomachine comprising a compressor 7 compressing a primary flow F1; a fan 15 propelling a secondary flow F2; an annular passage (unnumbered, inside of nacelle 17) for the flow of the secondary flow downstream of the fan; and an unducted propeller 14 propelling a tertiary flow F3, the primary, secondary and tertiary flows being distinct from each other, an annular row of guide vanes 18 arranged in the passage, and at least one heat exchanger arranged in the passage (in the guide vanes) downstream of the row of vanes (claim 12).
However, FR 3074476 A1 does not disclose a plurality of diffusion corridors 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 (claim 12), does not disclose that the at least one fin is carried by the extrados 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 (claim 13), does not disclose that the at least one fin is carried by the intrados of a blade of the two circumferentially adjacent vanes, and has a circumferential end cantilevered facing the extrados of the other of the two vanes (claim 14), does not disclose that 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 (claim 15), 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 approximately half of the circumferential distance between the two adjacent vanes (claim 17), and dos 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 19).
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 extrados 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 blade 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/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 approximately half of the circumferential distance between the two adjacent vanes, and the two circumferentially adjacent vanes as well as the at least one fin delimiting the corridor between these two vanes, are in one piece. 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 FR 3074476 A1 with a fin, such that a plurality of diffusion corridors 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, such that the at least one fin is carried by the extrados 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, such that the at least one fin is carried by the intrados of a blade of the two circumferentially adjacent vanes, and has a circumferential end cantilevered facing the extrados of the other of the two vanes, such that 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, 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 approximately half of the circumferential distance between the two adjacent vanes, and 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., 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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 3074476A1 and Harvey et al. 2017/0184053 as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Harvey et al. 2002/0136639.
The modified turbomachine of FR 3074476 A1 shows all of the claimed subject matter except for the interface between the fin and the extrados, or between the 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 FR 3074476 such that the interface between the 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 18, as far as it is definite and understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 3074476A1 and Harvey et al. 2017/0184053 as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of FR 2867506 A1.
The modified turbomachine of FR 3074476 A1 shows all of the claimed subject matter, wherein 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, but does not show the free ends being 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 FR 3074476 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 20, as far as it is definite and understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 3074476A1 and Harvey et al. 2017/0184053 as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Deparis et al. 2019/0153940.
The modified turbomachine of FR 3074476 A1 shows all of the claimed subject matter except for structural arms are arranged at an axial position which at least partially overlaps that of the at least one exchanger, a vane of the annular row of vanes being circumferentially aligned with each structural arm, said vane having the flared trailing profile.
Deparis et al. shows a turbomachine 1 having vanes 16 of an annular row of vanes 24, and structural arms 19, a vane of the annular row of vanes being circumferentially aligned with each structural arm, the vane having a flared trailing profile, for the purpose of providing structural support for the turbomachine and 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 FR 3074476 A1 such that it includes structural arms arranged at an axial position which at least partially overlaps that of the at least one exchanger, a vane of the annular row of vanes being circumferentially aligned with each structural arm, the vane having a flared trailing profile, as taught by Deparis et al., for the purpose of providing structural support for the turbomachine and smooth flow across the structural arms.
Claim 21, as far as it is definite and understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 3074476A1 and Harvey et al. 2017/0184053 as applied to claim 12 above.
The modified turbomachine of FR 3074476 A1 shows all of the claimed subject matter except for the vanes are distributed angularly in an irregular manner, the vanes being more spaced circumferentially from each other in the occupied angular portion(s) by the exchanger(s).
Official Notice is taken that guide vanes in turbomachines commonly have irregular angular distributions, for the purpose of reducing noise.
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 FR 3074476 A1 such that the vanes are distributed angularly in an irregular manner, the vanes being more spaced circumferentially from each other in the occupied angular portion(s) by the exchanger(s), for the purpose of reducing noise.
Claim 22, as far as it is definite and understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 3074476A1 and Harvey et al. 2017/0184053 as applied to claim 12 above.
The modified turbomachine of FR 3074476 A1 shows all of the claimed subject matter, the annular row of vanes comprises vanes supporting one or more fin(s) and portions of the vanes devoid of fins, but does not show the latter extending axially over a length shorter, at least twice or at least three times shorter, than the first (claim 22).
The recitation of the latter extending axially over a length at least twice or at least three 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 FR 3074476 A1such 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 twice or at least three 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.
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 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 (as far as claims 17-18 and 20-22 are definite and understood) are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 27, respectively, of copending Application No. 18/580,056 in view of FR 3074476 A1.
Claims 15, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 27, respectively, of copending Application No. 18/580,056 claims substantially the same subject matter as claims 12, 14, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 of the present application, including a turbomachine for an aircraft, but do not claim the turbomachine comprising a compressor compressing a primary flow; a fan propelling a secondary flow; an annular passage for the flow of the secondary flow downstream of the fan; and an unducted propeller propelling a tertiary flow, the primary, secondary and tertiary flows being distinct from each other.
FR 3074476 A1 (figures 1-2) shows a turbomachine 1 for an aircraft shown generally at 22, the turbomachine comprising a compressor 7 compressing a primary flow F1; a fan 15 propelling a secondary flow F2; an annular passage (unnumbered, inside of nacelle 17) for the flow of the secondary flow downstream of the fan; and an unducted propeller 14 propelling a tertiary flow F3, the primary, secondary and tertiary flows being distinct from each other, for the purpose of providing for propulsion of the aircraft.
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 for an aircraft of the above claims of copending Application No. 18/580,056 such that it includes a compressor compressing a primary flow; a fan propelling a secondary flow; an annular passage for the flow of the secondary flow downstream of the fan; and an unducted propeller propelling a tertiary flow, the primary, secondary and tertiary flows being distinct from each other, as taught by FR 3074476 A1, for the purpose of providing for propulsion of the aircraft.
Claims 13 and 16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15 and 19, respectively, of copending Application No. 18/580,056 and FR 3074476 A1 as applied above, and further in view of FR 2867506 A1.
The modified turbomachine for an aircraft of claim 15 of copending Application No. 18/580,056 claims substantially the same subject matter as claim 13 of the present application, but does not claim that the at least one fin is carried by the extrados 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.
FR 2867506 A1 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 extrados of a vane, and has a circumferential end cantilevered to the intrados of the vane. The arrangement is provided for the purpose of dampening vibrations of the vanes.
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 for an aircraft of claim 15 of copending Application No. 18/580,056 such that the at least one fin is carried by the extrados 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, as taught by FR 2867506 A1, for the purpose of dampening vibrations of the vanes.
These are provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Macchia et al. is cited to show a stator guide vane with a flared trailing edge.
Parnes et al. is cited to show a turbomachine with circumferentially spaced heat exchangers.
Chengappa et al. is cited to show diffuser vanes with fins.
Routier cited to show adjacent guide vanes connected by fins.
EP 0469827 A1 is cited to show a turbomachine with a vanes and a heat exchanger.
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