DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
it is thought claim 10 line 16 should be changed accordingly: “[[and]] is aligned”
it is thought claim 10 line 20 should be changed accordingly: “the inner surfaces”
it is thought claim 10 line 22 should be changed accordingly: “the inner surfaces”
it is thought claim 10 line 25 should be changed accordingly: “the inner surfaces”
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The specification amendment filed 04/22/2026 is acceptable and has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pub. No.: US 2020/0040844 A1 (Gormley) as evidenced by Pub. No. US 2016/0040626 (Suciu), in view of US 20090127390 (Lair ‘390), as evidenced by US 20090313969 (Lair ‘969).
Regarding claim 1, Gormley discloses (see figs. 1, 2 and 5) an aircraft (see abstract) thrust reverser 36 corrosion shield (skins 38,70,86 in fig. 5 protect outer structures of thrust reverser doors 40,42 in fig. 2), comprising: a pivot door 42 skin 86 configured for mounting (see fig. 5) to a pivot door 42 of an aircraft thrust reverser 36 thereby protecting the pivot door 42 from an exhaust 50 (see fig. 2) of an aircraft engine (propulsion system 20 includes gas engine and nacelle 22; see par. 34); and a side beam skin (skin 38 extends rearward in fig. 5 to cover side beam 35; this is also known as 44A, see par. 39, bottom and par. 40 middle) configured for mounting (see fig. 5) to a side beam 35 of the aircraft thrust reverser 36 thereby protecting (inner surface 63 of skin 38 is the inner aerodynamic flow surface 48 of the exhaust 50 and thus protects the side beam; see par. 38, top and bottom; see fig. 5 the instant flow surface 48,38 covers the beam 37 opposing beam 35 shown in fig. 5, both beams shown in fig. 7) the side beam 35 from the exhaust 50 of the aircraft engine, wherein the pivot door skin 86 and the side beam skin 38 have edges (e.g., edges at 94 of skin 86 are flush with edges at 62 of skin 38 when the pivot door 42 is closed; see par. 43, bottom: “when the second thrust reverser door 42 is in the stowed (e.g., closed) position, the interior surface 118 of the inner arcuate panel 86 is substantially flush with the interior surface 63 of the fixed structure 38”) which are aligned adjacent (because the instant edges are flush they are aligned up and adjacent with each other to provide the instant aerodynamic surface 48 to form “outer peripheral boundary of [the] gas path 50 within the aircraft propulsion system 20” see par. 38, top; this is evidenced by Suciu fig. 6 that shows when pivot door skin 52a right is in the closed position, then the corresponding edges of the skin are aligned with and adjacent to the corresponding edges of the side skin that is just clockwise from the pivot door skin 52a regarding the right side engine exhaust; also see Gormley par. 38, bottom regarding the “mate” feature that is also explained in the claim 10 analysis below) each other, thereby substantially covering exhaust surfaces of the pivot door (the exhaust surface of the pivot door 42 is the portion of surface 114 that corresponds with pivot door skin 86 and thus such exhaust surface is substantially covered by the skin 86) is the and the side beam (the exhaust surface of the side beam 35 is the portion of surface 38 of side skin 38 that corresponds with side beam 35 and thus such exhaust surface is substantially covered by the skin 38) while allowing the pivot door 42 to pivot (see figs. 4-5). Gormley does not disclose a plurality of fasteners, wherein the fasteners are configured to removably fasten the pivot door skin to the pivot door and the side beam skin to the side beam.
Lair ‘390 teaches a thrust reverser 22 (see fig. 1) and further teaches (see fig. 6) a plurality of fasteners 70, wherein the fasteners are configured to fasten (see par. 24) a skin 50 to a structure 44.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Gormley with a plurality of fasteners, wherein the fasteners are configured to removably fasten the pivot door skin to the pivot door and the side beam skin to the side beam as taught by Lair ‘390 in order to facilitate securing of the instant skins for ease of repair and maintenance. Lair ‘390 teaches using rivets to fasten pivot door skins 50 to pivot doors 24. Lair ‘969 shows (see figs. 1-2) using rivets 20 to fasten (see par. 14) side beam skins 14 to side beams 12 and thus is evidence that Lair 390’s fasteners are applicable to the claimed fasten the side beam skin to the side beam.
The claim 1 terms “replaceable aircraft thrust reverser corrosion shield”, “configured for removably mounting” “each removably replaceable” are statements of intended use and Gormley in view of Lair ‘390 are capable of performing the intended use. For example one of ordinary skill in the gas turbine arts is knowledgeable that rivets are used as fasteners for removably mounting and removably replacing structures (see pertinent prior art infra).
Regarding claim 4, The combination of Gormley in view of Lair ‘390 teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Lair ‘390 of the combination teaches the fasteners comprise existing fasteners of the pivot door and the side beam. The rivets of Lair ‘390 are fasteners corresponding with the skin 50 that existed when used to fasten the instant skin. There is no discussion in Lair ‘390 that the fasteners were newly designed in order to fasten the skin.
Regarding claim 5, The combination of Gormley in view of Lair ‘390 teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Lair ‘390 of the combination teaches wherein the side beam skin and the pivot door skin each include at least one fastener hole, wherein each fastener hole provides access to a fastener. Lair ‘390 teaches pivot door skin 24,44 include a fastener hole (rivet 70 is in hole). The rivet for example can be accessed in order to drill out the rivet.
Regarding claim 9, Gormley in view of Lair ‘390 teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Gormley discloses (see fig. 5) wherein the pivot door skin 86 and the side beam skin (portion of skin 38 corresponding with side beam 35) each comprise an outer surface configured for directly contacting the pivot door and the side beam, respectively, and an inner surface 63,118 configured for exposure to the exhaust 50 of the aircraft engine. Pivot door skin 86 is a part of (see par. 43, top) pivot door 42 and thus directly contacts with the interior surface 114 of such door. Side beam skin 38 includes portion (at location of the side beam 35) direct contact (see fig. 5) with side beam 35.
Claim(s) 6, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gormley as evidenced by Suciu, in view of Lair ‘390, as evidenced by Lair ‘969, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of JPH0122132Y2 (Anonymous, referred to as Anon hereinafter, the proper name of the inventor was not available) as evidenced by Pub. No.: US 2024/0067349 A1 (Shinde).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Gormley in view of Lair ‘390 teaches the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Gormley does not disclose (claim 6) the pivot door skin and side beam skin are each fabricated from an Aluminum 6000 alloy; and (claim 7) the pivot door skin and side beam skin are each fabricated from an Aluminum 5000 alloy.
Anon teaches suitable materials for exposure to gas turbine exhaust are 5052 and 6061 aluminum alloys (part of the 5000 and 6000 series of aluminum alloys, respectively) (see page 2, top and middle of the translation). The alloys are used to make pipe 4 that samples gas turbine (see page 1, top) exhaust. Shinde is evidence that skins or heat shields 1202,1204 in gas turbines (see figs. 1 and 12 showing gas turbine 110) are made of aluminum alloy (see par. 61) and thus the material of Anon may be used for the skins of Gormley. Therefore, Anon teaches (claims 6 and 7) skins fabricated from Aluminum 6000 alloy or Aluminum 5000 alloy.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Gormley in view of Lair ‘390 with (claim 6) the pivot door skin and side beam skin are each fabricated from an Aluminum 5000 alloy; (claim 7) the pivot door skin and side beam skin are each fabricated from an Aluminum 5000 alloy as taught by Anon in order to facilitate using materials compatible with high temperature gas turbine exhaust.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gormley as evidenced by Suciu, in view of Lair ‘390, as evidenced by Lair ‘969, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US 2002/0182058 A1 (Darnell).
Regarding claim 8, Gormley in view of Lair ‘390 teaches the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Gormley further discloses the corrosion shield may include a shield on the inner surface of skin 38 (see par. 39, concluding sentence). Gormley does not explicitly disclose the corrosion shield is 0.010 inch to 0.040 inch thick.
Darnell teaches (see figs. 1 and 3) a gas turbine 10 and further teaches a corrosion shield 80 (for gas turbine exhaust 38,110) is 0.020 inches thick 94 (see par. 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Gormley in view of Lair ‘390 with the corrosion shield is approximately 0.010 inches to 0.040 inch thick as taught by Darnell in order to facilitate preventing cracking and/or failure of the side beam and the pivot door (see Darnell par. 4). This results in the pivot door skin being and/or the par. 39 in this claim 8 analysis above being the instant thickness.
Claim(s) 10, 11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gormley in view of Lair ‘390 and US 2017/0022934 A1 (Caruel) as evidenced by US 5136839 (Armstrong).
Regarding claim 10, Gormley discloses (see figs. 1, 2 and 5) a corrosion shield (skins 38,70,86 in fig. 5 protect outer structures of thrust reverser doors 40,42 in fig. 2) for an aircraft (see abstract) thrust reverser 36, comprising:
a first pivot door skin 70 configured for mounting to an inner surface (portion of 108 that is covered by skin 70) of a first pivot door 40 of the aircraft thrust reverser 36;
a second pivot door skin 86 configured for mounting to an inner surface (portion of 114 covered by skin 86) of a second pivot door 42 of the aircraft thrust reverser 36;
a first side beam skin (portion of skin 38 corresponding with side beam 37; this is known as 44B) configured for mounting to an inner surface (the radially inward surface of side beam 37 shown in fig. 6 that is covered by the first side beam skin) of a first side beam 37 of the aircraft thrust reverser 36; and
a second side beam skin (portion of skin 38 corresponding with side beam 35; this is known as 44A) configured for mounting to an inner surface (the radially inward surface of side beam 35 (the radially inward surface of side beam 37 shown in fig. 6 that is covered by the second side beam skin), side beam 35 being shown in fig. 5) of a second side beam 35 of the aircraft thrust reverser;
wherein the first and second pivot door skins 70,86 and the first and second side beam skins 44B,44A each comprise an exhaust surface (see surfaces 112,118 corresponding with the instant pivot door skins; see surface 63 corresponding with the instant side beam skins) configured to face towards (skins 44B,44A face toward the center; pivot door skins 112,118 face towards the center when the pivot doors are closed as shown in fig. 4; thus surface 63 of the side beam skins and surfaces 112 and 118 of the first and second pivot door skins face towards the center) a center (for example central axis of annular skin 38 in fig. 5) of the aircraft thrust reverser 36 of an aircraft engine (propulsion system 20 includes gas engine and nacelle 22; see par. 34),
wherein upon installation (see figs. 1, 2 and 5), a first edge (see annotated figure below) of the first side beam 37 skin 44B is aligned adjacent to a first edge (see annotated figure below) of the first pivot door skin 70, and a second edge (see annotated figure below) of the first side beam 37 skin 44B is aligned adjacent to a first edge (see annotated figure below) of the second pivot door skin 86, and a first edge (see annotated figure below) of the second side beam 35 skin 44A is aligned adjacent to a second edge of the first pivot door skin (see annotated figure below) and a second edge (similar to that of the first side beam shown below) of the second side beam skin 44A is aligned adjacent to a second edge (similar to that of the first pivot door skin shown below) of the second pivot door skin 86
such that the first and second pivot door skins 70,86 completely cover the inner surfaces of the first and second pivot doors, respectively, and the first and second side beam skins completely cover the inner surfaces of the first and second side beams, respectively.
Gormley does not disclose the corrosion shield is replaceable; the first pivot door skin configured for removably mounting; the second pivot door skin configured for removably mounting; the first side beam skin configured for removably mounting; the second side beam skin configured for removably mounting; and wherein the first and second side beam skins and the first and second pivot door skins are each manufactured from an Aluminum alloy configured to be galvanically compatible with the inner surfaces of the first and second side beams and the first and second pivot doors, respectively.
Lair ‘390 teaches (see figs. 1 and 6) skins 50 related to thrust reversers 22 configured for removably mounting (the skin 50 to a structure 44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Gormley with the corrosion shield is replaceable; the first pivot door skin configured for removably mounting; the second pivot door skin configured for removably mounting; the first side beam skin configured for removably mounting; the second side beam skin configured for removably mounting as taught by Lair ‘390 in order to facilitate securing of the instant skins for ease of repair and maintenance.
Caruel teaches a gas turbine 1 (see fig. 1) and further teaches wherein the first and second side beam skins and the first and second pivot door skins are each manufactured from an Aluminum alloy configured to be galvanically compatible with the inner surfaces of the first and second side beams and the first and second pivot doors, respectively. Caruel teaches pivot door 23 and side beam 31made from Aluminum alloy 2219 (see par. 18; Caruel teaches using Aluminum alloy 2219 for parts surrounding the pivot door pivot 39, such parts include side beam 31 and pivot door 23; see fig. 9). This is evidenced by Armstrong that states (see col. 2, ll. 65-68) that exhaust nozzle 8 is formed of Aluminum alloy 2219, nozzle 8 being similar to nozzle 34 of Gormley. It is further noted that one of ordinary skill in the art is familiar that gas turbine heat shields are made of aluminum alloy.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Gormley in view of Lair ‘390 with wherein the first and second side beam skins and the first and second pivot door skins are each manufactured from an Aluminum alloy configured to be galvanically compatible with the inner surfaces of the first and second side beams and the first and second pivot doors, respectively as taught by Caruel in order to facilitate using materials configured to withstand gas turbine operational pressures and temperatures and also of high strength (see Caruel col. 1, ll. 15-25). This results in forming the first and second side beam, the first and second side beam skins, the first and second pivot doors, and the first and second pivot door skins with Aluminum alloy 2219. The galvanically compatible limitation is met because there is no dissimilar metals in contact with each other to cause corrosion.
PNG
media_image1.png
653
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (first edge of second side beam skin)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (first edge of first side beam skin)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (first edge of first pivot door skin)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (second edge of first pivot door skin)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (second edge of first side beam skin)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (first edge of first second pivot door skin)]
It is noted that the phrase “aligned adjacent” is met when the pivot doors 40,42 are closed because of the following citations from Gormley: “[first and second pivot door skins] 70, 86 … [are] configured to mate with the … [first and second side beam skins] 44A,44B to collectively create an annular structure; e.g., a continuation of the forward annular portion of the fixed structure 38”, see par. 39, bottom; “when the first … [pivot] door 40 is in the stowed ( e.g., closed) position, the interior surface 112 of the … [pivot door skin] 70 is substantially flush with the interior surface 63 of the fixed structure 38 [i.e. the interior surface 63 of side beam skins 44A,44B]”, see par. 41, bottom; and “when the second … [pivot] door 42 is in the stowed (e.g., closed) position, the interior surface 118 of the … [pivot door skin] 86 is substantially flush with the interior surface 63 of the fixed structure 38 [i.e. the interior surface 63 of side beam skins 44A,44B]”, see par. 43, bottom). This is evidenced by Suciu fig. 6 that shows when pivot door skin 52a right is in the closed position, then the corresponding edges of the skin are aligned with and adjacent to the corresponding edges of the side skin that is just clockwise from the pivot door skin 52a regarding the right side engine exhaust.
Regarding claim 11, Gormley in view of Lair ‘390 and Caruel teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Gormley discloses wherein the first 70 and second 86 pivot door skins cover exhaust surfaces of the pivot doors (the exhaust surface of the pivot door 40 is the portion of surface 108 that corresponds with pivot door skin 70 and thus such exhaust surface is covered by the skin 70; the exhaust surface of the pivot door 42 is the portion of surface 114 that corresponds with pivot door skin 86 and thus such exhaust surface is substantially covered by the skin 86) and the first and second side beam skins cover exhaust surfaces of the side beams (the exhaust surface of the first side beam 37 is the portion of surface 63 of side skin 38 that corresponds with side beam 37 and thus such exhaust surface is substantially covered by the skin 38; the exhaust surface of the side beam 35 is the portion of surface 63 of side skin 38 that corresponds with second side beam 35 and thus such exhaust surface is substantially covered by the skin 38), thereby shielding the pivot doors and the side beams, respectively, from aircraft engine exhaust 50 for mitigating corrosion of the pivot doors and the side beams (the instant skins prevent the instant surfaces from direct contact with high temperature exhaust 50 and this are capable of preventing the claimed corrosion; this is intended use and thus the structure need only be capable of performing the claimed shielding and mitigation).
Regarding claim 16, Gormley in view of Lair ‘390 and Caruel teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Gormley discloses the first and second side beam skins and the first and second pivot door skins each comprise a curvature that matches their respective pivot doors and side beams of the aircraft thrust reverser. It is noted that the claim does not require a curvature of the side beam for example. The term match can be interpreted as “to cause to correspond with” (American Heritage dictionary online).
See curvature of door skins 70,86 match the doors 40,42 (see fig. 5). See curvature of side beam skins 38 match the side beams 35,37 at the location of the instant side beams.
Claim(s) 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gormley, as evidenced by Suciu, in view of JPH0122132Y2 (Anonymous, referred to as Anon hereinafter, the proper name of the inventor was not available) as evidenced by Pub. No.: US 2024/0067349 A1 (Shinde).
Regarding claims 12-15, Gormley in view of Lair ‘390 and Caruel teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Gormley discloses (claim 12) the exhaust surface 63,112,11 (see fig. 5) is configured to withstand exposure to aircraft engine exhaust 50 (the instant surfaces are exposed to gas turbine exhaust 50 and thus one of ordinary skill would understand such surfaces are configured to withstand such exposure; this is also taught by ). Gormley does not explicitly disclose (claim 12) the exhaust surface comprises a corrosion resistant material; (claim 13) the corrosion resistant material comprises an Aluminum alloy; (claim 14) wherein the Aluminum alloy comprises Aluminum alloy 5052; (claim 15) wherein the Aluminum alloy comprises Aluminum alloy 6061.
Anon teaches suitable materials for exposure to gas turbine exhaust are 5052 and 6061 aluminum alloys (part of the 5000 and 6000 series of aluminum alloys, respectively) (see page 2, top and middle of the translation). The alloys are used to make pipe 4 that samples gas turbine (see page 1, top) exhaust. Shinde is evidence that skins or heat shields 1202,1204 in gas turbines (see figs. 1 and 12 showing gas turbine 110) are made of aluminum alloy (see par. 61) and thus the material of Anon may be used for the skins of Gormley. Therefore, Anon teaches (claim 12) the exhaust surface comprises a corrosion resistant material (one of ordinary skill understands that aluminum alloys are corrosion resistant as pointed out in the pertinent prior art infra); (claim 13) the corrosion resistant material comprises an Aluminum alloy; (claim 14) wherein the Aluminum alloy comprises Aluminum alloy 5052; (claim 15) wherein the Aluminum alloy comprises Aluminum alloy 6061.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Gormley with (claim 12) the exhaust surface comprises a corrosion resistant material (claim 13); the corrosion resistant material comprises an Aluminum alloy; (claim 14) wherein the Aluminum alloy comprises Aluminum alloy 5052; (claim 15) wherein the Aluminum alloy comprises Aluminum alloy 6061 as taught by Anon in order to facilitate using materials compatible with high temperature gas turbine exhaust.
This results in substituting alloy of Anon for the 2219 skin alloy of Gormley in view of Lair ‘390 and Caruel. Series 5000 and 6000 aluminum alloys are more ductile and have better corrosion resistance than series 2000 aluminum alloys and thus could better form to the inner surface of the pivot doors and side beams of the combination. However the 2000 series is a high strength alloy compared to the 5000 and 6000 series and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not consider using the 5000 and 6000 series alloys for the pivot doors and side beams.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gormley as evidenced by Suciu, in view of Lair ‘390, as evidenced by Lair ‘969, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Pub. No.: US 2011/0052443 A1 (Hanlon).
Regarding claim 18, Gormley in view of Lair ‘390 teaches the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Gormley does not explicitly disclose the weight of the pivot door skin is 0.5 pounds to 2 pounds and the weight of the side beam skin is 0.1 pounds to 0.5 pounds.
The presence of a known result-effective variable would be a motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. See KSR; MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). A particular parameter is a result-effective variable when the variable is known to achieve a recognized result. See In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620, 195 USPQ 6,8 (CCPA 1977).
Here, Hanlon teaches in paragraph 2 that components of gas turbine engines exposed high temperature operating temperatures must be optimized over a range of properties such as weight, tensile strength, corrosion resistance and reasonable cost. Thus for materials of good corrosion resistance a weight should be selected such that there is enough for example tensile strength with reasonable cost. Lighter alloys or materials such as titanium may make the thrust reverser lighter however the cost may be prohibitive. Thus less expensive aluminum alloys can provide sufficient protection from corrosion without being overly costly. Therefore, an ordinary skilled worker would recognize that the weight of gas turbine components (such as pivot door skins and side beam skins) that are exposed to high temperature exhaust is a result-effective variable that controls the cost and effect on fuel efficiency of the such components. Thus, the claimed wherein the weight of the pivot door skin is 0.5 pounds to 2 pounds and the weight of the side beam skin is 0.1 pounds to 0.5 pounds is found to be an obvious optimization of the prior art obtainable by an ordinary skilled worker through routine experimentation.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. a weight of pivot door skins and a weight of the side beam skins, were disclosed in the prior art by Gormley in view of Lair ‘390, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gormley in view of Lair ‘390’s invention to include wherein the weight of the pivot door skin is 0.5 pounds to 2 pounds and the weight of the side beam skin is 0.1 pounds to 0.5 pounds in order to provide reasonable cost and engine fuel efficiency as suggested and taught by Hanlon. It has been held “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”, In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
Regarding claims 1 and 10, applicant arguments filed 04/22/2026 were considered, but a new combination of references were used to reject the claims and therefor the arguments were moot.
Regarding claims 6, 7 and 12-15, applicant argues that Anon’s citation of 200 degree C to 500 degree C is not compatible with applicant assessment of gas turbine exhaust temperatures of 550 degrees C to 850 degrees C. Applicant has not provided any evidence of this temperature range regarding what type of engine, what operating condition and the time duration of such temperatures. Gormley’s engine includes is a turbofan engine that includes a cold bypass flow and thus the exhaust temperature is less than that of a turbojet engine without a fan. Thus one of ordinary skill would not be deterred from using 5052 for example by Anon’s cited temperatures especially because Anon’s cites a gas turbine engine. Applicant’s arguments appear to be inconsistent with applicant disclosure. For example the examples given in applicant specification regarding alloys are 6061 and 5052. The melting points of the instant alloys are 585 degrees C and 607 degrees C, respectively (see Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6061_aluminium_alloy and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5052_aluminium_alloy). Applicant argues on page 13 of the Remarks filed 04/22/2026 that gas turbine exhaust is in the range of “550 degrees C to 850 degrees C”. Therefore it appears to be unclear how the jet engine in applicant par. 19 can use the instant alloys for thrust reversers.
Applicant argues that Caruel does not teach a skin for mounting to an underlying aluminum part. First Caruel teaches a skin for mounting to an underlying part (see annotated figure below). The thrust reverser structures are formed of 2219 aluminum alloy. The skin below is mounted to the pivot door 23 with rivets. This is similar to the rivets 70 of Lair ‘390 (US 20090127390) fig. 6 cited above in the 103 section. Second Shinde taught the general concept of gas turbine high temperature shields being formed of aluminum alloys. Thus it would be a natural course of action to form the skins of Gormley with an aluminum alloy such as 2219 or 5052 for example the latter being more corrosion resistant due to its magnesium ingredient.
PNG
media_image3.png
375
447
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
436
256
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (skin)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (underlying aluminum part)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (rivets)][AltContent: arrow]
Applicant argues it is impermissible hindsight to refer to applicant specification regarding the meaning of “galvanically compatible”. In response, Applicant has provided no standard regarding how to assess a threshold for when two metals are galvanically compatible and when they are not and there is not an ordinary and customary plain meaning for such a term. “The specification should ideally serve as a glossary to the claim terms so that the examiner and the public can clearly ascertain the meaning of the claim terms.” (MPEP 2173.03). “[T]he best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms.” (MPEP 2173.01 I.). Applicant specification explains the meaning of “galvanically compatible” by way of example.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
one of ordinary skill in the gas turbine arts is knowledgeable that rivets are used as fasteners for removably mounting and removably replacing structures: US 20250051022 (par. 75);
side beams attached to skin with rivets: US 5592813 (col. 7, ll. 10-15);
thrust reversers made of aluminum: US 3280562; 20160169156 (par. 22); 20160245231 (par. 20); 20170096964 (claims 14,16 and 20).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC J AMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-9948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571) 272-7118. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARC AMAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3741 /DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights