DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/26/2026.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
“vaned impeller” in claim 4.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“drive element” in claims 4 and 7-9. Applicant’s specification provides further structure for the term “drive element” as “a drive wheel” (see ¶ [0014] of applicant’s specification)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-10, 12 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mackin (US 20200025207 A1) (cited in the IDS filed on 10/10/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Mackin teaches of:
Air-conducting structure for an aircraft (Figs. 4A-4D) including:
a first duct portion (35) configured to conduct a first air stream (¶ [0022], “Cooling flow for heat exchange in the pre-cooler 16 is extracted from bypass flow in the engine fan 22”) ,
a second duct portion (32) opening into the first duct portion (32 opens into 30 and then out of 44 which is leads into 35) and configured to conduct a second air stream (¶ [0024], “A pneumatic turbine 30, acting as the rotational power source, is powered by pressurized airflow received from the compressor section 18 of the engine 12 via a pneumatic pressure supply line 32”), and
a vaned rotor (34) in the first duct portion (34 is in 35) and configured to be driven by the second air stream (34 is driven by air stream within 32; ¶ [0024], “A pneumatic turbine 30, acting as the rotational power source, is powered by pressurized airflow received from the compressor section 18 of the engine 12 via a pneumatic pressure supply line 32. A multi-bladed single stage fan 34 housed in a duct or shroud 35 providing a flow path from the inlet plenum 25 is driven by the pneumatic turbine 30 through a shaft 36”).
Regarding claim 2, Mackin teaches of the air-conducting structure according to claim 1, and Mackin further teaches of:
wherein the vaned rotor is configured to convey air through the first duct portion, to suck in the first air stream on an intake side of the vaned rotor, and/or to generate a third air stream on a pressure side of the vaned rotor (34 draws air through the first duct 35 and increases the flow rate of the air through 35, therefore creating a third air stream on the downstream side of 34; ¶ [0024], “A multi-bladed single stage fan 34 housed in a duct or shroud 35 providing a flow path from the inlet plenum 25 is driven by the pneumatic turbine 30 through a shaft 36. The fan 34 is adapted to increase flow rate and pressure for air drawn through inlet plenum 25 out of the bypass flow from the engine fan section 22 as previously described”).
Regarding claim 3, Mackin teaches of the air-conducting structure according to claim 2, and Mackin further teaches of:
wherein the vaned rotor is configured to generate the third air stream with a mass flow that is greater than a mass flow of the first air stream (the third air stream downstream from 34 has an increases flow rate and pressure and therefore has a greater mass flow rate than the first stream upstream from 34; ¶ [0024], “The fan 34 is adapted to increase flow rate and pressure for air drawn through inlet plenum 25 out of the bypass flow from the engine fan section 22 as previously described”)
Regarding claim 4, Mackin teaches of the air-conducting structure according to claim 1, and Mackin further teaches of:
wherein the vaned rotor includes a drive element (46) which is fluid-coupled to the second duct portion (46 is fluid coupled to 32) and a vaned impeller (the blades of 34 are the vaned impeller) configured to convey air through the first duct portion (34 conveys air through 35).
Regarding claim 5, Mackin teaches of the air-conducting structure according to claim 4, and Mackin further teaches of:
wherein the impeller is inside an internal cross section of the first duct portion (34 is inside an internal cross-section of 35)
Regarding claim 6, Mackin teaches of the air-conducting structure according to claim 4, and Mackin further teaches of:
wherein the drive element has a drive wheel (46 is a drive wheel), which is arranged in or at an opening portion of the second duct portion towards the first duct portion (46 is arranged at the opening of 32).
Regarding claim 7, Mackin teaches of the air-conducting structure according to claim 4, and Mackin further teaches of:
wherein the drive element and the impeller have a common rotational axis (both 46 and 34 share a common rotational axis of 36).
Regarding claim 8, Mackin teaches of the air-conducting structure according to claim 4, and Mackin further teaches of:
wherein the drive element is radially inward of the impeller (46 is radially inward from 34)
Regarding claim 9, Mackin teaches of the air-conducting structure according to claim 4, and Mackin further teaches of:3
wherein the drive element and the impeller are coupled together and rotate together (34 and 36 are coupled together via 36 and rotate together)
Regarding claim 10, Mackin teaches of the air-conducting structure according to claim 1, and Mackin further teaches of:
further comprising a heat exchanger configured to act thermally on at least the first air stream (16 has a heat exchanger within it which acts on the first air stream traveling through 35; ¶ [0022], “the pre-cooler 16 receives bleed air flow from a compressor section 18 of the engine through one or more conduits 20 as a supply for an internal heat exchanger”)
Regarding claim 12, Mackin teaches of the air-conducting structure according to claim 1, and Mackin further teaches of:
further comprising a downstream guide wheel (38) in the first duct portion downstream of the vaned rotor (38 is in 35 and is downstream from 34).
Regarding claim 14, Mackin teaches of the air-conducting structure according to claim 1, and Mackin further teaches of:
further comprising a discharge duct (44), wherein the second duct portion fluidically opens into the discharge duct (32 opens into 44).
Regarding claim 15, Mackin teaches of:
An air ejector or ejector pump for an aircraft,
having an air-conducting structure according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the first duct portion is fluid-coupled to a first airflow source (Figs. 2 and 4A, first duct 35 portion receives air from 22 via 24), and the second duct portion is fluid-coupled to a second airflow source (Figs. 2 and 4A, second duct port receives air from 18; ¶ [0028], “supply line 32 receiving pressurized flow from the compressor section 18 of the engine 12”)
Regarding claim 16, Mackin teaches of:
An aircraft having the air-conducting structure according to claim 1 (Fig. 1, the system of 4A is utilized on aircraft 10)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mackin (US 20200025207 A1) in view of Moore (US 20200180771 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Mackin teaches of the air-conducting structure according to claim 1, and however, Mackin fails to explicitly teach:
further comprising an upstream guide wheel arranged in the first duct portion upstream of the vaned rotor.
Moore teaches of:
further comprising an upstream guide wheel (Fig. 2, 128) arranged in the first duct portion upstream of the vaned rotor (128 is upstream from 116).
The primary reference can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
add a guide wheel positioned upstream from fan 34
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
having both an upstream and a downstream set of guide wheels would allow for the total airflow through the system of Mackin to be metered depending on air requirements from the heat exchanger
Regarding claim 13, Mackin teaches of the air-conducting structure according to claim 1, however, Mackin fails to explicitly teach:
further comprising an upstream turbine guide wheel upstream of the vaned rotor.
Moore teaches of:
further comprising an upstream turbine guide wheel (Fig. 2, 128) upstream of the vaned rotor (128 is upstream from 116).
The primary reference can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
add a turbine guide wheel positioned upstream from fan 34
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
having both an upstream and a downstream set of guide wheels would allow for the total airflow through the system of Mackin to be metered depending on air requirements from the heat exchanger
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J GIORDANO whose telephone number is (571)272-8940. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fr 8 AM - 5 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/MICHAEL JAMES GIORDANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights