CTNF 18/609,248 CTNF 99396 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 9, 10, and 12 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. Claims 9, 10, and 12 recite the limitation "the compressor wheel" (in line 1 of claims 9 and 10 and line 3 of claim 12). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this Office Action, it is being interpreted as “a compressor wheel”. Claim 12 recites the limitation "the chamber" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this Office Action, it is being interpreted as “a chamber.” 07-34-03 AIA The term “ substantially ” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ substantially ” 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. In this case, it is not clear what amount of clearance or difference in clearance would be considered “substantially the same.” For the purposes of this Office Action, “substantially the same” is being interpreted as within ten percent . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-8, 10-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0383220 by Mackin (hereinafter “Mackin”) in view of US 8,092,145 to Martel et al (hereinafter “Martel”) . Regarding claim 1 , Mackin teaches an air pressurisation system for an aircraft ( Abstract, Fig 2 ), the air pressurisation system comprising: a blower compressor ( Fig 2 compressor 204 ) configured to be mechanically coupled to a spool of a gas turbine engine ( Fig 2 radial drive shaft 206; paragraph [0027]) and configured to receive an inlet flow of air from a bypass duct of the gas turbine engine ( Fig 2 first passageway 244 provides air to compressor inlet 240 from fan duct 216; paragraph [0031]), wherein the blower compressor comprises: a rotor configured to be mechanically coupled to the spool of the gas turbine engine ( Fig 2 compressor shaft 251 ); and a housing, wherein the rotor is supported for rotation within the housing about a rotor axis ( paragraph [0034], rotor is housed in a housing), a primary air channel within the housing ( implicit ) extending between an inlet of the blower compressor for receiving the inlet flow of air ( Fig 2 compressor inlet 240 ) and an outlet ( Fig 2 compressor outlet 242 ) from which the blower compressor is configured to output pressurised air to a delivery line ( Fig 2 second passageway 247 ); and the delivery line configured to convey air compressed by the blower compressor to an airframe system of the aircraft ( Fig 2 delivery line 247 conveys air to aircraft systems including ECS 202; paragraph [0032]). But Mackin is silent as to the internal details of the blower compressor, including primary air channel defined by the rotor and housing, and the housing further comprising a bleed opening in a wall of the housing between the inlet and the outlet, the bleed opening extending circumferentially about the rotor axis, wherein the bleed opening is for contaminants within the inlet flow of air, which have been driven outward due to the rotation of the rotor, to be bled out of the blower compressor. However, Martel teaches a compressor ( Fig 2 compressor 30 ) comprising a rotor ( Fig 2 impeller 32 ) and a housing ( Fig 2 compressor case 36 ), wherein the rotor is supported for rotation within the housing about a rotor axis ( Fig 2 main axis 11 ), wherein the rotor and housing define a primary air channel ( Fig 2 primary gas path 34 ) extending between an inlet ( at lower left of Fig 2 ) of the blower compressor and an outlet ( at upper right of Fig 2 ), and wherein the housing further comprises a bleed opening in a wall of the housing between the inlet and the outlet ( Fig 2 bleed apertures 42 ), the bleed opening extending circumferentially about the rotor axis ( Fig 4; col 2 line 62-63; bleed apertures circumferentially spaced ), wherein the bleed opening is for contaminants within the inlet flow of air, which have been driven outward due to the rotation of the rotor, to be bled out of the blower compressor ( col 3 line 12-23 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air pressurization system of Mackin by using a compressor such as the one taught by Martel as the blower compressor, such compressor having a primary air channel defined by the rotor and housing, and the housing further comprising a bleed opening in a wall of the housing between the inlet and the outlet, the bleed opening extending circumferentially about the rotor axis, wherein the bleed opening is for contaminants within the inlet flow of air, which have been driven outward due to the rotation of the rotor, to be bled out of the blower compressor. This would be advantageous for removing particulates from the primary air flow in order to provide cleaner air to the delivery line. The clean bleed air may also be advantageously used in other parts of the system or elsewhere in the aircraft. Regarding claim 2 , Mackin modified with the compressor of Martel as the blower compressor teaches the air pressurization system of claim 1(see above). Martel further teaches that the blower compressor further comprises a chamber extending about the primary air channel in fluidic communication with the bleed opening ( Martel Fig 2 cavity 38 ), the chamber for receiving the contaminants and bleed air from the blower compressor ( Martel Fig 2; col 2 line 64 – col 3 line 15 ). Regarding claim 3 , Mackin modified with the compressor of Martel as the blower compressor teaches the air pressurization system of claim 1(see above). Martel/Mackin does not explicitly teach that the bleed opening is located closer to the inlet of the blower compressor than the outlet of the blower compressor along the rotor axis. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air pressurization system of Mackin/Martel by positioning the bleed opening closer to the inlet of the blower compressor than the outlet of the blower compressor along the rotor axis. The ratio of the distance from the bleed opening to the inlet (inlet distance) relative to the distance from the bleed opening to the outlet (outlet distance) along the rotor axis is readily changeable in the compressor taught by Martel. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05 II A). In addition, it is observed that the ratio of the inlet distance to the outlet distance is a result-effective variable because the conditions of the air at the resulting position of the bleed opening would be different. In particular, the temperature, velocity and pressure of the air changes along the primary air channel and, thus, placing the bleed opening at different relative positions along the primary air channel would result in differences in these conditions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the ratio of the inlet distance to the outlet distance such that the bleed opening is closer to the inlet than the outlet, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)). Regarding claim 4 , Mackin modified with the compressor of Martel as the blower compressor teaches the air pressurization system of claim 1(see above). Martel/Mackin does not explicitly teach that the bleed opening is located at a position along the rotor axis at which a temperature increase of the air within the primary air channel is between about 33% and 73% of a total increase in temperature of the air between the inlet of the blower compressor and the outlet. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to position the bleed opening at a position along the rotor axis at which a temperature increase of the air within the primary air channel is between about 33% and 73% of a total increase in temperature of the air between the inlet of the blower compressor and the outlet. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05 II. A). In the instant case, Martel discloses general conditions of the claim, i.e. a bleed outlet positioned between the inlet and the outlet of the compressor at a position at which the temperature would be increased. One of ordinary skill would understand that the temperature of the air within the primary air channel increases as it moves through the primary air channel. Thus, the location of the bleed opening is a result-effective variable since it results in a different temperature of bleed air and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to place the bleed opening at a location which results in the desired temperature and conditions of the bleed air. Thus, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to position the bleed opening at a location with the claimed temperature increase, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)). Regarding claim 5 , Mackin modified with the compressor of Martel as the blower compressor teaches the air pressurization system of claim 1(see above). Martel further teaches that the housing comprises a first edge, formed on a first portion of a wall of the housing extending from the bleed opening towards the compressor inlet ( Fig 2 first edge includes annular baffle plate 52 up to the edge of the bleed opening, see also Examiner Annotated Figure A, hereinafter “EAF A” ), and a second edge, formed on a second portion of the wall of the housing extending from the bleed opening towards the compressor outlet, wherein the bleed opening is formed between the first and second edges ( Fig 2 and EAF A ). PNG media_image1.png 648 697 media_image1.png Greyscale Examiner Annotated Figure A, from Figure 2 of Martel, showing 1 st and 2 nd edge Regarding claim 6 , Martel further teaches that the first edge is located downstream of the second edge relative to flow through the blower compressor ( Fig 2 and EAF A, first edge is downstream of second edge at least in terms of the flow of bleed air through the compressor ). Regarding claim 7 , Martel teaches that the first edge is located at a position axially coincident with a position of the second edge ( with the first edge and second edge interpreted as in Examiner Annotated Figure B below, the first edge is axially coincident with at least the portion of the second edge shown near the upper part of the figure ). PNG media_image2.png 648 697 media_image2.png Greyscale Examiner Annotated Figure B, from Figure 2 of Martel, showing a second interpretation of the 1 st and 2 nd edge Regarding claim 8 , Martel teaches that the first edge is located radially outward of the second edge ( Fig 2 and EAF A ). Regarding claim 10 , Martel further teaches that a compressor wheel is configured such that a clearance between the compressor wheel and the first portion of the wall is substantially the same as a clearance between the compressor wheel and the second portion of the wall ( Fig 2 ). Regarding claim 11 , Martel further teaches that part of the second portion of the wall overlaps part of the first portion of the wall ( see Examiner Annotated Figure C below ; second portion of the wall overlaps a portion of the wall in the axial direction ). PNG media_image3.png 648 697 media_image3.png Greyscale Examiner Annotated Figure C, from Figure 2 of Martel, showing the 1 st portion and 2 nd portion of wall Regarding claim 12 , Martel further teaches that an inflection point is formed in the first portion of the wall of the housing at a position axially aligned with a chamber, such that a clearance, between a compressor wheel and the housing wall may be increased at the inflection point ( Fig 2, annular baffle plate 52, which makes up part of the first portion of the wall of the housing, includes an inflection point where the direction of curvature changes; this inflection point is axially aligned with chamber 38 and the clearance between the compressor wheel and baffle plate 52 of the housing wall, i.e. a straight-line distance from 32 to the housing wall at 52 through opening 42, is increased at this point ). Regarding claim 13 , Mackin modified with the compressor of Martel as the blower compressor teaches the air pressurization system of claim 1(see above). Mackin teaches that the system further comprises a line for carrying air from the blower compressor (204) to the bypass duct of the gas turbine engine ( Fig 2 seventh passageway 290 connects to the blower compressor 204 through second passageway 247; seventh passageway 290 then connects to the bypass duct 216, see also Fig 5 with arrows showing air flow from blower compressor to fan duct/bypass duct ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention, having modified the system of Mackin with the compressor of Martel including the bleed air opening with air bled from the primary air channel and a bleed air line for the air bled through the bleed air opening, that said bleed air line would carry air to other parts of the system. Since the system of Mackin teaches that an outlet from the blower compressor connects to a line for carrying air to the bypass duct of the gas turbine engine, it would be obvious that the bleed air line from the blower compressor would be connected to the line carrying air to the bypass duct of the gas turbine engine. Regarding claim 14 , Mackin modified with the compressor of Martel as the blower compressor teaches the air pressurization system of claim 1(see above). Mackin further teaches that air from the compressor is delivered to the gas turbine engine ( Fig 3 air from compressor outlet 242 is delivered to fan duct 214 of the gas turbine engine via seventh passageway 290 ) or to other aircraft systems ( such as ECS 202 in Fig 2 ). Although Mackin does not explicitly teach that air from the compressor is delivered to a ventilation or cooling system of the gas turbine engine, Mackin does teach that air from the pressurization system, in addition to or alternative to being delivered to the bypass duct of the gas turbine engine, can be delivered to a cooling or ventilation system of the gas turbine engine through a connecting fluid duct ( paragraph [0059], fifth passageway 274 can deliver air to the fan duct and/or to a cooling system of the engine). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention, having modified the air pressurization system of Mackin with the blower compressor of Martel, to deliver clean air bled from the blower compressor via the bleed opening to a ventilation or cooling system of the gas turbine engine in order to cool the engine casing and/or turbine blades in order to prevent shrinkage/expansion of components due to elevated temperatures and maintain proper spacing in the engine turbine, as taught by Mackin (Mackin paragraph [0059]). Regarding claim 16 , Mackin modified with the compressor of Martel, teaches an aircraft ( Mackin Fig 1 aircraft 100 ) comprising an airframe ( Mackin Fig 1 fuselage 102 ), a gas turbine engine ( Mackin Fig 2 gas turbine engine 210 ), and the air pressurization system of claim 1 ( see claim 1 rejection above, including the modification with Martel ) . Allowable Subject Matter 07-43-02 AIA Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 9 , none of the prior art of record teaches or suggests an air pressurization system with all of the limitations of claim 9, particularly the limitation that the compressor wheel comprises a radial step at and/or upstream of the second edge. Therefore, this limitation combined with every other limitation of the claim distinguishes the claim from the prior art. Regarding claim 15 , none of the prior art of record teaches or suggests an air pressurization system with all of the limitations of claim 15, particularly the limitation that the bleed air controller is configured to determine a bleed air pressure and/or flow rate based on an outlet pressure of the blower compressor and control a supply of air to the ventilation and/or cooling system of the gas turbine engine from a source other than the blower compressor, based on the bleed air pressure and/or flow rate. Therefore, this limitation combined with every other limitation of the claim distinguishes the claim from the prior art . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2010/0135769 by Kleynhans et al and JP H03260336 each teach a compressor with a bleed opening used to separate out particulates. US 2023/0075905 by Pal teaches a cabin air compressor with a bleed opening to a bleed duct. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amy E Carter whose telephone number is (703)756-5894. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM. 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. /AMY E CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762 Application/Control Number: 18/609,248 Page 2 Art Unit: 3762 Application/Control Number: 18/609,248 Page 3 Art Unit: 3762 Application/Control Number: 18/609,248 Page 4 Art Unit: 3762 Application/Control Number: 18/609,248 Page 5 Art Unit: 3762 Application/Control Number: 18/609,248 Page 6 Art Unit: 3762 Application/Control Number: 18/609,248 Page 7 Art Unit: 3762 Application/Control Number: 18/609,248 Page 8 Art Unit: 3762 Application/Control Number: 18/609,248 Page 9 Art Unit: 3762 Application/Control Number: 18/609,248 Page 10 Art Unit: 3762 Application/Control Number: 18/609,248 Page 11 Art Unit: 3762 Application/Control Number: 18/609,248 Page 12 Art Unit: 3762
Prosecution Insights