DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the Amendment filed 4/27/2026 wherein claims 3-4 and 17 are canceled, claims 7, 19, and 20 are withdrawn, and claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-16, 18, and 21 are presented for examination.
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 .
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “each of the first case, the second case, and the shield forming a respective section of an inner peripheral boundary of the bypass flowpath, and each respective section of the inner peripheral boundary circumscribed by the outer wall structure” (Claim 1, lines 6-8) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). It is noted that Applicant’s drawings show that at least the second case 102 is shielded and separated from the bypass flowpath by shield 78 and outer case 76 (see Figure 4). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-16, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites “each of the first case, the second case, and the shield forming a respective section of an inner peripheral boundary of the bypass flowpath, and each respective section of the inner peripheral boundary circumscribed by the outer wall structure” (Claim 1, lines 6-8). Applicant’s specification does not describe and Applicant’s drawings do not show that each of the first case, second case, and shield forming a respective section of an inner peripheral boundary of the bypass flowpath, as required by the claim. Instead, at least the second case is shown separated from the boundary of the bypass flowpath by at least outer case 76. Therefore, the claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
Claims 2, 5-6, 8-16, 18, and 21 are rejected for the same reasons discussed above based on their dependency to claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Debray et al. (US 2016/0131077).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Debray teaches (Figures 1-6) an assembly for an aircraft propulsion system (11), comprising:
an outer wall structure (252) extending axially along and circumferentially about an axis (24), the outer wall structure (252) forming an outer peripheral boundary of a bypass flowpath (F2’); and
an inner wall structure (23, 29, 37) extending axially along and circumferentially about the axis (5), the inner wall structure (23, 29, 37) spaced radially in from the outer wall structure (252), and the inner wall structure (23, 29, 37) including a first case (23), a second case (29), and a shield (37), each of the first case (23), the second case (29), and the shield (37) forming a respective section of an inner peripheral boundary (see Figure 2 and annotation below) of the bypass flowpath (F2’), and each respective section (23, 37, 29) of the inner peripheral boundary (the boundary of F2’ formed by 23, 37, 29; see Figure 2) circumscribed by the outer wall structure (252);
the first case (23) forming a first section (an upstream section; see Figures 1-2) of the inner peripheral boundary (see Figure 2 and annotation below);
the second case (29) attached to the first case (23) at a joint (at 30; see Figure 2);
the shield (37) covering the joint (at 30; see Figure 2) and arranged radially between the joint (at 30; see Figure 2) and the bypass flowpath (F2’),
wherein the first case (23) includes a first case wall (annotated below) and a first case flange (annotated below) projecting radially outward from the first case wall (annotated below) at an axial end (a downstream end; see Figure 2) of the first case (23),
wherein the second case (29) includes a second case wall (annotated below) and a second case flange (annotated below) projecting radially outward from the second case wall (annotated below) at an axial end (an upstream end; see Figure 2) of the second case (29),
wherein the shield (37) includes a shield wall (annotated below) and a shield flange (annotated below) projecting radially inward (see Figure 2) from the shield wall (annotated below), and the shield flange (annotated below) is mechanically fastened to (via bolted assemblies; see Paragraph 0039 and Figure 2) the first case flange (annotated below) and the second case flange (annotated below) at the joint (at 30; see Figure 2), and
wherein the shield wall (annotated below) axially and circumferentially covers (see Figure 2) the second case flange (annotated below) and an axially forward section (the upstream section of 29; see Figure 2) of the second case wall (annotated below).
Debray does not teach, in the Figure 2 embodiment, that the shield wall axially and circumferentially covers the first case flange and an axially aft section of the first case wall because the shield wall flange is positioned downstream of the flange 31.
Debray does teach, however, that the flange of the shield 37 can be positioned either downstream or upstream of the flange 31 (see Paragraph 0044). Therefore, Debray teaches that the shield wall (annotated below) may be positioned (due to the shield wall flange being positioned upstream of flange 31; see Paragraph 0044 and Figure 2) to axially and circumferentially cover the first case flange (annotated below) and axially aft section of the first case wall (annotated below) because the shield wall flange (annotated below) would be located upstream of the flange (at 31).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Debray’s Figure 2 embodiment to have shield wall flange be positioned upstream of the first case wall flange such that the shield wall axially and circumferentially covers the first case flange and an axially aft section of the first case wall, as taught by Paragraph 0044 of Debray, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
PNG
media_image1.png
1177
1500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Debray teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Debray further teaches (Figures 1-6) wherein the joint (at 30) is a bolted flange connection (see Figure 2 and Paragraph 0039) between the first case (23) and the second case (29).
Regarding Claim 5, Debray teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Debray further teaches (Figures 1-6) wherein the inner wall structure (23, 29, 37) further includes a plurality of mechanical fasteners (bolts extending through 32, 42, 43; see Figures 3 and 5-6), and each of the plurality of mechanical fasteners (bolts extending through 32, 42, 43; see Figures 3 and 5-6) projects axially through the first case flange (annotated above), the second case flange (annotated above) and the shield flange (annotated above).
Regarding Claim 6, Debray teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Debray further teaches (Figures 1-6) wherein the shield wall (annotated above) is configured with a plurality of ports (43); and each of the plurality of ports (43) is open and aligned with (see Figures 3 and 5-6) a respective one of the plurality of mechanical fasteners (bolts extending through 32, 42, 43; see Figures 3 and 5-6).
Regarding Claim 8, Debray teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Debray further teaches (Figures 1-6) wherein the first case (23) is upstream of (see Figure 2) the second case (29) along the bypass flowpath (F2’). Debray does not teach that the second case flange is between the first case flange and the shield flange.
Debray does teach, however, that the flange of the shield 37 can be positioned either downstream or upstream of the flange 31 (see Paragraph 0044). Therefore, Debray teaches that the shield wall (annotated below) can be positioned (due to the shield wall flange being positioned upstream of flange 31; see Paragraph 0044 and Figure 2) to axially and circumferentially cover the first case flange (annotated below) and axially aft section of the first case wall (annotated below) because the shield wall flange (annotated below) is positioned upstream of the flange (at 31).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Debray to have the second case flange be positioned between the first case flange and the shield flange, as taught by Paragraph 0044 of Debray, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding Claim 9, Debray teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Debray further teaches (Figures 1-6) wherein the shield (37) forms a section (a downstream section; see Figures 1-2) of the inner peripheral boundary of the bypass flowpath (F2’) located next to and downstream of (see Figure 2) the first section (an upstream section; see Figures 1-2).
Regarding Claim 10, Debray teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Debray further teaches (Figures 1-6) wherein the second section (a downstream section; see Figures 1-2) of the inner peripheral boundary of the bypass flowpath (F2’) has a straight line sectional geometry (at 39) along at least a portion of the length of the shield (see Figures 3-4).
Regarding Claim 11, Debray teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Debray further teaches (Figures 1-6) wherein the second section (a downstream section of F2’; see Figures 1-2) has a convex sectional geometry (see Figure 2) along at least a portion of a length of the shield (37).
Regarding Claim 12, Debray teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Debray further teaches (Figures 1-6) wherein the first case (23) is upstream of (see Figure 2) the second case (29) along the bypass flowpath (F2’); and the second section (the downstream section of F2’; see Figure 2) tapers radially inward (from 37 to 31; see Figure 2) as the shield (37) extends axially towards the first case (23).
Regarding Claim 16, Debray teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Debray further teaches (Figures 1-6) a powerplant core (the high pressure compressor, combustion chamber, and high pressure turbine through which a primary flow F1 of gas flows; see Paragraphs 0002-0004 and Figures 1-2); a bypass flowpath (F2’; see Figures 1-2) disposed radially outboard of the powerplant core (see flow paths of F1 and F2 in Figures 1-2).
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Debray et al. (US 2016/0131077) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Clegg (US 2019/0040760).
Regarding Claim 13, Debray teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Debray does not teach wherein the shield comprises a ceramic material.
Clegg teaches (Figures 1-5) the use of ceramic materials (ceramic matrix composites) in gas turbine engine components (see Paragraphs 0001-0002).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Debray to include the ceramic material, as taught by Clegg, in order to provide excellent thermal and mechanical properties along with being low weight (see Paragraph 0002 of Clegg) and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding Claim 15, Debray teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Debray does not teach wherein the shield comprises a composite material.
Clegg teaches (Figures 1-5) the use of composite materials (ceramic matrix composites) in gas turbine engine components (see Paragraphs 0001-0002).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Debray to include the composite material, as taught by Clegg, in order to provide excellent thermal and mechanical properties along with being low weight (see Paragraph 0002 of Clegg) and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Debray et al. (US 2016/0131077) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suciu et al. (US 2018/0223693).
Regarding Claim 14, Debray teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Debray does not teach does not teach that the shield comprises a metal material.
Suciu teaches (Figures 1-5) the use of metal components in a turbine exhaust assembly (see Paragraph 0045).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Debray to have the shield comprise a metal material, as taught by Suciu, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Debray et al. (US 2016/0131077) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nagata et al. (US 2002/0021962)
Regarding Claim 18, Debray teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Debray does not teach a combustor disposed within a diffuser plenum; at least one of the first case or the second case forming the outer peripheral boundary of the diffuser plenum.
Nagata teaches (Figures 1-7) a combustor (20) disposed within a diffuser plenum (between 34, 35); a first case (34) forming an outer peripheral boundary (see Figures 1-2 and Paragraph 0023) of the diffuser plenum (between 34 and 35; see Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Debray to have the combustor disposed within a diffuser plenum and the first case form an outer peripheral boundary of the diffuser plenum, as taught by Nagata, in order to allow the kinetic energy of the air compressed by the compressor to be converted to into a pressure energy (Paragraph 0025 of Nagata).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Debray et al. (US 2016/0131077) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ring et al. (US 7,704,038).
Regarding Claim 21, Debray teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Debray does not teach wherein the shield wall tapers radially inward as the shield wall extends axially forward over the axially aft section of the first case wall.
Ring teaches (Figures 1-6) a shield wall (200) that tapers radially inward (at 204; see Figures 3 and 6) as the shield wall (200) extends axially forward (see Figures 3 and 6) over an axially aft section (at 210) of a first case wall (58).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Debray to have the shield wall taper radially inward as the shield wall extends axially forward over the axially aft section of the first case wall, as taught by Ring, in order to facilitate reducing aerodynamic bleed losses by providing an aerodynamic surface over which air may flow and experience pressure recovery and reduce aerodynamic windage losses over the shield (Column 5, lines 18-31 of Ring).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Debray’s structure 252 is not an outer peripheral boundary of a flowpath where part 29 functions as an inner peripheral boundary and structure 252 does not circumscribe the upstream part 29. In response, it is noted that structure 252 is an outer peripheral boundary of flowpath F2’ and the flowpath F2’ also flows over casing 29 (see Figure 2). It is also noted that at least the downstream part of structure 252 circumscribes at least the upstream part of casing 29 (see Figure 2).
Applicant also argues that the fairing 37 extends axially downstream from the upstream flange portion 38, not toward the outer casing 23 and, according to applicant, although flange 38 may be positioned upstream of flange 31, this is unrelated to an axially forward casing 23. In response, it is noted that if flange 38 is disposed upstream of flange 31 (see Figure 2 and Paragraph 0044), it would necessarily be upstream of the downstream end of case 23 (see Figure 2).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 21 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references being applied in this office action. However, to the extent possible, Applicant’s arguments have been addressed in the body of the rejection above, at the appropriate locations.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS P BURKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5407. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached on (571) 270-5426. 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.
/THOMAS P BURKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights