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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 21 March 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Specifically, the foreign references and search report are absent from the file.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “10” has been used to designate both aircraft and aircraft power unit. 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. 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 Interpretation
Applicant’s understanding of “neutral fiber” as “By "neutral fiber" is meant a line passing through the center of gravity of the normal sections of the main tubular wall” as depicted in Applicant’s figures is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Examples include “presenting a neutral fiber”, “is comprising”, “present continuously differentiable evolution”, “presents [xxx]”.
Claims 1-16 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “[…] according to an injection vector a direction of the second fluid is directed toward the neutral fiber”. This limitation cannot be understood as presented, as it appears that word(s) are missing between “vector” and “a direction”. It is believed “such that” may have been intended, and this is the interpretation that Examiner has used. Claims 2-16 are rejected insofar as they are dependent on, or incorporate, claim 1 and therefore include the same error(s).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “substantially” in claim 2 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. It is unclear how substantially perpendicular the vector must be to meet or fail to meet “substantially perpendicular”. It is recommended, based on the specification to consider “perpendicular”.
Claim 5 is 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.
Regarding claim 5, limitation “wherein a normal cross-sectional areas of a hollow tubular volume delimited by respectively:” is not understood. It is believed Applicant may have intended “wherein normal cross-sectional areas of a hollow tubular volume are equal or continuously differentiable along the neural fiber and are delimited by [the listed regions]. Clarification is requested. Additionally, the term “substantially” in claim 5 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. It is unclear how substantially equal the areas must be to meet or fail to meet “substantially equal”. It is recommended, based on the specification to consider “equal”.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “substantially” in claim 6 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. It is unclear how substantially orthogonal the orthogonal must be to meet or fail to meet “substantially orthogonal”. It is recommended, based on the specification to consider “orthogonal”.
Claim 8 is 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the cross-sectional area”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the context of the fluid inlet orifice. It is believed to be in error for “a cross-sectional area”.
Claim 9 is 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein the internal peripheral wall defines at least one first group of injection openings and at least one second group of injection openings”. It is unclear if these are the same or different from the “injection openings” of the preceding claims. It is believed that the limitation is intended to further define the prior injection openings.
Claims 11-12 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.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "preferably"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 12 is rejected insofar as it is dependent on claim 11 and therefore includes the same error(s).
Claims 14-16 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.
Claim 14 recites the limitations “a first fluid” and “a second fluid” before incorporating the system of claim 1, which includes reference to “a first fluid” and “a second fluid”. It is unclear if these fluids are the same or different. It is believed that they are the same. Additionally, Applicant’s use of “the resulting fluid” is inconsistent since it occurs prior to the introduction of the system of claim 1 which introduced the resulting fluid. Claims 15-16 are rejected insofar as they are dependent on claim 14 and therefore include the same error(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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) 1-7, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lawton (US 3,409,274).
Regarding claim 1, Lawton shows an aircraft fluid mixing system configured to mix a first fluid and a second fluid to form a resulting fluid (see at least Abstract: the system meets all the structural limitations of the claim and is thus capable of use in an aircraft), the system comprising:
a main duct comprising a main tubular wall and presenting a neutral fiber (see at least Figure 1, main duct depicted by arrows extending down into #22 and beneath out of #22: tubular wall is required to connect to inlet #34 and outlet #36 of #22 and neutral fiber as center line of the main duct is inherent to the system as disclosed), the main tubular wall comprising an upstream section defining an internal passage for circulation of the first fluid and a downstream section defining an internal passage for circulation of the resulting fluid (see at least column 2, lines 43-47);
an auxiliary duct comprising an auxiliary tubular wall defining an internal passage for circulation of the second fluid (see at least Figure 1, line #20); and
a connection device fluidically connecting the main duct and the auxiliary duct (see at least mixing vessel #22/#22’);
the connection device comprising an internal peripheral wall (see at least wall #40) defining a plurality of injection openings (see at least openings #44) for injecting the second fluid in the main duct between the upstream section and the downstream section (see at least column 2, lines 63-69),
each injection opening being arranged so that the second fluid is injected through said injection opening according to an injection vector a direction of the second fluid is directed toward the neutral fiber (see at least column 2, line 69 through column 3, line 7).
Regarding claim 2, Lawton further shows wherein each injection vector extends in a plane substantially perpendicular to the neutral fiber (see at least column 2, line 69 through column 3, line 7: the holes #44 may inject perpendicularly).
Regarding claim 3, Lawton further shows wherein the connection device is comprising a portion for connection to the main duct (see at least inlet #34) and a portion for connection to the auxiliary duct (see at least inlet #38), the portion for connection to the main duct being interposed between the upstream section and the downstream section of the main tubular wall (see at least inlet #34 is between the portion of the main duct supplying the first fluid and the portion receiving the mixed fluid).
Regarding claim 4, Lawton further shows wherein the internal peripheral wall of the connection device is comprising:
an upstream annular connection region for connection to the upstream section of the main tubular wall (see at least at interface of inlet #34 and wall #40);
a downstream annular connection region for connection to the downstream section of the main tubular wall (see at least at interface of outlet #36 and wall #40); and
an intermediate annular region interposed between the upstream annular connection region of the internal peripheral wall and the downstream annular connection region of the internal peripheral wall (see at least area within and outside of wall #40);
the upstream section of the main tubular wall comprising a downstream annular connection region for connection to the upstream annular connection region of the internal peripheral wall (see at least column 2, lines 43-47),
the downstream section of the main tubular wall comprising an upstream annular connection region for connection to the downstream annular connection region of the internal peripheral wall (see at least column 2, lines 43-47).
Regarding claim 5, Lawton further shows wherein a normal cross-sectional areas of a hollow tubular volume delimited by respectively:
the upstream annular connection region of the internal peripheral wall (see at least at interface of inlet #34 and wall #40);
the downstream annular connection region of the internal peripheral wall (see at least at interface of outlet #36 and wall #40);
the intermediate annular region of the internal peripheral wall (see at least area within and outside of wall #40);
the downstream annular connection region of the upstream section of the main tubular wall (see at least @inlet #34); and
the upstream annular connection region of the downstream section of the main tubular wall (see at least @outlet #36);
are substantially equal or present continuously differentiable evolution along the neutral fiber (the areas are both substantially equal in areas and differentiable in other regions with respect to and along the neutral fiber; see Figures 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 6, Lawton further shows wherein the connection device is comprising:
an upstream transverse wall and a downstream transverse wall substantially orthogonal to the neutral fiber of the main duct (see at least top wall of inlet #34 and bottom wall of #36),
the connection device further comprising an external peripheral wall connecting the upstream and downstream transverse walls (see at least body wall #30),
the upstream transverse wall, the downstream transverse wall, the external peripheral wall and the internal peripheral wall together delimiting an intermediate space for circulation of the second fluid from the auxiliary duct toward the main duct (see at least space within #22/#22’).
Regarding claim 7, Lawton further shows wherein:
the connection device defines a fluid inlet orifice for the second fluid, in fluidic communication with the auxiliary duct (see at least inlet #38); and
the internal peripheral wall comprises an internal face (see at least inside face of wall #40) and an external face (see at least outside face of wall #40), each injection opening extending from an external orifice delimited by the external face to an internal orifice delimited by the internal face (see at least column 2, lines 63-69).
Regarding claim 10, Lawton further shows wherein the injection openings are circular holes delimited by the internal peripheral wall (see at least column 2, lines 63-69).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lawton (US 3,409,274).
Regarding claim 14, Lawton shows an aircraft (see at least Applicant’s disclosure paragraph [0015] and Figure 1: in view that the structure of Lawton corresponds with Applicant’s aircraft, Lawton is considered to meet “aircraft”) comprising:
a first source of a first fluid (see at least pump #12);
a second source of a second fluid (see at least region downstream of heat exchanger #16);
at least one volume for receiving the resulting fluid (see at least pump #28); and
a system according to claim 1 (see at least rejection of claim 1, above);
the upstream section of the main duct being fluidically connected to the first source (see at least column 2, lines 43-47), the auxiliary duct being fluidically connected to the second source (see at least column 2, lines 43-47), the downstream section of the main duct being fluidically connected to the at least one resulting fluid receiving volume (see at least column 2, lines 30-34),
the system being configured to distribute the resulting fluid into the at least one resulting fluid receiving volume (see at least column 2, lines 30-34).
Regarding claim 15, Lawton further shows wherein:
the first fluid presents a first temperature (see at least column 3, lines 50-69);
the second fluid presents a second temperature different from the first temperature (see at least column 3, lines 50-69); and
the resulting fluid presents a third temperature a value of which lies between the first and second temperatures (see at least column 3, lines 50-69).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawton (US 3,409,274).
Lawton discloses all the elements of claim 7, upon which claim 8 depends (see rejection(s) above).
Regarding claim 8, Lawton does not disclose wherein a sum of cross-sectional areas of the internal orifices of the internal face of the internal peripheral wall is greater than 1.5 times the cross-sectional area of the fluid inlet orifice for the second fluid.
However, sum of cross-sectional areas of the internal orifices of the internal face of the internal peripheral wall in relation to the cross-sectional area of the fluid inlet orifice for the second fluid is a results effective variable, as recognized by Lawton (see at least column 3, lines 8-16).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Lawton with wherein a sum of cross-sectional areas of the internal orifices of the internal face of the internal peripheral wall is greater than 1.5 times the cross-sectional area of the fluid inlet orifice for the second fluid, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977)).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawton as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Ellsworth et al. (US 2016/0376009: cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 9, Lawton further discloses wherein the internal peripheral wall defines at least one first group of injection openings and at least one second group of injection openings (see at least column 2, lines 67-69: for example, second row and first row),
the at least one first group of injection openings being arranged closer to the fluid inlet orifice for the second fluid relative to the at least one second group of injection openings see at least column 2, lines 67-69: for example, second row is closer to #38 than the first row).
Lawton does not disclose cross-sectional areas of the internal orifices of the injection openings of the at least one first group of injection openings being smaller than the cross-sectional areas of the internal orifices of the injection openings of the at least one second group of injection openings.
However, there are only a finite number of options available to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the arrangement of openings in a mixing system. In this regard, it is noted that Ellsworth et al. teaches cross-sectional areas of the internal orifices of the injection openings of the at least one first group of injection openings being smaller than the cross-sectional areas of the internal orifices of the injection openings of the at least one second group of injection openings (see at least paragraph [0048]: the holes may have different sizes, thus a first group may be smaller than a second group).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Lawton with cross-sectional areas of the internal orifices of the injection openings of the at least one first group of injection openings being smaller than the cross-sectional areas of the internal orifices of the injection openings of the at least one second group of injection openings, since, as taught by Ellsworth et al., such provision is a suitable and known provision for arranging openings in a mixing system (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)): such would provide the predictable benefit of allowing for variable injection of fluid for mixing in different zones.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawton (US 3,409,274).
Lawton discloses all the elements of claim 10, upon which claims 11-12 depend (see rejection(s) above).
Regarding claims 11-12, Lawton does not disclose wherein the circular holes present a diameter of between 1 mm and 10 mm, preferably between 3 mm and 5 mm; wherein the circular holes present a diameter of between 3 mm and 5 mm.
It would, however, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Lawton to have wherein the circular holes present a diameter of between 1 mm and 10 mm, preferably between 3 mm and 5 mm; wherein the circular holes present a diameter of between 3 mm and 5 mm, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the system of Lawton would not operate differently with the claimed diameter. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the diameters are “for example” (see paragraph [0066]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawton as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Dean et al. (US 2,035,538).
Regarding claim 13, Lawton does not disclose wherein the internal peripheral wall comprises fins delimiting the injection openings.
However, providing a mixing system wherein the internal peripheral wall comprises fins delimiting an injection opening was old and well-known in the art, as evidenced by Dean et al. (see at least page 1, column 2, lines 17-22).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Lawton with wherein the internal peripheral wall comprises fins delimiting the injection openings, since, as evidenced by Dean et al., such provision was old and well-known in the art and would provide the predictable benefit of allowing for the induction of directional motion to promote mixing.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lawton as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Ellsworth et al. (US 2016/0376009: cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 16, Lawton does not disclose wherein the first fluid, the second fluid and the resulting fluid are air: however, see MPEP 2115: “[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935)”: thus Lawton alone meets the claim.
To the extent that Applicant may consider the fluid structurally limiting, a point Examiner does not concede, Ellsworth et al. teaches another mixing system/aircraft wherein the first fluid, the second fluid and the resulting fluid are air (see at least main air source and trim air source; paragraphs [0047]; [0050]).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Lawton with wherein the first fluid, the second fluid and the resulting fluid are air, since, as taught by Ellsworth et al., such provision was old and well-known in the art, and since it has been held “[t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol.) See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious); Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (Claimed agricultural bagging machine, which differed from a prior art machine only in that the brake means were hydraulically operated rather than mechanically operated, was held to be obvious over the prior art machine in view of references which disclosed hydraulic brakes for performing the same function, albeit in a different environment.).”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAVIA SULLENS whose telephone number is (571)272-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30-4:30 Eastern.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/TAVIA SULLENS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights