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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/22/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that as the outer and inner walls of Lata Perez do not meet at a trailing edge the respective outer and inner lines do not meet. Examiner disagrees with this interpretation. The aerodynamic lines which follow the walls do in fact meet at the rear end of the nozzle structure. See Figure 1 as cited in the remarks by applicant the walls follow a converging in shape and thus a line which follows said wall and will, by nature of being a line rather than a segment thereof continue unstopped, cross the other line defined by following the other of the walls. This intersections meets the limitations as claimed as the aerodynamic lines meet.
Regarding the thickness compensation, Lata Perez discloses such a thickness compensation in the form of the fairing (provided by the respective inner and outer walls ) which follows the line to provide a converging flow. So as to clarify there is no requirement for the walls of the fairing to change in thickness only the overall distance between the inner and outer aerodynamic lines. This is the case as is demonstrated by the converging shape.
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.
1 Claims 1-3,and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Lata Perez (US20040076512).
With respect to claim 1 Lata Perez discloses (see figures 1-7) an air ejection nozzle for a nacelle configured to receive an airflow, the air ejection nozzle comprising: An outer aerodynamic line (see figures 1-7) ; An inner aerodynamic line configured to be exposed to the air flow, the outer aerodynamic line and the inner aerodynamic line meeting at a trailing edge (see figure 1), at least one of the outer aerodynamic line and the inner aerodynamic line including at discrete positions at least one area with a thickness that is compensated by at least one airing that is configured to connect the inner aerodynamic line and the outer aerodynamic line to form the trailing edge at discrete positions; and The at least one fairing including an outer wall (12b in figure 5) and an inner wall (10b) delimiting a cavity there between, the inner wall configured to provide continuity of the inner aerodynamic line, the outer wall is solid and the inner wall is pierced so that the at least one fairing form an acoustic attenuation structure (see figures 5 and 6).
With respect to claim 2 Lata Perez further discloses wherein the at least one fairing includes at least one stiffener (see 15b in figure 5) extending from the inner wall towards the outer wall, the at least one stiffener delimiting acoustic cells therebetween (16b in figure 5).
With respect to claim 3 Lata Perez further discloses (figure 7) wherein the at least one stiffener is distant from the outer wall by a predetermined distance (see chamber 14b in figure 7).
With respect to claim 7 Lata Perez discloses wherein the at least one fairing comprises two fairings disposed on the air ejection nozzle opposite to one another (see figure 6 such opposition of fairings is shown).
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.
2. Claims 4, and 8-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lata Perez (US200400276512).
With respect to claim 4 Lata Perez further discloses wherein the at least one stiffener comprises a plurality of stiffeners (see again figure 5) each distant from the outer wall (see again figure 7) by the predetermined distance.
Lata Perez does not expressly disclose the predetermined distance is smaller than or equal to 3mm.
The selection of 3mm or less would have been an obvious matter of tuning the structure to provide the desired effect. The distance would determine the size of cavity 14b and thus the properties
thereof. This would make the distance result effective and thus able to be tuned for. 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 8 Lata Perez discloses an aircraft nacelle (abstract) comprising: An inner fixed structure configured to receive and aircraft turbojet engine (the sue of the turbine engine is disclosed, the selection of a turbojet per se would have been an obvious matter, as would the use of any and all known structures for the support and use of the engine); A set of beams carrying the inner fixed structure (implicit in the presence of the engine on the aircraft); An outer structure defining with the inner fixed structure an annualar channel for circulation of an airflow (see Lata Perez figures 1-7) and the outer structure comprises an air ejection nozzle including: An outer aerodynamic line; An inner aerodynamic line configured to be exposed to the airflow, the outer aerodynamic line and the inner aerodynamic line meeting at a trailing edge, at least one of the outer and the inner aerodynamic lines including at discrete positions at least one area with a thickness that is compensated by at least one fairing that is configured to connect the inner aerodynamic line and the outer aerodynamic line to form the trailing edge at discrete portions (see 12b and associated in figure 5); an d The at least one fairing includes an outer wall (12b) and an inner wall (10b) delimiting a cavity therebetween, the inner wall configured to provide continuity of the inner aerodynamic line, the outer wall is solid and the inner wall is pierced so that the at least one fairing forms an acoustic attenuation structure (see figures 5,6 and 7).
With respect to claim 9 Lata Perez further discloses wherein the at least one fairing of the air ejection nozzle is configured to at least partially surround a beam of the set of beams (see the nozzle structure, such a surrounding of the beam would have been an obvious smatter so as to provide the
desired aerodynamic surface. This arrangement would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as a matter to prevent disturbance to the flow around the aerodynamic structure.)
With respect to claim 12 Lata Perez is silent as to the presence of a thrust reverser, as such it is considered that the engine of Lata Perez is provided without the thrust reverser or at most that the thrust reverser is not required and thus obvious to eliminate to retain the function of the engine of Lata Perez.
3. Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lata Perez (US200400276512) in view of Hermann (US4137992).
With respect to claim 5 Lata Perez further discloses the invention as claimed except wherein the cavity includes an insert core including a plurality of cells. Hermann discloses an insert of a plurality of cells between the surfaces of a fairing of a nozzle of a turbojet (see figures 3,4 and 5). It would have been an obvious matter before the time of the effective filing to combine the teachings of Hermann to provide a cellular structure within the cavities of a turbojet nozzle with the device of Lata Perez to further reduce the noise of the structure by providing more cavities tuned to the frequency to be attenuated.
With respect to claim 6 Lata Perez as modified further discloses wherein the cells are alveolar (see column 6).
4. Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lata Perez (US200400276512) in view of Webb (US5592813).
With respect to claims 10-11 Lata Perez is silent as to the inclusion of a thrust reverser. Webb discloses a thrust reverser assembly which is attached to the nacelle and includes moving door members.
The provision of a thrust reverser is therefore known in the art and would have been obvious to provide on the structure of Lata Perez. The provision of fastening the thrust reverser to the nozzle or using the members thereof to be the air ejection nozzle would have been obvious as such variation f of form would constitute only the forming separately or integrally the elements thereof.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
/FORREST M PHILLIPS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights