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 .
Claim Interpretation
It is noted that the applicant used the term “IAMS” throughout the claims. This term has a special definition defined in the specification of the application: Inlet Air Management System (Claim 1).
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, the “the dump door is disposed wholly within the IAMS when in open positions” of claims 1 and 10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 1-3, 5-6, 9-11, and 14 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the dump door is disposed wholly within the IAMS when in open positions” does not have support in the disclosure as originally filed. Applicant is invited to point to parts of the specification which they believe provides support for this limitation in a reply to this office action.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “the dump door is disposed wholly within the IAMS when in open positions” does not have support in the disclosure as originally filed. Additionally, “” does not have sufficient support in the disclosure (¶22 describes )Applicant is invited to point to parts of the specification which they believe provides support for this limitation in a reply to this office action.
Claims 2-3, 5-6, 9, 11, and 14 are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
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 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US 20180043986 A1) in view of Kazlauskas (US 20110265650 A1) and Lacroix (US 20180291841 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Miller discloses a rotatable nacelle (Miller, figure 2A, item
202a and 202b, tiltrotor nacelles at the end of wings), comprising:
an engine inlet configured to receive air (Miller, figure 4A, items 302 and 314, barrier and ram air inlets); and
an inlet air management system (IAMS), comprising:
a primary inlet configured to selectively allow air to flow into a duct (Miller, figure 5A, item 312, selector duct) associated with the engine air inlet via the primary inlet (Miller, figure 4A, item 314, ram air inlet);
a secondary inlet configured to selectively allow air to flow into the duct associated with the engine air inlet via the secondary inlet (Miller, figure 4A, item 302, barrier filter inlet),
the secondary inlet being configured to receive an air filter (Miller, figure 4A, item 310, barrier filter plenum receiving air from barrier filter inlet) except:
a dump aperture associated with a downstream outer profile of the IAMS and a dump door configured to selectively control airflow through the dump aperture,
wherein the dump door is disposed wholly within the IAMS when in open position.
Kazlauskas (US 20110265650 A1) teaches a dump aperture with a downstream outer profile of the IAMS; wherein a most downstream portion of the dump aperture that is nearest a body of the nacelle is offset from a nearest downstream portion of the body of the nacelle (Kazlauskas, figure 1c and 2a, item 48, ¶54).
Miller and Kazlauskas are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft inlet design. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Miller with the dump aperture of Kazlauskas in order to allow excess air to be dumped before entering the compressors.
Lacroix (US 20180291841 A1) teaches a dump door (Lacroix, figure 1, item 32) configured to selectively control airflow through a dump aperture (Lacroix, figure 1, item 29) wherein the dump door is disposed wholly within the IAMS when in open position (Lacroix, figure 1, item 12, gate acting as door is located inside of the inlet system when opened).
Miller as modified by Kazlauskas and Lacroix are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft inlet design. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Miller as modified by Kazlauskas with the dump door of Lacroix in order to dump excess air and to allow ingested debris to be ejected (Lacroix, ¶5-¶6).
Regarding claim 2, Miller as modified by Kazlauskas and Lacroix teaches the rotatable nacelle of claim 1, further comprising:
an inlet door configured to selectively control airflow through the primary inlet (Miller, figure 5A, item 306, bypass door used to allow air to flow in from the primary inlet).
Regarding claim 5, Miller as modified by Kazlauskas and Lacroix teaches the rotatable nacelle of claim 1, wherein the duct comprises at least one aperture (Miller, figure 6A, item 320, opening in selector duct).
Regarding claim 6, Miller as modified by Kazlauskas and Lacroix teaches the rotatable nacelle of claim 5, wherein airflow through both the primary inlet and airflow through the aperture is selectively controlled by moving an inlet door (Miller, paragraph 8, lines 3-9, doors control airflow from filtered and unfiltered inlet sections).
Regarding claim 9, Miller as modified by Kazlauskas and Lacroix teaches the rotatable nacelle of claim 8, as shown above, further comprising:
an inlet door configured to selectively control airflow through the primary inlet (Miller, figure 5A, item 306, bypass door used to allow air to flow in from the primary inlet).
Claims 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US 20180043986 A1) in view of Kazlauskas (US 20110265650 A1) and Lacroix (US 20180291841 A1), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of O’Brien (US 11359544 B2).
Regarding claim 3, Miller as modified by Kazlauskas and Lacroix teaches the rotatable nacelle of claim 2, wherein the inlet door is actively controlled using an actuator (Miller, paragraph 8, lines 19-23, inlet door manually controlled).
O’Brien (US 11359544 B2) teaches an inlet door which is actively controlled using an actuator (O’Brien, figure 2b, items 180, col 9, lines 35-52).
Miller as modified by Kazlauskas and Lacroix and O’Brien are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft engine intakes. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the inlet door of Miller as modified by Kazlauskas and Lacroix with the actuator moving a door of O’Brien with a reasonable expectation of success in order to move the door between open and closed positions.
Claims 10-11, 14, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US 20180043986 A1) in view of Lacroix (US 20180291841 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Miller teaches a taltrotor aircraft, comprising:
a fuselage (Miller, figure 2A, item 200, tiltrotor aircraft includes a fuselage);
an engine inlet configured to receive air (Miller, figure 4A, items 302 and 314, barrier and ram air inlets); and
an inlet air management system (IAMS), comprising:
a primary inlet configured to selectively allow air to flow into a duct (Miller, figure 5A, item 312, selector duct) associated with the engine air inlet via the primary inlet (Miller, figure 4A, item 314, ram air inlet);
a secondary inlet configured to selectively allow air to flow into the duct associated with the engine air inlet via the secondary inlet (Miller, figure 4A, item 302, barrier filter inlet), the secondary inlet being configured to receive an air filter (Miller, figure 4A, item 310, barrier filter plenum receiving air from barrier filter inlet);
wherein the IAMS is movable relative to the fuselage (Miller, figure 2A, items 202a and 202b, tilt rotor assemblies allow the rotor, engine, nacelle, and associated parts to rotate with respect to the fuselage), except:
a dump aperture associated with a downstream outer profile of the IAMS and a dump door configured to selectively control airflow through the dump aperture,
a dump door configured to selectively control airflow through the dump aperture wherein the dump door is disposed wholly within the IAMS when in the open positions;
wherein the dump door is operated to be relatively more open when the tiltrotor aircraft is operated in the airplane mode as compared to when the tiltrotor aircraft is being operated in the helicopter mode of operation.
Lacroix (US 20180291841 A1) teaches a dump aperture associated with a downstream outer profile of the IAMS (Lacroix, figure 1, item 29);
a dump door (Lacroix, figure 1, item 32) configured to selectively control airflow through the dump aperture wherein the dump door is disposed wholly within the IAMS when in open position (Lacroix, figure 1, item 12, gate acting as door is located inside of the inlet system when opened);
wherein the dump door is operated differently as a function of which of a first mode and a second mode the aircraft is being operated (Lacroix, door is capable of being operated differently in different flight modes including at different angles of incidence and at different mach numbers).
Miller as modified by Kazlauskas and Lacroix are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft inlet design. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Miller as modified by Kazlauskas with the dump door of Lacroix in order to dump excess air and to allow ingested debris to be ejected (Lacroix, ¶5-¶6).
Such a modified arrangement would be capable of allowing the dump door is operated to be relatively more open when the tiltrotor aircraft is operated in the airplane mode as compared to when the tiltrotor aircraft is being operated in the helicopter mode of operation.
Regarding claim 11, Miller as modified by Peikert teaches the aircraft of claim 10, further comprising:
an inlet door configured to selectively control airflow through the primary inlet (Miller, figure 5A, item 306, bypass door used to allow air to flow in from the primary inlet).
Regarding claim 14, Miller as modified by Peikert teaches the aircraft of claim 10, wherein the duct comprises at least one aperture (Miller, figure 6A, item 320, opening in selector duct).
Claims 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US 20180043986 A1) in view of Peikert (DE 2545019 A1), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of O’Brien (US 11359544 B2).
Regarding claim 12, Miller as modified by Peikert teaches the aircraft of claim 11, except:
wherein the inlet door is actively controlled using an actuator .
O’Brien (US 11359544 B2) teaches an inlet door which is actively controlled using an actuator (O’Brien, figure 2b, items 180, col 9, lines 35-52).
Miller as modified by Peikert and O’Brien are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft engine intakes. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the inlet door of Miller as modified by Peikert with the actuator moving a door of O’Brien with a reasonable expectation of success in order to move the door between open and closed positions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6 of applicant’s reply, filed 11/07/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 9, 10, 17 and their dependents under 35 USC 112 and the double patenting rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. These rejections have been withdrawn. However, applicant’s amendments have introduced new issues under 35 USC 112, see the above rejections to claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-11, and 14 under this statute.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 9-11, and 14 under 35 USC 102/103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's other arguments filed 11/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that:
The amendments requiring the dump door which is inside of the IAMS when the dump door is open has sufficient support in figure 12 of the disclosure.
Upon reviewing figure 12, the dump door (item 418) appears to be in a static closed position, with no indication of how it opens and whether it opens outwards, inwards, or in some other fashion. ¶22 of the specification similarly merely states “The dump doors 418 can be configured to move in any of a sliding, pivoting, or rotating manner.” Both of these parts of the disclosure are insufficient to support the requirement that the dump door being wholly disposed in the IAMS when in the open position. As such claims 1, 10, and their dependents are rejected under 35 USC 112(a) for containing new matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Krahl (US 20110001003 A1) teaches a radial inlet with filter including a bypass option.
Braeutigam (US 20140158833 A1) teaches an inlet with a filter and actuator that bypasses inlet.
Brand (US 20150344141 A1) teaches an inlet with a filtered and unfiltered mode.
Parsons (US 20180208323 A1) teaches an air inlet with a bypass door controlled to change airflow rate; also includes filter.
Caldwell (US 2374412 A) teaches an air inlet where air can be diverted through a filter before use in the engine.
Smith (EP 2224100 A2) teaches a turbofan engine design where a valve controls the bypass air. This reads on the dump aperture.
The Concord (see NPL titled: “Concorde Engine Air Intake System”) teaches a dump aperture associated with a downstream outer profile of the IAMS (The Concord, diagram 1, page 2, spill door opening downstream inlet opening); a dump door configured to selectively control airflow through the dump aperture (The Concord, diagram 1, page 2, spill door).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN ANDREW YANKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9979. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Joshua Michener can be reached on (571) 272-1467. 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.
/RYAN ANDREW YANKEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642