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).
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, 9-11, 14, and 19 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 first dump aperture and a second dump aperture, both associated with a downstream outer profile of the IAMS; and
a first dump door associated with the first aperture and a second dump door associated with the second dump aperture, both the first dump door and the second dump door configured to selectively control airflow through the first dump aperture and the second dump aperture, respectively.
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).
Miller as modified by Kazlauskas and Lacroix discloses/teaches the claimed invention except for the second aperture and respective second dump door. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to duplicate the dump aperture and dump door in order to provide redundancy should a door malfunction or should an one aperture become clogged with debris, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
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).
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 first dump aperture associated with a downstream outer profile of the IAMS and a first dump door configured to selectively control airflow through the first dump aperture,
a second dump aperture associated with the downstream outer profile of the IAMS and a second dump door configured to selectively control airflow through the second dump aperture;
wherein the first dump door and the second dump door are 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.
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);
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.
Miller as modified by Kazlauskas and Lacroix discloses/teaches the claimed invention except for the second aperture and respective second dump door. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to duplicate the dump aperture and dump door in order to provide redundancy should a door malfunction or should an one aperture become clogged with debris, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 11, Miller as modified by Kazlauskas and Lacroix 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 Kazlauskas and Lacroix teaches the aircraft of claim 10, wherein the duct comprises at least one aperture (Miller, figure 6A, item 320, opening in selector duct).
Regarding claim 19, Miller as modified by Kazlauskas and Lacroix teaches the rotatable nacelle of claim 1, wherein each of a profile of the first dump aperture and a profile of the second dump aperture are shaped differently from the downstream outer profile of the IAMS (Kazlauskas, figure 1c and 2a, item 48, dump aperture protrudes from the downstream outer profile of the IAMS; Note per duplication of parts above this includes two such apertures and doors).
Regarding claim 20, Miller as modified by Kazlauskas and Lacroix teaches tiltrotor aircraft of claim 10, wherein each of a profile of the first dump aperture and a profile of the second dump aperture are shaped differently from the downstream outer profile of the IAMS (Kazlauskas, figure 1c and 2a, item 48, dump aperture protrudes from the downstream outer profile of the IAMS; Note per duplication of parts above this includes two such apertures and doors).
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 12 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 11 above, and further in view of O’Brien (US 11359544 B2).
Regarding claim 12, Miller as modified by Kazlauskas and Lacroix 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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6 of applicant’s reply, filed 05/28/2026, with respect to the drawing objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. These objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6 of applicant’s reply, filed 05/28/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 10, and their dependents under 35 USC 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. These rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 9-12, 14, and 19-20 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.
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.
Joshi US 20160090912 A1) teaches a contaminated air dump
Parsons (US 20180208323 A1) teaches an air inlet with a bypass door controlled to change airflow rate; also includes filter.
Davis (US 20240227321 A1) teaches a bypass duct (dump) fig 3 item 98
Caldwell (US 2374412 A) teaches an air inlet where air can be diverted through a filter before use in the engine.
Nangia (US 3941336 A) teaches two dump doors in an intake duct (fig 6 itmes 48 and 49)
Smith (EP 2224100 A2) teaches a turbofan engine design where a valve controls the bypass air. This reads on the dump aperture.
Kupratis (EP 4589130 A2) teaches a door and two bleed apertures
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).
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
Prosecution Insights