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 Objections
Claim 17 objected to because of the following informalities: It appears as if it should depend from claim 16, as “the first ring and the second ring” of claim 17 initially is based in claim 16. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a control mechanism” in claim 3. This control mechanism in claim 3 is being interpreted to mean an actuator that moves the flaps.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-10, 12-14, 16-20, 22-26, 28-32, and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soligny (3807639) in view of Laucher (2828603), as evidenced by Grieb (5165227).
Regarding claim 1, Soligny discloses an exhaust control system comprising: a first end (12-14, fig 1) configured to connect to an outlet of a propulsor fan, wherein the propulsor fan comprising a bladed fan (due to the language configured to connect to, the engine doesn’t need to have a fan to meet the claim, as the exhaust control system must merely be capable of being connecting to the back end of one, which it is, as it is connected to the back end of a jet engine which comprise bladed fans) configured to generate thrust via rotation of the bladed fan that propels a flow of air during rotation (this is the function of a fan in a gas turbine engine) and a stator (12, 15, fig 1) comprising a plurality of stator blades (15, fig 3) positioned immediately downstream of the bladed fan (there is nothing in the bypass between the fan and the blades, so this meets the claim limitation) configured to receive and deswirl the flow of air propelled by the bladed fan (the blades are downstream of the fan position and thus would receive air from them) to convert rotational energy into axial thrust (the streamlined blades would : the second end defining an exhaust outlet (at 7, fig 1) an actuatable tail cone (5, fig 1) configured for disposal (this tail cone can be disposed in the exhaust outlet) within the exhaust outlet (7, fig 1) and comprising a first tail cone end having a mounting surface (connection 12, 13, 14, fig 1 form mounting surfaces between the two which connect each other), a second tail cone end (side downstream from the exit at 6, fig 1) that is opposite the first tail cone end; and an intermediate portion (5, fig 1) located between the first tail cone end and the second tail cone end, wherein a diameter of the intermediate portion is larger than a diameter of the first tail cone end and larger than a diameter of the second tail cone end (fig 1, the cone has narrow ends and a wide intermediate portion); and at least one flaperon (18, fig 1); wherein the exhaust control system is configured to modulate the thrust generated by the flow of air propelled by the bladed fan (as the area varies, the speed of the exhaust and thus the thrust generated by the flow of air would change) at least by varying an area of the exhaust outlet via an adjustment to a length of the actuatable tail cone that repositions the intermediate portion and via actuation of the at least one flaperon (fig 1 vs fig 2).
Soligny does not disclose wherein the mounting surface is configured to connect directly to a mounting surface at the rear end of the stator of the propulsor fan.
Laucher teaches an exhaust plug for a gas turbine (30, fig 3), which has a mounting surface (48, fig 3) which is configured to connect directly to a mounting surface (15, fig 3) at the rear end (at 19, fig 3) of the stator (15 and 16) of an engine similar to Soligny.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transition body shape disclosed by Soligny by having the mounting surface of Soligny be directly connected to the stator of the propulsor fan based on the teachings of Laucher. Laucher uses the mounting surface to keep the exhaust cone properly centered within the engine (col 3, lines 37-45) which is the same design goal of Soligny, thus one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize these as alternate embodiments.
Grieb shows a turbine engine with a variable exhaust plug (17, fig 1) and flaps (18, fig 1) similar to Soligny where the jet engine has a bladed fan (8, fig 1).
Regarding claim 3, Soligny discloses a control mechanism connected to the at least one flaperon (col 3, lines 1-4, the flaps are controllable, meaning that there is a mechanism that controls the flaps) and configured to actuate the at least one flaperon via an adjustment to an angle of the at least one flaperon (fig 1 vs 1a, the flap angles are adjusted outward).
Regarding claim 5, Soligny discloses wherein the actuatable tail cone comprises a plurality of concentric and overlapping rings (first and second ring, annotated fig 1a below), wherein an end of a first ring overlaps an end of a second ring.
PNG
media_image1.png
444
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Soligny discloses a control mechanism (21, fig 1) configured to adjust the length of the actuatable tail cone via and adjustment to an amount of overlap between the first ring and the second ring (fig 1 vs fig 1a, there’s less overlap between the first and second ring as the ring expands).
Regarding claim 7, Soligny discloses wherein the control mechanism is configured to reposition the intermediate portion via a reduction of the length of the actuatable tail cone that increases the amount of overlap between the plurality of concentric and overlapping rings (fig 1 vs 1a, as overlap increases, length shortens).
Regarding claim 8, Soligny discloses wherein the control mechanism is configured to reposition the intermediate portion via an increase to the length of the actuatable tail cone that decreases the amount of overlap between the plurality of concentric and overlapping rings (fig 1 vs 1a, as overlap decreases, length increases).
Regarding claim 9, Soligny discloses wherein the exhaust control system is configured to minimize the area of the exhaust outlet via actuation of the at least one flaperon toward a center of the exhaust outlet and via an increase to the length of the actuatable tail cone that aligns a maximum diameter of the intermediate portion of the actuatable tail cone with a trailing edge of the exhaust outlet (fig 1a, the tail cone increases in length to the flaps where the area is at its minimum, meaning that the control system is configured to extend such that the intermediate portion maximum edge is aligned with the trailing edge).
Regarding claim 10, Soligny discloses wherein the exhaust control system is configured to maximize the area of the exhaust outlet via actuation of the at least one flaperon away from a center of the exhaust outlet and via minimization of the length of the actuatable tail cone (configuration shown in fig 1).
Regarding claim 12, Soligny discloses wherein the at least one flaperon comprises a first flaperon and a second flaperon (18, fig 1, there are flaps on the top and bottom meaning there are multiple), and wherein the exhaust control system is configured to vary the area of the exhaust outlet by actuating the first flaperon in a first direction and actuating the second flaperon in a second direction different than the first direction (fig 1 vs 1a, flaps are actuated in opposite directions where one is actuated up and the other goes down).
Regarding claim 13, Soligny discloses wherein the exhaust control system is configured to vary the area of the exhaust outlet by actuating a single flaperon of the at least one flaperon (due to the language configured to, the flaps must merely be capable of performing the claimed function, since the flaps are controllable (col 3, lines 1-4) one of them could be moved).
Regarding claim 14, Soligny discloses a propulsor system comprising: a propulsor fan (the exhaust system is attached to the end of a turbine engine which would have a bladed fan as is known in the art) comprising: a bladed fan configured to generate thrust via rotation of the bladed fan that propels a flow of air during rotation (this is the function of a gas turbine engine fan system); a stator (12, 15, fig 1) comprising a plurality of stator blades (15, fig 3, there are multiple) positioned immediately downstream of the bladed fan (there is nothing in the fan bypass between the two, meaning that they would be immediately downstream) configured to receive and deswirl the flow of air propelled by the propulsor fan to convert rotational energy into axial thrust (the stators receive all of the air from the upstream portion and since they are streamlined would deswirl the flow which would transfer rotational energy into axial thrust); and an exhaust area control system comprising: a first end (12-14, fig 1) connected to an outlet of the propulsor fan (via 23, fig 1); a second end defining an exhaust outlet (at 7, fig 1); an actuatable tail cone (5, fig 1) disposed within the exhaust outlet and comprising: a first tail cone end (side closest to 10, fig 1) having a mounting surface connected to the stator of the propulsor fan (connection 12-14, fig 1), a second tail cone end (side aft of 6, fig 1) that is opposite the first tail cone end; and an intermediate portion (thickest part of the tail cone located at the arrow 5, fig 1) located between the first tail cone end and the second tail cone end, wherein a diameter of the intermediate portion is larger than a diameter of the first tail cone end and a diameter of the second tail cone end (fig 1, the tail cone is thickest at its intermediate portion then gets smaller towards the ends); and at least one flaperon (18, fig 1); wherein the exhaust area control system is configured to modulate the thrust generated by the flow of air propelled by the bladed fan at least by varying an area of the exhaust outlet via an adjustment to a length of the actuatable tail cone that repositions the intermediate portion and via actuation of the at least one flaperon (fig 1 vs 1a, both the tail cone and flaperons actuate to vary the exhaust outlet area, which in turn will modulate the thrust generated by the flow of air as it changes the velocity and flow characteristics of the exhaust).
Soligny does not disclose wherein the mounting surface is configured to connect directly to a mounting surface at the rear end of the stator of the propulsor fan.
Laucher teaches an exhaust plug for a gas turbine (30, fig 3), which has a mounting surface (48, fig 3) which is configured to connect directly to a mounting surface (15, fig 3) at the rear end (at 19, fig 3) of the stator (15 and 16) of an engine similar to Soligny.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transition body shape disclosed by Soligny by having the mounting surface of Soligny be directly connected to the stator of the propulsor fan based on the teachings of Laucher. Laucher uses the mounting surface to keep the exhaust cone properly centered within the engine (col 3, lines 37-45) which is the same design goal of Soligny, thus one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize these as alternate embodiments.
Grieb shows a turbine engine with a variable exhaust plug (17, fig 1) and flaps (18, fig 1) similar to Soligny where the jet engine has a bladed fan (8, fig 1).
Regarding claim 16, Soligny discloses wherein the actuatable tail cone comprises a plurality of concentric and overlapping rings, wherein an end of a first ring overlaps an end of a second ring (first and second ring, annotated fig 1).
Regarding claim 17, Soligny discloses a control mechanism configured to adjust the length of the actuatable tail (21, fig 1) cone via an adjustment to an amount of overlap between the first ring and the second ring (fig 1 vs 1a, overlap changes to adjust the length of the tail).
Regarding claim 18, Soligny discloses wherein the at least one flaperon comprise a plurality of independently actuatable flaperons (fig 1, there are flaps 18 on both the top and bottom of the engine).
Regarding claim 19, Soligny discloses a control mechanism connected to the at least one flaperon (col 3, lines 1-4, the flaps are controllable, meaning that there is a mechanism that controls the flaps) and configured to actuate the at least one flaperon via an adjustment to an angle of the at least one flaperon (fig 1 vs 1a, the flap angles are adjusted outward).
Regarding claim 20, Soligny discloses the exhaust area control system is configured to minimize the area of the exhaust outlet via actuation of the at least one flaperon toward a center of the exhaust outlet and via an adjustment to the length of the actuatable tail cone that aligns a maximum diameter of the intermediate portion of the actuatable tail cone with a trailing edge of the exhaust outlet (fig 1a forms this configuration), and the exhaust area control system is configured to maximize the area of the exhaust outlet via actuation of the at least one flaperon away from the center of the exhaust outlet and via minimization of the length of the actuatable tail cone (fig 1 forms this configuration).
Regarding claim 22, Soligny discloses wherein the at least one flaperon comprises a first flaperon and a second flaperon (top and bottom of fig 1, there are flaps on both sides), and wherein the exhaust area control system is configured to vary the area of the exhaust outlet by actuating the first flaperon in a first direction and actuating the second flaperon in a second direction different than the first direction (fig 1, the top flap goes one direction while the bottom flap extends in the opposite direction).
Regarding claim 23, Soligny discloses wherein the exhaust control system is configured to vary the area of the exhaust outlet by actuating a single flaperon of the at least one flaperon (due to the language configured to, the flaps must merely be capable of performing the claimed function, since the flaps are controllable (col 3, lines 1-4) a single flaperon of the flaperons can be moved).
Regarding claim 24, Soligny discloses a method for modulating thrust, the method comprising: by an exhaust area control system (1-4, fig 1) comprising an actuatable tail cone (6, fig 1) and at least one flaperon (18, fig 1) and that is connected to an outlet of a propulsor fan (the tail cone is connected to a turbine engine which is known to have a fan with blades to generate propulsive force) comprising a bladed fan configured to generate thrust via rotation of the bladed fan (this is the function of a fan blade in a turbine engine) that propels a flow of air during rotation and a stator (12, 15, fig 1) positioned immediately downstream of the bladed fan (there is nothing in the bypass duct between the fan and the stator, meaning it is immediately downstream of it) comprising a plurality of stator blades (15, fig 3) configured to receive and deswirl the flow of air propelled by the bladed fan to convert rotational energy into axial thrust (the stators are downstream of the fan and thus would receive air from it and since they are streamlined the air would deswirl and some rotational energy would be converted into axial thrust): modulating the thrust generated by the flow of air propelled by the bladed fan by varying an area of an exhaust outlet (when the area of the exhaust outlet is varied, the thrust produced by the flow of air will also vary as the flow characteristics will change) defined by the exhaust area control system via an adjustment to a length of the actuatable tail cone, disposed within the exhaust outlet and mounting surface connecting to the stator of the propulsor fan (connection 12-14, fig 1) that repositions an intermediate portion of the actuatable tail cone within the exhaust outlet (5, fig 1 vs 1a), wherein a diameter of the intermediate portion (portion at number 5, fig 1) of the actuatable tail cone is larger than a diameter of a first end (portion at 10, fig 1) of the actuatable tail cone and larger than a second end (portion aft of 6, fig 1) of the actuatable tail cone that is opposite the first end; and modulating the thrust generated by the flow of air propelled by the bladed fan by varying the area of the exhaust outlet via actuation of the at least one flaperon (18, fig 1 vs 1a) of the exhaust control system.
Soligny does not disclose wherein the mounting surface is configured to connect directly to a mounting surface at the rear end of the stator of the propulsor fan.
Laucher teaches an exhaust plug for a gas turbine (30, fig 3), which has a mounting surface (48, fig 3) which is configured to connect directly to a mounting surface (15, fig 3) at the rear end (at 19, fig 3) of the stator (15 and 16) of an engine similar to Soligny.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transition body shape disclosed by Soligny by having the mounting surface of Soligny be directly connected to the stator of the propulsor fan based on the teachings of Laucher. Laucher uses the mounting surface to keep the exhaust cone properly centered within the engine (col 3, lines 37-45) which is the same design goal of Soligny, thus one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize these as alternate embodiments.
Grieb shows a turbine engine with a variable exhaust plug (17, fig 1) and flaps (18, fig 1) similar to Soligny where the jet engine has a bladed fan (8, fig 1).
Regarding claim 25, Soligny discloses wherein the adjustment to the length of the actuatable tail cone comprises an adjustment to an amount of overlap between ends of concentric rings of the actuatable tail cone (first and second concentric rings one and two, annotated fig 1, as the overlap decreases the length increases).
Regarding claim 26, Soligny discloses wherein the actuation of the at least one flaperon comprises adjusting an angle of the at least one flaperon (18, fig 1 vs 1a).
Regarding claim 28, Soligny discloses wherein the actuation of the at least one flaperon comprises actuating a first flaperon, of the at least one flaperon, in a first direction and actuating a second flaperon, of the at least one flaperon, in a second direction different than the first direction (18, fig 1, the top goes up, while the bottom goes down).
Regarding claim 29, Soligny discloses wherein the actuation of the at least one flaperon comprises actuating a single flaperon of the at least one flaperon (col 3, lines 1-4, the flaperons can be actuated meaning a single one of the flaperons can be actuated).
Regarding claim 30, Soligny discloses wherein modulation of the thrust generated by the flow of air propelled by the bladed fan comprises modulation of the magnitude of the thrust (as the area of the outlet changes the magnitude of the thrust would change due to the outlet speed).
Regarding claim 31, Soligny discloses wherein modulation of the thrust generated by the flow of air propelled by the bladed fan comprises modulation of the magnitude of the thrust (as the area of the outlet changes the magnitude of the thrust would change due to the outlet speed).
Regarding claim 32, Soligny discloses wherein modulation of the thrust generated by the flow of air propelled by the bladed fan comprises modulation of the magnitude of the thrust (as the area of the outlet changes the magnitude of the thrust would change due to the outlet speed).
Regarding claim 34, Soligny discloses the claimed invention except wherein the bladed fan comprises 20 to 840 blades arranged in an overlapping circular ring shape. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the fan be 20 to 840 blades in an overlapping circular ring shape, since applicant has not disclosed that the blade count solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with another number of blades outside of said range.
Regarding claim 35, Soligny discloses wherein a diameter of the first tail cone end matches a diameter of the rear end of the stator (annotated fig 1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
240
320
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 2, 4, 15, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soligny in view of Udall (US-Pub 2008/0245925).
Regarding claim 2, Soligny discloses a transition body (fig 1, 1-4), wherein each of the at least one flaperon is connected to an edge of the transition body (18 connects to the downstream edge of 4, fig 1).
Soligny does not disclose wherein the transition body transitions a cross-section of the exhaust outlet from a first shape to a second shape, and wherein each of the at least one flaperon is connected to an edge of the transition body.
Udall teaches a transition body used as an exhaust outlet of a gas turbine (14, fig 6), wherein the transition body transitions the exhaust outlet from a first shape (circular) to a second shape (rectangular).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transition body shape disclosed by Soligny by having the transition body vary the shape from a first circular shape to a second rectangular shape based on the teachings of Udall. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a rectangular cross section would allow for a simpler flap design.
Regarding claim 4, Soligny discloses wherein an inlet of the exhaust control system has a circular cross-sectional shape (7, fig 3).
Soligny does not disclose wherein an outlet of the exhaust control system has a rectangular cross-sectional shape.
Udall teaches a transition body used as an exhaust outlet of a gas turbine (14, fig 6), wherein the transition body transitions the exhaust outlet from a first shape (circular) to a second shape (rectangular).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transition body shape disclosed by Soligny by having the transition body vary the shape from a first circular shape to a second rectangular shape based on the teachings of Udall. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a rectangular cross section would allow for a simpler flap design.
Regarding claim 33, Soligny discloses wherein the exhaust area control system further comprises: a transition body, wherein each of the at least one flaperon is connected to an edge of the transition body, wherein an inlet of the exhaust control system has a circular cross-sectional shape, wherein the actuatable tail cone comprises a plurality of concentric and overlapping rings, wherein an end of a first ring overlaps an end of a second ring; wherein the at least one flaperon comprise a plurality of independently actuatable flaperons; wherein the actuation of the at least one flaperon comprises adjusting an angle of the at least one flaperon, wherein the exhaust area control system is configured to minimize the area of the exhaust outlet via actuation of the at least one flaperon toward a center of the exhaust outlet and via an increase to the length of the actuatable tail cone that aligns a maximum diameter of the intermediate portion of the actuatable tail cone with a trailing edge of the exhaust outlet; wherein the exhaust area control system is configured to maximize the area of the exhaust outlet via actuation of the at least one flaperon away from the center of the exhaust outlet and via minimization of the length of the actuatable tail cone; wherein the exhaust area control system is configured to vary the area of the exhaust outlet by actuating a first flaperon of the at least one flaperon in a first direction and actuating a second flaperon of the at least one flaperon in a second direction different than the first direction; and wherein the exhaust area control system is configured to vary the area of the exhaust outlet by actuating a single flaperon of the at least one flaperon (all limitations in this claim have been independently addressed in the rejection above).
Soligny does not disclose wherein the transition body transitions a cross-section of the exhaust outlet from a first shape to a second shape, and wherein each of the at least one flaperon is connected to an edge of the transition body, wherein an outlet of the exhaust control system has a rectangular cross-sectional shape.
Udall teaches a transition body used as an exhaust outlet of a gas turbine (14, fig 6), wherein the transition body transitions the exhaust outlet from a first shape (circular) to a second shape (rectangular).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transition body shape disclosed by Soligny by having the transition body vary the shape from a first circular shape to a second rectangular shape based on the teachings of Udall. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a rectangular cross section would allow for a simpler flap design.
Regarding claim 15, Soligny discloses a transition body (1-4, fig 1) that forms the exhaust area control system.
Soligny does not disclose wherein the transition body transitions from a first cross-sectional shape at a first end of the exhaust area control system to a second cross sectional shape at a second end of the exhaust area control system different from the first cross sectional shape.
Udall teaches a transition body used as an exhaust outlet of a gas turbine (14, fig 6), wherein the transition body transitions the exhaust outlet from a first shape (circular) to a second shape (rectangular) which is different from the first cross sectional shape.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transition body shape disclosed by Soligny by having the transition body vary the shape from a first circular shape to a second rectangular shape based on the teachings of Udall. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a rectangular cross section would allow for a simpler flap design.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Soligny does not disclose wherein the stator blades are configured to receive and deswirl the flow of air to convert rotational energy into axial thrust as the stator blades are quite far downstream of the fan. This argument is not persuasive, as this represents an intended use of the stator vanes, and since the stator vanes are streamlined and they are downstream of the fan, they would indeed perform the claimed function as the streamlining would straighten the flow which would convert rotational energy into axial thrust. Applicant further argues that the first tail cone end does not connect directly to the stator of the propulsor fan and instead connect to the stator via arms 15. Applicants arguments are not persuasive, as the arms connect the tail cone to the outer nozzle structure 1 and the arms are part of the stator.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 3/4/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 14, and 24 under Soligny have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Soligny and Laucher.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN V MEILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-9229. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5pm.
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, Todd E. Manahan can be reached on 571-272-4713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SEAN V MEILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights