DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
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.
Internet/E-mail Communication
In order to permit communication regarding the instant application via email, Applicant is invited to file form PTO/SB/439 (Authorization for Internet Communications) or include the following statement in a filed document or remarks of a filed response (see MPEP 502.03 II):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
If such authorization is provided, please include an email address in the remarks of a filed response. The examiner’s e-mail address is Christopher.Legendre@uspto.gov.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03 May 2024 was filed before the mailing date of the first action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is hereby considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “208” (par. [0040]).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “222” (Figure 2), “224” (Figure 2).
The drawings are objected to for the following informalities:
-an instance of “204” does not identify “end cap portion”.
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 Objections
Claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 5, “at least” should be deleted (since “comprising” in line 1 is open-ended; another claimed “set of heat exchanger fins” is named “second set of heat exchanger fins” (claim 10), thereby abandoning the convention established by “at least a first set”). ‘
In claim 1, line 7, “manufacture” should be changed to --manufactured--.
In claim 3, line 3, “circumferentially” should be changed to --rotationally-- (note: “circumferentially balanced” is considered to mean --rotationally balanced--).
In claim 4, line 2, “the at least” should be deleted.
In claim 10, lines 1-2, “at least” should be deleted.
In claim 10, line 3, “fins” should be changed to --fin--.
In claim 11, line 6, “at least” should be deleted.
In claim 11, line 8, “fins” (first instance) should be changed to --fin--.
In claim 11, line 9, “manufacture” should be changed to --manufactured--.
In claim 13, lines 2-3, “circumferentially” should be changed to --rotationally-- (note: “circumferentially balanced” is considered to mean --rotationally balanced--).
In claim 14, line 2, “the at least” should be deleted.
In claim 20, line 1, “wherein the journal bearing shaft” should be deleted (since it is superfluous in light of “of the ram air journal bearing shaft” in line 3).
In claim 20, line 2, “at least” should be deleted.
In claim 20, line 4, “fins” (first instance) should be changed to --fin--.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) except as otherwise indicated in this 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) except as otherwise indicated in this Office action.
There are no limitations deemed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claims 5-7, 10, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 5, the limitation recited as “each heat exchanger passage” renders the claim indefinite since it (i.e., “heat exchanger passage”) lacks antecedent basis (see MPEP 2173.05(e)). Due to an identical instance, this rejection also applies to claim 15. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claims 6, 7, 16, and 17.
In claim 10, the limitation recited as “an outer diameter of the ram air journal bearing shaft” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if it is referring to an antecedent limitation of the same name (see claim 1). To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests changing “an” to --the--. Due to an identical instance, this rejection also applies to claim 20.
In claim 10, the limitation recited as “an inner diameter tie rod passage” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if it is referring to an antecedent limitation of the same name (see claim 1). To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests changing “an” to --the--. Due to an identical instance, this rejection also applies to claim 20.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 12, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pal et al. (US 2007/0018516 - hereafter referred to as Pal) in view of Army et al. (US 2022/0194600 - hereafter referred to as Army).
In reference to claim 1
Pal discloses:
A ram air journal bearing shaft (see Figures 2, 3-4, and 6)(note that Figures 3-4 and 6 are two different embodiments that meet the claim) comprising:
a body (i.e., motor rotor 44 - see Figures 2 and 4)(note: “44” in Figure 3 appears to be incorrectly used) having a main body portion (i.e., the portion along fins 68) and a journal bearing portion (i.e., the portion along bearing 42 - see par. [0023] stating “A motor rotor 44 is mounted on the bearing 42 for rotation with the shaft 40 about the axis A”), wherein the main body portion and the journal bearing portion are coaxial along a first axis (A),
at least a first set of heat exchanger fins (68 - Figures 3-4; 112 - Figure 6) extending from an outer diameter of the ram air journal bearing shaft (see par. [0028] stating “the motor rotor 44 includes fins 68 that provide increased surface area”) to an inner diameter tie rod passage (78 - Figure 3); and
a set of cooling air passages (76 - Figures 3-4; 20’ - Figure 6) disposed circumferentially about the first axis (A), each cooling air passage (76, 20’) being defined between adjacent heat exchanger fins (68 or 112) of the first set of heat exchanger fins and wherein the ram air journal bearing shaft is configured such that a cooling flowpath through the cooling air passage (76, 20’) is established (see pars. [0023] and [0028]-[0035]).
Pal does not disclose that body is additively manufactured and the first set of heat exchanger fins being additively manufacture as an integral structure to the additively manufactured body.
Army discloses:
a module (40 - Figure 2) of a ram air fan, wherein the module is additively manufactured, specifically portions (50) and (42) (see par. [0042]); additive manufacturing allows cost reduction and ease of replacement (see par. [0058]).
Although this appears to be a different part of the ram air fan, the teachings of Army are considered analogous art, since they are in the same field of endeavor of ram air fans and reasonably pertinent to the problem of manufacturing techniques of ram air fans - i.e., Army demonstrates the known usage of additive manufacturing in the field of ram air fans. Furthermore, Pal further discloses (see par. [0031]) an integral formation of fins 68 with motor rotor 44.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ram air journal bearing shaft of Pal to include additively manufacturing the body and the first set of heat exchanger fins as an integral structure, as suggested by Army, to provide the benefits of reduced cost and ease of replacement.
In reference to claim 2
Pal in view of Army addresses:
The ram air journal bearing shaft of claim 1, wherein the additively manufactured heat exchanger fins (Pal - 68 or 112, as modified by Army) are evenly distributed circumferentially about the axis (see Pal Figures 4 and 6).
In reference to claim 4
Pal in view of Army addresses:
The ram air journal bearing shaft of claim 1, wherein the main body portion (Pal), the journal bearing portion (Pal) and the at least the first set of heat exchanger fins (Pal - 68 or 112) are a single integral structure (due to the modification over Army) defined by an absence of joints, fasteners, and brazing.
In reference to claim 10 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Pal in view of Army addresses:
The ram air journal bearing shaft of claim 1.
Pal in view of Army, as previously combined, does not address:
further comprising at least a second set of heat exchanger fins extending from an outer diameter of the ram air journal bearing shaft to an inner diameter tie rod passage, each heat exchanger fins in the second set of heat exchanger fins being additively manufactured as an integral structure to the additively manufactured body.
Pal further discloses (see Figure 7) an embodiment wherein there is at least a second set of heat exchanger fins (see forward and rear sets of 68a), which produces a discontinuous path that has additional surface areas to which heat may be emitted to the passing cooling air (see par. [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ram air journal bearing shaft of Pal in view of Army to include a second set of heat exchanger fins extending from an outer diameter of the ram air journal bearing shaft to an inner diameter tie rod passage, as further suggested by Pal, to provide the benefit of having more surface area for heat emission (note: the limitation recited as additive manufacturing such that each heat exchanger fins in the second set of heat exchanger fins being additively manufactured as an integral structure to the additively manufactured body would have been obvious in view of Army for the same reasons set forth above in claim 1).
In reference to claims 11, 12, 14, and 20 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Pal in view of Army addresses the limitations of claims 11, 12, 14, and 20 in the same manner as described above with respect to claims 1, 2, 4, and 10, respectively (note: the only step of the instant claimed process(es) is additively manufacturing, which is addressed by Army).
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pal in view of Army, Shiozawa (US 2018/0266440), and Fujiwara (US 2022/0161937).
In reference to claims 3 and 13
Pal in view of Army addresses:
The ram air journal bearing shaft of claim 1. (claim 3)
The process of claim 11. (claim 13)
Pal in view of Army does not address:
the additively manufactured heat exchanger fins are distributed circumferentially unevenly and circumferentially balanced about the axis.
Shiozawa discloses:
usage of heat exchanger fins (513) for the purposes of transferring heat (see par. [0139]), wherein the distribution of such fins may be either circumferentially evenly or circumferentially unevenly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ram air journal bearing shaft of Pal in view of Army by simply substituting evenly arranged fins such that the heat exchanger fins are distributed circumferentially unevenly, as evidenced by Shiozawa, for the purpose of achieving a desired heat transfer effect.
Fujiwara discloses:
a rotational arrangement where blades (32a and 32b - see Figure 3) are circumferentially balanced about the axis; circumferentially balancing the weight of the blades prevents an uneven distribution of weight, and balancing suppresses whirling due to an uneven distribution (see par. [0059]).
Thus, Fujiwara evidences the importance of considering circumferential balancing for rotating objects, such as the fins of the combination.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ram air journal bearing shaft of Pal in view of Army and Shiozawa such that the fins are circumferentially balanced about the axis, as suggested by Fujiwara, to provide the benefit of avoiding the negative effects, like whirling, of an uneven weight distribution.
Claims 5-7 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pal in view of Army and Jones et al. (US 2017/0089264 - hereafter referred to as Jones).
In reference to claims 5 and 15 (as far as they are clear and definite)
Pal in view of Army addresses:
The ram air journal bearing shaft / process of claim 1 / claim 11, wherein each heat exchanger passage (Pal - 76, 20’) comprises an inlet end (see Pal Figures 2 and 3) at a first rotational position about the axis (Pal - A) and an outlet end (see Pal Figures 2 and 3) at a second rotational position about the axis.
Pal in view of Army does not address:
the first rotational position and the second rotational position are different.
Jones discloses:
a cooling arrangement wherein fins (132, 142) are arranged in a spiral fashion, resulting in an arrangement wherein the first rotational position and the second rotational position are different, which increases the surface area provided, thereby improving the cooling effectiveness (see pars. [0026] through [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ram air journal bearing shaft of Pal in view of Army to include a spiraling fin arrangement so that the first rotational position and the second rotational position are different, as disclosed by Jones, to provide the benefit of improving the cooling effectiveness.
In reference to claims 6 and 16
Pal in view of Army and Jones addresses:
The ram air journal bearing shaft / process of claim 5 / claim 15, wherein each heat exchanger passage (Pal - 76,20’, as modified by Jones) in the plurality of heat exchanger passages includes at least one full rotation about the axis (note: par. [0026] of Jones exemplifies a partial rotation up to a full rotation or more).
In reference to claims 7 and 17
Pal in view of Army and Jones addresses:
The ram air journal bearing shaft / process of claim 5 / claim 15, wherein each heat exchanger passage (Pal - 76,20’, as modified by Jones) in the plurality of heat exchanger passages includes a partial rotation about the axis (note: par. [0026] of Jones exemplifies a partial rotation up to a full rotation or more).
Claims 8-9 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pal in view of Army and Cox (US 2009/0053075).
In reference to claims 8 and 18
Pal in view of Army addresses:
The ram air journal bearing shaft / process of claim 1 / claim 11.
Pal in view of Army does not address:
each heat exchanger fin includes at least one circumferentially extending feature, and wherein the at least one circumferentially extending feature extends into a passage of the plurality of passages defined by the plurality of fins.
Cox discloses:
a heat exchanger fin (52c - Figure 6) that includes at least one circumferentially extending feature (either side of 64) that extends into a flow passage, wherein the feature (64) further maximizes the surface area to increase the heat transfer of the fin (see par. [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ram air journal bearing shaft of Pal in view of Army such that each heat exchanger fin includes at least one circumferentially extending feature that extends into a passage of the plurality of passages, as disclosed by Cox, to provide the benefit of increasing heat transfer.
In reference to claims 9 and 19
Pal in view of Army and Cox addresses:
The ram air journal bearing shaft / process of claim 8 / claim 18, wherein each heat exchanger fin includes at least two circumferentially extending features (see Cox Figure 6 showing feature 64 as being two circumferentially extending features extending in opposite circumferential directions; also see Cox par. [0028]), and wherein each of the two at least circumferentially extending features extends an opposite circumferential direction from another of the at least two circumferentially extending features.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20, respectively, of Beers et al. (US 12,467,469 - hereafter referred to as Beers).
In reference to claim 1
Although claim 1 of the instant application is not identical to Beers claim 1, they are not patentably distinct from one another. The application claim 1 is broader in at least one aspect.
Regarding the broadening aspect of the application claim 1, the following comparison between Beers claim 1 and the application claim 1 underlines (see underlined features in Beers claim 1) what elements have been excluded in the presentation of application claim 1.
Application claim 1
Beers claim 1
A ram air journal bearing shaft comprising:
an additively manufactured body having a main body portion and a journal bearing portion, wherein the main body portion and the journal bearing portion are coaxial along a first axis,
at least a first set of heat exchanger fins extending from an outer diameter of the ram air journal bearing shaft to an inner diameter tie rod passage, each heat exchanger fin in the first set of heat exchanger fins being additively manufacture as an integral structure to the additively manufactured body; and
a set of cooling air passages disposed circumferentially about the first axis, each cooling air passage being defined between adjacent heat exchanger fins of the first set of heat exchanger fins and wherein the ram air journal bearing shaft is configured such that a cooling flowpath through the cooling air passages is established.
A ram air journal bearing shaft comprising:
an additively manufactured metal body having a main body portion and a journal bearing portion, wherein the main body portion and the journal bearing portion are coaxial along a first axis and are additively manufactured of a single metal material,
at least a first set of heat exchanger fins extending from an outer diameter of the ram air journal bearing shaft to a tie rod support wall defining an inner diameter tie rod passage, the tie rod support wall being a full circumferential ring, each heat exchanger fins in the first set of heat exchanger fins being additively manufactured as an integral structure to the additively manufactured metal body and being additively manufacture of the single metal material; and
a set of cooling air passages disposed circumferentially about the first axis, each cooling air passage being defined between adjacent heat exchanger fins of the first set of heat exchanger fins and wherein the ram air journal bearing shaft is configured such that a cooling flowpath through the cooling air passages is established.
Thus, it is apparent, for the broadening aspect, that Beers claim 1 includes features that are not in application claim 1. Following the rationale in In re Goodman, cited above, where applicant has a patent containing a claim for a specific or narrow invention, applicant may not then obtain a patent for a second invention with a claim for a generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer. Since application claim 1 is anticipated by Beers claim 1, with respect to the broadening aspect, and since anticipation is the epitome of obviousness, then application claim 1 is obvious over Beers claim 1 with respect to the broadening aspect.
In reference to claim 11
A comparison (not included for brevity purposes) between application claim 11 and Beers claim 11 shows correspondence in an In re Goodman fashion (in a similar manner as described above with respect to claim 1).
In reference to claims 2-10 and 12-20
A comparison (not included for brevity purposes) between application claims 2-10, 12-20 and Beers claims 2-10, 12-20, respectively, shows correspondence (at least in an In re Goodman fashion).
Claims 1, 10, 11, and 20 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10, 11, and 20, respectively, of Beers ‘974 et al. (US 12,421,974 - hereafter referred to as Beers ‘974).
In reference to claim 1
Although claim 1 of the instant application is not identical to Beers ‘974 claim 1, they are not patentably distinct from one another. The application claim 1 is broader in at least one aspect.
Regarding the broadening aspect of the application claim 1, the following comparison between Beers ‘974 claim 1 and the application claim 1 underlines (see underlined features in Beers ‘974 claim 1) what elements have been excluded in the presentation of application claim 1.
Application claim 1
Beers ‘974 claim 1
A ram air journal bearing shaft comprising:
an additively manufactured body having a main body portion and a journal bearing portion, wherein the main body portion and the journal bearing portion are coaxial along a first axis,
at least a first set of heat exchanger fins extending from an outer diameter of the ram air journal bearing shaft to an inner diameter tie rod passage, each heat exchanger fin in the first set of heat exchanger fins being additively manufacture as an integral structure to the additively manufactured body; and
a set of cooling air passages disposed circumferentially about the first axis, each cooling air passage being defined between adjacent heat exchanger fins of the first set of heat exchanger fins and wherein the ram air journal bearing shaft is configured such that a cooling flowpath through the cooling air passages is established.
A ram air journal bearing shaft comprising:
an additively manufactured metal body having a main body portion and a journal bearing portion, wherein the main body portion and the journal bearing portion are coaxial along a first axis, and wherein the additively manufactured metal body includes at least a first set of regions additively manufactured using a first material and a second set of regions additively manufactured using a second material;
at least a first set of heat exchanger fins extending from an outer diameter of the ram air journal bearing shaft to an inner diameter tie rod passage, each heat exchanger fins in the first set of heat exchanger fins being additively manufactured as an integral structure to the additively manufactured metal body; and
a set of cooling air passages disposed circumferentially about the first axis, each cooling air passage being defined between adjacent heat exchanger fins of the first set of heat exchanger fins and wherein the ram air journal bearing shaft is configured such that a cooling flowpath through the cooling air passages is established.
Thus, it is apparent, for the broadening aspect, that Beers ‘974 claim 1 includes features that are not in application claim 1. Following the rationale in In re Goodman, cited above, where applicant has a patent containing a claim for a specific or narrow invention, applicant may not then obtain a patent for a second invention with a claim for a generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer. Since application claim 1 is anticipated by Beers ‘974 claim 1, with respect to the broadening aspect, and since anticipation is the epitome of obviousness, then application claim 1 is obvious over Beers ‘974 claim 1 with respect to the broadening aspect.
In reference to claim 11
A comparison (not included for brevity purposes) between application claim 11 and Beers ‘974 claim 11 shows correspondence in an In re Goodman fashion (in a similar manner as described above with respect to claim 1).
In reference to claims 10 and 20
A comparison (not included for brevity purposes) between application claims 10 and 20 and Beers ‘974 claims 10 and 20, respectively, shows correspondence (at least in an In re Goodman fashion).
Citations of Pertinent Art
The following art is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Telakowski et al. (US 8,729,751) discloses a ram air fan shaft comprising a heat exchanger insert having fins.
Bescoby et al. (US 5,102,305) discloses heat exchanger fins (14) that are integrally formed with a shaft (12).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RYAN LEGENDRE whose telephone number is (571)270-3364. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9-5 PM ET.
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 Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at 571-272-8648. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R LEGENDRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745