DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to Applicant’s Request for Continued Examination and amendments filed on 11/05/2025. Claim 1 have been amended, and Claims 6-7 have been cancelled. Claims 1-5, and 8 are examined.
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/05/2025 has been entered.
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) 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) 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: “fastening members” in Claim 1.
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.
The corresponding structure for the term “fastening members”, is interpreted as fasteners, or equivalent, see elements 36 Fig. 3.
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
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.
Claims 1-4, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Studer (US 2020/0262539), in view of Coney (US 2008/0112796), and further in view of Mutch (US 5, 101, 621).
Regarding Claim 1: Studer discloses a rear assembly (see annotated figure ‘539) for a turbojet engine nacelle (2; Fig. 1) comprising: at least one wall (see annotated figure ‘539) intended to separate a cold portion (see annotated figure ‘539; [0052]) from a hot portion (see annotated figure ‘539; [0057]), the rear assembly comprising an element to be cooled (see annotated figure ‘539), the wall (see annotated figure ‘539) comprising first (see annotated figure ‘539) and second (see annotated figure ‘539) skins which extend facing the cold portion and the hot portion respectively (see annotated figure ‘539), and which are separated from one another by a middle assembly (see annotated figure ‘539) comprising cells (see annotated figure ‘539) delimited by internal walls (see annotated figure ‘539), characterized in that the first skin comprises a through-openings (see annotated figure ‘539) connecting the cold portion and the cells (see annotated figure ‘539), and the second skin (see annotated figure ‘539) comprising a single through-opening (see annotated figure ‘539) which has a mouth (see annotated figure ‘539) facing the element to be cooled, wherein the element to be cooled is a bumper and damper device ( see Fig. 2 wherein 10 being elastomer [0010] acts as a bumper/damper ) fixed to the wall (see annotated figure ‘539).
Studer is silent regarding the through-opening being a plurality of through-openings, the internal walls comprising through-openings connecting the cells to one another, the openings in the internal walls being located closer to the second skin than to the first skin, the through openings in the internal walls being arranged in a manner that converges towards the single through-opening.
However, Coney teaches an assembly (assembly in Fig. 2) for a turbojet engine (10, Fig. 1) nacelle (21; Fig. 1) comprising a wall (30; Fig. 2) separating a cold portion (22; Fig. 2) and a hot portion (32; Fig. 2), the wall comprising first (36; Fig. 2) and second (38; Fig. 2) skins which extend facing the cold portion and the hot portion respectively (see Fig. 2), and which are separated from one another by a middle assembly (40; Fig. 2) having cells (46; Fig. 2) delimited by internal walls (see wall around 46; Fig. 2), characterized in that the first skin comprises a plurality of through-openings (42; Fig. 2), the internal walls comprising through-openings (44; Fig. 2) connecting the cells to one another the openings in the internal walls being located closer to the second skin than to the first skin (see Fig. 2), the second skin comprising at least one through-opening (50; Fig. 2), the through openings in the internal walls being arranged in a manner that converges towards this single through-opening (see Fig. 2 of Coney how the holes 44 converge towards the opening 50, i.e. this single through-opening of Studer).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wall of Studer, to have the through-openings being a plurality of through-openings, the internal walls comprising through-openings connecting the cells to one another the openings in the internal walls being located closer to the second skin than to the first skin, the through openings in the internal walls being arranged in a manner that converges towards the single through-opening, as taught by Coney. Such a modification would increase the amount of cooling air passing through the wall and provided to the element to be cooled, as well as attenuate pressure wave, as recognized by Coney (see [0024]).
Studer in view of Coney as established above does not teach, the single though-opening of the second skin being a plurality of through-openings and the plurality of through-openings of the first skin being a plurality of plurality of opening, and thus having the second skin comprising a plurality of through-openings, each having a mouth facing the element to be cooled, the through- openings of the internal walls being arranged in a manner that converges toward a respective the at least one through-opening from among the plurality of through- openings of the second skin.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have duplicate the single through-opening of the scond skin, the plurality of openings of the first skin and their respective internal opening, and thus having the second skin comprising a plurality of through-openings, each having a mouth facing the element to be cooled, the through- openings of the internal walls being arranged in a manner that converges toward a respective the at least one through-opening from among the plurality of through- openings of the second skin. since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)).
(In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Studer does not explicitly recites the wall being a composite wall, the element to be cooled being fixed to the wall by fastening members which penetrate through the second skin.
However, Mutch teaches an assembly (assembly in Fig. 5) for a turbojet engine (10, Fig. 1) nacelle (26; Fig. 1) comprising a wall (50; Fig. 5) having a first (52; Fig. 5) and second skins (58; Fig. 5) being a composite wall (Col. 2 L. 48-58) and a bumper and damper device (60; Fig. 5) being fixed to the wall by fastening members (66; Fig. 5) which penetrate through the second skin (see Fig. 5)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wall and fixations of Studer, to have the wall being a composite wall, the element to be cooled being fixed to the wall by fastening members which penetrate through the second skin, as taught by Mutch. Such a modification would enable to obtain strong and light material such as graphite fibers in an epoxy matrix, as well as to mount the element to be cool, as recognized by Mutch (see Col. 2 L. 48-58, Col. 4 L. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
1104
816
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2: Studer in view of Coney and Mutch teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and Studer further discloses wherein the wall is a wall of a fixed internal structure ([0004,7]) of a thrust reverser ([0004,7]).
Regarding Claim 3: Studer in view of Coney and Mutch teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and Mutch further teaches the fastening members are at a distance from the first skin (see Fig. 5 how the fasteners 66 are at distance from the first skin 52, i.e. do not cross the first skin 52).
Regarding Claim 4: Studer in view of Coney and Mutch teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and Studer further discloses wherein the cold portion is a cold duct (see annular spaced 6 carrying cold air 7; Fig. 1) of the turbojet engine nacelle (see Fig. 1), and the hot portion is a space (see annotated figure ‘539) for receiving a core compartment (see [0058]) of a turbojet engine.
Regarding Claim 8: Studer discloses a propulsion assembly (assembly illustrated in Fig. 1) comprising a nacelle (2; Fig. 1) comprising a rear assembly (see annotated figure ‘539) and a turbojet engine (8; Fig. 1) received in the nacelle (see fig. 1); and Studer in view of Coney and Mutch teaches the rear assembly being the rear assembly according to Claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1 above).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Studer (US 2020/0262539), in view of Coney (US 2008/0112796), Mutch (US 5, 101, 621), and further in view of Benedetti (US 2014/0077031).
Regarding Claim 5: Studer in view of Coney and Mutch teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and Mutch teaches the cells are in a honeycomb structure (“honeycomb”, Col. 1 L31-43) but does not explicitly show that the structure having a square, rectangular, triangular, or hexagonal cross-section in a plane parallel to the first and second skins.
However, Benedetti teaches a turbojet engine nacelle (112; Fig. 1) having a honeycomb structure (222; Figs. 7-10) having a square, rectangular, triangular, or hexagonal cross-section ([0049]) in a plane parallel (Plane of Fig. 10) to a first and second skins (220, 236; Figs. 9-10).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the honeycomb structure of Mutch, to have the structure having a square, rectangular, triangular, or hexagonal cross-section in a plane parallel to the first and second skins, as taught by Benedetti. Such a modification would enable to fulfil acoustic attenuation and/or geometric requirements, as recognized by Benedetti ([0049]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/remarks filed 11/05/2025 have been considered but are convincing for the following reasons:
Applicant’s representative asserts that Coney does not teach the through-opening disposition of Claim 1.
Applicant’s representative asserts that the through-openings of Coney do not face the element to be cooled.
However, the teaching of Coney is used to show that it is well known to have a plurality of air passages starting from a plurality of openings in a first skin of a composite wall panel, that converge the towards an opening in the second skin of the panel. In other words, Coney simply provides teaching on how the air is provided from the first skin, through the middle assembly of the panel, to the opening of the second skin. The fact that the mouth faces the element to be cooled is discloses by Studer (see annotated figure ‘539) and not Coney.
In addition, Applicant’s representative asserts that Coney does not comprise multiple separate cooling paths converging toward a respective through-opening of the plurality of through-openings in the second skin.
However, the argument is not commensurate in scope with the claim language, nothing in the claim language recites that the “cooling paths”, or “multiple separate cooling paths”.
The claim language simply recites “the through- openings of the internal walls being arranged in a manner that converges toward a respective through-opening from among the plurality of through- openings of the second skin”.
As articulated above, Studer in view of Coney teaches “the through- openings of the internal walls being arranged in a manner that converges toward a single through-opening the second skin” and since it will be obvious to duplicate the through- openings of the internal walls and the single through-opening the second skin (see annotated figure ‘539), Studer in view of Coney teaches “the through- openings of the internal walls being arranged in a manner that converges toward a respective the at least one through-opening from among the plurality of through- openings of the second skin” (see annotated figure ‘539).
Applicant’s representative asserts that the modifications of Mutch are inappropriate, as the addition of fastening device to the panel requires potting materials to support the fastening device and that such potting material would obscure the through openings in the internal wall of the panel.
However, as illustrated in annotated figure ‘539 the fastening devices can be installed away from the vicinity of the through-openings in the panel, similarly as someone piercing a hole in a house wall will avoid to pierce in the vicinity of electrical or water conduits. Thus, since the potting material, if placed, would be on cells away from the through-openings, such potting material does not obscure the hole in the panel. In addition, nothing in the claims recites cooling passages or hole being directly adjacent to the fastening devices.
Thus, the modification of Studer by Mutch removably fixed the panel without rendering the system non-operational.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see notice of references cited.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODOLPHE ANDRE CHABREYRIE whose telephone number is (571)272-3482. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-18:30.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached on (571) 272-7118. 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.
/RODOLPHE ANDRE CHABREYRIE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3741