DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication(s) filed on 28 April 2026.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 .
Response to Remarks
The arguments in response to the claims rejection under 35 U.S.C § 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are not found persuasive for the following reasons.
Regarding the Applicant’s remarks pertaining to FIG. 2 and FIG. 5:
The Applicant’s remarks pertaining to the embodiments disclosed in FIG. 2 and FIG. 5 (including the remarks pertaining to the ring splitter) are not found persuasive because the Applicant has mischaracterized the rejection of record, which relied on the embodiment disclosed in FIG. 6.
Regarding the Applicant’s remarks pertaining to fluid flow and fluid mechanics:
The Applicant’s remarks pertaining to the after fan turbine, fluid flow and fluid mechanics are not found persuasive since the Applicant has merely presented conclusory statements which are not supported by fact or evidence. The arguments pertaining to the intended use are further not found persuasive since the prior art teaches the same claimed structures as the Instant Application and a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP 2144). Further, the independent claims’ claim language does not require the downstream object to be any object in particular, and those dependent claims which do claim the object to be a specific structure do not require the structure to be immediately adjacent the split variable fan exit guide vanes in the downstream direction.
A new grounds for rejection is included in this Office Action, necessitated by amendment.
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.
Examiner note: no 112(f) invocations have been identified by the Office.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 1, 8, and 14:
The claim language, “wherein each of the split variable fan exit guide vanes can be at least one of adjusted to direct an exit airflow away from a downstream object and adjusted to direct exit airflow toward a downstream object,” renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if the second instance of “a downstream object” is the same structure or if an additional structure is required. For purposes of examination the second instance of “a downstream object” is interpreted to instead be, “the downstream object.”
Regarding Claims 2-7, 9-13, and 25-20:
Claims 2-7, 9-13, and 25-20 are rejected by virtue of dependence.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-12, and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sidelkovskiy et al (US 2020032585), hereafter referred to as Sidelkovskiy.
Regarding Claim 1, Sidelkovskiy discloses the following:
A gas turbine engine with split variable fan exit guide vanes comprising:
a fan duct (space between 66, 70; FIG. 6) supporting a circumferential pattern of split variable fan exit guide vanes (64B; FIG. 6) circumferentially spaced, the split variable fan exit guide vanes (64B; FIG. 6) comprising an upper section (64Ba; FIG. 6) and a lower section (64Bb; FIG. 6), the upper section (64Ba; FIG. 6) and the lower section (64Bb; FIG. 6) each being adjustable about an axis (labeled V in FIG. 5, shown but not labeled in FIG. 6) extending along a span of each of the split variable fan exit guide vanes (64B; FIG. 6), wherein the entire upper section (64Ba; FIG. 6) and entire lower section (64Bb; FIG. 6) rotate (see for example [0061-62]);
an upper actuator (84A; FIG. 6) in operative communication (via controller 100; for example see [0050]) with the upper section (64Ba; FIG. 6), the upper actuator (84A; FIG. 6) configured to independently adjust an incidence angle of the upper section (64Ba; FIG. 6) responsive to predetermined gas turbine operating conditions (cruise or climb conditions; see for example [0061-62]);
a lower actuator (84B, FIG. 6) in operative communication (via controller 100; for example see [0050]) with the lower section (64Bb; FIG. 6), the lower actuator (84B, FIG. 6) configured to independently adjust an incidence angle of the lower section (64Bb; FIG. 6) responsive to the predetermined gas turbine operating conditions (cruise or climb conditions; see for example [0061-62]);
wherein each of the split variable fan exit guide vanes (64B; FIG. 6) can be at least one of adjusted to direct an exit airflow away from a downstream object and adjusted to direct exit airflow toward a downstream object (it is noted, when the vanes are rotated from a first position to a second position, at least a portion of the vanes are directing air away from one portion of the downstream fan duct and towards another portion of the downstream fan duct, see for example [0061-62]);
wherein at least one of the upper section and the lower section are configured adjustable (see for example [0061-62]) for adjustment of the split variable fan exit guide vane to minimize back pressure induced fan stress during predetermined flight conditions and optimize the hub to tip loading of the fan during predetermined flight conditions (Examiner notes: The claim language, “for adjustment of the split variable fan exit guide vane to minimize back pressure induced fan stress during predetermined flight conditions and optimize the hub to tip loading of the fan during predetermined flight conditions” is interpreted to be merely intended use since “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP 2144).
Regarding Claim 2, Sidelkovskiy discloses the following:
The gas turbine engine with split variable fan exit guide vanes according to claim 1,
wherein the upper actuator (84A; FIG. 6) is configured to adjust an installation angle of the upper section (64Ba; FIG. 6) from an original predetermined value (cruise or climb conditions; see for example [0061-62]) to another value for each associated split variable fan exit guide vane (64B; FIG. 6); and the lower actuator (84B, FIG. 6) is configured to adjust an installation angle of the lower section (64Bb; FIG. 6) from an original predetermined value (cruise or climb conditions; see for example [0061-62]) to another value for each associated split variable fan exit guide vane (64B; FIG. 6).
Regarding Claim 3, Sidelkovskiy discloses the following:
The gas turbine engine with split variable fan exit guide vanes according to claim 1,
wherein each of the split variable fan exit guide vanes (64B; FIG. 6) are divided between the span extending between fan duct (space between 66, 70; FIG. 6) walls supporting the split variable fan exit guide vanes (64B; FIG. 6).
Regarding Claim 4, Sidelkovskiy discloses the following:
The gas turbine engine with split variable fan exit guide vanes according to claim 1,
wherein each of the individual split variable fan exit guide vanes (64B; FIG. 6) are configured to be individually adjustable (see [0061]) during operation of the gas turbine engine operation (cruise or climb conditions; see for example [0061-62]).
Regarding Claim 5, Sidelkovskiy discloses the following:
The gas turbine engine with split variable fan exit guide vanes according to claim 1, further comprising:
a controller (100) in operative communication (via controller 100; for example see [0050]) with each of the upper actuator (84A; FIG. 6) and the lower actuator (84B, FIG. 6).
Regarding Claim 6, Sidelkovskiy discloses the following:
The gas turbine engine with split variable fan exit guide vanes according to claim 1,
wherein each of the split variable fan exit guide vanes (64B; FIG. 6) are configured to be adjustable throughout the circumferential pattern (see [0061-62]; it is noted, the claim language does not require the vanes in the vane ring portions 64A, 64B to be in dividually controllable.).
Regarding Claim 8, Sidelkovskiy discloses the following:
A gas turbine engine with split variable fan exit guide vanes comprising:
a fan located within a fan duct (space between 66, 70; FIG. 6);
a circumferential pattern of split variable fan exit guide vanes (64B) circumferentially spaced supported within the fan duct (space between 66, 70; FIG. 6) downstream from the fan (82), the split variable fan exit guide vanes (64B; FIG. 6) comprising an upper section (64Ba; FIG. 6) and a lower section (64Bb; FIG. 6), the upper section (64Ba; FIG. 6) and the lower section (64Bb; FIG. 6) each being adjustable about an axis (labeled V in FIG. 5, shown but not labeled in FIG. 6) extending between a span of each of the split variable fan exit guide vanes (64B; FIG. 6), wherein the entire upper section (64Ba; FIG. 6) and entire lower section (64Bb; FIG. 6) rotate (see for example [0061-62]);
an upper actuator (84A; FIG. 6) in operative communication (via controller 100; for example see [0050]) with the upper section (64Ba; FIG. 6), the upper actuator (84A; FIG. 6) configured to independently adjust an incidence angle of the upper section (64Ba; FIG. 6) responsive to predetermined gas turbine operating conditions (cruise or climb conditions; see for example [0061-62]); and
a lower actuator (84B, FIG. 6) in operative communication (via controller 100; for example see [0050]) with the lower section (64Bb; FIG. 6), the lower actuator (84B, FIG. 6) configured to independently adjust an incidence angle of the lower section (64Bb; FIG. 6) responsive to the predetermined gas turbine operating conditions (cruise or climb conditions; see for example [0061-62]); and
a controller (100) in operative communication (via controller 100; for example see [0050]) with the upper actuator (84A; FIG. 6) and/or the lower actuator (84B, FIG. 6)(The Examiner notes, the claims as written do not require the entire upper portion and entire lower portion of the split vanes to rotate, and to be circumferentially spaced from the fixed guide vane.);
wherein each of the upper section and lower section of the split variable fan exit guide vanes can be at least one of adjusted to direct an exit airflow away from a downstream object and adjusted to direct exit airflow toward a downstream object (it is noted, when the vanes are rotated from a first position to a second position, at least a portion of the vanes are directing air away from one portion of the downstream fan duct and towards another portion of the downstream fan duct, see for example [0061-62]); wherein at least one of the upper section and the lower section are configured adjustable to radially redistribute airflow through the fan in order to obtain a predetermined radial total pressure profile of airflow exiting the fan blade (Examiner notes: The claim language, “to radially redistribute airflow through the fan in order to obtain a predetermined radial total pressure profile of airflow exiting the fan blade” is interpreted to be merely intended use since “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP 2144).
Regarding Claim 9, Sidelkovskiy discloses the following:
The gas turbine engine with split variable fan exit guide vanes according to claim 8,
wherein the upper actuator (84A; FIG. 6) is configured to adjust an installation angle of the upper section (64Ba; FIG. 6) from an original predetermined value (cruise or climb conditions; see for example [0061-62]) to another value for each associated split variable fan exit guide vane (64B; FIG. 6); and the lower actuator (84B, FIG. 6) is configured to adjust an installation angle of the lower section (64Bb; FIG. 6) from an original predetermined value (cruise or climb conditions; see for example [0061-62]) to another value for an associated split variable fan exit guide vane (64B; FIG. 6).
Regarding Claim 10, Sidelkovskiy discloses the following:
The gas turbine engine with split variable fan exit guide vanes according to claim 8,
wherein each of the split variable fan exit guide vanes (64B; FIG. 6) are divided between the span extending between fan duct (space between 66, 70; FIG. 6) walls supporting the split variable fan exit guide vanes (64B; FIG. 6).
Regarding Claim 11, Sidelkovskiy discloses the following:
The gas turbine engine with split variable fan exit guide vanes according to claim 8,
wherein each of the individual split variable fan exit guide vanes (64B; FIG. 6) are configured individually adjustable (see [0061]) during operation of the gas turbine engine operation (cruise or climb conditions; see for example [0061-62]).
Regarding Claim 12, Sidelkovskiy discloses the following:
The gas turbine engine with split variable fan exit guide vanes according to claim 8,
wherein each of the split variable fan exit guide vanes (64B; FIG. 6) are configured to be adjustable throughout the circumferential pattern (see [0061-62]; it is noted, the claim language does not require the vanes in the vane ring portions 64A, 64B to be in dividually controllable.).
Regarding Claim 14, Sidelkovskiy discloses the following:
A process (for example see Claim 17; it is further noted, the mere existence of the apparatus is evidence the process steps have been carried out) for a gas turbine engine with split variable fan exit guide vanes comprising:
supporting a circumferential pattern of split variable fan exit guide vanes (64B; FIG. 6) in a fan duct (space between 66, 70; FIG. 6), the split variable fan exit guide vanes (64B; FIG. 6) comprising an upper section (64Ba; FIG. 6) and a lower section (64Bb; FIG. 6);
configuring the upper section (64Ba; FIG. 6) and the lower section (64Bb; FIG. 6) adjustable about an axis (labeled V in FIG. 5, shown but not labeled in FIG. 6) extending between a span of each of the split variable fan exit guide vanes (64B; FIG. 6); and
coupling an upper actuator (84A; FIG. 6) in operative communication (via controller 100; for example see [0050]) with the upper section (64Ba; FIG. 6);
configuring the upper actuator (84A; FIG. 6) to independently adjust an incidence angle of the upper section (64Ba; FIG. 6) responsive to predetermined gas turbine operating conditions (cruise or climb conditions; see for example [0061-62]), wherein the entire upper section (64Ba; FIG. 6) and entire lower section (64Bb; FIG. 6) rotate (see for example [0061-62]); and
coupling a lower actuator (84B, FIG. 6) in operative communication (via controller 100; for example see [0050]) with the lower section (64Bb; FIG. 6);
configuring the lower actuator (84B, FIG. 6) to independently adjust an incidence angle of the lower section (64Bb; FIG. 6) responsive to the predetermined gas turbine operating conditions (cruise or climb conditions; see for example [0061-62]);
configuring each of the upper section and lower section of the split variable fan exit guide vanes at least one of adjusted to direct an exit airflow away from a downstream object and adjusted to direct exit airflow toward a downstream object (it is noted, when the vanes are rotated from a first position to a second position, at least a portion of the vanes are directing air away from one portion of the downstream fan duct and towards another portion of the downstream fan duct).
Regarding Claim 15, Sidelkovskiy discloses the following:
The process of claim 14, further comprising:
configuring the upper actuator (84A; FIG. 6) to adjust an installation angle of the upper section (64Ba; FIG. 6) from an original predetermined value (cruise or climb conditions; see for example [0061-62]) to another value for each associated split variable fan exit guide vanes (64B; FIG. 6); and
configuring the lower actuator (84B, FIG. 6) to adjust an installation angle of the lower section (64Bb; FIG. 6) from an original predetermined value (cruise or climb conditions; see for example [0061-62]) to another value for each associated split variable fan exit guide vane (64B; FIG. 6).
Regarding Claim 16, Sidelkovskiy discloses the following:
The process of claim 14, further comprising:
configuring each of the split variable fan exit guide vanes (64B; FIG. 6) into separate portions between a span extending between fan duct (space between 66, 70; FIG. 6) walls supporting the split variable fan exit guide vanes (64B; FIG. 6).
Regarding Claim 17, Sidelkovskiy discloses the following:
The process of claim 14, further comprising:
configuring each of the split variable fan exit guide vanes (64B; FIG. 6) individually adjustable (see [0061]) during operation of the gas turbine engine operation (cruise or climb conditions; see for example [0061-62]).
Regarding Claim 18, Sidelkovskiy discloses the following:
The process of claim 14, further comprising:
coupling a controller (100) in operative communication (via controller 100; for example see [0050]) with each of the upper actuator (84A; FIG. 6) and the lower actuator (84B, FIG. 6).
Regarding Claim 19, Sidelkovskiy discloses the following:
The process of claim 14, further comprising:
configuring each of the split variable fan exit guide vanes (64B; FIG. 6) adjustable throughout the entire circumferential pattern.
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.
Claim(s) 7, 13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sidelkovskiy et al (US 2020032585), hereafter referred to as Sidelkovskiy, in view of Muldoon et al (US 20200300164), hereafter referred to as Muldoon.
Regarding Claim 7, Sidelkovskiy discloses the following:
The gas turbine engine with split variable fan exit guide vanes according to claim 1,
wherein each of the split variable fan exit guide vanes (64B; FIG. 6) can be at least one of adjusted to direct an exit airflow away from the downstream object (it is noted, when the vanes are rotated from a first position to a second position, at least a portion of the vanes are directing air away from one portion of the downstream fan duct and towards another portion of the downstream fan duct).
Sidelkovskiy does not disclose the following:
wherein the downstream object is at least one of an upper and lower bifurcation, air-to-oil cooler cowl, environmental control system inlet, and splitter.
However Muldoon teaches the following:
it is well known in the art to use a pylon (130) located within a bifurcation in the fan stream to connect a gas turbine engine (120) to the aircraft body (see FIG. 2, [0037-38]);
the pylon comprising a downstream environmental control system inlet (156; FIG. 2);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the unknown engine to aircraft connection details of Sidelkovskiy, with the known engine to aircraft connection details of Muldoon, with the reasonable expectation of successfully connecting the engine to the aircraft, and further providing the aircraft with an environmental control system that provides conditioned breathing air to the cabin for aircraft crew and passengers (see [0036-37]). It is noted, the simple substitution of the unknown engine to aircraft connection details of Sidelkovskiy with the known engine to aircraft connection details of Muldoon, yields the predictable result of substituting one means to connect an engine to an aircraft for another known means to connect an engine to an aircraft, and this rationale further supports a conclusion of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
Regarding Claim 13, Sidelkovskiy discloses the following:
The gas turbine engine with split variable fan exit guide vanes according to claim 8,
wherein each of the upper section (64Ba; FIG. 6) and lower section (64Bb; FIG. 6) of the split variable fan exit guide vanes (64B; FIG. 6) can be at least one of adjusted to direct an exit airflow away from the downstream object (it is noted, when the vanes are rotated from a first position to a second position, at least a portion of the vanes are directing air away from one portion of the downstream fan duct and towards another portion of the downstream fan duct and adjusted to direct exit airflow toward a downstream object (it is noted, when the vanes are rotated from a first position to a second position, at least a portion of the vanes are directing air away from one portion of the downstream fan duct and towards another portion of the downstream fan duct).
Sidelkovskiy does not disclose the following:
wherein the downstream object is at least one of an upper and lower bifurcation, air-to-oil cooler cowl, environmental control system inlet, and splitter.
However Muldoon teaches the following:
it is well known in the art to use a pylon (130) located within a bifurcation in the fan stream to connect a gas turbine engine (120) to the aircraft body (see FIG. 2, [0037-38]);
the pylon comprising a downstream environmental control system inlet (156; FIG. 2);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the unknown engine to aircraft connection details of Sidelkovskiy, with the known engine to aircraft connection details of Muldoon, with the reasonable expectation of successfully connecting the engine to the aircraft, and further providing the aircraft with an environmental control system that provides conditioned breathing air to the cabin for aircraft crew and passengers (see [0036-37]). It is noted, the simple substitution of the unknown engine to aircraft connection details of Sidelkovskiy with the known engine to aircraft connection details of Muldoon, yields the predictable result of substituting one means to connect an engine to an aircraft for another known means to connect an engine to an aircraft, and this rationale further supports a conclusion of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
Regarding Claim 20, Sidelkovskiy discloses the following:
The process of claim 19, further comprising:
configuring each of the upper section (64Ba; FIG. 6) and lower section (64Bb; FIG. 6) of the split variable fan exit guide vanes (64B; FIG. 6) at least one of adjusted to direct an exit airflow away from the downstream object (it is noted, when the vanes are rotated from a first position to a second position, at least a portion of the vanes are directing air away from one portion of the downstream fan duct and towards another portion of the downstream fan duct).
Sidelkovskiy does not disclose the following:
wherein the downstream object is at least one of an upper and lower bifurcation, air-to-oil cooler cowl, environmental control system inlet, and splitter.
However Muldoon teaches the following:
it is well known in the art to use a pylon (130) located within a bifurcation in the fan stream to connect a gas turbine engine (120) to the aircraft body (see FIG. 2, [0037-38]);
the pylon comprising a downstream environmental control system inlet (156; FIG. 2);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the unknown engine to aircraft connection details of Sidelkovskiy, with the known engine to aircraft connection details of Muldoon, with the reasonable expectation of successfully connecting the engine to the aircraft, and further providing the aircraft with an environmental control system that provides conditioned breathing air to the cabin for aircraft crew and passengers (see [0036-37]). It is noted, the simple substitution of the unknown engine to aircraft connection details of Sidelkovskiy with the known engine to aircraft connection details of Muldoon, yields the predictable result of substituting one means to connect an engine to an aircraft for another known means to connect an engine to an aircraft, and this rationale further supports a conclusion of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRIAN C DELRUE whose telephone number is (313)446-6567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Eastern).
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 E. 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 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.
/BRIAN CHRISTOPHER DELRUE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights