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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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) 1-8, 11-19, 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2006/0207239 (Anderson) in view of US 4548034 (Maguire), US 2009/0000304 (hereinafter ‘304), US 2012/0279225 (Colas), and US 2022/0325678 (Mengle).
Regarding claim 1, 13, Anderson teaches an aircraft powerplant (Fig 1; para 30) comprising a non-bypass gas turbine engine (Fig 2, para 2), comprising: a compressor section; a combustor section; a turbine section having one or more rotors rotatable about an axial centerline (annotated below; axial centerline 35); wherein the compressor section, the combustor section, and the turbine section define a core gas path for passage of a core gas flow (para 32; core gas path including 24 at the turbine exit); a nacelle having an engine compartment enclosure disposed radially outside of the compressor section, the combustor section, and the turbine section, wherein the engine compartment enclosure defines a first annular region as an air space between the engine compartment enclosure and the compressor section, the combustor section, and the turbine section (nacelle comprising enclosure 23 surrounding the compressor, combustor, and turbine defines first annular region 28 as an air space – para 32); an exhaust nozzle disposed downstream of the turbine section and configured to receive the core gas flow exiting the turbine section (exhaust nozzle including 30, 32), wherein the exhaust nozzle includes a wall panel that extends between a forward end and an aft end of the exhaust nozzle (forward end and aft end annotated below), wherein the wall panel is configured with a plurality of lobes that extend between the forward end and the aft end of the exhaust nozzle (Fig 3A-3C; para 37), wherein the plurality of lobes are distributed around a circumference of the exhaust nozzle (Fig 3A-3C), and each lobe has a lobe height that increases in a direction from the forward end to the aft end of the exhaust nozzle (Fig 2, 4); and a secondary exhaust nozzle that extends axially aft of the exhaust nozzle (Fig 2; aft end of enclosure 23, construed as the secondary exhaust nozzle, extends axially aft of the exhaust nozzle); the plurality of lobes are configured to produce a vacuum effect in the secondary exhaust nozzle that ventilates air from the first non-bypass annular region and into the secondary exhaust nozzle with the core gas flow during operation of the engine (para 30-32; it has been held that “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 2114 [R-1]; in this case, “to produce a vacuum effect …” is a statement of intended use and does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art because Anderson teaches the structural limitations – a plurality of lobes, a first annular region, an engine core, etc.; the pressure in or around the exhaust nozzle does not provide a structural limitation).
Anderson fails to teach wherein the plurality of lobes are configured to de-swirl the core gas flow exiting the turbine section. However, Maguire teaches that it was known in the art to use a lobed mixer to de-swirl the core gas flow exiting the turbine section in order to increase aerodynamic efficiency, as taught by Maguire (Fig 3A-3B; col 1 l. 62-col 2 l. 17, col 4 ll 7-33; lobed mixer 11 turns the core flow to align with the centerline axis). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the plurality of lobes configured to de-swirl the core gas flow exiting the turbine section in order to increase efficiency, as taught by Maguire. It has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, making the plurality of lobes configured to de-swirl the core gas flow exiting the turbine section yields predictable results.
Anderson in view of Maguire fails to teach the first annular region being a non-bypass annular region. However, it is noted that, while Anderson refers to the outer flow path 28 as containing a “bypass air”, this does not appear to be thrust producing flow, and thus does not appear to be a “bypass” flow as defined by Applicant. However, ‘304, which teaches a substantially similar engine (Fig 2), further teaches that the first annular region may be a non-bypass annular region (para 32-33; outer flow path 24 comprises ambient air; ambient air mixes with engine flow through the mixer assembly; ambient air is not thrust producing flow, and thus the annular region is a non-bypass annular region). Colas teaches that a mixer that mixes engine exhaust and non-bypass air may produce a vacuum effect that ventilates air from the non-bypass region (para 40-43; engine exhaust 11 creates a suction of the non-bypass flow 13, construed as a vacuum effect). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the first annular region a non-bypass annular region, wherein the nozzle is configured to produce a vacuum effect in the secondary exhaust nozzle that ventilates air from the first non-bypass annular region, as taught by ‘304 and Colas. It has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, making the first annular region a non-bypass annular region, wherein the nozzle is configured to produce a vacuum effect in the secondary exhaust nozzle that ventilates air from the first non-bypass annular region yields predictable results.
Anderson in view of Maguire, ‘304, and Colas fails to teach each lobe has a lobe width that decreases in the direction from the forward end to the aft end of the exhaust nozzle, the lobe width being maximum at the forward end, and the lobe width being measured along a line extending between adjacent radially innermost points of adjacent lobes. However, Mengle teaches that the dimensions of the lobes, including width (spacing between adjacent lobes) is a results effective variable, affecting mixing, noise characteristics, and/or manufacturing (para 33-34, Fig 6A, 6B; the spacing/width 150). It has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP 2144.05 IIA. In this case, the claimed dimension was a known results-effective variable, affecting mixing, noise characteristics, and manufacturing. Discovering the optimum or workable ranges of lobe width from the forward end to the aft end of the exhaust nozzle would have been obvious. Furthermore, it is noted that the width would naturally decrease because the radially innermost points of the lobes moves radially inwardly towards the centerline axis, therefore going from a larger circumference to a smaller circumference from the forward end to the aft end, which necessarily decreases the space/width between the radially innermost points. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make each lobe having a lobe width that decreases in the direction from the forward end to the aft end of the exhaust nozzle, the lobe width being maximum at the forward end, and the lobe width being measured along a line extending between adjacent radially innermost points of adjacent lobes in order to achieve desired mixing, noise characteristics, and manufacturing, as taught by Mengle.
Regarding claim 2-3, 14-15, Anderson in view of Maguire, ‘304, Colas, and Mengle further teaches a turbine exhaust case disposed between the turbine section and the exhaust nozzle (annotated below), the turbine exhaust case includes an outer radial panel, a center body, and a plurality of struts that extend between the center body and the outer radial panel, wherein the center body is disposed radially inside of the outer radial panel and a second annular region is defined by the center body and the outer radial panel, and wherein the second annular region is part of the core gas path (annotated below; second annular region 24 defined between the outer radial panel and center body).
PNG
media_image1.png
444
619
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4-7, 11-12, 16-17, Anderson in view of Maguire, ‘304, Colas, and Mengle further teaches the plurality of struts are configured to turn core gas flow passing through the second annular region (the struts of Anderson are capable of turning core gas flow by directing the flow across its surfaces; Maguire further teaches struts 45, Fig 3A-3B, that are capable of turning core gas flow by directing the flow across its surfaces; Further, it has been held that “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 2114 [R-1]; in this case, “configured to turn core gas flow” does not differentiate the claimed apparatus because a plurality of struts is capable of turning flow by directing flow across its surfaces), each lobe of the plurality of lobes includes an entry segment disposed adjacent the forward end of the exhaust nozzle, wherein the entry segment is disposed at an entry angle, and each lobe of the plurality of lobes includes an exit segment disposed adjacent the aft end of the exhaust nozzle, wherein the exit segment is disposed at an exit angle, and wherein the exit angle is less than the entry angle (annotated below; exit angle is less than the entry angle relative to an axial direction; see also Maguire col 4 ll. 7-33; turning of the flow occurs by the shape of the side walls of the lobes 21, including the entry segment/angle and the exit segment/angle; therefore, the exit angle must be less than the entry angle in order to straighten the flow), each lobe of the plurality of lobes is defined by a first side wall and a second side wall opposite the first side wall, wherein the first side wall intersects the second side wall at a lobe peak (annotated below), wherein the entry angle is disposed between a first line coincident with the lobe peak adjacent the forward end of the exhaust nozzle and the axial centerline (annotated below; entry angle is between the solid line and an axial centerline – extending left to right in Fig 1), wherein the exit angle is disposed between a second line coincident with the lobe peak adjacent the aft end of the exhaust nozzle and the axial centerline (as annotated below; exit angle is between the solid line and an axial centerline extending left to right in Fig 1), wherein the exit angle is in the range of zero to ten degrees (Maguire; col 2 ll. 9-17, col 4 ll. 7-33; lobes are shaped such that the exit flow direction is axial – e.g. zero degrees compared to the axial centerline). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the plurality of struts configured to turn core gas flow passing through the second annular region and each lobe of the plurality of lobes includes an entry segment disposed adjacent the forward end of the exhaust nozzle, wherein the entry segment is disposed at an entry angle, and each lobe of the plurality of lobes includes an exit segment disposed adjacent the aft end of the exhaust nozzle, wherein the exit segment is disposed at an exit angle, and wherein the exit angle is less than the entry angle in order to straighten the flow, and wherein the exit angle is in the range of zero to ten degrees, as taught by Maguire. It has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, making the plurality of struts configured to turn core gas flow passing through the second annular region and each lobe of the plurality of lobes includes an entry segment disposed adjacent the forward end of the exhaust nozzle, wherein the entry segment is disposed at an entry angle, and each lobe of the plurality of lobes includes an exit segment disposed adjacent the aft end of the exhaust nozzle, wherein the exit segment is disposed at an exit angle, and wherein the exit angle is less than the entry angle yields predictable results. Furthermore, it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP 2144.05 IIA. In this case, the shape of the lobes, including the exit angle, was known in the art to produce a desired flow direction (e.g. axial) and efficiency. Discovering the optimum or workable ranges of lobe shape and exit angle would have been obvious in order to produce a desired exit flow direction and aerodynamic, as taught by Maguire (col 2 ll. 9-17).
PNG
media_image2.png
389
317
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
389
317
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 8, 18-19, Anderson in view of Maguire, ‘304, Colas, and Mengle further teaches the entry angle is in the range of twenty to seventy degrees or twenty to sixty degrees (Maguire as annotated below; angle theta is twenty one degrees), wherein the exit angle is disposed between a second line coincident with the lobe peak adjacent the aft end of the exhaust nozzle and the axial centerline (Anderson as annotated above; exit angle is between the solid line and an axial centerline extending left to right in Fig 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the entry angle in the range of twenty to seventy degrees, as taught by Maguire. It has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, making the entry angle in the range of twenty to seventy degrees degrees yields predictable results.
PNG
media_image4.png
406
465
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 21-23, Anderson in view of Maguire, ‘304, Colas, and Mengle teaches the lobe width decreases at a substantially uniform rate from the forward end to the aft end of the exhaust nozzle, or the lobe width decreases at a substantially non-uniform rate from the forward end to the aft end of the exhaust nozzle. As discussed above, Mengle teaches that the dimensions of the lobes, including width (spacing between adjacent lobes) is a results effective variable, affecting mixing, noise characteristics, and/or manufacturing (para 33-34, Fig 6A, 6B; the spacing/width 150). It has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP 2144.05 IIA. In this case, the claimed dimension was a known results-effective variable, affecting mixing, noise characteristics, and manufacturing. Discovering the optimum or workable ranges of lobe width from the forward end to the aft end of the exhaust nozzle would have been obvious. Furthermore, it is noted that there is no evidence that the lobe width decreasing at either a substantially uniform rate or a substantially non-uniform rate is critical. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the lobe width decrease at a substantially uniform rate from the forward end to the aft end of the exhaust nozzle, or the lobe width decrease at a substantially non-uniform rate from the forward end to the aft end of the exhaust nozzle in order to achieve desired mixing, noise characteristics, and manufacturing, as taught by Mengle.
Claim(s) 8, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2006/0207239 (Anderson) in view of US 4548034 (Maguire), US 2009/0000304 (hereinafter ‘304), US 2012/0279225 (Colas) and US 2022/0325678 (Mengle) and further in view of US 4045957 (DiSabato).
Regarding claims 8, 18-19, Anderson in view of Maguire, ‘304, Colas, and Mengle teaches the entry angle is in the range of twenty to seventy degrees (Maguire as annotated below; angle theta is twenty one degrees), wherein the exit angle is disposed between a second line coincident with the lobe peak adjacent the aft end of the exhaust nozzle and the axial centerline (Anderson as annotated above; exit angle is between the solid line and an axial centerline extending left to right in Fig 1) as discussed above. However, DiSabato further teaches a lobed mixer comprising an entry angle in the range of twenty to seventy degrees (annotated below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the entry angle in the range of twenty to seventy degrees, as taught by DiSabato. It has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, making the entry angle in the range of twenty to seventy degrees yields predictable results.
PNG
media_image5.png
291
488
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 ANDREW NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5063. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 4 pm, Monday-Friday.
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, Phutthiwat (Pat) Wongwian can be reached on 571-270-5426. 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.
/ANDREW H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741