DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
Claim Interpretation
The term “substantially” in claim 12 with reference to “the door is dimensioned to block substantially all airflow” is interpreted per the definition in the Specification ([0043]) “to encompass slight deviations caused by, for instance, manufacturing tolerances”.
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 10-13, 15, and 22 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 claim 10, “the aircraft engine” lacks antecedent basis in the claims, and it is not clear whether it refers to the heat engine or the aircraft propulsor, or some other component/element. It is interpreted as the heat engine.
Regarding claim 22, “the bypass outlet” lacks antecedent basis in the claims and it is unclear whether claim 22 is meant to depend from claim 4, or whether the bypass outlet should be newly recited in claim 22.
Dependent claims 11-13 and 15 are also rejected for depending on at least one rejected claim above.
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) 1-3, 10-13, 15, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mackin 10981660.
Regarding claim 1, Mackin teaches an aircraft engine (Fig 10 sharing features with Fig 5), comprising:
a core (502) having a compressor (incl. 516, 520), a combustor (526), and a turbine (incl. 522, 518) disposed in serial flow communication (Figs 5, 10),
the turbine in driving engagement with a propeller (504; Figs 5, 10);
a nacelle (Fig 10 below) extending around the core, the nacelle having a nacelle intake (514) upstream of the core (Fig 10) and a nacelle exhaust (528) downstream of the core (Figs 5, 10),
PNG
media_image1.png
520
646
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the nacelle intake configured for receiving air from an environment outside the nacelle (Fig 10),
the nacelle intake fluidly connected to the compressor for feeding air thereto (Fig 10),
the nacelle exhaust configured to discharge combustion gases from the turbine into the environment outside the nacelle (Fig 10);
a blocking member (900) movable between an open position in which the core is fluidly connected to the environment outside the nacelle via both the nacelle intake and the nacelle exhaust (Fig 11A), and
a closed position in which the blocking member hinders fluid communication between
the core and the environment outside the nacelle via the nacelle intake (Fig 11B): and
a controller (902, 208) having a processing unit and a computer-readable medium operatively connected to the processing unit and having instructions stored thereon executable by the processing unit (controller(s) 902, 208 are computer based; col.5 ll.3-6, col.16 ll.60-62) to,
upon the aircraft engine being powered off, cause the blocking member to move from the
open position to the closed position (col.3 l.53 – col.4 l.10, col.16 ll.26-41, col.16 l.42 – col.17 l.6, col.19 l.57 – col.20 l.11).
Regarding claim 2, Mackin teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Mackin further teaches the nacelle has an intake conduit extending from the nacelle intake towards the compressor, the blocking member is located between the nacelle intake and the compressor, and
PNG
media_image1.png
520
646
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the blocking member is structured to block airflow from the nacelle intake to the compressor when in the closed position (Fig 10 above; Figs 11A-11B).
Regarding claim 3, Mackin teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Mackin further teaches the blocking member is a door (1104) pivotably mounted (via 1110) to a wall (1100) of the intake conduit (Figs 10-11B), the door extending across the intake conduit in the closed position and being positioned to permit fluid communication between the nacelle intake and the compressor in the open position (Figs 10-11B).
Regarding claim 10, Mackin teaches an aircraft propulsor (500; Fig 10 sharing features with Fig 5), comprising:
a heat engine (502) having an air intake (at 514) and a hot gas exhaust (528);
PNG
media_image1.png
520
646
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a nacelle (Fig 10 above) disposed at least in part around the heat engine and defining an intake conduit (Fig 10 above) from an environment outside the nacelle (Fig 10) to the air intake of the heat engine and an exhaust conduit (Fig 10 above) from the hot gas exhaust to the environment (Fig 10);
a blocking mechanism (900) operable between a closed position (Fig 11B) in which the blocking mechanism blocks the intake conduit and an open position (Fig 11A) in which the blocking mechanism unblocks the intake conduit (Figs 11A-B), and
a controller (902, 208) having a processing unit and a computer-readable medium operatively connected to the processing unit and having instructions stored thereon executable by the processing unit (controller(s) 902, 208 are computer based; col.5 ll.3-6, col.16 ll.60-62) to,
upon the aircraft engine (interpreted under 112b above) being powered off, cause the blocking member to move from the open position to the closed position (col.3 l.53 – col.4 l.10, col.16 ll.26-41, col.16 l.42 – col.17 l.6, col.19 l.57 – col.20 l.11).
Regarding claim 11, Mackin teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Mackin further teaches the blocking mechanism includes an actuator (1116) and a door (1104) that is movable by the actuator between the closed position in which the door blocks the intake conduit and the open position in which the door unblocks the intake conduit (Figs 11A-B).
Regarding claim 12, Mackin teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Mackin further teaches the door is dimensioned to block substantially all airflow through the intake conduit when the door is in the closed position and the aircraft propulsor is moving at a cruise airspeed
relative to Earth (Fig 11B; col.19 ll.37-46,57-end).
Regarding claim 13, Mackin teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Mackin further teaches the door is pivotable between the open position and the closed position (Figs 11A-B; via 1110).
Regarding claim 15, Mackin teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Mackin further teaches the heat engine a gas turbine engine (Fig 10).
Regarding claim 21, Mackin teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Mackin further teaches the turbine is drivingly engaged to a propeller (504), the nacelle intake located downstream of the propeller, the propeller overlapping the nacelle intake (Fig 10).
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 4 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mackin in view of Cousin 6129509.
Regarding claim 4, Mackin teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Mackin further teaches the door extending across the intake conduit in the open position (and the closed position) and being axially offset from the downstream portions of the intake conduit in the closed position (and the open position).
Mackin does not teach the intake conduit defines a bypass outlet such that the door extends across the bypass outlet in the open position and is offset from the bypass outlet in the closed position.
However, Cousin teaches providing a bypass outlet (through 16 into 15 or through doors 19 out of 15; Figs 1-2) in a downstream portion of an inlet conduit (for 6, downstream of 7) feeding a core compressor of a turboprop engine (Fig 1; col.1 l.63 – col.2 l.7) for particle removal after particle separation (Title, col.2 ll.35-44); wherein the air intake is at the same radial position as the bypass outlet, and is axially offset from the bypass outlet (Figs 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mackin to include the particle separator and bypass outlet of Cousin in order to provide particle separation (Cousin, Title, col.2 ll.35-44).
Regarding claim 22, Mackin teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Mackin further teaches the intake conduit has a curved section curving towards the core (all parts of the inlet conduit curving towards the core in both radial and axial cross-section; Figs 10-11B).
Mackin does not teach the bypass outlet (interpreted as “a” bypass outlet) located at the curved section.
However, Cousin teaches providing a bypass outlet (through 16 into 15 or through doors 19 out of 15; Figs 1-2) located at a curved section of an inlet conduit (for 6, downstream of 7) feeding a core compressor of a turboprop engine (Fig 1; col.1 l.63 – col.2 l.7) for particle removal after particle separation (Title, col.2 ll.35-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mackin to include the particle separator and bypass outlet of Cousin in order to provide particle separation and particle removal (Cousin, Title, col.2 ll.35-44).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 25 November 2025 with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 10-13, 15 and 21-22 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE SEBASCO CHENG whose telephone number is (469)295-9153. The examiner can normally be reached on 1000-1600 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, Devon Kramer can be reached on (5712727118. 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.
/STEPHANIE SEBASCO CHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights