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 .
This Action is responsive to the Application filed 26 August 2024. Claims 1-17 are pending. Claim 1 has been written in independent form.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14 – It appears that the word “angled” is a typographical error, and should rather be the word “angle” instead.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 USC § 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 USC § 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 1-17 are rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) or 35 USC § 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 USC § 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “the cavity having a reference passage section and a depth, the tubular lateral wall being parallel to a reference direction ….” These limitations are vague and indefinite.
As set forth in claim 1, a reference passage section, a depth, and a reference direction are vaguely defined. According to FIG. 4, in the initially file drawings, the cavity, excluding the reduction of passage section 56, has a non-constant passage section. The reference passage section according to claim 1 can therefore be any section of cavity 50 with any surface area.
The depth of cavity 12 can be measured either from the upstream edge of the opening at the first end 52.1 or from the downstream edge of this opening. The depth of claim 1 has no single measurement.
Also, since according to FIG. 4 the tubular sidewall 52 of cavity 50 is curved, the reference direction according to claim 1 is parallel to a tangential line at a point on the tubular sidewall. The reference direction is therefore not a single directorate.
For examination purposes, because of lack of clarity of the claim, art rejections of the claim will be treated as best understood.
Additionally, dependent claims 2-17 necessarily inherit the deficiencies of the parent claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “an upstream half-space delimited by a median plane perpendicular to the direction of flow of the airflow.” This limitation is vague and indefinite. It is not clear to which space the half-space relates and to which level of the aircraft the median plane is located. The location of these geometries is not clearly defined and can therefore be defined arbitrarily. For examination purposes, because of lack of clarity of the claim, art rejections of the claim will be treated as best understood.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a reference diameter.” This limitation is vague and indefinite. Similar to the passage section of Claim 1, the reference diameter may be any diameter of cavity 50. For examination purposes, because of lack of clarity of the claim, art rejections of the claim will be treated as best understood.
Additionally, dependent claim 11 necessarily inherit the deficiencies of the parent claim.
The term “the second edge face is substantially perpendicular” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “substantially” does not present any boundaries regarding the degree to which the second edge face is considered to be perpendicular. At what degree is the second edge face considered to NOT be substantially perpendicular? And to what degree is the second edge face considered to be substantially perpendicular? For examination purposes, because of lack of clarity of the claim, art rejections of the claim will be treated as best understood.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “an air intake device having an intake duct.” This limitation is vague and indefinite. It is not clear if the air intake device and the air intake duct are the same structure as the cavity claimed in claim 1. The claimed aircraft in this claim 17 comprises a cavity and separately an air intake device. But according to the initially filed specification and drawings, the cavity is part of the air intake system. This is because the air intake duct of the air intake device corresponds to the cavity, and the valve of the air intake device corresponds to the bottom of the cavity. Claim 17 therefore appears to contradict the initially filed specification and drawings. For examination purposes, because of lack of clarity of the claim, art rejections of the claim will be treated as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Porte et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0253361 A1 (hereinafter called Porte).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Porte teaches an aircraft comprising:
at least one aerodynamic wall (See e.g., FIGS. 3, 6, 8 the surface of where 12 intersects the top of the nacelle 2; ¶s [0036]-[0037]) against which an airflow flows in a direction of flow when the aircraft is in flight, and
a cavity opening (See e.g., FIGS. 3, 6, 8 element 12; ¶s [0036]-[0037]) at the aerodynamic wall, said cavity being delimited by a tubular lateral wall (See e.g., FIGS. 3, 6, 8 element 16; ¶ [0038]) that extends between first (See e.g., FIGS. 3, 6, 8 element 16, the end closest to the upstream end where the air vent 14 is located) and second ends (See e.g., FIGS. 3, 6, 8 element 16, the end closest to the downstream end where the diffuser 15 is locate) and by a bottom spaced apart from the aerodynamic wall and situated at the second end of the tubular lateral wall (See e.g., FIGS. 3, 6, 8 element 15; ¶s [0036] & [0038]), the first end of the tubular lateral wall being situated at the aerodynamic wall (See e.g., FIGS. 3, 6, 8 element 16, the end closest to the upstream end where the air vent 14 is located, at the surface of where 16 intersects the top of the nacelle 2), the cavity having a reference passage section (See e.g., FIGS. 3, 6, 8, any section inside of 12, as the claim does not specify or define what a reference passage section is) and a depth (See e.g., FIGS. 3, 6, 8, any depth inside of 12 measured from any direction and from any point, as the claim does not provide a point of reference for where a depth begins and ends nor what a depth is necessarily referring to), the tubular lateral wall being parallel to a reference direction (See e.g., FIG. 3, where, any imaginary line or plane parallel to that inner wall of element 16, where 16A is touching in the figure, teaches the tubular lateral wall being parallel to a reference direction) and having a circumference (See e.g., FIG. 5);
wherein the cavity comprises at least one reduction in passage section (See e.g., FIG. 6 element 17; ¶ [0039]) spaced apart from the bottom (See e.g., FIG. 6 elements 17 & 15), which extends only over a part of the circumference of the tubular lateral wall (See e.g., FIG. 6 element 17).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Porte teaches wherein the reduction in passage section extends over half the circumference of the tubular lateral wall with a tolerance interval of +/- 20% (See e.g., FIG. 6 element 17).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Porte teaches wherein the tolerance interval is +/- 5% (See e.g., FIG. 6).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Porte teaches wherein the reduction in passage section is positioned in an upstream half-space delimited by a median plane perpendicular to the direction of flow of the airflow (See e.g., FIG. 6 element 17, where an imaginary median plane perpendicular to the direction of flow of the airflow exists and therefore teaches the instant claim limitation).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Porte teaches wherein the reduction in passage section is positioned in a transverse plane perpendicular to the reference direction (See e.g., FIG. 6 element 17, where an imaginary transverse plane perpendicular to the reference direction exists and therefore teaches the instant claim limitation).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Porte teaches wherein the transverse plane is situated at a distance from the bottom of an order of 30% of the depth of the cavity with a tolerance interval of +/- 20% (See e.g., FIG. 6 element 54).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Porte teaches wherein the tolerance interval is +/- 5% (See e.g., FIG. 6).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Porte teaches wherein the reduction in passage section has a passage section of an order of 80% of the reference passage section with a tolerance interval of an order of +/- 10% (See e.g., FIGS. 3 and 6, wherein a position between that of FIGS. 3 and 6 teaches the instant claim limitations).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Porte teaches wherein the tolerance interval is +/- 5% (See e.g., FIGS. 3 and 6, wherein a position between that of FIGS. 3 and 6 teaches the instant claim limitations).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Porte teaches wherein the tubular lateral wall is cylindrical (See e.g., FIGS. 3, 6, 8 element 16; ¶ [0038]) and has a reference diameter (See e.g., FIG. 2 where the diameter of element 2 is a reference diameter to the element 12 and element 12 is made up of element 16, i.e., the tubular lateral wall) and wherein the reduction in passage section has a diameter of an order of 80% of the reference diameter with a tolerance interval of an order of +/- 10% (See e.g., FIG. 6 element 17; ¶ [0039]).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Porte teaches wherein the tolerance interval is +/- 5% (See e.g., FIG. 6 element 17; ¶ [0039]).
Claim(s) 1, 12-15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sauterleute et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/0152765 A1A1 (hereinafter called Sauterleute).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Sauterleute teaches an aircraft comprising:
at least one aerodynamic wall (See e.g., FIGS. 1 & 2 the surface of where 20 intersects 12; ¶ [0042]) against which an airflow flows in a direction of flow when the aircraft is in flight , and
a cavity opening (See e.g., FIGS. 1 & 2 the opening of 20 at the surface of 12) at the aerodynamic wall, said cavity being delimited by a tubular lateral wall (See e.g., FIGS. 1 & 2, the wall of element 20) that extends between first (See e.g., FIGS. 1 & 2, the end of element 20 touching the surface of element 12) and second ends (See e.g., FIGS. 1 & 2, the end of element 38 where element 44 is shown open) and by a bottom spaced apart from the aerodynamic wall and situated at the second end of the tubular lateral wall (See e.g., FIGS. 1 & 2 the end where element 44 is located), the first end of the tubular lateral wall being situated at the aerodynamic wall (See e.g., FIGS. 1 & 2, the end of element 20 touching the surface of element 12, i.e., the lateral wall), the cavity having a reference passage section (See e.g., FIGS. 1 &2 any section inside of 20, as the claim does not specify or define what a reference passage section is) and a depth (See e.g., FIGS. 1 &2 any depth inside of 20 measured from any direction and from any point, as the claim does not provide a point of reference for where a depth begins and ends nor what a depth is necessarily referring to), the tubular lateral wall being parallel to a reference direction (See e.g., FIGS. 3, where, any imaginary line or plane parallel to that inner wall of element 20, teaches the tubular lateral wall being parallel to a reference direction) and having a circumference (See e.g., FIGS. 1 & 2, the circumference of element 20);
wherein the cavity comprises at least one reduction in passage section (See e.g., FIG. 1 the section where element 40 is located) spaced apart from the bottom (See e.g., FIGS. 1 & 2 the end where element 40 is located) (See e.g., FIG. 1 the element 40’s location spaced from element 44), which extends only over a part of the circumference of the tubular lateral wall (See e.g., FIG. 1 the space where element 40 is located extends only over a part of the circumference of element 20’s opening).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Sauterleute teaches wherein the reduction in passage section comprises a rib (See e.g., FIG. 1 element 40), projecting with respect to the tubular lateral wall, having a first edge face that extends from the tubular lateral wall, oriented toward the first end of the tubular lateral wall, and a second edge face that extends from the tubular lateral wall, oriented toward the bottom (See e.g., FIG. 1 element 40).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Sauterleute teaches wherein the first edge face forms an angle with the tubular lateral wall of between 20 and 60° (See e.g., FIG. 1 element 40).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Sauterleute teaches wherein the angled is between 30 and 40° (See e.g., FIG. 1 element 40).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, Sauterleute teaches wherein the second edge face is substantially perpendicular to the tubular lateral wall (See e.g., FIG. 1 element 40).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood, Sauterleute teaches wherein the aircraft comprises:
an air intake device having an intake duct (See e.g., FIG. 1 element 20 intakes air at an inlet opening 14, and it is an intake duct; ¶ [0002]), which extends between a first end (See e.g., FIG. 1, the end of element 20 touching the surface of element 12) connected to the aerodynamic wall (See e.g., FIG. 1 the surface of where 20 intersects 12; ¶ [0042]) and a second end (See e.g., FIG. 1, the end where element 40 is shown open), and a valve (See e.g., FIG. 1 element 40) connected to the second end of the intake duct and configured to occupy a permissive state in which the valve allows an airflow channeled by the intake duct to pass through it and a closed state in which the valve blocks the airflow in the intake duct, the intake duct and the valve in the closed state delimiting a cavity that opens at the aerodynamic wall (See e.g., FIG. 1 element 40; ¶ [0002]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 USC § 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.
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 USC § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 USC § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Sauterleute, and further in view of Raposeiro et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0126061 A1 (hereinafter called Raposeiro).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, Sauterleute teaches the rib (See e.g., FIG. 1 element 40) attached against the tubular lateral wall (See e.g., FIGS. 1 & 2, the wall of element 20).
But Sauterleute is silent regarding the rib is a hollow roll.
However, Raposeiro teaches the rib is a hollow roll (See e.g., ¶ [0027]).
Accordingly, because the prior art of Sauterleute and Raposeiro teach that it was well-known, before the effective filing date of the claim invention, to use rod like components attached to tubular walls in a duct environment, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in the art, having the prior art of Sauterleute and Raposeiro before him, to modify the aircraft of Sauterleute to incorporate the rib is a hollow roll, as taught in the analogous art of Raposeiro. The skilled artisan in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to achieve the predictable result of providing a lighter weight ,more cost-effective material that performs the same function as heavier, more costly materials.
Conclusion
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to TERRI L FILOSI whose telephone number is (571)270-1988. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 AM -3:30 PM EST.
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, Timothy D Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/TERRI L FILOSI/
Examiner
Art Unit 3644
03 April 2026
/TIMOTHY D COLLINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3644