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 . Claims 1-9 of the amended claim set received 11/27/2024 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of the species of Fig. 5 in the reply filed on 9/8/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no search burden. This is not found persuasive because the criteria of a proper restriction under unity of invention does not include a search burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 5-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being identified by the Applicant as drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
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: “primary air circulation device” 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. From para. 0067, the corresponding structure of the primary air circulation device is “a first bleed channel 310 for bleeding air from the first engine 1, and a second bleed channel 320 for bleeding air from the second engine 2”.
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 § 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 1-4 and 9 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 1, the phrase "particularly" in line 2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1 recites “a primary air circulation device configured to bleed air from the first engine via a first bleed channel and/or from the second engine via a second bleed channel for conveying it to equipment of the propulsion assembly”. “the first engine” has no antecedent basis where it is unclear if or how the first engine is related to the at least one first engine previously recited in the claim. Additionally, “primary air circulation device” triggers interpretation under 112(f) as discussed above. The corresponding structure is “a first bleed channel 310 for bleeding air from the first engine 1, and a second bleed channel 320 for bleeding air from the second engine 2”. Therefore, it is unclear how the claimed first bleed channel or the second bleed channel is related to the channels of the primary air circulation device. It is believed that the claimed channels are structures forming the primary air circulation device. Also, in the case where the claimed invention is configured only to bleed air from the first engine or, alternatively, only from the second engine as enabled by the use of the “and/or” term, it is unclear what structure is required of the primary air circulation device given it comprises two channels which enables both the bleed from the first engine and the bleed from the second engine. Lastly, the claim recites the term “it” where it is unclear which claim element is being referred to. The recitation is examined as if written “a primary air circulation device comprising a first bleed channel and a second bleed channel, the primary air circulation device configured to bleed air from a first engine of the at least one first engine via [[a]] the first bleed channel and from the second engine via [[a]] the second bleed channel for conveying [[it]] the air to equipment of the propulsion assembly”.
Claim 1 also recites “it” in line 12 where it is unclear which claim element “it” references. It is interpreted as “the air”.
Claims 2-4 and 9 are rejected at least by dependency on claim 1.
Claim 4 recites, “wherein the first and the second bleed channel are configured to bleed air from the first and from the second engine at a bleed point of the first and the second engine respectively,” which is directed away from the disclosed invention. The claim language requires a singular bleed point of both engines, however a review of the disclosed invention shows that each engine has its own bleed point, point 313 for first engine 1 and point 323 for second engine 2 (see, e.g., Fig. 2). The claim therefore fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention. Additionally, it is unclear how one would recreate the claimed propulsion assembly having two engines wherein air is bled from both engines at a singular bleed point. The claim is examined as if the recitation is written, “wherein each of the first and the second bleed channel [[are]] is configured to bleed air from the first engine and from the second engine at a respective bleed point
Claim 4 recites “a bleed point of the first and the second engine” at lines 3-4 and “the bleed point of said first or second bleed channel” at the final two lines. Because the interpretation of claim 1 as described above includes the first and second engine being distinct from the first and second bleed channel, it is unclear how the bleed point can be both a component of the engines and of a channel as claimed. The interpretation of claim 4 as provided above, rectifies this issue.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 and 9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 1, NG (US 2020/0378314) is considered the closest prior art of record. NG discloses in Fig. 3,
- at least one first engine (Engine 1) and a second engine (Engine 2) configured to operate in at least one standby mode (see Fig. 3),
- a primary air circulation device 26 configured to bleed air from the first engine via a first bleed channel (portion of 26 on engine 1 side of 28) and/or from the second engine via a second bleed channel (portion of 26 on engine 2 side of 28) for conveying it to equipment (see junctions 23 and 25 associated with engine 2, read para. 0050) of the propulsion assembly, and
- a secondary air circulation device configured, when one of the first or the second engine (engine 2) operates in the at least one standby mode (see Fig. 3), to bleed air originating from the other of the first or the second engine not operating in standby mode and to convey it to the first or the second engine operating in standby mode (read para. 0056), wherein the secondary air circulation device comprises a bypass device 28 arranged on one of the first or the second bleed channel (26 as described above).
NG does not disclose and no secondary reference is found to form a reasonable combination teaching, “the first and the second bleed channel comprise a solenoid valve and a check valve, the bypass device comprising a bypass channel comprising a solenoid valve, a first end of the bypass channel being in communication with said first or second bleed channel downstream of the check valve of said first or second bleed channel, a second end of the bypass channel being in communication with said first or second bleed channel upstream of the check valve.”
Claims 2-4 and 9 are indicated allowable at least by dependency on claim 1.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached Notice of References Cited.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENE D FORD whose telephone number is (571)272-8140. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-5pm.
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 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 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.
/R.D.F/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/PHUTTHIWAT WONGWIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights