DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in response to Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 12/08/2025 amending Claims 1 – 4, 6 – 13, and 16. Claims 1 – 20 are examined.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 – 7, 9 – 13, 15, and 17 - 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stadtlander et al. (2009/0165926A1) in view of Martens (6,532,729) in view of Shaner et al. (2021/0269168A1) in view of Tisdale et al. (7,926,285).
Regarding Claim 1, Stadtlander teaches, in Figs. 1 - 4, the invention as claimed, including an apparatus for an aircraft propulsion system (Fig. 1 and Para. [0014]), comprising: an exhaust nozzle (14) including a nozzle wall (44 and 48); the nozzle wall (44 and 48) extending axially along an axis (central axis) from an upstream end (30) of the nozzle wall (44 and 48) to a downstream end (32) of the nozzle wall, the nozzle wall (44 and 48) extending circumferentially around the axis (central axis, shown in Figs. 1 and 3), the nozzle wall (44 and 48) including an inner skin (48 – Fig. 4 and Para. [0018]), an outer skin (44 – Fig. 4 and Para. [0018]) and a cellular core (46 – Fig. 4 and Para. [0018]) that is radially between and bonded (Para. [0018]) to the inner skin (48) and the outer skin (44), and the inner skin (48) forming an outer peripheral boundary of a propulsion system flowpath (gas turbine engine exhaust) axially along and radially within the nozzle wall (44 and 48).
Stadtlander is silent on said exhaust nozzle includes a nozzle chevron ring and the nozzle chevron ring forming a downstream trailing edge of the exhaust nozzle, the nozzle chevron ring projecting axially out from the downstream end of the nozzle wall to the downstream trailing edge of the exhaust nozzle, the nozzle chevron ring comprising a ring base and integral chevrons, and the integral chevrons projecting axially out from a base downstream end of the ring base to the downstream trailing edge of the exhaust nozzle.
Martens teaches, in Figs. 1 – 4, a similar aircraft (12 – Fig. 1) propulsion system (10 - and Col. 2, ll. 50 - 60), comprising: an exhaust nozzle (16) including a nozzle wall (shown in Fig. 1) and a nozzle chevron ring (32 – Fig. 2) and the nozzle chevron ring (32) forming a downstream trailing edge of the exhaust nozzle (16, shown in Fig. 1), the nozzle chevron ring (32) projecting axially out from the downstream end of the nozzle wall to the downstream trailing edge of the exhaust nozzle (16), the nozzle chevron ring (32) comprising a ring base (labeled in Fig. 2 below) and integral chevrons (34, shown in Fig. 2), and the integral chevrons (34) projecting axially (along axis 28) out from a base downstream end (34b – Col. 4, ll. 24 - 26) of the ring base (labeled) to the downstream trailing edge of the exhaust nozzle (shown in Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
717
773
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Stadtlander, with the exhaust nozzle includes a nozzle chevron ring and the nozzle chevron ring forming a downstream trailing edge of the exhaust nozzle, the nozzle chevron ring projecting axially out from the downstream end of the nozzle wall to the downstream trailing edge of the exhaust nozzle, the nozzle chevron ring comprising a ring base and integral chevrons, and the integral chevrons projecting axially out from a base downstream end of the ring base to the downstream trailing edge of the exhaust nozzle, taught by Martens, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the aircraft propulsion system comprising: an exhaust nozzle including a nozzle wall and a exhaust nozzle includes a nozzle chevron ring and the nozzle chevron ring forming a downstream trailing edge of the exhaust nozzle, the nozzle chevron ring projecting axially out from the downstream end of the nozzle wall to the downstream trailing edge of the exhaust nozzle, the nozzle chevron ring comprising a ring base and integral chevrons, and the integral chevrons projecting axially out from a base downstream end of the ring base to the downstream trailing edge of the exhaust nozzle, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the nozzle chevron ring would have formed the downstream trailing edge of the exhaust nozzle by projecting axially out from the downstream end of the nozzle wall to the downstream trailing edge of the exhaust nozzle to facilitate noise attenuation, e.g., noise reduction, Martens – Col. 8, ll. 45 - 50. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Stadtlander, i.v., Martens, teach an apparatus for an aircraft propulsion system, i.e., base device, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. Stadtlander, i.v., Martens, as discussed above, is silent on said ring base axially abutted against the cellular core, the ring base disposed radially between and bonded to the inner skin and the outer skin.
Shaner teaches, in Figs. 1 – 13, a similar aircraft propulsion system (12 – Fig. 1 - and Para. [0003]) having a portion of a ring (74) with a base (102) abutted (Paras. [0010], [0057], and [0058]) against the cellular core (82, 84 – Figs. 4 or 12), said ring portion base (102) disposed radially between and bonded to the inner skin (78) and the outer skin (80). Paras. [0007] teaches “The base is adjacent the cellular core. The base is between the first skin and the second skin. The base is liquid interface diffusion (LID) bonded to the first skin and/or the second skin.”
PNG
media_image2.png
731
1034
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Tisdale teaches, in Fig. 7 and Col. 7, ll. 25 - 55, rings (72, 84, 86, 88, or 90) close to or touching cellular core (74) and disposed radially between and bonded (brazing - Col. 7, ll. 44 - 46) to an inner skin (58) and an outer skin (56).
PNG
media_image3.png
674
697
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Thus, improving a particular device (apparatus for an aircraft propulsion system), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Shaner and Tisdale, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying these known improvement techniques in the same manner to the apparatus for an aircraft propulsion system of Stadtlander, i.v., Martens, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that axially abutting the ring base against the cellular core of the nozzle wall and disposing an upstream end of the ring base radially between and bonded to the inner skin and the outer skin of the nozzle wall would have facilitated providing a closeout that would have structurally reinforced the downstream end of the nozzle wall, Tisdale - Col. 7, ll. 40 - 55. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Re Claim 2, Stadtlander, i.v., Martens, Shaner, and Tisdale, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the nozzle chevron ring forms a closeout (Merely reciting a function like ‘closeout’ doesn’t change the structure of the nozzle chevron ring or the assembly of the nozzle chevron ring bonded to the downstream end of the nozzle wall.) for the nozzle wall, refer to the Claim 1 rejection above.
Re Claim 3, Stadtlander, i.v., Martens, Shaner, and Tisdale, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the integral chevrons (34 – Martens – Fig. 2) are arranged circumferentially about the axis (28) along the downstream trailing edge of the exhaust nozzle, refer to the Claim 1 rejection above.
Re Claims 4 - 6, Stadtlander, i.v., Martens, Shaner, and Tisdale, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, (Claim 4) wherein the inner skin and the outer skin are diffusion bonded to the ring base, (Claim 5) wherein the cellular core is diffusion bonded to the inner skin and the outer skin, and (Claim 6) wherein the cellular core is diffusion bonded to the ring base.
Stadtlander further teaches, in Para. [0018], the cellular core (46) is fusion bonded to the inner skin (48) and the outer skin (44), but that other known attachment methods may be used. Shaner further teaches, in Paras. [0007], [0053], [0054], [0057], and [0058], diffusion bonding the ring base (102) and the cellular core (82, 84) to the inner skin (78) and the outer skin (80), best seen in Fig. 12 marked-up above. Tisdale further teaches, in Col. 5, ll. 55 – 60, Col. 6, ll. 5 – 10, and Col. 7, ll. 40 – 50, bonding, i.e., brazing, the rings (72, 84, 86, 88) and the cellular core (74) between and to the inner skin (58) and the outer skin (56) to facilitate forming a unitary structure with enhanced rigidity and strength.
Thus, improving a particular device (apparatus for an aircraft propulsion system), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Shaner and Tisdale, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying these known improvement techniques in the same manner to the apparatus for an aircraft propulsion system of Stadtlander, i.v., Martens, Shaner, and Tisdale, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that utilizing diffusion bonding to fasten the ring base and the cellular core to both the inner skin and the outer skin while also fastening the ring base to the cellular core would have facilitated a very strong bond between the nozzle wall and the ring base of the nozzle chevron ring since three pairs of surfaces would have been diffusion bonded together. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Re Claim 7, Stadtlander, i.v., Martens, Shaner, and Tisdale, teach an apparatus for an aircraft propulsion system, i.e., base device, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. Stadtlander, i.v., Martens, Shaner, and Tisdale, as discussed above, is silent on wherein the cellular core is bonded to the ring base.
Stadtlander further teaches, in Para. [0018], the cellular core (46) is fusion bonded to the inner skin (48) and the outer skin (44), but that other known attachment methods may be used. Shaner further teaches, in Paras. [0007], [0053], [0054], [0057], and [0058], diffusion bonding the ring base (102) and the cellular core (82, 84) to the inner skin (78) and the outer skin (80), best seen in Fig. 12 marked-up above. Tisdale further teaches, in Col. 5, ll. 55 – 60, Col. 6, ll. 5 – 10, and Col. 7, ll. 40 – 50, bonding, i.e., brazing, the rings (72, 84, 86, 88) and the cellular core (74) between and to the inner skin (58) and the outer skin (56) to facilitate forming a unitary structure with enhanced rigidity and strength.
Thus, improving a particular device (apparatus for an aircraft propulsion system), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Shaner and Tisdale, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying these known improvement techniques in the same manner to the apparatus for an aircraft propulsion system of Stadtlander, i.v., Martens, Shaner, and Tisdale, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that bonding the ring base and the cellular core to both the inner skin and the outer skin while also bonding the ring base to the cellular core would have facilitated a very strong bond between the nozzle wall and the ring base of the nozzle chevron ring since three pairs of surfaces would have been bonded together to form a unitary structure with enhanced rigidity and strength. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Re Claims 9 and 10, Stadtlander, i.v., Martens, Shaner, and Tisdale, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, (Claim 9) wherein the inner skin partially axially overlaps the ring base and is axially spaced from the trailing edge of the exhaust nozzle and (Claim 10) wherein the inner skin is disposed in an annular recess in the ring base.
Tisdale further teaches, in Fig. 7 (middle embodiment marked-up above), (Claim 9) wherein the inner skin (58) partially axially overlaps the ring base/closeout (86) and is axially spaced from the trailing edge (right-hand end) of the exhaust nozzle/closeout (86) and (Claim 10) wherein the inner skin (58) is disposed in a recess (side notches) in the ring base/closeout (86). Tisdale further teaches, in Col. 7, ll. 30 – 35, “The third rim 86 converges symmetrically outwardly to the knife-edge, and also includes side notches to blend flush with the exposed surfaces of the outer and inner skins 56,58”. Tisdale’s “side notches” were equivalent to the claimed ‘recess’.
Thus, improving a particular device (apparatus for an aircraft propulsion system), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Tisdale, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying these known improvement techniques in the same manner to the apparatus for an aircraft propulsion system of Stadtlander, i.v., Martens, Shaner, and Tisdale, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that disposing the inner skin in an annular recess in the ring base so that the inner skin partially axially overlaps the ring base (upstream end of ring base) and is axially spaced from the trailing edge of the exhaust nozzle (downstream end of nozzle chevron ring) would have facilitated reducing drag by forming an aerodynamically smooth outer peripheral boundary of the propulsion system flowpath since the exhaust gas facing surface of the inner skin would have been flush with the exhaust gas facing surface of the ring base. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Re Claim 11, Stadtlander, i.v., Martens, Shaner, and Tisdale, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein the inner skin extends axially along the nozzle chevron ring to the trailing edge of the exhaust nozzle.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Stadtlander, i.v., Martens, Shaner, and Tisdale, to have the inner skin extends axially along the nozzle chevron ring to the trailing edge of the exhaust nozzle because Applicant has not disclosed that “the inner skin extends axially along the nozzle chevron ring to the trailing edge of the exhaust nozzle” provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. In fact, Applicant’s Claim 9 recites a mutually exclusive embodiment (shown in Fig. 6) where the inner skin partially axially overlaps the ring base of the nozzle chevron ring and is axially spaced from the trailing edge of the exhaust nozzle. Specification Para. [0066] disclosed “As described above, the nozzle inner skin 92 and the nozzle outer skin 94 may each partially axially overlap the nozzle ring 80 and its ring base 124. It is contemplated, however, that the nozzle inner skin 92 and/or the nozzle outer skin 94 may alternatively completely axially overlap the nozzle ring 80.” One of ordinary skill furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the combination of Stadtlander, i.v., Martens, Shaner, and Tisdale, (discussed in the Claim 9 rejection above) because Applicant’s Claim 9 recites a mutually exclusive embodiment (shown in Fig. 6) where the inner skin partially axially overlaps the ring base and is axially spaced from the trailing edge of the exhaust nozzle.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Stadtlander, i.v., Martens, Shaner, and Tisdale, to obtain the invention as specified in Claim 11.
Re Claims 12 and 13, Stadtlander, i.v., Martens, Shaner, and Tisdale, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, (Claim 12) wherein the outer skin partially axially overlaps the ring base and is axially spaced from the trailing edge of the exhaust nozzle and (Claim 13) wherein the outer skin is disposed in an annular recess in the ring base.
Tisdale further teaches, in Fig. 7 (middle embodiment), (Claim 12) wherein the outer skin (56) partially axially overlaps the ring base/closeout (86) and is axially spaced from the trailing edge (right-hand end) of the exhaust nozzle/closeout (86) and (Claim 13) wherein the outer skin (56) is disposed in a recess (side notches) in the ring base/closeout (86). Tisdale further teaches, in Col. 7, ll. 30 – 35, “The third rim 86 converges symmetrically outwardly to the knife-edge, and also includes side notches to blend flush with the exposed surfaces of the outer and inner skins 56,58”. Tisdale’s “side notches” were equivalent to the claimed ‘recess’.
Thus, improving a particular device (apparatus for an aircraft propulsion system), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Tisdale, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying these known improvement techniques in the same manner to the apparatus for an aircraft propulsion system of Stadtlander, i.v., Martens, Shaner, and Tisdale, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that disposing the outer skin in an annular recess in the ring base so that the outer skin partially axially overlaps the ring base (upstream end of ring base) and is axially spaced from the trailing edge of the exhaust nozzle (downstream end of nozzle chevron ring) would have facilitated reducing drag by forming an aerodynamically smooth radially outward facing surface since the outer skin would have been flush with the radially outward facing surface of the ring base of the nozzle chevron ring. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Re Claim 15, Stadtlander, i.v., Martens, Shaner, and Tisdale, as discussed above, is silent on wherein the nozzle wall further includes a mounting structure disposed at the upstream end of the nozzle wall; the mounting structure is axially abutted against the cellular core; and the mounting structure is radially between and bonded to the inner skin and the outer skin.
Tisdale further teaches, in Fig. 4 and Col. 3, ll. 5 - 10, a nozzle wall (44) further includes a mounting structure (46) disposed at the upstream end (left-hand side of Fig. 4) of the nozzle wall (44). Tisdale teaches, in Fig. 7 and Col. 7, ll. 25 - 55, an end portion of a structure (72, 84, 86, 88, or 90) close to or touching cellular core (74); the structure (72, 84, 86, 88, or 90) is radially between and bonded (brazing - Col. 7, ll. 40 - 55) to the inner skin (58) and the outer skin (56). Shaner further teaches, in Figs. 1 – 13, a similar aircraft propulsion system (12 – Fig. 1 - and Para. [0003]) having an end portion of a mounting structure (74) abutted (Paras. [0010], [0057], and [0058]) against a cellular core (82, 84 – Figs. 4 or 12); and the mounting structure (74, 102) is radially between and bonded (diffusion bonded - Paras. [0007], [0053], [0054], [0057], and [0058]) to the inner skin (78) and the outer skin (80), best seen in Fig. 12.
Thus, improving a particular device (apparatus for an aircraft propulsion system), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Tisdale and Shaner, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying these known improvement techniques in the same manner to the apparatus for an aircraft propulsion system of Stadtlander, i.v., Martens, Shaner, and Tisdale, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that including a mounting structure disposed at the upstream end of the nozzle wall would have facilitated mounting the upstream end of the exhaust nozzle to the downstream end of the turbine rear frame while axially abutting the mounting structure against the cellular core and then bonding the mounting structure between the inner skin and the outer skin would have facilitated said mounting structure functioning as a closeout for the upstream end of the nozzle wall while also providing structural reinforcement, Tisdale - Col. 7, ll. 45 – 55. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Re Claim 17, Stadtlander, i.v., Martens, Shaner, and Tisdale, as discussed above, is silent on further comprising: an exhaust center body forming a radial inner peripheral boundary of the propulsion system flowpath; the exhaust nozzle spaced radially outboard from and circumscribing the exhaust center body.
Martens further teaches, in Figs. 1 and 3, an exhaust center body (30 – Col. 3, ll. 15 – 20 and Col. 5, ll. 45 – 55) forming a radial inner peripheral boundary (best seen in Fig. 3) of the propulsion system flowpath (40); the exhaust nozzle (32) spaced radially outboard from and circumscribing the exhaust center body (30). Tisdale further teaches, in Fig. 1, an exhaust center body (32 – Col. 2, ll. 44 – 46 and Col. 2, ll. 55 – 60) forming a radial inner peripheral boundary (best seen in Fig. 1) of the propulsion system flowpath (36); the exhaust nozzle (50, 54) spaced radially outboard from and circumscribing the exhaust center body (32).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Stadtlander, i.v., Martens, Shaner, and Tisdale, with the exhaust center body forming a radial inner peripheral boundary of the propulsion system flowpath; the exhaust nozzle spaced radially outboard from and circumscribing the exhaust center body, taught by Martens and Tisdale, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the aircraft propulsion system (turbofan/gas turbine engine), comprising: an exhaust nozzle including a nozzle wall and a nozzle ring, and the exhaust center body forming a radial inner peripheral boundary of the propulsion system flowpath, the exhaust nozzle spaced radially outboard from and circumscribing the exhaust center body, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the exhaust center body forming a radial inner peripheral boundary of the propulsion system flowpath; the exhaust nozzle spaced radially outboard from and circumscribing the exhaust center body, taught by Martens and Tisdale, for the non-disclosed exhaust nozzle propulsion system flowpath of Stadtlander, i.v., Martens, Shaner, and Tisdale, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the exhaust gases downstream of the last stage of the low pressure turbine would have flowed through the annular propulsion system flowpath defined between the outer surface of the exhaust center body and the inner skin of the nozzle wall thereby generating a portion of the gas turbine engine thrust. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Re Claim 18, Stadtlander, i.v., Martens, Shaner, and Tisdale, as discussed above, is silent on further comprising: an engine core including a compressor section, a combustor section and a turbine section; the propulsion system flowpath extending sequentially through the compressor section, the combustor section and the turbine section to the exhaust nozzle.
Tisdale further teaches, in Fig. 1 and Col. 2, ll. 50 – 55, an engine core including a compressor section (16, 18), a combustor section (20) and a turbine section (22, 24); the propulsion system flowpath (36) extending sequentially through the compressor section (16, 18), the combustor section (20) and the turbine section (22, 24) to the exhaust nozzle (50, 54).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Stadtlander, i.v., Martens, Shaner, and Tisdale, with the engine core including a compressor section, a combustor section and a turbine section; the propulsion system flowpath extending sequentially through the compressor section, the combustor section and the turbine section to the exhaust nozzle, taught by Tisdale, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the aircraft propulsion system (turbofan/gas turbine engine), comprising: an exhaust nozzle including a nozzle wall and a nozzle ring, and the engine core including a compressor section, a combustor section and a turbine section; the propulsion system flowpath extending sequentially through the compressor section, the combustor section and the turbine section to the exhaust nozzle, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the engine core including a compressor section, a combustor section and a turbine section; the propulsion system flowpath extending sequentially through the compressor section, the combustor section and the turbine section to the exhaust nozzle, taught by Tisdale, for the non-disclosed engine core arrangement of Stadtlander, i.v., Martens, Shaner, and Tisdale, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., during operation of the turbofan/gas turbine engine, ambient air would have flowed into the fan where said ambient air would have been pressurized by the rotation of the fan, a first portion of said pressurized air would have been discharged through the fan/bypass duct as fan exhaust for producing thrust, a second portion of said pressurized air would have flowed to the compressor section where said pressurized air would have been compressed to a higher pressure, in the combustor section said higher pressure air would have been mixed with fuel and combusted to generated high temperature combustion gases that were expanded through the turbine section to convert the thermal and kinetic energy of said high temperature combustion gases into mechanical rotational energy to drive the compressor section and the fan which produced the majority of the thrust. Downstream of the last stage of the turbine section the expanded combustion gases are called exhaust gases which would have flowed through the annular propulsion system flowpath defined between the outer surface of the exhaust center body and the inner skin of the nozzle wall thereby generating a minor portion of the gas turbine engine thrust, Tisdale - Col. 2, ll. 45 – 55. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Regarding Claim 19, Stadtlander teaches, in Figs. 1 - 4, the invention as claimed, including a structure for an aircraft propulsion system (Fig. 1 and Para. [0014]), comprising: an exhaust nozzle (14) including a nozzle wall (44 and 48); the nozzle wall (44 and 48) extending axially along an axis (central axis) from an upstream end (30) of the nozzle wall (44 and 48) to a downstream end (32) of the nozzle wall, the nozzle wall (44 and 48) extending circumferentially around the axis (central axis, shown in Figs. 1 and 3), the nozzle wall (44 and 48) including an inner skin (48 – Fig. 4 and Para. [0018]), an outer skin (44 – Fig. 4 and Para. [0018]) and a cellular core (46 – Fig. 4 and Para. [0018]) that is radially between and bonded (Para. [0018]) to the inner skin (48) and the outer skin (44), and the inner skin (48) forming an outer peripheral boundary of a propulsion system flowpath (gas turbine engine exhaust) axially along and radially within the nozzle wall (44 and 48).
Stadtlander is silent on said exhaust nozzle includes a chevron ring and the chevron ring forming a downstream trailing edge of the exhaust nozzle, the chevron ring attached to the nozzle wall at the downstream end of the nozzle wall to form another outer peripheral boundary of the propulsion system flowpath axially along and radially within the chevron ring.
Martens teaches, in Figs. 1 – 4, a similar aircraft (12 – Fig. 1) propulsion system (10 - and Col. 2, ll. 50 - 60), comprising: an exhaust nozzle (16) including a nozzle wall (shown in Fig. 1) and a chevron ring (32 – Fig. 2) and the chevron ring (32) forming a downstream trailing edge of the exhaust nozzle (16, shown in Fig. 1), the chevron ring (32) attached to the nozzle wall at the downstream end of the nozzle wall (shown in Fig. 1) to form another outer peripheral boundary of the propulsion system flowpath (40 – Fig. 3) axially along (28 – central axis) and radially within the chevron ring (32),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Stadtlander, with the chevron ring and the chevron ring forming a downstream trailing edge of the exhaust nozzle, the chevron ring attached to the nozzle wall at the downstream end of the nozzle wall to form another outer peripheral boundary of the propulsion system flowpath axially along and radially within the chevron ring, taught by Martens, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the structure for an aircraft propulsion system comprising: an exhaust nozzle including a nozzle wall and a chevron ring and the chevron ring forming a downstream trailing edge of the exhaust nozzle, the chevron ring attached to the nozzle wall at the downstream end of the nozzle wall to form another outer peripheral boundary of the propulsion system flowpath axially along and radially within the chevron ring, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the chevron ring would have formed the downstream trailing edge of the exhaust nozzle by projecting axially out from the downstream end of the nozzle wall to the downstream trailing edge of the exhaust nozzle to form another outer peripheral boundary of the propulsion system flowpath to facilitate noise attenuation, e.g., reduction, Martens – Col. 8, ll. 45 - 50. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Stadtlander, i.v., Martens, teach an apparatus for an aircraft propulsion system, i.e., base device, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. Stadtlander, i.v., Martens, as discussed above, is silent on an upstream end portion of the chevron ring abutted axially against the cellular core, and the inner skin and the outer skin each axially overlapping and radially engaging the upstream end portion of the chevron ring.
Shaner teaches, in Figs. 1 – 13, a similar aircraft propulsion system (12 – Fig. 1 - and Para. [0003]) having an end portion of a ring (74) abutted (Paras. [0010], [0057], and [0058]) against a cellular core (82, 84 – Figs. 4 or 12). Tisdale teaches, in Fig. 7 and Col. 7, ll. 25 - 55, an upstream end portion of rings (72, 84, 86, 88, or 90) close to or touching cellular core (74) and the inner skin (58) and the outer skin (56) each axially overlapping and radially engaging (middle embodiment shown in Fig. 7) the upstream end portion of the ring (86)
Thus, improving a particular device (apparatus for an aircraft propulsion system), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Shaner and Tisdale, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying these known improvement techniques in the same manner to the apparatus for an aircraft propulsion system of Stadtlander, i.v., Martens, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that axially abutting the chevron ring against the cellular core of the nozzle wall and axially overlapping and radially engaging the upstream end portion of the chevron ring between the inner skin and the outer skin of the nozzle wall would have facilitated providing a closeout that would have structurally reinforced the downstream end of the nozzle wall, Tisdale - Col. 7, ll. 40 - 55. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stadtlander et al. (2009/0165926A1) in view of Martens (6,532,729) in view of Shaner et al. (2021/0269168A1) in view of Tisdale et al. (7,926,285) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Straza (8,671,693).
Re Claim 8, Stadtlander, i.v., Martens, Shaner, and Tisdale, teach an apparatus for an aircraft propulsion system, i.e., base device, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. Stadtlander, i.v., Martens, Shaner, and Tisdale, as discussed above, is silent on wherein the cellular core is tack welded to the ring base.
Tisdale further teaches, in Col. 5, ll. 55 – 60, Col. 6, ll. 5 – 10, and Col. 7, ll. 40 – 50, brazing the rings (72, 84, 86, 88) and the cellular core (74) between and to the inner skin (58) and the outer skin (56) to facilitate forming a unitary structure with enhanced rigidity and strength.
Straza teaches, in Figs. 5 – 13, a similar aircraft propulsion system (600 – Fig. 6 and Col. 2, ll. 50 - 60), comprising: an exhaust nozzle (614) including a nozzle wall (shown in Fig. 6) and a nozzle ring (604 – Fig. 6) where the ring base/closeout (706 - edge surface) was tack welded to the cellular core (1206) prior to brazing (step 1310 – Fig. 13). Straza teaches, in Col. 9, ll. 55 – 60, “Exterior surfaces (e.g., the surfaces 702/704/706/708 shown in FIG. 7) are tack welded to the formed core honeycomb structure 1206 prior to brazing, which allows for improved subsequent brazing and an improved quality of thermally conductive chevron 700.”
Thus, improving a particular device (apparatus for an aircraft propulsion system), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Tisdale and Straza, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying these known improvement techniques in the same manner to the apparatus for an aircraft propulsion system of Stadtlander, i.v., Martens, Shaner, and Tisdale, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that tack welding the inner skin, the outer skin, and the ring base to the cellular core prior to brazing facilitates an improved subsequent brazing and an improved quality of thermally conductive structure. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stadtlander et al. (2009/0165926A1) in view of Martens (6,532,729) in view of Shaner et al. (2021/0269168A1) in view of Tisdale et al. (7,926,285) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Webb (5,592,813).
Re Claim 14, Stadtlander, i.v., Martens, Shaner, and Tisdale, teach an apparatus for an aircraft propulsion system, i.e., base device, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. Stadtlander further teaches, in Fig. 4, wherein the nozzle wall (48-46-44) includes a plurality of cavities (in the honeycomb core 46) extending radially through the cellular core (46) from the inner skin (48) to the outer skin (44). Stadtlander, i.v., Martens, Shaner, and Tisdale, as discussed above, is silent on some or all of the plurality of cavities are each fluidly coupled with one or more respective perforations in the inner skin.
Webb teaches, in Figs. 1 – 7 and Col. 6, ll. 10 - 45, a similar nozzle wall includes a plurality of cavities (86 – Fig. 6) extending radially through the cellular core (84) from the inner skin (80) to the outer skin (78); and some or all of the plurality of cavities (86) are each fluidly coupled with one or more respective perforations (82) in the inner skin (80) to facilitate reducing the noise generated by the gas turbine engine, Col. 6, ll. 10 - 15.
Thus, improving a particular device (apparatus for an aircraft propulsion system), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Webb, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying these known improvement techniques in the same manner to the apparatus for an aircraft propulsion system of Stadtlander, i.v., Martens, Shaner, and Tisdale, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that incorporating some or all of the plurality of cavities are each fluidly coupled with one or more respective perforations in the inner skin would have facilitated reducing the noise generated by the gas turbine engine, Webb - Col. 6, ll. 10 - 15. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stadtlander et al. (2009/0165926A1) in view of Martens (6,532,729) in view of Shaner et al. (2021/0269168A1) in view of Tisdale et al. (7,926,285) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Schrell et al. (2022/0195960A1).
Re Claim 16, Stadtlander, i.v., Martens, Shaner, and Tisdale, as discussed above, is silent on wherein the exhaust nozzle further includes a fairing skin axially overlapping and circumscribing nozzle wall and the ring base; the fairing skin radially engages and is mounted to the ring base; and the fairing skin is radially spaced from the nozzle wall.
Schrell teaches, in Figs. 2A – 4E and Paras. [0029] and [0031], a similar apparatus for an aircraft propulsion system having an exhaust nozzle (300 – Fig. 3A) further includes a fairing skin (421 – Figs. 4C and 4E) axially overlapping and circumscribing nozzle wall (416) and the ring base (438); the fairing skin (421) radially engages (shown in Figs. 4C and 4E) and is mounted (454 - fastener) to the ring base (438); and the fairing skin (421) is radially spaced (shown in Figs. 4C and 4E) from the nozzle wall (416).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Stadtlander, i.v., Martens, Shaner, and Tisdale, with the fairing skin axially overlapping and circumscribing nozzle wall and the ring base; the fairing skin radially engages and is mounted to the ring base; and the fairing skin is radially spaced from the nozzle wall, taught by Schrell, because all the claimed elements, i.e., apparatus for an aircraft propulsion system, comprising: an exhaust nozzle including a nozzle wall and a nozzle ring, a fairing skin axially overlapping and circumscribing nozzle wall and the ring base; the fairing skin radially engages and is mounted to the ring base; and the fairing skin is radially spaced from the nozzle wall, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the fairing would have facilitated reducing drag by circumferentially covering the nozzle wall and then aerodynamically transitioning into an upstream end of the ring base of the nozzle chevron ring, Schrell – Para. [0027]. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stadtlander et al. (2009/0165926A1) in view of Martens (6,532,729) in view of Tisdale et al. (7,926,285) in view of Deminet (4,013,210).
Regarding Claim 20, Stadtlander teaches, in Figs. 1 - 4, the invention as claimed, including a method for manufacturing an exhaust nozzle for an aircraft propulsion system (Fig. 1 and Para. [0014]), the method comprising: a nozzle wall (44 and 48), wherein the nozzle wall (44 and 48) extends axially along an axis (central axis) from an upstream end (30) of the nozzle wall (44 and 48) to a downstream end (32) of the nozzle wall, the nozzle wall (44 and 48) extending circumferentially around the axis (central axis, shown in Figs. 1 and 3).
Stadtlander is silent on a chevron ring forming a downstream trailing edge of the exhaust nozzle, and the chevron ring projects axially out from the downstream end of the nozzle wall to the downstream trailing edge of the exhaust nozzle.
Martens teaches, in Figs. 1 – 4, a similar aircraft (12 – Fig. 1) propulsion system (10 - and Col. 2, ll. 50 - 60), comprising: an exhaust nozzle (16) including a nozzle wall (shown in Fig. 1) and a chevron ring (32 – Fig. 2) forming a downstream trailing edge of the exhaust nozzle (16, shown in Fig. 1), the chevron ring (32) projects axially out from the downstream end of the nozzle wall to the downstream trailing edge of the exhaust nozzle (shown in Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Stadtlander, with the chevron ring forming a downstream trailing edge of the exhaust nozzle, and the chevron ring projects axially out from the downstream end of the nozzle wall to the downstream trailing edge of the exhaust nozzle, taught by Martens, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the method for manufacturing an exhaust nozzle for an aircraft propulsion system including an exhaust nozzle including a nozzle wall and a chevron ring and the chevron ring forming a downstream trailing edge of the exhaust nozzle, and the chevron ring projects axially out from the downstream end of the nozzle wall to the downstream trailing edge of the exhaust nozzle, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the chevron ring would have formed the downstream trailing edge of the exhaust nozzle by projecting axially out from the downstream end of the nozzle wall to the downstream trailing edge of the exhaust nozzle to form another outer peripheral boundary of the propulsion system flowpath to facilitate noise attenuation, e.g., reduction, Martens – Col. 8, ll. 45 - 50. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Stadtlander, i.v., Martens, teach method for manufacturing an exhaust nozzle for an aircraft propulsion system, i.e., base method, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. Stadtlander, i.v., Martens, as discussed above, is silent on arranging the cellular core and the upstream end portion of the chevron ring radially between an inner skin and an outer skin; and bonding the inner skin and the outer skin to the cellular core and the upstream end portion of the chevron ring to form the chevron ring integrally with a nozzle wall.
Stadtlander further teaches, in Figs. 3 and 4, the nozzle wall (44 and 48) includes an inner skin (48 – Fig. 4 and Para. [0018]), an outer skin (44 – Fig. 4 and Para. [0018]) and a cellular core (46 – Fig. 4 and Para. [0018]) that is radially between and bonded (Para. [0018]) to the inner skin (48) and the outer skin (44). Tisdale teaches, in Fig. 7 and Col. 7, ll. 25 - 55, arranging a cellular core (74) and an upstream end portion of a ring (86 - middle embodiment shown in Fig. 7) radially between an inner skin (58) and an outer skin (56); and bonding (Col. 6, ll. 5 – 10 and Col. 7, ll. 40 - 50) the inner skin (58) and an outer skin (56) to the cellular core (74) and the upstream end portion of the ring to form the ring integrally (Col. 6, ll. 5 – 10) with the nozzle wall.
Thus, improving a particular method (for manufacturing an exhaust nozzle for an aircraft propulsion system), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Tisdale, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying these known improvement techniques in the same manner to the method (for manufacturing an exhaust nozzle for an aircraft propulsion system of Stadtlander, i.v., Martens, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that arranging the cellular core and the upstream end portion of the chevron ring radially between an inner skin and an outer skin; and bonding the inner skin and the outer skin to the cellular core and the upstream end portion of the chevron ring to form the chevron ring integrally with a nozzle wall would have formed a unitary structure (chevron ring integral with the nozzle wall) with enhanced rigidity and strength, e.g., the chevron ring would have functioned as a closeout that would have structurally reinforced the downstream end of the nozzle wall, Tisdale - Col. 7, ll. 40 - 55. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Stadtlander, i.v., Martens and Tisdale, as discussed above, is silent on spot welding an upstream end portion of a chevron ring to a cellular core.
Deminet teaches, in Figs. 5 – 15, Col. 9, ll. 50 – 55, Col. 10, ll. 10 – 15, Col. 11, ll. 5 – 10, and Col. 11, l. 64 to Col. 12, l. 5, spot welding an end portion of a frame/ring (62, 64 – Fig. 5, 82 – Figs. 7 and 8) to a cellular core (60 – Fig. 5, 82 – Figs. 7 and 8) and then diffusion bonding an inner skin (70) and an outer skin (72) to the spot welded cellular core and frame/ring, Col. 9, l. 55 to Col. 10, l. 10.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Stadtlander, i.v., Martens and Tisdale, with spot welding an end portion of a frame/ring to a cellular core, taught by Deminet, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the method for manufacturing an exhaust nozzle for an aircraft propulsion system including an exhaust nozzle including a nozzle wall and a chevron ring, and spot welding an end portion of a frame/ring to a cellular core before diffusion bonding an inner skin and an outer skin to the spot welded cellular core and frame/ring, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., spot welding an upstream end portion of a chevron ring to a cellular core of the nozzle wall would have facilitated permanently joining the cellular core to the upstream end portion of the chevron ring so that in a subsequent manufacturing step an inner skin and an outer skin could be diffusion bonded to the spot welded cellular core and chevron ring thereby forming a unitary structure, Deminet - Abstract. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pg. 7, paragraphs four to six that “Tisdale fails to provide any disclosure relating to the interface between the nozzle wall (inner skin, outer skin, cellular core) and the ring base of the nozzle chevron ring” and therefore “Tisdale and Shaner fail to remedy the deficiencies of Stadtlander and Martens”. In response to applicant's arguments against the references Tisdale and Shaner individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As discussed above, independent Claims 1 and 19 were rejected as being obvious in view of the combination of Stadtlander, i.v., Martens, Shaner, and Tisdale. The rejections are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments on Pg. 8 regarding Claims 8, 14, and 16 merely refer back to Applicant’s prior arguments that has been addressed above. The rejections are maintained.
Applicant argues on Pg. 8, last paragraph that “Deminet fails to provide any disclosure that remedies the deficiencies of Shaner and Tisdale described above.” First, reference Shaner was not applied in the Claim 20 rejection. Second, in response to applicant's arguments against the reference Tisdale individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Independent Claim 20 was rejected as being obvious in view of the combination of Stadtlander, i.v., Martens, Tisdale, and Deminet. Deminet was applied for its teaching of spot welding an end portion of a frame/ring to a cellular core and then diffusion bonding an inner skin and an outer skin to the spot welded cellular core and frame/ring. Therefore, Deminet was not applied to teach any Applicant alleged deficiencies of Tisdale. The rejections are maintained.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORNE E MEADE whose telephone number is (571)270-7570. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at 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.
/LORNE E MEADE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights