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 the above application filed on 10/07/2024 which is a divisional of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/141,817 filed May 1, 2023 (now U.S. Patent 12,110,824), which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/159,343 filed January 27, 2021 (now U.S. Patent 11,639,686). Claims 1 – 20 are examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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, 2, 4, 6 – 9, 12, 13, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Bogert et al. (2,876,621) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Bogert et al. (2,876,621) in view of MPEP2144.05(I) Overlapping, Approaching, and Similar Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions.
PNG
media_image1.png
656
1106
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, Bogert discloses, in Figs. 1 - 3, all the claimed limitations including an assembly for an aircraft (1) propulsion system, comprising: a double tapered center body (labeled); a nacelle inlet structure (5) extending circumferentially around the double tapered center body (best seen in Fig. 3); and an inlet passage (8) radially between and formed by at least the double tapered center body (labeled) and the nacelle inlet structure (5), the inlet passage (8) comprising a metering portion (labeled); a first component (double tapered center body) of the assembly configured to rotate less than one-hundred and eighty degrees (Col. 2, ll. 50 – 55, The “double tapered center body” was capable of rotating from zero degrees 0° through one-hundred and eighty degrees 180°; therefore, it was configured to rotate less than one-hundred and eighty degrees since zero degrees 0° through one-hundred and seventy-nine point nine degrees 179.9° were less than one-hundred and eighty degrees 180°.) about an axis (16) relative to a second component (nacelle inlet structure) of the assembly between a first position (solid line shown in Fig. 3) where the metering portion has a first area (A1); and a second position (dashed line shown in Fig. 3) where the metering portion has a second area (A2) that is different than the first area (A1 ≠ A2); the first component of the assembly (double tapered center body) comprising one of the double tapered center body or the nacelle inlet structure; and the second component of the assembly (nacelle inlet structure) comprising the other one of the double tapered center body or the nacelle inlet structure.
Alternatively, if one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the first component (double tapered center body) of the assembly was configured to rotate less than one-hundred and eighty degrees because Bogert taught, in Col. 2, ll. 50 – 55, that the “double tapered center body” was capable of rotating from zero degrees 0° through one-hundred and eighty degrees 180°. MPEP2144.05(I) stated “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bogert so that the first component (double tapered center body) of the assembly was configured to rotate less than one-hundred and eighty degrees because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art"; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Re Claim 2, Bogert or alternatively Bogert, i.v., MPEP2144.05(I), teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above including wherein the first component of the assembly is configured to rotate ninety degrees about the axis from the first position to the second position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bogert or alternatively Bogert, i.v., MPEP2144.05(I), so that the first component (double tapered center body) of the assembly was configured to rotate ninety degrees about the axis from the first position to the second position because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art"; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Re Claim 4, Bogert or alternatively Bogert, i.v., MPEP2144.05(I), teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above including wherein the first component of the assembly (double tapered center body) comprises the double tapered center body, and the second component (5) of the assembly comprises the nacelle inlet structure, refer to the Claim 1 rejection above.
Re Claim 6, Bogert or alternatively Bogert, i.v., MPEP2144.05(I), teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above including wherein a plane of an inlet orifice to the inlet passage (8) is angularly offset (in this case 90°) from the axis (16).
Re Claim 7, Bogert or alternatively Bogert, i.v., MPEP2144.05(I), teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above including wherein the double tapered center body includes a tubular surface (labeled in Fig. 2 marked-up above) that radially tapers as the double tapered center body extends in a forward direction along the axis (16).
Re Claim 8, Bogert or alternatively Bogert, i.v., MPEP2144.05(I), teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above including wherein the double tapered center body includes a tubular surface (labeled in Fig. 2 marked-up above) that radially tapers as the double tapered center body extends in an aft direction along the axis (16).
Re Claim 9, Bogert or alternatively Bogert, i.v., MPEP2144.05(I), teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above including wherein the double tapered center body includes a first tapered surface (labeled in Fig. 2 marked-up above), a second tapered surface (labeled in Fig. 2 marked-up above) and a plateau surface (region where the first tapered surface transitioned to the second tapered surface and vice versa. Specification Para. [0053] “The plateau surface 118 may be an apex surface of the center body 66”) that extends axially between the first tapered surface and the second tapered surface.
Re Claim 12, Bogert or alternatively Bogert, i.v., MPEP2144.05(I), teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above including wherein the double tapered center body includes a plateau surface (region where the first tapered surface transitioned to the second tapered surface and vice versa. Specification Para. [0053] “The plateau surface 118 may be an apex surface of the center body 66”) with a trailing edge (aft facing edge of the plateau surface/apex); and a first point (labeled) on the trailing edge is axially displaced from a second point (labeled) on the trailing edge along the axis (16).
Re Claim 13, Bogert or alternatively Bogert, i.v., MPEP2144.05(I), teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above including wherein the nacelle inlet structure (5) comprises a leading edge (6); the double tapered center body comprises a plateau surface (region where the first tapered surface transitioned to the second tapered surface and vice versa. Specification Para. [0053] “The plateau surface 118 may be an apex surface of the center body 66”) with a trailing edge (aft facing edge of the plateau surface/apex); the trailing edge is separated from the leading edge (6) by a first axial distance (labeled ‘1st axial distance’) along the axis (16) when the first component of the assembly (double tapered center body) is in the first position; and the trailing edge is separated from the leading edge (6) by a second axial distance (labeled ‘2nd axial distance’) along the axis (16) when the first component of the assembly (double tapered center body) is in the second position, and the second axial distance (labeled ‘2nd axial distance’) is different than the first axial distance (labeled ‘1st axial distance’).
PNG
media_image2.png
660
1106
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 17, Bogert discloses, in Figs. 1 - 3, all the claimed limitations including an assembly for an aircraft (1) propulsion system, comprising: a center body (labeled ‘double tapered center body’) including a first tapered surface (labeled), a second tapered surface (labeled) and a plateau surface (region where the first tapered surface transitioned to the second tapered surface and vice versa. Specification Para. [0053] “The plateau surface 118 may be an apex surface of the center body 66”) that extends axially between the first tapered surface and the second tapered surface; a nacelle inlet structure (5) extending circumferentially around the center body (best seen in Fig. 3); and an inlet passage (8) radially between and formed by at least the center body (labeled) and the nacelle inlet structure (5), the inlet passage (8) comprising a metering portion (labeled); a first component (double tapered center body) of the assembly configured to rotate less than one-hundred and eighty degrees (Col. 2, ll. 50 – 55, The “double tapered center body” was capable of rotating from zero degrees 0° through one-hundred and eighty degrees 180°; therefore, it was configured to rotate less than one-hundred and eighty degrees since zero degrees 0° through one-hundred and seventy-nine point nine degrees 179.9° were less than one-hundred and eighty degrees 180°.) about an axis (16) relative to a second component (nacelle inlet structure) of the assembly between a first position (solid line shown in Fig. 3) where the metering portion has a first area (A1); and a second position (dashed line shown in Fig. 3) where the metering portion has a second area (A2) that is different than the first area (A1 ≠ A2); the first component of the assembly (double tapered center body) comprising one of the center body or the nacelle inlet structure; and the second component of the assembly (nacelle inlet structure) comprising the other one of the center body or the nacelle inlet structure.
Alternatively, if one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the first component (center body) of the assembly was configured to rotate less than one-hundred and eighty degrees because Bogert taught, in Col. 2, ll. 50 – 55, that the “center body” was capable of rotating from zero degrees 0° through one-hundred and eighty degrees 180°. MPEP2144.05(I) stated “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bogert so that the first component (center body) of the assembly was configured to rotate less than one-hundred and eighty degrees because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art"; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Re Claim 20, Bogert or alternatively Bogert, i.v., MPEP2144.05(I), teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above including wherein the first component (center body) of the assembly comprises the center body, and the second component (5) of the assembly comprises the nacelle inlet structure (5).
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 3, 5, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bogert et al. (2,876,621) in view of MPEP2144.05(I) Overlapping, Approaching, and Similar Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions in view of Dassault Mirage F1 web page [accessed at https://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php?topic=59903.0 on 06/04/2026], hereinafter “Dassault Mirage F1”.
PNG
media_image3.png
748
1069
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re Claims 3 and 19, Bogert or alternatively Bogert, i.v., MPEP2144.05(I), teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Bogert further teaches, in Col. 2, ll. 10 - 25, a turbine engine (“conventional jet engines”) comprising a flowpath (“…inlets 5 are provided on either side of missile 1, forward of the engines, for capturing and conducting air from the atmosphere to the engines”) fluidly coupled with and downstream of the inlet passage (8), a centerline (16) of the first component of the assembly. Bogert or alternatively Bogert, i.v., MPEP2144.05(I), is silent on said centerline of the first component of the assembly being offset from a centerline of the turbine engine.
Dassault Mirage F1 teaches, in figures on Pgs. 4, 5, and 9, a similar jet propelled craft, in this case an aircraft, having two nacelle inlet structures on opposite sides of the aircraft vertical centerline and having a single turbine engine (Pg. 4 “SNECMA Atar 9K-50 afterburning turbojet”) having a centerline coincident with the aircraft vertical centerline and said single turbine engine centerline was laterally offset above the aircraft horizontal centerline. Each nacelle inlet structure had a first component centerline (labeled) that was laterally offset both horizontally and vertically from the centerline of the turbine engine.
PNG
media_image4.png
1212
887
media_image4.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 Bogert or alternatively Bogert, i.v., MPEP2144.05(I), with said centerline of the first component of the assembly being offset from a centerline of the turbine engine arrangement, taught by Dassault Mirage F1, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the aircraft propulsion system, comprising: a double tapered center body; a nacelle inlet structure extending circumferentially around the double tapered center body; and an inlet passage radially between and formed by at least the double tapered center body and the nacelle inlet structure, the inlet passage comprising a metering portion; a first component of the assembly configured to rotate less than one-hundred and eighty degrees about an axis relative to a second component of the assembly between a first position where the metering portion has a first area; and a second position where the metering portion has a second area that is different than the first area, and a centerline of the first component of the assembly being offset from a centerline of the turbine engine arrangement, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted said centerline of the first component of the assembly being offset from a centerline of the turbine engine arrangement, taught by Dassault Mirage F1, for the non-disclosed centerline arrangement of Bogert or alternatively Bogert, i.v., MPEP2144.05(I), with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the rotating parts of the turbine engine would have rotated around the centerline of the turbine engine while the first component would have rotated around the centerline of the first component during operation where said centerline of the first component of the assembly was offset from a centerline of the turbine engine. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Re Claim 5, Bogert or alternatively Bogert, i.v., MPEP2144.05(I), teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Bogert further teaches, wherein the nacelle inlet structure (5) has a leading edge (6). Bogert or alternatively Bogert, i.v., MPEP2144.05(I), is silent on a first point on the leading edge is axially displaced from a second point on the leading edge along the axis.
Dassault Mirage F1 teaches, in figures on Pg. 7, a similar jet propelled craft, in this case an aircraft, having a nacelle inlet structure having a leading edge with a first point (labeled) on the leading edge is axially displaced from a second point (labeled) on the leading edge along the axis.
PNG
media_image5.png
766
909
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
582
1149
media_image6.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 Bogert or alternatively Bogert, i.v., MPEP2144.05(I), with said first point on the leading edge is axially displaced from a second point on the leading edge along the axis arrangement, taught by Dassault Mirage F1, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the aircraft propulsion system, comprising: a double tapered center body; a nacelle inlet structure extending circumferentially around the double tapered center body; and an inlet passage radially between and formed by at least the double tapered center body and the nacelle inlet structure, the inlet passage comprising a metering portion; a first component of the assembly configured to rotate less than one-hundred and eighty degrees about an axis relative to a second component of the assembly between a first position where the metering portion has a first area; and a second position where the metering portion has a second area that is different than the first area, and a first point on the leading edge is axially displaced from a second point on the leading edge along the axis arrangement, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted said first point on the leading edge is axially displaced from a second point on the leading edge along the axis arrangement, taught by Dassault Mirage F1, for the non-disclosed first point and second point arrangement of Bogert or alternatively Bogert, i.v., MPEP2144.05(I), with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the first point on the leading edge being axially displaced from a second point on the leading edge along the axis arrangement of the nacelle inlet structure would have facilitated an inlet plane that was not perpendicular to said axis. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Re Claim 16, Bogert or alternatively Bogert, i.v., MPEP2144.05(I), teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Bogert further teaches, in Col. 2, ll. 10 - 25, a turbine engine (“conventional jet engines”) comprising a flowpath (“…inlets 5 are provided on either side of missile 1, forward of the engines, for capturing and conducting air from the atmosphere to the engines”) fluidly coupled with and downstream of the inlet passage (8), a centerline (16) of the first component of the assembly. Bogert or alternatively Bogert, i.v., MPEP2144.05(I), is silent on said centerline of the first component of the assembly being laterally offset from a centerline of the turbine engine.
Dassault Mirage F1 teaches, in figures on Pgs. 4, 5, and 9, a similar jet propelled craft, in this case an aircraft, having two nacelle inlet structures on opposite sides of the aircraft vertical centerline and having a single turbine engine (Pg. 4 “SNECMA Atar 9K-50 afterburning turbojet”) having a centerline coincident with the aircraft vertical centerline and said single turbine engine centerline was laterally offset above the aircraft horizontal centerline. Each nacelle inlet structure had a first component centerline (labeled) that was laterally offset both horizontally and vertically from the centerline of the turbine engine.
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bogert or alternatively Bogert, i.v., MPEP2144.05(I), with said centerline of the first component of the assembly being offset from a centerline of the turbine engine arrangement, taught by Dassault Mirage F1, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the aircraft propulsion system, comprising: a double tapered center body; a nacelle inlet structure extending circumferentially around the double tapered center body; and an inlet passage radially between and formed by at least the double tapered center body and the nacelle inlet structure, the inlet passage comprising a metering portion; a first component of the assembly configured to rotate less than one-hundred and eighty degrees about an axis relative to a second component of the assembly between a first position where the metering portion has a first area; and a second position where the metering portion has a second area that is different than the first area, and a centerline of the first component of the assembly being offset from a centerline of the turbine engine arrangement, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted said centerline of the first component of the assembly being laterally offset from a centerline of the turbine engine arrangement, taught by Dassault Mirage F1, for the non-disclosed centerline arrangement of Bogert or alternatively Bogert, i.v., MPEP2144.05(I), with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the rotating parts of the turbine engine would have rotated around the centerline of the turbine engine while the first component would have rotated around the centerline of the first component during operation where said centerline of the first component of the assembly was laterally offset from a centerline of the turbine engine. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bogert et al. (2,876,621) in view of MPEP2144.05(I) Overlapping, Approaching, and Similar Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions in view of Design Choice.
Re Claim 15, Bogert or alternatively Bogert, i.v., MPEP2144.05(I), teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Bogert further teaches, in Col. 2, ll. 10 - 25, a turbine engine (“conventional jet engines”) comprising a flowpath (“…inlets 5 are provided on either side of missile 1, forward of the engines, for capturing and conducting air from the atmosphere to the engines”) fluidly coupled with and downstream of the inlet passage (8), a centerline (16) of the first component of the assembly. Bogert or alternatively Bogert, i.v., MPEP2144.05(I), is silent on said centerline of the first component of the assembly angularly offset from a centerline of the turbine engine.
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 Bogert or alternatively Bogert, i.v., MPEP2144.05(I), to have said centerline of the first component of the assembly angularly offset from a centerline of the turbine engine because Applicant has not disclosed that “said centerline of the first component of the assembly angularly offset from a centerline of the turbine engine” provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. In fact, the original Specification disclosed, in Para. [0060], “In some embodiments, the axial centerline / rotational axis 108 of the center body 66 is coaxial with the axial centerline / rotational axis 30 of the aircraft propulsion system 20 and its gas turbine engine 22 as described above. However, in other embodiments, the axial centerline / rotational axis 108 of the center body 66 may be eccentric / non-coaxial with the axial centerline / rotational axis 30 of the aircraft propulsion system 20 and its gas turbine engine 22 as shown in FIG. 9. More particularly, the axial centerline 108 may be displaced from and/or angularly offset from the axial centerline 30.” The Specifications disclosure that the centerline of the first component of the assembly could be coaxial from a centerline of the turbine engine or the centerline of the first component of the assembly could be non-coaxial from a centerline of the turbine engine or the centerline of the first component of the assembly could be displaced, i.e., laterally offset, from a centerline of the turbine engine or the centerline of the first component of the assembly could be angularly offset from a centerline of the turbine engine which is indicative of the fact that the claimed arrangements of centerlines are indeed a “Design Choice”, as all options perform equally well as Bogert’s or alternatively Bogert, i.v., MPEP2144.05(I)’s, and none of the options exhibits an advantage over the others and over Bogert’s or alternatively Bogert, i.v., MPEP2144.05(I)’s. One of ordinary skill furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the arrangement of Bogert or alternatively Bogert, i.v., MPEP2144.05(I), because Applicant.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Bogert or alternatively Bogert, i.v., MPEP2144.05(I), to obtain the invention as specified in Claim 15.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 11, 14, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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