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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Reba, applicant argues that Reba does not disclose that the acoustic panels (inserts 302, 402, 702, 802) are configured slidable into the acoustic panel receiver. The examiner respectfully disagrees because applicant seems to have an unreasonably too narrow interpretation of an element being “slidable.” Firstly, slidable merely requires the capability or ability to be slid. Moreover, Reba clearly discloses that their acoustic panels are inserted into the acoustic panel receivers and the action of inserting an element into another element reads on the limitation of being configured slidable. For example, one of ordinary skill in the art looking at Fig. 4A realizes that for installing the acoustic panel (insert 402) into the tee shaped acoustic panel receiver, one has to slide the insert 402 from an end of the receiver into the receiver. It is noted that applicant’s own specification also seems to have considered sliding and inserting as synonym as [0043] discloses “The acoustic panel 44 is configured to be slidable and insertable as a snap fit or friction fit into the acoustic panel receiver 46.” Also note that Merriam-Webster has defined the word “slide” as “to move smoothly along a surface” or “to pass unobtrusively.” Applicant further argues that the Reba reference also fails to teach or suggest the acoustic panel receiver comprises at least one of an oval cross section or a tee shaped cross section. The examiner respectfully disagrees because Reba clearly shows a tee shaped cross section in Fig. 4A and an oval cross section in Fig. 3, 7A, 8A. Applicant further argues that the Reba reference also fails to teach or suggest the acoustic panel is configured slidable into the acoustic panel receiver and trapped by a tee shaped cross section geometry of the acoustic panel receiver. The examiner respectfully disagrees because as explained above, Reba discloses that the acoustic panel is configured slidable into the acoustic panel receiver and trapped by a tee shaped cross section geometry of the acoustic panel receiver in Fig. 4A.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: change “one of a an oval cross section” to “one of [[a]] an oval cross section”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 6 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 6 and 13 repeat the limitation that the acoustic panel is configured slidable into the acoustic panel receiver, which is already recited in claims 1 and 8, from which claims 6 and 13 depend. Hence, the extra repeated limitation should be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reba (US 2021/0317753).
With regard to claim 1:
Reba discloses a fan exit guide vane with acoustic treatment comprising: a leading edge and a trailing edge opposite chordwise from the leading edge (see 308/310, 408/410, 708/710, and 808/810 in Fig. 3, 4A/4B, 7A, 8A); a radially inner attachment region opposite spanwise from a radially outer attachment region (inherent in any 3-dimentional element. Also note that without defining any plane of reference, inner and outer can be interpreted broadly); a span dimension extending between the radially inner attachment region and the radially outer attachment region (inherent in any 3-dimensional element); a chord dimension extending between the leading edge and the trailing edge (see Fig. 3, 4A/4B, 7A, 8A); a pressure side opposite a suction side of the fan exit guide vane (Fig. 3, 4A/4B, 7A, 8A); an acoustic panel receiver formed within the fan exit guide vane extendable at least one of spanwise through the fan exit guide vane between the radially inner attachment region and the radially outer attachment region or chordwise between the leading edge and the trailing edge (in Fig. 3, 4A/4B, 7A, 8A, see the cavities where acoustic panels 302, 402, 702, 802 are inserted); and an acoustic panel (302, 402, 702, 802) inserted into the acoustic panel receiver (Fig. 3, 4A/4B, 7A, 8A), wherein the acoustic panel is configured slidable into the acoustic panel receiver (see inserts 302, 402, 702, 802 in Fig. 3, 4A/4B, 7A, 8A. Also see [0055], [0057], [0069], [0072]), wherein slidable is defined as being configured so that the acoustic panel is insertable (see inserts 302, 402, 702, 802 in Fig. 3, 4A/4B, 7A, 8A. Also see [0055], [0057], [0069], [0072]) and slides into the acoustic panel receiver from an end of the acoustic panel receiver (Fig. 3, 4A/4B, 7A, 8A. Since the acoustic panel slides into the acoustic panel receiver from outside of the acoustic panel receiver (by virtue of being an insert), the place from where it is inserted and slides into the acoustic panel receiver is “an end” of the acoustic panel receiver).
Reba discloses that the embodiment of Fig. 3 with airfoil 300 having acoustic panel 302 is a fan exit guide vane ([0055]), but does not appear to explicitly disclose that the airfoils of other embodiments in Fig. 4A/4B, 7A, 8A are also fan exit guide vanes.
However, Reba teaches that an airfoil with acoustic panels (302) is a fan exit guide vanes, and teaches that in general fan exit guide vanes can use acoustic panels ([0002]-[0005]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique, namely using acoustic panels 402, 702, and 802 on fan exit guide vanes 400, 700, and 800, to improve similar devices in the same way.
With regard to claim 8:
Reba discloses a fan exit guide vane system with acoustic treatment for a gas turbine engine, the FEGV system comprising: a fan located within a fan duct (Fig. 1); and an array of fan exit guide vanes supported within the fan duct downstream from the fan (Fig. 1, [0002]), the array of fan exit guide vanes span across the fan duct attached to a radially inner surface of the fan duct and a radially outer surface of the fan duct (Fig. 1); wherein each fan exit guide vane of the array of fan exit guide vanes comprises: a leading edge and a trailing edge opposite chordwise from the leading edge (see 308/310, 408/410, 708/710, and 808/810 in Fig. 3, 4A/4B, 7A, 8A); a radially inner attachment region opposite spanwise from a radially outer attachment region (inherent in any 3-dimentional element. Also note that without defining any plane of reference, inner and outer can be interpreted broadly); a span dimension extending between the radially inner attachment region and the radially outer attachment region (inherent in any 3-dimensional element); a chord dimension extending between the leading edge and the trailing edge (see Fig. 3, 4A/4B, 7A, 8A); a pressure side opposite a suction side of the fan exit guide vane (Fig. 3, 4A/4B, 7A, 8A); an acoustic panel receiver formed within the fan exit guide vane extendable at least one of spanwise through the fan exit guide vane between the radially inner attachment region and the radially outer attachment region or chordwise between the leading edge and the trailing edge (in Fig. 3, 4A/4B, 7A, 8A, see the cavities where acoustic panels 302, 402, 702, 802 are inserted); and an acoustic panel (302, 402, 702, 802) inserted into the acoustic panel receiver (Fig. 3, 4A/4B, 7A, 8A), wherein the acoustic panel is configured slidable into the acoustic panel receiver (see inserts 302, 402, 702, 802 in Fig. 3, 4A/4B, 7A, 8A. Also see [0055], [0057], [0069], [0072]), wherein slidable is defined as being configured so that the acoustic panel is insertable (see inserts 302, 402, 702, 802 in Fig. 3, 4A/4B, 7A, 8A. Also see [0055], [0057], [0069], [0072]) and slides into the acoustic panel receiver from an end of the acoustic panel receiver (Fig. 3, 4A/4B, 7A, 8A. Since the acoustic panel slides into the acoustic panel receiver from outside of the acoustic panel receiver (by virtue of being an insert), the place from where it is inserted and slides into the acoustic panel receiver is “an end” of the acoustic panel receiver), wherein the acoustic panel is configured slidable into the acoustic panel receiver from the radially inner attachment region, or the radially outer attachment region, or the leading edge or the trailing edge or a mid-span (Fig. 3, 4A/4B, 7A, 8A).
Reba discloses that the embodiment of Fig. 3 with airfoil 300 having acoustic panel 302 is a fan exit guide vane ([0055]), but does not appear to explicitly disclose that the airfoils of other embodiments in Fig. 4A/4B, 7A, 8A can also be fan exit guide vanes.
However, Reba teaches that an airfoil with acoustic panels (302) is a fan exit guide vanes, and teaches that in general fan exit guide vanes can use acoustic panels ([0002]-[0005]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique, namely using acoustic panels 402, 702, and 802 on fan exit guide vanes 400, 700, and 800, to improve similar devices in the same way.
With regard to claims 2 and 9:
Reba discloses the fan exit guide vane with acoustic treatment of claim 1, and the fan exit guide vane system with acoustic treatment for a gas turbine engine of claim 8, as set forth above, and further discloses that the acoustic panel receiver is one acoustic panel receiver formed in the fan exit guide vane at a predetermined location along the span of the fan exit guide vane.
Reba does not appear to explicitly disclose that the acoustic panel receiver is one of at least two acoustic panel receivers formed in the fan exit guide vane at predetermined locations along the span of the fan exit guide vane.
However, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP 2144.04.VI.B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to duplicate the one acoustic panel receiver formed in the fan exit guide vane at a predetermined location along the span of the fan exit guide vane, and make it two acoustic panel receivers formed in the fan exit guide vane at predetermined locations along the span of the fan exit guide vane.
With regard to claims 3 and 11, Reba further discloses that the acoustic panel receiver is located on the pressure side (Fig. 3, 4A/4B, 7A, 8A).
With regard to claims 4 and 12, Reba further discloses that the acoustic panel receiver comprises at least one of an oval cross section or a tee shaped cross section (see the tee shaped cross section Fig. 4A and the oval cross section in Fig. 3, 7A, 8A).
With regard to claims 6 and 13, Reba further discloses that the acoustic panel is configured slidable into the acoustic panel receiver (see inserts 302, 402, 702, 802 in Fig. 3, 4A/4B, 7A, 8A. Also see [0055], [0057], [0069], [0072]) and trapped by a tee shaped cross section geometry of the acoustic panel receiver (Fig. 4A), wherein the acoustic panel is configured slidable into the acoustic panel receiver from the radially inner attachment region, or the radially outer attachment region, or the leading edge or the trailing edge or a mid-span (Fig. 3, 4A/4B, 7A, 8A).
With regard to claim 7, Reba further discloses that the acoustic panel is configured interchangeable with another acoustic panel to accommodate design changes and/or damage to the acoustic panel (acoustic panel 302, 402, 702, or 802 is interchangeable by virtue of being an insert and slidable).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reba (US 2021/0317753) in view of Howard et al. (US 5,634,771), referred to hereafter as Howard.
With regard to claims 2 and 9:
Reba discloses the fan exit guide vane with acoustic treatment of claim 1, and the fan exit guide vane system with acoustic treatment for a gas turbine engine of claim 8, as set forth above.
Reba does not appear to explicitly disclose that the acoustic panel receiver is one of at least two acoustic panel receivers formed in the fan exit guide vane at predetermined locations along the span of the fan exit guide vane.
However, Howard teaches an airfoil and teaches several receivers on the surface that can be used for acoustic panels (see Fig. 4, 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use of known technique, namely making several receivers on the surface of an airfoil, to improve similar devices in the same way.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to the attached form PTO-892 for pertinent prior art disclosing similar airfoils such as US 20080295518.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BEHNOUSH HAGHIGHIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7558. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:00am-15:00pm.
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, Courtney D Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. 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.
/BEHNOUSH HAGHIGHIAN/
Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights