DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species/invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/18/2025.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this
application because they are shaded, dark, or hard to read. The drawings should be in
black and white. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent
draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer
prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office
action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings
will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “plurality of apertures in a region proximate to a tip of the fan” of claim 11, and “a semi-porous or cellular structure resides within one or more apertures of the plurality of apertures” of claim 12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 9, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the propulsion" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, as best understood by the Examiner in view of the specification, the limitation will be interpreted as “the propulsor”. Examiner suggest amending the claim as such to overcome the antecedent basis issues.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the seal comprises a support structure comprising CTE-matched material" in lines 1-2. As written, it is unclear which feature/structures have CTE-matched material. As written, the support structure may be CTE-matched to itself, the seal, the fan, the liners, or virtually any other features/structure that is part of the propulsor fan. Examiner suggest amending the limitation to clarify which features/structures have CTE-matched material.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the seal comprises one or more of: a flat sealing surface, a lip seal, a knife seal, a labyrinth seal, or a lift off seal" in lines 1-2. As written, it is unclear how the seal may comprise all of, which is encompassed by the phrase “one or more of”, a flat surface, a lip seal, a knife seal, a labyrinth seal and a lift off seal, rendering the claim indefinite. Examiner suggests amending the limitation to read “the seal comprises one of: a flat sealing surface, a lip seal, a knife seal, a labyrinth seal, and a lift off seal".
Claim 12 recites the limitation "a semi-porous or cellular structure resides within one or more apertures of the plurality of apertures" in lines 1-2. As written, it is unclear what is being claimed due to the awkward phrasing. The drawings do not depict this claimed feature and it is unclear how a semi-porous or cellular structure resides within one or more of the plurality of drainage apertures. Examiner suggests amending the limitation to clarify what is being claimed. For examination purposes, as best understood by the Examiner in view of the specification, the limitation will be interpreted as requiring the one or more apertures to form a semi-porous or cellular structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bifulco (US 20230103861).
In Regard to Claim 1
Bifulco teaches:
A propulsor fan(22) configured to provide thrust(P[0032]) comprising:
a duct(annular conduit formed by 130, 110) extending from a first end(proximate 110A, 120A) to a second end(110B);
a first liner(120) configured to be removably installed at the first end of the duct(P[0040]-P[0043]);
a second liner(210) proximate to the second end of the duct(Fig 2-4);
a fan(42) positioned within the duct between the first liner and the second liner(as shown in Fig 1-2, the fan 42 is within the duct and axially and/or radially between at a portion of each of the first and second liner), wherein the fan is concentric with the first liner and the second liner(42 is concentric with 120 and 210 about axis A); and
a seal(215) positioned radially around the fan(Fig 2-3),
wherein removal of the first liner enables access to the seal from the first end of the duct(as is readily apparent in the figures, removal of 120 via fasteners and uncoupling from retaining ring 150 enables access to 210/215 from 110A; P[0038]-P[0043]).
In Regard to Claim 2
Bifulco teaches:
The propulsor fan of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the first liner comprises an acoustic liner configured to attenuate noise(P[0038], P[0051]).
In Regard to Claim 3
Bifulco teaches:
The propulsor fan of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the seal is configured to be intentionally abraded by the fan during a first operation of the propulsor(seal 210 is a “rub strip” which is known to be structurally capable of being abraded during “run in” which is the initial phase of operation in which the seal is rubbed, or abraded, by the tip of the fan blade to establish tight clearances between the seal and the fan blade tip portion to minimize leakage), wherein the intentional abrasion does not reduce the air-moving capabilities of the propulsor(the “run in” process seeks to enhance air-moving capability of the propulsor by minimizing leakage over the tip of the blade and prevent excessive rubbing which could lead to damage).
In Regard to Claim 4
Bifulco teaches:
The propulsor fan of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the first liner comprises a hoop shape that extends circumferentially around an inner diameter of the duct(as shown in Fig 1-2, the first liner 120 is an annular structure forming a hoop that extends circumferentially around the inner diameter of the duct portion formed by 130).
In Regard to Claim 5
Bifulco teaches:
The propulsor fan of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the second liner comprises a hoop shape that extends circumferentially around an inner diameter of the duct(as shown in Fig 1-2, the second liner 210 is an annular structure forming a hoop that extends circumferentially around the inner diameter of the duct portion formed by 110).
In Regard to Claim 6
Bifulco teaches:
The propulsor fan of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the seal comprises a blade seal(215 is a fan blade outer air seal) configured to reduce a clearance between an outer diameter of the fan and an inner diameter of the duct(as described above for claim 3, the blade seal is structurally capable of minimizing the clearance between the other diameter of the fan blade at it tip and the inner radially surface of the duct formed at the seal during the “run in” process).
In Regard to Claim 7
Bifulco teaches:
The propulsor fan of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising a plurality of tabs(160) and a plurality of slots(170), each slot being configured to receive a respective tab(160/170 form a plurality of coextensive tabs/slots; Fig 4), wherein the plurality of tabs and the plurality of slots are configured to releasably hold the first liner in place in the duct(P[0044]).
In Regard to Claim 8
Bifulco teaches:
The propulsor fan of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the seal comprises an abradable member(215 is abradable) configured to form, based on operation of the propulsor, a groove that is concentric with an outer diameter of the fan(as described above for claim 3, abradable member 215 is structurally capable of forming a groove during initial operation of the propulsor during the “run in” process as the rub strip is abraded, the groove is concentric with the outer diameter of the fan blade as it is created by the fan blade tip portion).
In Regard to Claim 10
Bifulco teaches:
The propulsor fan of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the seal comprises a flat sealing surface(215 comprises a flat sealing surface along the radially inward facing surface).
In Regard to Claim 13
Bifulco teaches:
The propulsor fan of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the first liner comprises a fan tip region(at 160) that extends over an outer diameter of the fan(the fan tip region at 160 is radially outward of the outer diameter of the fan and therefore extends over an outer diameter of the fan), and wherein a diameter of the fan tip region is larger than a diameter of the first end of the first liner(a diameter of the fan tip region at 160 is larger than a diameter of the first end of the first liner along a radially inward facing surface at 110a).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bifulco in view of Gendrich (US 20130078084).
In Regard to Claim 9
Bifulco teaches:
The propulsor fan of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above),
Bifulco fails to teach:
wherein the seal comprises a support structure comprising CTE-matched material configured to resist formation or enlargement of one more gaps between the fan and the seal due to an ambient temperature variation.
Gendrich teaches:
A airfoil blade outer air seal assembly wherein a seal(Fig 3A) comprises a support structure(36) having CTE-matched material to the blades(40) such that the assembly is configured to resist formation or enlargement of one more gaps between the fan and the seal due to an ambient temperature variation(P[0037], P[0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bifulco to incorporate the teachings of Gendrich to match the CTE properties of the seal support structure with the CTE properties of the blades to maintain a sufficient gap between the seal and the fan blade tips across all operating temperatures so as to avoid damage to the blades and/or the seal.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bifulco in view of Geertsema et al. (US 11286859).
In Regard to Claim 11
Bifulco teaches:
The propulsor fan of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above),
Bifulco fails to teach:
wherein the first liner comprises a plurality of apertures in a region proximate to a tip of the fan, each aperture being configured to drain ingested water from an airflow path through the propulsor fan.
Geertsema teaches:
An analogous acoustic liner(21) for a gas turbine engine(110) wherein the liner comprises a plurality of apertures(260,262) in a region proximate to a tip of the fan(Fig 1), each aperture being configured to drain ingested water from an airflow path through the propulsor fan(Col 7, ln. 55-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bifulco to incorporate the teachings of Geertsema to provide a plurality of apertures in the acoustic liner to be able to drain any ingested fluid out of the acoustic panel(Col 7, ln. 55-67).
In Regard to Claim 12
Bifulco in view of Geertsema teaches:
The propulsor fan of claim 11(see rejection of claim 11 above), wherein a semi-porous or cellular structure resides within one or more apertures of the plurality of apertures(as best understood and as interpreted above, the plurality of apertures 260,262 form a cellular structure; Fig 2).
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 10669936 B2
Robertson, Jr.; Thomas J. et al.
US 9200531 B2
Robertson, Jr.; Thomas J. et al.
US 9702375 B2
Costa; Mark W. et al.
US 11753967 B2
Heeter; Robert W. et al.
US 9915168 B2
Robertson, Jr.; Thomas J. et al.
US 10480530 B2
Costa; Mark W.
US 12188409 B2
Bifulco; Anthony R.
The above references are cited for teaching acoustic liners and/or blade outer air seals similar to the instant invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN P WOLCOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-9837. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Court 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.
/BRIAN P WOLCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745