DETAILED ACTION
Status
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 3, 9 and 10 are amended. Claims 14-20 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments/arguments with respect to the drawing objections and 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive to overcome the objections and 112(b) rejections lodged in the previous office action. They have been withdrawn.
Regarding the 102 rejection of Claim 1 in view of Bifulco, Applicant argues Bifulco fails to teach two separate on distinctly claimed elements, the “second liner” and the “seal”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the claim does not explicitly state the second liner and the seal are separate and distinct elements. Therein it appears Applicant is arguing features not claimed. In any case, Bifulco’s Fig 4 depicts second liner 210 and seal 215 as distinct elements separated by a septum layer as evidenced by their individual reference characters. Furthermore, while Bifulco’s specification describes second liner 210 as “including” or “having” a seal 215 this does not preclude an interpretation of subcomponents of a subassembly as having distinct structures. Finally, the second liner 210 and the seal 215 performs separate and distinct functions. Second liner 210 performs an attachment/securement function as it is connected to the inner surface 115 of the fan case 110, whereas, the seal 215 performs a sealing function at the outer radial tip of the fan 42. The rejection is maintained.
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 formed of a material that is CTE (Coefficient of Thermal Expansion)-matched to the fan 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) formed of a material that is CTE (Coefficient of Thermal Expansion)-matched to the fan 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 fan 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at 571-270-1775. 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 3711
Prosecution Insights