DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a bleed valve exhaust ducts” is believed to be in error for --a bleed valve exhaust duct--. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 9, 12-14 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,410,763 in view of Suciu 2015/0247462.
In regards to Independent Claim 1 and Dependent Claims 2, 6, 9, 12-14, Claim 1 of 12,410,763 recites all of the limitations of claims 1, 2, 6, 9, and 12-14, except “a bleed valve system comprising a bleed valve, a bleed valve exhaust duct, and an exit nozzle extending from the bleed valve exhaust duct into the fan duct aft of the bleed valve exhaust duct”. Suciu teaches a turbofan engine (figure 1) with a bleed valve system (figure 2) comprising a bleed valve (70, in fluid communication with core 49 between LPC 44 and HPC 52), a bleed valve exhaust duct (64, paragraph [0045], extending from core cowl 36 to nozzle 82 in figure 2), and an exit nozzle (82, shown as a single component that must be between 0 and up to 360 degrees about the duct, located on the inner surface of the fan duct 18 in figure 2, aft of 64) extending from the bleed valve exhaust duct into the fan duct (82 extends into bypass flow path 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify the turbine engine of 12,410,763 with the bleed valve system of Suciu, in order to cool fluids in the turbine engine using airflow generated by the turbine engine (paragraph [0004]).
In regards to Independent Claim 20, Claim 16 of 12,410,763 recites all of the limitations of claim 20, except “flowing air from a bleed valve exhaust duct through an exit nozzle along an inner surface of a fan duct to increase air flow through the fan duct”. Suciu teaches a turbofan engine (figure 1) with a bleed valve system (figure 2) comprising a bleed valve (70, in fluid communication with core 49 between LPC 44 and HPC 52), a bleed valve exhaust duct (64, paragraph [0045], extending from core cowl 36 to nozzle 82 in figure 2), and an exit nozzle (82, shown as a single component that must be between 0 and up to 360 degrees about the duct, located on the inner surface of the fan duct 18 in figure 2, aft of 64) extending from the bleed valve exhaust duct into the fan duct (82 extends into bypass flow path 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify the turbine engine of 12,410,763 with the bleed valve system of Suciu, in order to cool fluids in the turbine engine using airflow generated by the turbine engine (paragraph [0004]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 18 repeats the limitations of claim 16, and independent claim 15, upon which claim 16 depends, without further limiting the claims. A heat exchanger is already recited in claim 15, and its position relative to the exit nozzle of the bleed valve exhaust duct is recited in claim 15, such that claim 18 does not further limit claim 16, upon which claim 18 depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiedenhoefer 2021/0222624 in view of Suciu 2015/0247462.
In regards to Independent Claim 15 and Dependent Claim 16, Wiedenhoefer teaches a gas turbine engine (20) comprising: a turbomachine comprising a compressor section (32), a combustion section (34), and a turbine section (36) arranged in serial flow order (as shown in figure 1), the turbomachine defining an engine inlet to an inlet duct (inlet to fan 62), a fan duct inlet to a fan duct (duct 40), and a core inlet to a core duct (inlet to compressor 32 within a core duct extending from 32 to 36); a primary fan driven by the turbomachine (fan 60); a secondary fan (62) located downstream of the primary fan (as shown in figure 1) within the inlet duct (as shown in figure 1), and Wiedenhoefer further teaches a heat exchanger (102) in the fan duct (as shown in figure 1). However, Wiedenhoefer does not teach a bleed valve system comprising a bleed valve and a bleed valve exhaust duct, the bleed valve exhaust duct defining an exit nozzle extending into the fan duct, or that the exit nozzle of the bleed valve system is downstream of the heat exchanger. Suciu teaches a turbofan engine (figure 1) with a bleed valve system (figure 2) comprising a bleed valve (70, in fluid communication with core 49 between LPC 44 and HPC 52), a bleed valve exhaust duct (64, paragraph [0045], extending from core cowl 36 to nozzle 82 in figure 2), and an exit nozzle (82, shown as a single component that must be between 0 and up to 360 degrees about the duct, located on the inner surface of the fan duct 18 in figure 2, aft of 64) extending from the bleed valve exhaust duct into the fan duct (82 extends into bypass flow path 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify the turbine engine of Wiedenhoefer with the bleed valve system of Suciu, in order to cool fluids in the turbine engine using airflow generated by the turbine engine (paragraph [0004]). However, Wiedenhoefer in view of Suciu above does not teach that the heat exchanger is upstream of the bleed valve exhaust duct. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to rearrange the positions of the heat exchanger and bleed valve exhaust duct in the fan duct, such that the heat exchanger is upstream of the exhaust duct, because it has been haled that merely rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 17 and 19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: prior art fails to teach, in combination with the other limitations of dependent claims 3 and 17, that the bleed valve system includes an inner exit nozzle and an outer exit nozzle disposed on the inner and outer surfaces of the fan duct respectively; prior art fails to teach, in combination with the other limitations of dependent claim 7, a heat exchanger disposed in the fan duct upstream of the exit nozzle of the bleed valve exhaust duct; prior art fails to teach, in combination with the other limitations of dependent claim 10, each of a plurality of bleed valve exhaust ducts extending from one of the plurality of bleed valves to the exit nozzle; prior art fails to teach, in combination with the other limitations of dependent claim 11, that the exit nozzle is substantially annular and defines an inner and outer diameter; and prior art fails to teach, in combination with the other limitations of dependent claim 19, that the heat exchanger defines inner and outer passages, where the exit nozzle is configured to increase fluid flow through at least one of the inner and outer passages.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Suciu teaches away from a bleed valve system of a heat exchanger in the fan duct. Suciu is not relied upon to teach a heat exchanger in the fan duct. Wiedenhoefer teaches using a heat exchanger (102) in the fan duct (as shown in figure 1). Suciu discloses a heat exchanger within the bleed valve system.
Applicant argues that the electric fan within the bleed valve system of Suciu would be inoperable when placed within the system of Wiedenhoefer. Both Suciu and Wiedenhoefer teach using fan ducts (18 of Suciu and 40 of Wiedenhoefer). Applicant has presented no evidence as to why the fan duct of Wiedenhoefer would not operate in the same manner as the fan duct of Suciu, such that the bleed valve system of Suciu would be inoperable when used in the fan duct of Wiedenhoefer.
Applicant argues that because the bleed valve system of Suciu is axially aligned with the compressor section of Suciu, it would not be obvious to modify Wiedenhoefer with Suciu to arrive at the claimed bleed valve system downstream of the heat exchanger of Wiedenhoefer. The rejection of the limitation with Wiedenhoefer in view of Suciu relies upon rearrangement of parts, where applicant does not argue or disclose criticality that would render rearranging the two components along the fan duct non-obvious.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN M SUTHERLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-1902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571) 270 - 1814. 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.
/STEVEN M SUTHERLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752