DETAILED ACTION
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 1-7, 9-18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson (US 8931252 B2) in view of Iarocci (US 10549863 B2).
Regarding Claim 1 Richardson discloses:
1. (Original) An aircraft structure (41) configured to be exposed to an ambient airflow (9) which flows over the structure in an airflow direction, the aircraft structure comprising:
a first exhaust vent (58B in Fig. 7 and 8; 64B in Fig. 9, 64F in Fig. 10) configured to exhaust a first stream of gas into the ambient airflow;
and a second exhaust vent (58A , 64A, 64E) configured to exhaust a second stream of gas into the ambient airflow,
wherein the first exhaust vent is positioned downstream (see arrow 9 in Figs. 7-9) of the second exhaust vent in the airflow direction, the first exhaust vent is positioned in line (best shown in Fig. 9, see series of openings at bottom) with the second exhaust vent relative to the airflow direction, and the first exhaust vent has a larger area (See relative size of 64A and 64B in Fig. 9) than the second exhaust vent, and
wherein the first exhaust vent has a shape which tapers inwardly (the rear half of the oval tapers inwardly) in the airflow direction,
But Richardson is silent on a larger upstream half.
Iarocci teaches a cooling structure for an aircraft tapered downstream triangular shape (178), and a diamond shape (190). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the exhaust vents of Richardson with an upstream half of the first exhaust vent has a larger area than a downstream half of the first exhaust vent. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce a thermal footprint as taught by Iarocci in Col 1 Line 49.
Regarding Claim 2, Richardson discloses
2. (Original) The aircraft structure according to claim 1, wherein the first exhaust vent (58B in Fig. 7 and 8; 64B in Fig. 9) is configured to exhaust the first stream of gas so that the first stream of gas attaches (“near to the surface 66, 28”; Col 7 Line 55) to a surface (68) of the aircraft structure; and
the second exhaust vent is configured to exhaust the second stream of gas so that the second stream of gas disrupts the ambient airflow (“secondary vortices persist downstream”; Col 9 Line 40) over the aircraft structure to generate a disrupted ambient airflow which mixes with the first stream of gas before the first stream of gas attaches (“separation suppression”; Col 90 Line 43) to the surface of the aircraft structure.
Regarding Claims 4-7, Richardson discloses:
4. (Original) The aircraft structure according to claim 1, wherein the aircraft structure comprises a leading edge (24), and the second exhaust vent is positioned between the leading edge and the first exhaust vent (Since 62B, 58B, and 64B are down stream).
5. (Original) The aircraft structure according to claim 1, wherein the aircraft structure comprises an engine nacelle (21).
6. (Original) The aircraft structure according to claim 1, further comprising an engine (13/10) arranged to generate engine bleed air, wherein the first stream of gas and the second stream of gas each comprise engine bleed air from the engine (as indicated by “minimise the use of parasitic bleed from a compressor”; Col 8 Line 49).
7. (Original) The aircraft structure according to claim 6, wherein the engine comprises:
a gas turbine (16+18) with a compressor stage (13+14) configured to generate compressed air; and
a combustion stage (15) configured to receive the compressed air from the compressor stage, wherein the engine bleed air is taken (via 31) from the compressor stage.
Regarding Claims 12-15, Richardson discloses:
12. (Original) The aircraft structure according to claim 1, further comprising a cavity (49), wherein the first exhaust vent and the second exhaust vent are both configured (at least in Fig. 7) to exhaust gas from the cavity.
13. (Original) The aircraft structure according to claim 1, wherein the structure comprises a skin (41), and the first exhaust vent and the second exhaust vent are holes in the skin.
14. (Original) The aircraft structure according to claim 13, wherein a ratio between the areas of the first exhaust vent (64F) and the second exhaust vent (64E) is greater than 2:1 (64F is a slot that is much larger than any 64E).
15. (Original) The aircraft (“aircraft and environmental conditions”; Col 5 Line 13) comprising an aircraft structure according to claim 1.
Regarding Claims 16-18, 20, and 21, all of the elements and reasoning used above for the apparatus claims are applied to the method steps and Richardson further discloses the mass flow rate “modulating the mass flow rate” (Col 9 Line 36) and “any desired quantity or temperature” (col 6 Line 14).
Regarding Claims 3, 9-11, and 22 Richardson discloses the aircraft structure as described above but is silent on a material, triangular shape, and diamond shape.
Iarocci teaches a cooling structure for an aircraft having fiber reinforced composite (“carbon fiber composite material”; Col 12 Line 24), tapered downstream triangular shape (178), and a diamond shape (190). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the material and exhaust vents of Richardson:
wherein the structure comprises a fiber-reinforced composite material which is positioned downstream of the first exhaust vent relative to the airflow direction so that the first stream of gas heats the fiber- reinforced composite material;
wherein the first exhaust vent has a shape which tapers inwardly in the airflow direction, so that an upstream half of the first exhaust vent has a larger area than a downstream half of the first exhaust vent;
wherein the first exhaust vent has a triangular shape which tapers inwardly in the airflow direction;
wherein the second exhaust vent is diamond shaped;
wherein the diamond shape of the second exhaust vent has a long axis and a short axis, and the long axis is perpendicular to the airflow direction; and
the exhaust vent has a triangular shape which tapers inwardly in the airflow direction in view of the teaching of Iarocci.
The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce a thermal footprint as taught by Iarocci in Col 1 Line 49.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On Page 9 applicant argues that there is no motivation to change the oval shape of Richardson with the triangular or diamond shape of Iarocci. In Column 10 Line 61, Iarocci teaches
”(1) drag, (2) skin temperature (i.e., the temperature of the surface of the nacelle skin 24), and (3) back pressure. These three variables are balanced against one another to establish the size of the separation 202, the areas of the openings 116,”.
One of ordinary skill could use these parameters to come to the optimum design which meets the limitations of the current claims. This is especially true since Iarocci shows triangular shapes as one of the options.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chelin (US 8434724 B2) discloses a similar vent system, however the vents are staggered instead of in-line.
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 BRIAN M O'HARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5224. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM eastern.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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 M O'HARA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights