DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
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 aerodynamic diverter comprising an aerodynamic element (P), and the cavity removing air entering the intake of the aerodynamic element must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to because they are not of sufficient quality for reproduction. See 37 CFR 1.84(l).
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The repeated use of “in one embodiment” lacks clarity regarding what features may be present in any one embodiment. “The specification must include a written description of the invention or discovery and of the manner and process of making and using the same, and is required to be in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art or science to which the invention or discovery appertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same.” See 37 CFR 1.71(a).
Note: combining features from “one embodiment” with those in another “one embodiment” may result in claim rejections under 35 USC 112(a).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims should include line indentations where each new element is recited; see 37 CFR 1.75(i).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the aerodynamic diverter comprising at least one aerodynamic element (P). However, the disclosure indicates the diverter (1) is a separate component (as seen in Figs 1 and 2), and placed forward of the aerodynamic element to reduce the boundary layer flow to the element (Fig 1). Accordingly, the disclosure lacks adequate written description for the diverter comprising the aerodynamic element.
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 1-14 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 1 recites “at least one cavity that is located in a way that creates an opening in the form of a recess” in lines 2-3, however it is unclear whether multiple cavities would have respected openings forming respective recesses or the multiple cavities would form one opening with one recess.
Similarly for claim 13.
Claim 1 recites “the surface” in line 3, however it is unclear as to which of the “at least one surface” this refers.
The claims are replete with this error, e.g. line 4 “the cavity,” line 8 “the outlet,” line 8, “the inlet,” claim 2, line 2 “the cavity”, claim 3, line 2 “the base”, and so forth, and should be corrected accordingly.
Claim 1 recites an aerodynamic diverter comprising at least one aerodynamic element, however the aerodynamic element is generally disclosed as a separate component from the diverter. The arrangement is thus unclear as the claims contradict the disclosure. See MPEP 2173.03.
Similarly for the at least one motor in claim 13.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " the aerodynamic element that is located on the outlet " in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “characterised by the aerodynamic element that is located on the outlet opposite the to the inlet and extends from the outlet to the inlet, and is behind the outlet”, however it is unclear as to what this arrangement refers. Particularly, extending from the outlet to the inlet would preclude positioning behind the outlet.
The term “almost” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “almost” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how much the noise would be reduced in order to be “almost” completely prevented.
Similarly for claims 5 (“almost in the middle”, “almost homogenous”), 9 (“almost V-shaped), and 9 (“gradually decreasing”).
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the guiding surface that is almost in the middle" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites “an outlet” in line 1, however it is unclear whether this is a part of the “at least one outlet” of claim 1 (i.e. at least two) or additional (i.e. at least three).
Similarly for “a guiding surface” in line 2, and “a cavity” in claims 8 and 14.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the guiding channels" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the pressure wall" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the directing surface" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the base with a gradually decreasing slope" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the cavity that is almost V-shaped" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the shape of the cavity based on when the aerodynamic element is viewed from the front, however the element is a separate, spaced component, which would potentially provide for differing views while still being forward of the element (e.g. from the front or the rear of the diverter, depending on whether the view is fore or aft of the diverter in Fig 1).
Further, the “V-shape” is generally disclosed as the plan (top) view (Fig 3), rather than a front view.
Claim 11 recites the element located on an aircraft, however the claim is drawn to the aerodynamic diverter. It is unclear whether the scope is drawn to the diverter itself, or the system of the diverter on an aircraft.
Similarly for claim 12.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the aerodynamic element with the air intake" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites a cavity in front of the air intake allowing the air flow entering the air intake from the inlet to be removed from the aerodynamic element. However, it is unclear how the diverter, placed well in front of the intake of the element (Fig 1) can remove air from the element that has entered the intake of the element. See MPEP 2173.03.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mohn (US 4 174 083).
Regarding independent claim 1:
As best understood, Mohn discloses an aerodynamic diverter comprising a cavity (formed by the movement of e.g. 16) forming a recess in a surface exposed to air flow, an inlet (at the front of the cavity) and outlet (at the rear), and an aerodynamic element (upper surface of duct 20) on and behind the outlet, and at least one guiding surface (18) that allows airflow passing over to be transmitted to the element and allows flow entering the cavity from the inlet to leave the cavity in a way that is directed around the element (through duct 20).
Regarding claim 2:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Mohn discloses a base (16) forming an inclined floor of the cavity thus allowing air between the guiding surface and the outlet.
Regarding claim 4:
The discussion above regarding claim 2 is relied upon.
Mohn discloses two side walls (52 and 55) extending from the base at a slope predetermined by the manufacturer (Fig 5), thus (“resulting in”) allowing flow entering the inlet to leave the cavity through the outlet that “almost” prevents noise.
Regarding claim 6:
The discussion above regarding claim 4 is relied upon.
Mohn discloses an outlet and guiding surface with larger cross-sections than the inlet and the latter narrowing from the outlet (Figs 2 and 8), allowing flow from the inlet to be directed within.
Regarding claim 10:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Mohn discloses the cavity “almost” V-shaped (Figs 2 and 8) when viewed from the top.
Regarding claims 11 and 12:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Mohn discloses the system on an aircraft (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 13:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Mohn discloses a channel (20) forming an opening in the aerodynamic element, the cavity placed a distance from the channel and allowing flow to enter the channel and around the element, and a motor (col 3, lines 9-11) fed by the flow passing through the element.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maple (US 2019/0283861).
Regarding independent claim 1:
As best understood, Maple discloses an aerodynamic diverter comprising a cavity (as seen in e.g. Fig 4) forming a recess in a surface exposed to air flow, an inlet (at the front of the cavity) and outlet (at the rear), and an aerodynamic element (140) on and behind the outlet, and at least one guiding surface (130) that allows airflow passing over to be transmitted to the element and allows flow entering the cavity from the inlet to leave the cavity in a way that is directed around the element (through duct 126).
Regarding claim 2:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Maple discloses a base (122) forming an inclined floor of the cavity thus allowing air between the guiding surface and the outlet.
Regarding claim 4:
The discussion above regarding claim 2 is relied upon.
Maple discloses two side walls (150) extending from the base at a slope predetermined by the manufacturer (Fig 5), thus (“resulting in”) allowing flow entering the inlet to leave the cavity through the outlet that “almost” prevents noise.
Regarding claim 6:
The discussion above regarding claim 4 is relied upon.
Maple discloses an outlet and guiding surface with larger cross-sections than the inlet and the latter narrowing from the outlet (Fig 4), allowing flow from the inlet to be directed within.
Regarding claim 10:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Maple discloses the cavity “almost” V-shaped (Fig 1) when viewed from the top.
Regarding claims 11 and 12:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Maple discloses the system on an aircraft ([0002]).
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Basala et al. (US 2025/0108929).
Regarding independent claim 1:
As best understood, Basala discloses an aerodynamic diverter comprising a cavity (as seen in e.g. Fig 3A) forming a recess in a surface exposed to air flow, an inlet (at the front of the cavity) and outlet (at the rear), and an aerodynamic element (generally at 410 in Fig 2C) on and behind the outlet, and at least one guiding surface (lower front sloped surface of 410 in Fig 4A) that allows airflow passing over to be transmitted to the element and allows flow entering the cavity from the inlet to leave the cavity in a way that is directed around the element (through rear ducts).
Regarding claim 2:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Basala discloses a base (e.g. Fig 3A) forming an inclined floor of the cavity thus allowing air between the guiding surface and the outlet.
Regarding claim 3:
The discussion above regarding claim 2 is relied upon.
Basala discloses a rear wall (530) extending at an incline (angle) from the base towards the outlet (Fig 3D), and a pressure wall (sloped wall toward 410 in Fig 4A ) extending with an incline (angle) from the rear wall towards the guiding surface (Fig 4A), ensuring the flow is compressed between the base and the guiding surface.
Regarding claim 4:
The discussion above regarding claim 2 is relied upon.
Basala discloses two side walls (generally at 540) extending from the base at a slope predetermined by the manufacturer (Fig 3D), thus (“resulting in”) allowing flow entering the inlet to leave the cavity through the outlet that “almost” prevents noise.
Regarding claim 5:
The discussion above regarding claim 4 is relied upon.
Basala discloses the guiding surface in the middle of the outlet (Fig 3A), and two guiding channels (e.g. Fig 3D) between the guiding surface and the side walls (Figs 3A and 3D) to create an opening, thus allow flow from the inlet to the bottom of the guiding surface to leave the cavity via the rear wall and around the guidance surface in an “almost” homogeneous distribution (symmetrical arrangement, so flow would be split roughly equally between the channels).
Regarding claim 7:
The discussion above regarding claim 5 is relied upon.
Basala discloses an intermediate wall (generally bottom surface of 410 toward the front sloped surface of 410 in Fig 4A) extending at an incline from the pressure wall towards the directing surface, directing air to the guiding channels.
Regarding claim 8:
The discussion above regarding claim 5 is relied upon.
Basala discloses the cavity widening from the inlet to the outlet (Fig 3D, sidewalls curve outward toward the channels) to direct flow around the element by the guiding channels.
Regarding claim 9:
The discussion above regarding claim 3 is relied upon.
Basala discloses the base with a gradually decreasing slope (Fig 3D) under the guiding surface from the inlet to the rear wall.
Regarding claim 10:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Basala discloses the cavity “almost” V-shaped (Figs 2B) when viewed from the top.
Regarding claims 11 and 12:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Basala discloses the system on an aircraft (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 13:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Basala discloses a channel (Fig 3B) forming an opening in the aerodynamic element, the cavity placed a distance from the channel and allowing flow to enter the channel and around the element (Fig 3A), and a motor fed by the flow passing through the element ([e.g. [0002]).
Regarding claim 14:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Basala discloses the cavity “removing” air from the element intake (air going through 510, et al., does not pass through 410, et al.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph W Sanderson whose telephone number is (571)272-6337. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6-3 ET.
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, Anna Momper can be reached at 571-270-5788. 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.
/JOSEPH W SANDERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619