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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 “tertiary flow stream having an upstream inlet that is located in said primary flow stream” (claim 4) 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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because “which cavity” appears to be in error for “wherein the cavity”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6 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.
In claim 1, “said primary flow stream” lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear if it refers to the primary flow stream portion, or something else.
In claim 1, “said tertiary flow stream” lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear if it refers to the tertiary flow stream portion, or something else.
In claim 1, “an exhaust duct” (line 8) is indefinite because an exhaust duct was previously defined. It is unclear if these are the same or different ducts.
In claim 1, “the upstream face” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 4, “said primary flow stream” (line 3) lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 4 is further indefinite because it is unclear how the intermediate casing, the inner casing, and the outer casing are related. Applicant’s drawings appear to show the outer casing and the inner casing being part of the intermediate casing, but the claims do not make this clear. Therefore, it is unclear what structural relationships are being defined by the inner casing, outer casing, and intermediate casing, and the flow streams.
Furthermore in claim 4, the tertiary flow stream is defined as “extending radially outside said primary flow stream”. It is therefore unclear how the tertiary flow stream may also have “an upstream inlet that is located in said primary flow stream”. The drawings appear to show two different inlets for the primary flow stream 91 and the tertiary flow stream 93.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0075956 (Patsouris) in view of US 2017/0226960 (Nakano) and US 5113649 (Siedlecki).
Regarding claim 1, 3-6, Patsouris teaches an assembly for a turbine engine (Fig 1-2, abstract) comprising an intermediate casing extending along a longitudinal axis (annotated below; axis is the centerline of the engine), said intermediate casing comprising a primary flow stream portion (in duct 4), a tertiary flow stream portion (in duct 5), an exhaust duct (annotated below) extending between said primary flow stream and said tertiary flow stream, an intermediate hub (annotated below), an inter-stream shroud (annotated below), an outer shroud (annotated below), structural arms (6) connecting said intermediate hub and said outer shroud (Fig 1; annotated below), and said assembly further comprising an exhaust duct extending between said primary flow stream and said tertiary flow stream (Fig 2, annotated below) and a bypass valve (14) capable of drawing fluid from said primary flow stream portion and directing it towards said exhaust duct (para 28-30), wherein said intermediate casing has a cavity (annotated below) located between said intermediate hub and said inter-stream shroud, which cavity opens out onto the upstream face of said intermediate casing (annotated below) via an opening located between said intermediate hub and said inter-stream shroud (opening for the valve 14), said bypass valve being able to be inserted into said cavity through said opening (Fig 2, para 28-30), said intermediate casing is devoid of any upstream flange on its upstream face (as annotated below; there is no flange on the upstream face), a turbine engine comprising a hub (annotated below) which supports a propeller (1), an inner casing (annotated below) located radially outside said hub, and an outer casing (annotated below) located radially outside said inner casing, said primary flow stream extending between said hub and said inner casing (as annotated below) and having an upstream inlet located downstream of the propeller (annotated below), said tertiary flow stream extending radially outside said primary flow stream between said inner casing and said outer casing and having an upstream inlet that is located in said primary flow stream (annotated below) at the upstream end of said inner casing (annotated below), said turbine engine comprising an assembly according to claim 1, said propeller is ducted by an annular nacelle (annotated below), a method for mounting bypass valves in an intermediate casing of an assembly according to claim 1, wherein each of said bypass valves is inserted into said cavity through said opening (para 28-30).
PNG
media_image1.png
373
577
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
530
733
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Patsouris fails to teach said intermediate casing is formed as a single piece. However, Nakano teaches an intermediate casing formed as a single piece (para 27; “casing 18 is formed as a single-piece”, “the core casing may be assembled from several constituent members, the constituent members may be directly attached to one another to form a substantially unitary structure”; a unitary structure is a single piece). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the intermediate casing formed as a single piece, as taught by Nakano. It has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, the intermediate casing formed as a single piece yields predictable results (forming the casing, delimiting the engine flowpaths).
Patsouris fails to teach a plurality of bypass valves. However, Siedlecki teaches a plurality of bypass valves (Fig 3-4; valves 88). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a plurality of bypass valves, as taught by Siedlecki. It has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, a plurality of bypass valves yields predictable results (control of the bypass flow).
Regarding claim 2, Patsouris in view of Nakano and Siedlecki as discussed thus far fails to teach the surface area of said opening is greater than 50% of the total surface area of the part of said upstream face located between said intermediate hub and said inter-stream shroud. However, Siedlecki teaches a surface area of said opening is greater than 50% of the total surface area of the part of said upstream face located between said intermediate hub and said inter-stream shroud (see annotated surface areas below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the surface area of said opening is greater than 50% of the total surface area of the part of said upstream face located between said intermediate hub and said inter-stream shroud, as taught by Siedlecki. It has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, a surface area of said opening is greater than 50% of the total surface area of the part of said upstream face located between said intermediate hub and said inter-stream shroud yields predictable results (sizing/fitting a larger bypass valve).
PNG
media_image3.png
450
668
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2023/0212989 teaches a bypass duct and a bypass valve that fits through an opening in an upstream face (Fig 5A, 5B). US 2019/0055889 teaches a bypass duct and a bypass valve that fits through an opening in an upstream face (Fig 3A, 3B).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5063. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 4 pm, Monday-Friday.
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, Phutthiwat (Pat) Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. 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.
/ANDREW H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights