DETAILED ACTION
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 . This application has been filed as a divisional of 18249417 now patent 12352205. However, no restriction was required in 18249417.
Claims 1-6 are currently being examined.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 10/16/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent No. 12352205 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: in line 27, “to provide the slot” should read as – to provide the at least one slot --; in line 29 “over a predetermined axial length” should read as -- over the [[a]] predetermined axial length -.
Claim 6: in each of lines 3 and 4, “the air extraction slot” should read as -- the at least one a [[the]] remaining radial extension --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suciu et al. 20170044991 in view of Suciu et al. 20120159966.
Regarding independent claim 1, Suciu ‘991 teaches an aircraft (para. 0004 refers to an aircraft cabin and para. 0039 refers to an aircraft) turbojet (gas turbine engine 10 Fig. 1) comprising in succession, from upstream to downstream in a circulation direction (upstream to downstream is from left to right in Fig. 1) of a primary air stream (flow arrow 42 in Fig. 1);
a low-pressure casing (28 Fig. 1), an intermediate casing (32 Fig. 1) and a high-pressure casing (30 Fig. 1) which are aligned entirely in a longitudinal direction (28, 32 and 30 are aligned in direction along longitudinal central axis 24 in Fig. 1), the low-pressure, intermediate and high-pressure casings jointly delimiting an internal annular passage (internal annular passage through compressor section 12 in Fig. 1), for circulation of the primary air stream from upstream to downstream (circulation of primary air stream is shown by flow arrow 42 that flows into core engine in Fig. 1), the intermediate casing comprising a portion of said internal annular passage which is called a gooseneck portion (portion of internal annular passage that is between low-pressure compressor 20 and high-pressure compressor 22 defined at least partially by intermediate casing 32 in Fig. 1), the intermediate casing comprising:
an air discharge system (labeled in annotated Fig. 2 and described in paras. 0035-0036) which is able to extract air from the primary air stream (low pressure compressor discharge air is extracted through 32 in Fig. 1 into 2.5 bleed duct 66 through bleed air path 68 as shown in Fig. 2 and as described in para. 0035) circulating in a first zone (labeled in annotated Fig. 2) of the gooseneck portion and to discharge the air outside of the internal annular passage (as described in para. 0035 bleed air path 68 receives the air flow from the low pressure compressor 20 and flows through the 2.5 bleed duct 66 into the fan duct 52 to join the air flow 40, also commonly referred to as the fan stream, which is outside of internal annular passage in Fig. 1),
an air extraction system (labeled in annotated Fig. 2 and further shown in Figs. 3-7) which is able to extract the air from the primary air stream circulating in a second zone (labeled in annotated Fig. 2) of the gooseneck portion, the extracted air being intended for an aircraft air conditioning system (as described in para. 0038 turning scoop 80 on the leading edge 78 of each strut of plurality of struts 74 captures a portion of core airflow 42 and turning scoop 80 engages with the corresponding diffuser 82 so that the portion of core air flow 42 flows continuously through the turning scoop 80 into the diffuser 82, and as described in para. 0039 the portion of air exits 82 and feeds into asymmetrical environmental control system manifold 85 and through exit port 86 to environmental control system of the aircraft, i.e. an aircraft air conditioning system) the second zone being located downstream of the first zone (in annotated Fig. 2, the second zone is downstream of the first zone),
in the second zone of the gooseneck portion (as shown in annotated Fig. 2), arms (struts 74 in Figs. 2-6) which extend radially (each of 74 extend radially as shown in Fig. 6) and with a circumferential distribution (the plurality of struts 74 are circumferentially distributed as shown in Fig. 6 and as described in para. 0037) in the gooseneck portion (portion of internal annular passage radially inward of 32 shown in Fig. 3) when viewed in a transverse plane relative to the longitudinal direction (Fig. 6 shows a view in a transverse plane relative to the longitudinal direction), the air extraction system comprising each of at least one of the arms (each of the struts 74 is included in the air extraction system) is configured to extract the air from the second zone by at least one slot (per para. 0038 each of the struts 74 includes a scoop 80 which has scoop inlet 81, i.e. a slot, facing upstream to capture a portion of core air flow 42), and to route the extracted air (air is routed through 81 in each strut 74), said at least one slot extending from a base of the at least one of the arms (each slot 81 extends from inner engine structure 76 which is a base of each strut 74 as shown in Figs. 2 and 4 and as described in para. 0037) in a radial extension direction (slot 81 extends radially with respect to longitudinal central axis 24 from base 76 in each strut 74 as shown in Figs. 2 and 4), over a distance (radial height of slot 81 at leading edge is offset substantially radially inwardly from the compressor intermediate case 32 per para. 0038) which represents less than a total radial extension (labeled in annotated Fig. 2 which is total radial height of strut 74 at leading edge; since radial height of 81 at leading edge is substantially radially inward from 32, then radial height of 81 is less than total radial height of 74 at leading edge which is radial extent from 76 to 32) of the at least one of the arms in a same radial plane of the at least one slot (radial plane through dotted radial direction line extending through 81 at leading edge of 74 in annotated Fig. 2),
wherein said at least one slot is formed at a leading edge (para. 0038 describes turning scoop 80 is disposed on leading edge 78 of each strut of the plurality of intermediate case struts 74 and each 80 includes inlet 81, i.e., slot, facing upstream to capture a portion of core air flow) of the at least one of the arms,
wherein, when viewed in transverse section relative to the radial extension direction of the at least one of the arms, the leading edge (78) locally assumes a shape (the leading edge having a shape at the location of the slot) of two facing parallel inlet lips (although not in a transverse section relative to the radial extension direction, as seen in Fig. 4 the leading edge at 81 has the shape of two facing parallel inlet lips) which are spaced from one another (the lips are spaced from one another) so as to provide the slot between the two facing parallel inlet lips (slot 81 is between the lips which must be spaced from one another to allow 81 to capture a portion of air flow) extending axially over a predetermined axial length (lips of slot 81 extend axially a predetermined length in Fig. 4) so as to allow extracting air from the second zone and channel over a predetermined axial length the extracted air axially along the inlet lips into the at least one of the arms before the extracted air is deviated radially (as described in para. 0038 turning scoop 80 is hollowed and includes a scoop inlet slot 81 that faces upstream to capture, i.e., extract, a portion of the core air flow 42 flowing from the low pressure compressor 20 which flows through 81 first in an axial direction over the predetermined axial length along the inlet lips into arm 74 before the extracted air is deviated radially outward as shown in Fig. 2), and
wherein each of the at least one of the arms comprises an internal routing duct (scoop 80 in Fig. 2) to route the extracted air through said at least one slot (air enters slot 81 in 80 per para. 0038) inside said at least one of the arms (80 is inside strut 74 as seen in Figs. 2 and 4 and 80 routes air flowing through slot 81 inside 74) and then radially outward to an outlet opening (per para. 0038, turning scoop 80, i.e., internal routing duct, radially turns the portion of core air flow 42 approximately 90 degrees into a corresponding diffuser 82, which is disposed on the surface of the compressor intermediate case 32 that faces the core compartment 50 in Fig. 1) belonging to the internal routing duct (outlet opening of 80 as labeled in annotated Fig. 2 is radially outward of 81).
PNG
media_image1.png
750
746
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Suciu ‘991 does not explicitly teach the distance represents between 30 and 70% of the total radial extension of the at least one of the arms, and the at least one of the arms presenting a profile substantially that of an aircraft wing.
Suciu ‘991 teaches as described in para. 0038 that the scoop inlet 81 at the leading edge of strut 74 may be offset substantially radially inwardly from the compressor intermediate case 32, to form a second dirt separator 83, so that any dirt particles that bypassed the first dirt separator 72 will pass along the compressor intermediate case 32 and avoid passing into the scoop inlet 81 to facilitate in supplying cleaner air to the environmental control system, i.e. aircraft air conditioning system.
Therefore, the distance, i.e., radial extension of the slot, which is less than the total radial extension is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
In this case, the recognized result is the amount of dirt particles in the extracted air may be reduced by adjusting the radial extension of the slot by having the slot substantially radially inward of the intermediate case (paragraph 0038).
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e., that the distance which is the radial extension of the slot, is less than the total radial extension of the at least one of the arms is taught in the prior art by Suciu, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the claimed range of between 30 and 70% of the total radial extension of the at least one of the arms in order to achieve cleaner air for the aircraft air conditioning system. It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Further, the Examiner additionally notes that "[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Suciu ‘991 is silent on the at least one of the arms presenting a profile substantially that of an aircraft wing.
Suciu ‘966 teaches an intermediate case assembly (34 Fig. 1) of a gas turbine engine (20 Fig. 1) comprising a gooseneck portion (Figs. 2-3 show annular transition duct 42, i.e., gooseneck portion, between annular walls 46 and 48). The intermediate case assembly 34 includes a plurality of arms (50 Figs. 2-3) and the arms presenting a profile substantially that of an aircraft wing (para. 0012 describes struts 50, i.e., arms, have airfoil shapes, i.e., each arm 50 has a profile substantially that of an aircraft wing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Suciu ‘991 such that the at least one of the arms presenting a profile substantially that of an aircraft wing as taught by Suciu ‘966 to turn fluid flow along the flowpath through the gooseneck portion (Suciu ‘966 para. 0012).
Regarding claim 2, Suciu ‘991 in view of Suciu ‘966 teaches all that is claimed above and Suciu ‘991 further teaches wherein the air extraction system comprises at least one air manifold (scoop 80 feeds air into air collection chamber 92 of the environmental control system manifold 85 of air extraction system in annotated Fig. 2 and as described in para. 0039) which is fluidly isolated (interpreted as the air flow into each system being separated by structure) from the air discharge system (air flow 68 flowing into bleed duct 66 of air discharge system is fluidly isolated, i.e., air flow is separated by structure, from air in 92 and 85 by structural fire wall 60 and collection walls 88 and 90 as seen in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Suciu ‘991 in view of Suciu ‘966 teaches all that is claimed above and Suciu ‘991 further teaches wherein said at least one air manifold is connected to at least one part of the at least one of the arms and is configured to collect the air extracted and routed by said at least one of the arms (85 is fluidly connected to each of arms 74 via scoop 80 of each arm extracting air into a corresponding diffuser 82 from which air flows into 85 which collects the air extracted by each arm in collection chamber 92 of 85 per paras. 0038-0039).
Regarding claim 4, Suciu ‘991 in view of Suciu ‘966 teaches all that is claimed above and Suciu ‘991 further teaches wherein said at least one air manifold is arranged at a periphery (85 is arranged at the periphery of arm 74 as seen in Figs. 2 and 4) of the at least one of the arms of said at least one part of the at least one of the arms (85 is arranged outward of all of the arms 74 as seen in Figs. 5-6).
Regarding claim 5, Suciu ‘991 in view of Suciu ‘966 teaches all that is claimed above and Suciu ‘991 further teaches wherein said at least one air manifold is arranged downstream of the leading edge (85 is downstream of leading edge which is where slot 81 is positioned in each arm 74 as seen in Figs. 2-4 where upstream is to left in figures and downstream is to right in figure where the flow of air flows from upstream to downstream) of the at least one of the arms of said at least one part of the at least one of the arms (85 is downstream of leading edge of each of all arms).
Regarding claim 6, Suciu ‘991 in view of Suciu ‘966 teaches all that is claimed above and Suciu ‘991 further teaches wherein the leading edge of the at least one of the arms includes a first part that is locally modified along the radial extension direction so as to form the air extraction slot (radially inward part, i.e., first part, of leading edge 78 of arm 74 is locally modified along the radial extension direction to form slot 81 per para. 0038) and a second part that extends radially beyond the air extraction slot along the remaining radial extension of the leading edge and that is not modified locally (as described in para. 0038 slot 81 is offset substantially radially inwardly from the compressor intermediate case 32 such that a second part of the leading edge 78 extends radially outward of, i.e., radially beyond, slot 81 along a remaining radial extension of 78 toward 32 and is not modified locally to have a slot so that clean air passes through slot 81 while dirt particles will pass along the compressor intermediate case 32).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 7 of Remarks, Applicant states that the prior art of record fail to describe the limitations of claim 1 and argues the slot 81 of Suciu ‘991 is immediately deviated radially through turning scoop 80 without being first axially channeled for tranquilization purposes in Figures 2 and 4. However, as shown in Figs. 2 and 4 and since scoop 80 is a turning scoop per para. 0038: “Because the turning scoop 80 is substantially curved, the turning scoop 80 radially turns the portion of core air flow 42 approximately 90 degrees into a corresponding diffuser 82, which is disposed on the surface of the compressor intermediate case 32 that faces the core compartment 50,” air flow through slot 81 travels first axially through the slot before turning radially outward via scoop 80.
Applicant further argues Suciu ‘966 does not have any slot in the leading edge of arms 50. However, the previous and current rejections do not rely on Suciu ‘966 for teaching a slot since Suciu ‘991 teaches a slot on the leading edge of arms 74. Suciu ‘966 is relied upon for teaching arms with a profile substantially that of an aircraft wing.
Therefore, Suciu ‘991 in view of Suciu ‘966 teaches all of the limitations of amended claim 1.
On page 8 of Remarks, Applicant argues regarding new claim 6 that the slot 81 of Suciu ‘991 extends radially along the whole radial extension of the leading edge of the arm 74 as shown in Figs. 2 and 4 and therefore does not teach the limitations of claim 6. However, as described in the previous and current rejections of claim 1 and in the current rejection of claim 6, para. 0038 of Suciu ’991 describes slot 81 is offset substantially radially inwardly from the compressor intermediate case 32 such that slot 81 only extends radially outward along only a portion of the leading edge of arm 74 so that clean air passes through slot 81 while dirt particles will pass along the compressor intermediate case 32.
Therefore, Suciu ‘991 in view of Suciu ‘966 teaches all of the limitations of new claim 6.
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 ALYSON JOAN HARRINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2359. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5 pm EST.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached on (571) 272-7118. 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.
/A.J.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/LORNE E MEADE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights