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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 9, and 11-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 line 17, “…the pitot sensor…” should read “…the at least one pitot sensor…” for the purpose of clarity.
In claim 3 line 2, “…is a spoke design…” should read “…is the spoke design…” as positively recited in claim 2.
In claim 3 line 6, “…at the distil end…” should read “…at a distil end…” so that there is a sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
In claim 3 line 7, “…the pitot sensor…” should read “…the at least one pitot sensor…” for the purpose of clarity.
In claim 4 lines 2-3, “…in the range of from 3 mm…” should read” …in a range of…” so that there is a sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim and for the purpose of clarity.
In claim 6 line 2, “…the pitot sensor…” should read “…the at least one pitot sensor…”.
In claim 9 lines 1-2, “…from the group…” should read “…from a group…”.
In claim 11 lines 1-2, “… using an airflow modifying device of a jet aircraft…” should read “… using the airflow modifying device of the jet aircraft…” as positively recited in claim 1.
In claim 11 line 3, “…comprising the steps…” should read “…comprising steps…” so that there is a sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
In claim 11 line 5, “…the pitot sensor…” should read “…the at least one pitot sensor…” for the purpose of clarity.
In claim 12 lines 1-2, “… manufacturing an airflow modifying device of a jet aircraft…” should read “…manufacturing the airflow modifying device of the jet aircraft…” as positively recited in claim 1.
In claim 12 line 5, “…a pressure line.” should read “…the pressure line.” as positively recited in claim 1.
In claim 13 lines 1-2, “…claim 12, wherein the method further comprises…” should read “…claim 12, further comprises…”.
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.
Claim 5 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.
Claim 5 recites “wherein there is provided a plurality of pitot sensors” which renders the claim indefinite as claim 1, on which claim 5 depends, recites “at least one pitot sensor”, thus it is unclear if “a plurality of pitot sensors” is a subset of “at least one pitot sensor” or if “a plurality of pitot sensors” and “at least one pitot sensor” are two sets of sensors. For the examination purpose “a plurality of pitot sensors” is considered to be a subset of “at least one pitot sensor” and the limitation is interpreted as “wherein the at least one pitot sensors is provided with a plurality of pitot sensors”
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leigh, Jr. (GB 801746) in view of Whitmore (US 2014/0083518) and Rice et al. (US 2016/0348531).
Regarding claim 1, Leigh, Jr. ‘746 teaches (figures 1-8) a jet aircraft (A) comprising an engine duct/air intake duct (15) having an inlet/inlet end (15a) for receiving an incident airflow /airstream and an outlet for directing airflow to an engine face/conical fairing (20), the engine duct/air intake duct (15) comprising an airflow modifying device/header (D) located preceding the engine face (Pg. 1 Lines 10-16, Pg. 2 Lines 52-63, 100-105), wherein the airflow modifying device comprises:
a flow inlet (clearly shown in the figure below);
a flow outlet (clearly shown in the figure below); and
a flow passage extending from the flow inlet to the flow outlet (space between flow inlet and flow outlet is a flow passage),
wherein the device is arranged to receive an incident air flow/airstream (clearly seen in figure 1) (Pg. 3 Lines 10-11), and
wherein the device is configured to at least partially modulate the air flow in the flow passage to improve flow ordering of the incident airflow/airstream at the engine face (tubes (32s) of the device streamlines the airflow), and
at least one pitot sensors/airflow sensing means (clearly shown in the figure below) (Pg. 2 Line 130),
a pressure line/line formed by horizontal portion (37), vertical portion (36) and conduit (49) comprising a first end and a second end, the first end connected to the at least one pitot sensor and the second end configured to be connected to a transducer (clearly shown in the figure below) (Pg. 2 Lines 120-130, Pg. 3 Lines 1-130),
PNG
media_image1.png
446
946
media_image1.png
Greyscale
but it is silent about the jet aircraft wherein the airflow modifying device is located immediately preceding the engine face.
Whitmore ‘518 teaches (figures 1-2) an aircraft comprising engine (18) and a flow modulator/airflow modifying device (22) located immediately preceding the engine face (16) (clearly seen in figure 2) (Para 0020, 0025).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Leigh, Jr. ‘746 to incorporate the teachings of Whitmore ‘518 to configure the jet aircraft wherein the airflow modifying device is located immediately preceding the engine face.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would ensure improved flow ordering to the air passing from an inlet duct to the engine (Para 0025).
Modified Leigh, Jr. ‘746 is silent about the jet aircraft comprising:
the airflow modifying device further comprising:
at least one pitot sensor integral with the device located at the flow inlet; and
wherein the pressure line is completely enclosed within the device.
Rice et al. ‘531 teaches (figures 1-5B) a pressure probe/airflow modifying device (10) deployed into airstream (A) comprising the engine’s core airflow and includes a base (12), airfoil (14) and kiels/sensors (16s) wherein the kiels/sensors (16s) collect samples from airstream (A) and transmit those samples via internal tubing/pressure lines (24s) to hypo tubing (22s) and wherein the pressure probe/airflow modifying device (10) is additively manufactured (Para 0011, 0013, 0019).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Leigh, Jr. ‘746 to incorporate the teachings of Rice et al. ‘531 to configure the jet aircraft comprising:
the airflow modifying device further comprising:
at least one pitot sensor integral with the device located at the flow inlet; and
wherein the pressure line is completely enclosed within the device.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would integrate the pitot sensor within the airflow modifying device and enhances improve airflow by reducing additional external components on the duct.
Regarding claims 2-3, modified Leigh, Jr. ‘746 teaches (figures 1-8) the jet aircraft wherein the device is a spoke design comprising:
a core hub (clearly shown in the figure below);
at least one blade/ tube (32) extending radially therefrom,
wherein each blade comprises a blade root proximal to the core hub and a blade tip at a distil end (clearly seen in the figure below), the integrated pressure line arranged to connect the at least one pitot sensor to the blade root or tip (as modified by Rice et al. ‘531; sensors/kiels are connected to both blade root and tip (clearly seen in figure 1)).
PNG
media_image2.png
345
404
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, modified Leigh, Jr. ‘746 teaches (figures 1-8) the jet aircraft of claim 3 but it is silent about the jet aircraft wherein the blade comprises a cross-sectional thickness in a range of 3 mm to 10 mm.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to configure the jet aircraft wherein the blade comprises a cross-sectional thickness in a range of 3 mm to 10 mm, since applicant has not disclosed that the cross-sectional thickness solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with different cross-sectional thickness.
Regarding claim 5 (as best understood), modified Leigh, Jr. ‘746 teaches (figures 1-8) the jet aircraft wherein the at least one pitot sensors is provided with a plurality of pitot sensors (as modified by Rice et al. ‘531).
Regarding claim 7, modified Leigh, Jr. ‘746 teaches (figures 1-8) the jet aircraft of claim 1 but it is silent about the jet aircraft comprising the transducer located in the device.
However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the art to locate sensor and transducer close to each other. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Leigh, Jr. ‘746 to configure the jet aircraft comprising the transducer located in the device.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance data accuracy.
Regarding claim 8, modified Leigh, Jr. ‘746 teaches (figures 1-8) the jet aircraft wherein the device comprises a de-icing mechanism (Pg. 2 Lines 64-65)
Regarding claim 9, modified Leigh, Jr. ‘746 teaches (figures 1-8) the jet aircraft wherein the device comprising a second sensor comprising static pressure sensor (as modified by Rice et al. ‘531; there are multiple sensors/kiels).
Regarding claim 10, modified Leigh, Jr. ‘746 teaches (figures 1-8) the jet aircraft wherein the engine duct is a convoluted engine duct (duct changes directions thus is convoluted; clearly seen in figure 1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Leigh, Jr. ‘746 teaches (figures 1-8) a method of using the airflow modifying device of the jet aircraft according to claim 1, the method comprising steps of:
providing an incident airflow/airstream (Pg. 3 lines 10-11); and
measuring, using the at least one pitot sensor, air pressure at the airflow modifying device (as modified by Rice et al. ‘531).
Regarding claim 12, modified Leigh, Jr. ‘746 teaches (figures 1-8) a method of manufacturing the airflow modifying device of the jet aircraft according to claim 1, the method comprising:
providing a blade/tube (32) (Pg. 2 Line 103-105); and
forming a channel/ horizontal portion (37), vertical portion (36) and conduit (49) in the blade to form the pressure line (as modified by Rice et al. ‘531).
Regarding claim 13, modified Leigh, Jr. ‘746 teaches (figures 1-8) the method further comprises forming the channel/ horizontal portion (37), vertical portion (36) and conduit (49) by additive manufacture technique (as modified by Rice et al. ‘531).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leigh, Jr. (GB 801746), Whitmore (US 2014/0083518) and Rice et al. (US 2016/0348531) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takami et al. (US 2023/0314195).
Regarding claim 6, modified Leigh, Jr. ‘746 teaches (figures 1-8) the jet aircraft of claim 1 but it is silent about the jet aircraft wherein the at least one pitot sensor comprises a bell mouth orifice.
Takami et al. ‘195 teaches (figure 7) a second flow velocity and flow rate sensor attached to the bell mouth (40) provided at a blow-in port (27b) of the second fan (27) (Para 0095; bell mouth (40) is a part of a sensor)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Leigh, Jr. ‘746 to incorporate the teachings of Takami et al. ‘195 to configure the jet aircraft wherein the at least one pitot sensor comprises a bell mouth orifice.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would guide the fluid smoothly and get accurate reading.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHESH DANGOL whose telephone number is (303)297-4455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0730-0530 MT.
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 J Michener can be reached at (571) 272-1467. 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.
/ASHESH DANGOL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights