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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitations that are being interpreted under 112(f) include “actuating means” in claim 8, line 2, being interpreted to mean an actuator.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Christians (US-Pub 2013/0343866).
Regarding claim 1, Christians discloses a turbojet engine rear body (fig 2, whole figure) for a turbojet engine (10, fig 1), the turbojet engine rear body including: an exhaust case (15, fig 1) carrying a confluence plate (41, fig 2) in the form of a revolution wall that surrounds a primary flow (CS, fig 2) passing through the turbojet engine, and that is surrounded by a secondary flow (CF and MF, fig 2) passing through the turbojet engine; an afterburner chamber (31, fig 2) extending downstream of the exhaust case (fig 1, afterburner chamber extends past 17 which is downstream of the exhaust case 15), this afterburner chamber including a rear casing (25, fig 2) and an inner liner (27, fig 2) delimiting with this casing an annular space (path CF takes, fig 2) extending along a longitudinal axis (CL, fig 1) of the engine, this inner liner having a diameter greater than that of the confluence plate (fig 2, the liner is far bigger than the plate);- a stationary shroud (45, fig 2) extending from the confluence plate to the inner liner this stationary shroud comprising fluid passage windows (47, fig 3); and a movable shroud (49, fig 3) covering the stationary shroud and which comprises fluid passage windows (51, fig 3), this movable shroud being rotatably movable about the longitudinal axis between an opening position wherein the windows of the movable shroud coincide with the windows of the stationary shroud , and a closing position wherein the windows of the movable shroud are offset to close the windows of the stationary shroud (par. 0011, the outer cylinder may be rotated relative to the fixed inner cylinder opening or closing the gate).
Christians discloses the claimed invention except for the stationary shroud flaring downstream and comprising a downstream edge at which the stationary shroud surrounds the outer face of the liner. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the stationary shroud (and matching movable shroud) flared outwards so that it surrounds the outer face of the liner for the afterburner, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In the instant case, rearranging the downstream end of the stationary shroud such that instead of connecting to the downstream edge of the turbine case 43 and instead connecting to the outer face of the inner liner 27 would result in a flared shroud structure due to the wider inner liner relative to the turbine case upstream end 41. Having the stationary shroud mounted to the outside of the inner liner rather than the turbine case would not impact the function of the invention as the stationary shroud would still block flow from passing through areas other than the windows, and would do nothing to impact the operation of the movable shroud. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 2, Christians discloses wherein the movable shroud surrounds the stationary shroud (the movable shroud is the outer shroud).
Regarding claim 3, Christians discloses wherein the movable shroud has a shape identical to a shape of the stationary shroud (fig 2, it can be seen that 45 and 49 lie directly on top of each other and thus would have an identical shape).
Regarding claim 4, Christians discloses wherein the movable shroud extends around the confluence plate (fig 3) and around the liner (par. 0011, the claims state the mixing device is attached at the outer diameter of the turbine exhaust case, meaning that it would be attached at the outer edge of the liner).
Regarding claim 5, Christians discloses wherein the movable shroud comprises a conical portion (49 extends outwards before hitting portion 51, and then would need to extend further outward to connect to the outer section of the exhaust case to which it is connected as per par. 0011, fig 2) wherein the fluid passage windows are formed.
Regarding claim 6, Christians discloses wherein the windows (in applicants spec, page 7 recites wherein the crown portion shapes resemble rectangles, fig 3 the shapes are rectangular) have crown portion shapes the long sides of which extend circumferentially about the longitudinal axis.
Regarding claim 7, Christians discloses wherein these windows are circumferentially spaced apart from one another by a value corresponding to the circumferential length thereof (the windows are circumferentially spaced by the circumferential distance between them).
Regarding claim 8, Christians discloses actuating means (53, 55, fig 3) for rotatably moving the movable shroud while the engine is in service.
Regarding claim 9, Christians discloses a turbojet engine (10, fig 1) comprising the turbojet engine rear body according to one of the preceding claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments, see remarks, filed 10/07/2026, with respect to the 112b rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112b rejections of claims 1-9 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 9/28/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-9 under 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 103.
Conclusion
Applicants’ 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 SEAN V MEILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-9229. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-5pm.
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 at 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.
/SEAN V MEILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights