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 .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 13 February 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) a processor configured to perform a plurality of operation including: monitoring data from the sensor and determining a torque from the strain data. These limitations amount to both a mathematical calculation (of strain to torque) per MPEP2106.04(a)(2)((I)(C) and a mental process aided by a computer (the mathematical conversion of strain to torque being computable manually and/or with the aid of a generic computer) per MPEP2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B-C). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the resulting torque determination is not used for any practical application and it has been held that merely implementing an abstract idea on a computer, or using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use or extra-solution activity are not sufficient for establishing practical application (per MPEP2106.04(d)(I) and 2106.04(d)(2)(b-c). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the rest of the claim recites only that which was previously known (well-understood, routine, conventional activity per 2106.05(d)) per the art rejections below over McCune 20130287575, Chen 20190161139, Goldfine 20070245834, Lafargue FR3035503A1, and Spruce 11022044.
Dependent claim 2-6 and 21 are also rejected because they do not remedy the 101 issue of claim 1, and they depend on rejected claim 1 above.
Note, claim 21 is rejected under 101 because the recitation “adjusting one or more operating conditions” is not sufficiently narrow to establish a practical application of the system. That is, although the exemplary operating condition adjustments listed in the Specification ([0061], e.g. increasing fuel flow) would be sufficient to establish a practical application (and overcome the 101 rejection), limitations from the Specification cannot be imported into the claims. Currently, the claim is broad enough to include adjustments that do not amount to a practical application. For example, if the operating condition adjustment is merely a nontangible label or status indicator of the turbomachine, this would still fall under the abstract idea judicial exception as discussed above.
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 and 21 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.
Regarding claim 1, “the at least one static component is a carrier support” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether, in the case of more than one static component, there are plural carrier supports, or other different structure. The recitation is interpreted as the at least one static component comprising a carrier support.
Dependent claims 2-6 and 21 are also rejected for depending on at least one of the rejected claims above.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCune 20130287575 in view of Chen and Spruce 11022044.
Regarding Claim 1, McCune teaches a power transmission gearbox system (48) for a turbomachine (Fig 1A-D), the power transmission gearbox system comprising:
a drivetrain (incl. 68, 70, 72, 74, 75) comprising one or more rotating components (incl. 68, 74);
at least one static component (incl. 72, 78, and static portion of bearing 75) interfacing with the one or more rotating components (via planet gears 70 and gear meshing with 68, 74), wherein the at least one static component is a carrier support (incl. 78; see 112b discussion above).
McCune further teaches the carrier support characterized by a degree of flexibility/elasticity (Figs 3, 5, 7).
McCune does not teach the carrier support comprising a conical section; a sensor disposed on the at least one static component and configured to provide data indicative of strain in the static component; a controller communicatively coupled to the sensor, the controller comprising a processor and a memory, the processor configured to perform a plurality of operations including: monitoring the data indicative of strain in the static component from the sensor, and determining, at least partially based on the data indicative of the strain in the static component, a torque in the one or more rotating components of the drivetrain; and the sensor being disposed on the conical section of the carrier support.
However, Chen teaches a power transmission gearbox system (Fig 3), the power transmission gearbox system comprising:
a drivetrain (1) comprising one or more rotating components (incl. 102, 103);
at least one static component (incl. 101, 2, 4) interfacing with the one or more rotating components (via gear meshing; Fig 3);
the static components including a carrier (101) supported by carrier support (2), and the carrier support characterized by a degree of flexibility/elasticity (“elastomer”; [0045]).
a sensor (3) disposed on the carrier support static component (Fig 3) and configured to provide data indicative of strain in the static component (sensor 3 senses deformation of element 2; Abstract); and
a controller communicatively coupled to the sensor ([0009,0049]),
the controller comprising a processor and a memory (processing device requires processor and memory),
the processor configured to perform a plurality of operations including:
monitoring the data indicative of strain in the static component from the sensor (via processing device and controller; [0009, 0049]); and
determining, at least partially based on the data indicative of the strain in the static component, a torque in the one or more rotating components of the drivetrain ([0008-9, 0017]; deformation/strain of element 2 indicates reaction force in 101, 2, 4, which is indicative of torque transmitted from input to output, 102, 103 in Fig 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McCune to use the torque monitoring system of Chen, in order to provide torque monitoring without needing contact-less data transmission (Chen, [0004, 0017]).
McCune in view of Chen still does teach the carrier support comprising a conical section and the sensor disposed on the conical section.
However, Spruce further teaches the carrier support comprising an undulating geometry, wherein every portion of the carrier support comprises a degree of conicity, thus a sensor disposed on any portion of the carrier support (40) is disposed on a conical section of the carrier support.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the engine of McCune in view of Chen, to use the specific carrier support geometry of Spruce to provide the desired level of elasticity and strength required to react the torsional forces in the engine (Spruce, Figs 7-11, col.36 ll.22-45).
Regarding claim 4, McCune in view of Chen and Spruce teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. McCune further teaches a carrier (72), a pin (included in journal bearing 75; also shown in Fig 1 along axis P) extending through the carrier (Figs 3, 5, 7), and the carrier support (78) surrounding the carrier and extending from the carrier (Figs 3, 5, 7).
McCune in view of Chen and Spruce as discussed so far, does not teach the carrier support surrounding the carrier.
However, Spruce teaches a similar epicyclic gearbox (30) for a turbomachine (Fig 1) arranged in the same star configuration (Fig 7), with a carrier (34) and a carrier support (40) characterized by a degree of flexibility/elasticity (Figs 8-11), wherein the carrier support surrounds the carrier (Figs 7-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the engine of McCune in view of Chen and Spruce, to use the specific carrier support geometry of Spruce to provide the desired level of elasticity and strength required to react the torsional forces in the engine (Spruce, Figs 7-11, col.36 ll.22-45).
Regarding claim 5, McCune in view of Chen and Spruce teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. McCune further teaches the carrier support extends from an engine frame (36) to the carrier (figs 3, 5, 7).
Regarding claim 6, McCune in view of Chen and Spruce teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. McCune further teaches one or more gears (70, 74) surround the pin (75).
McCune in view of Chen and Spruce as discussed so far, does not teach the carrier support surrounds the one or more gears.
However, Spruce further teaches the carrier support (40) surrounds the gears of the gearbox (Figs 7-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the engine of McCune in view of Chen and Spruce, to use the specific carrier support geometry of Spruce to provide the desired level of elasticity and strength required to react the torsional forces in the engine (Spruce, Figs 7-11, col.36 ll.22-45).
Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCune 20130287575 in view of Chen and Spruce, and further in view of Goldfine 20070245834.
Regarding claim 2, McCune in view of Chen and Spruce teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. McCune in view of Chen and Spruce as discussed so far, does not teach the sensor is a plurality of sensors circumferentially spaced apart from one another on the at least one static component.
However, Chen teaches the substitutionally equivalent strain/torque sensor arrangements for the different epicyclic gearing arrangements. For example, placing the sensor on the stationary ring gear support for the planetary configuration of Fig 1 in contrast to the carrier support position for the star configuration of Fig 3. Chen also teaches the sensor (3) being either a single annular sensor, or a circumferential distribution of sensors (per the axisymmetric depiction of 3 in Figs 1, 3).
Furthermore, Goldfine teaches a power transmission gearbox system (Fig 1) for a turbomachine ([0030], the power transmission gearbox system comprising:
a drivetrain (incl. 54, 56, 50, 52) comprising one or more rotating components (the epicyclic gearbox of Fig 1 is arranged as a planetary gearbox with fixed ring gear, rather than a star gearbox with fixed planet carrier; thus the rotating components in Fig 1 are the planets 56, planet carrier 50, and sun gear 54; further note the notations of elements 50 and 52 in Fig 1 are reversed compared to the description in [0030]; hereinafter, the ring gear is referred to as 52 and the planet carrier is referred to as 50);
at least one static component (52) interfacing with the one or more rotating components (by gear meshing; Fig 1);
a plurality of sensors (58) circumferentially spaced apart from one another on the at least one static component (Fig 1), the plurality of sensors configured to provide data indicative of strain in the static component ([0030, 65]); and
a controller ([0066]) communicatively coupled to the sensor ([0030, 66]),
the controller comprising a processor and a memory ([0066]),
the processor configured to perform a plurality of operations including:
monitoring the data indicative of strain in the static component from the sensor ([0030,66]); and
determining, at least partially based on the data indicative of the strain in the static component, a stress in the one or more rotating components of the drivetrain ([0030, 66]).
Goldfine further teaches using a plurality of the sensors for redundancy ([0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the single sensor of McCune in view of Chen and Spruce to be a plurality of circumferentially distributed sensors as taught by Goldfine because Chen teaches the substitutional equivalence of placing sensors on the ring gear of a planetary system and placing sensors on the planet carrier of a star system (Chen; Figs 1, 3), and because Goldfine teaches the multiple sensors provide redundancy (Goldfine, [0065]).
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCune 20130287575 in view of Chen and Spruce, and further in view of Lafargue FR3035503A1.
Regarding claim 3, McCune in view of Chen and Spruce teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. McCune in view of Chen and Spruce as discussed so far, does not teach the sensor is one of a strain gauge, a surface acoustic wave (SAW) sensor, or a foil gauge.
However, Chen teaches the sensor is a deformation based torque sensor (Abstract).
And Lafargue teaches using strain gauges for deformation based torque sensing on static components (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the non-descript deformation-based torque sensors of McCune in view of Chen and Spruce, to be strain gauges as taught by Lafargue because MPEP2144.07 provides that selection of a known material (strain gauge) based on it suitability for its intended use (to determine torque by measuring deformation of a static component) was an obvious extension of prior art teachings.
Claim 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over both McCune in view of Chen and Spruce, in further view of Razak 11175195.
Regarding claim 21, McCune in view of Chen and Spruce teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. McCune in view of Chen and Spruce does not teach adjusting one or more operating conditions of the turbomachine based on the determined torque of the one or more rotating components in the drivetrain.
However, Razak teaches a power transmission gearbox system (incl. 30) for a turbomachine (Fig 1), the power transmission gearbox system comprising a controller (incl. 58) that adjusts an operating condition (thrust setting) of the turbomachine (Fig 1) based on a determined torque of one or more rotating components in the drivetrain (col.2 l.58 – col.3 l.7, col.4 ll.1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gas turbine engine gearbox system of McCune in view of Chen and Spruce to use a controller that adjusts engine thrust setting based on gearbox torque as taught by Razak, because Razak teaches thrust detection is necessary for control and using gearbox torque mitigates the deficiencies of thrust detection using engine pressure ratio (col.1 ll.18-55).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the amended claims should not be rejected under 101 because Applicant believes the claims recite sufficient structure to satisfy the significantly more requirement.
However, the amended claims do not recite structure beyond what was routine and conventional at the time of filing (as evidenced by prior art references and discussion thereof above).
Applicant appears to argue that the prior art has to teach certain limitations/elements (sensor on the conical section of the carrier support) of the claims in a single reference in order to read on the claims; and that neither Chen nor Spruce, individually, teaches the sensor on the conical section of the carrier support.
However, there is no such requirement in the MPEP. In this case, Chen is teaching a sensor on a carrier support, and Spruce is teaching every portion of a carrier support being conical. Thus, the combination teaching the sensor on a conical section of the carrier support. Furthermore, each reference provides rationale for modifying the base reference with its technical feature. Chen teaches adding the sensor for torque monitoring in order to avoid the need for contact-less data transmission, and Spruce teaches using the conical geometry for the carrier support in order to provide the desired level of elasticity and strength to react the torsional forces in the engine.
Applicant makes further arguments with citations to Chen ([0010, 50], Fig 2).
However, it is noted that Chen teaches various embodiments and the portions cited by Applicant are not related to the embodiment of Fig 3 relied upon in the rejection. Paragraphs [0010, 50] are drawn to the embodiment of Figure 1, and Figure 2 is a different embodiment from Figure 3. In the embodiment of Fig 3, the sensor (3) is disposed on carrier support (2) supporting the carrier (101) of the planet gears of the epicyclic gear train.
Applicant further argues that Spruce provides no teaching that the carrier support is fixedly connected coaxially to a gear.
However, as discussed above fixed connection coaxially to “a” gear is not required by the embodiment of Fig 3 in Chen. Thus, it is not required of Spruce in order for Spruce to be relevant to Chen’s Fig 3. Spruce teaches the carrier support (40 of Figs 7-11) supporting the carrier (34) of the planet gears (32) of the epicyclic gear train. Thus, Spruce being exactly applicable to the embodiment of Fig 3 of Chen.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE SEBASCO CHENG whose telephone number is (469)295-9153. The examiner can normally be reached on 0600-0900 AM ET M-F and 1-2PM T/R.
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 (571-270-5426. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEPHANIE SEBASCO CHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights