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 .
Status of the Claims
This is a final rejection in response to the amendments and arguments filed 12/15/2025. Claims 1, 3-10 and 12-16 are currently pending with claims 9-10 withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1 and 12 has been amended, claims 2 and 11 canceled, and claim 16 new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to arguments to claims 1 and 12, examiner contends that the prior art Mane teaches (claim 1) wherein the split case structure forms a compressor section inlet (Fig. 1, 32 for instance) and a turbine section outlet (39 for instance); and wherein each of the plurality of case segments (col 3, ll 17-23, lower and upper sections for instance) extends axially along the axial centerline (Fig. 1, central axis of 10 for instance and parallel to 20 for instance) from the compressor section inlet (32) to the turbine section outlet (39). Mane also teaches (claim 12) each of the plurality of case segments configured to form a respective half of the compressor wall (34 for instance), a respective half of the combustor wall (36 for instance) and a respective half of the turbine wall (38 for instance).
Regarding arguments to limitations of “wherein each of the plurality of case segments is configured as a monolithic body” and “each of the plurality of case segments configured as a monolithic body,” and relative to the prior art Eleftheriou, examiner agrees that the prior art teaches that portions of the engine casing may be integrally formed as argued on page 6 of the response. However, the prior art also teaches that casing portions may be formed monolithically (see claim 10 of Eleftheriou) which technique can obviously be used to form the casing portions in the prior art Mane.
Examiner thus disagrees that the combination of the prior art does not teach the claimed invention as argued by applicant.
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, 7, 12-14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 10,184,357 to Mane et al. (Mane) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2008/0014083 to Eleftheriou et al. (Eleftheriou).
In Reference to Claim 1
Mane discloses an assembly for a gas turbine engine (Fig. 1, 10 for instance), comprising:
a split case structure (as seen of 10 in figure 1, see also col 3, ll 17-23) including a plurality of walls (Fig. 3, of 32 for instance) and a plurality of case segments (col 3, ll 17-23, lower and upper sections for instance);
each of the plurality of walls (Fig. 3 of 32 for instance) extending axially along and circumferentially about an axial centerline (central axis of 10 for instance, not shown), and the plurality of walls (of 32, figure 3) including a first wall (inner wall 32 for instance) and a second wall (outer wall 32 for instance) radially outboard of and axially overlapping the first wall (as seen in figurer 3); and
each of the plurality of case segments (col 3, ll 17-23, lower and upper sections for instance) configured to form a respective portion of the first wall (inner 32 for instance) and a respective portion of the second wall (outer 32 for instance), and the plurality of case segments including a first case segment (col 3, ll 17-23, lower section for instance) and a second case segment (col 3, ll 17-23, upper section for instance) circumferentially adjacent and attached to the first case segment at a joint (Fig. 3, along joint surface 40 for instance);
wherein the split case structure forms a compressor section inlet (Fig. 1, 32 for instance) and a turbine section outlet (39 for instance); and
wherein each of the plurality of case segments (col 3, ll 17-23, lower and upper sections for instance) extends axially along the axial centerline (Fig. 1, central axis of 10 for instance and parallel to 20 for instance) from the compressor section inlet (32) to the turbine section outlet (39), and
wherein each of the plurality of case segments is configured as a single body structure (as apparent from figure 3 for instance).
Mane does not teach, “... wherein each of the plurality of case segments is configured as a monolithic body ....”
Eleftheriou is related to a casing for a gas turbine engine (abstract), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein the casing can be configured as a monolithic body (claim 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Mane wherein each of the plurality of case segments (of Mane) is configured as a monolithic body, as taught by Eleftheriou, so as to use an art known technique (of a configuration of casing structures to have a monolithic structure as taught by Eleftheriou) to the case segments of Mane and predictably form the casing structure of Mane.
In Reference to Claim 7
Mane, as modified by Eleftheriou, discloses the assembly of claim 1, wherein the first case segment includes a support member (Mane, see annotated figure 3 below) that extends between and connects the first wall to the second wall (Mane, of 32 as seen in figure 3 for instance).
In Reference to Claim 12
Mane discloses an assembly for a gas turbine engine (Fig. 1, 10 for instance), comprising:
a split case structure (as seen of 10 in figure 1, see also col 3, ll 17-23) for the gas turbine engine (10), the split case structure including a compressor wall (34 for instance), a combustor wall (36 for instance), a turbine wall (38 for instance) and a plurality of case segments (col 3, ll 17-23, lower and upper sections for instance);
each of the plurality of case segments configured to form a respective half of the compressor wall (34 for instance), a respective half of the combustor wall (36 for instance) and a respective half of the turbine wall (38 for instance), each of the plurality of case segments is configured as a single body structure (as apparent from figure 3 for instance).
Mane does not teach, “...each of the plurality of case segments is configured as a monolithic body ....”
Eleftheriou is related to a casing for a gas turbine engine (abstract), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein the casing can be configured as a monolithic body (claim 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Mane wherein each of the plurality of case segments (of Mane) is configured as a monolithic body, as taught by Eleftheriou, so as to use an art known technique (of a configuration of casing structures to have a monolithic structure as taught by Eleftheriou) to the case segments of Mane and predictably form the casing structure of Mane.
PNG
media_image1.png
731
791
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In Reference to Claim 13
Mane, as modified by Eleftheriou, discloses the assembly of claim 12, wherein the plurality of case segments includes a first case segment (Mane, col 3, ll 17-23, lower section for instance) and a second case segment (Mane, col 3, ll 17-23, upper section for instance) circumferentially adjacent and attached to the first case segment at an axially extending joint (Mane, see joint surface in figure 3 for instance).
In Reference to Claim 14
Mane, as modified by Eleftheriou, discloses the assembly of claim 12, wherein at least one of each of the plurality of case segments forms a respective portion of an inlet (Mane, Fig. 1, of 32 for instance) to a compressor section of the gas turbine engine (Mane, within 34 for instance); or each of the plurality of case segments forms a respective half (Mane, col 3, ll 17-23, lower and upper sections for instance) of an outlet (Mane, 39 for instance) from a turbine section of the gas turbine engine (Mane, within 39 for instance).
In Reference to Claim 16
Mane discloses an assembly for a gas turbine engine (Fig. 1, 10 for instance), comprising:
a split case structure (as seen of 10 in figure 1, see also col 3, ll 17-23) including a plurality of walls (Fig. 3, of 32 for instance) and a plurality of bodies (single body structures as apparent from figure 3 for instance);
each of the plurality of walls (Fig. 3 of 32 for instance) extending axially along and circumferentially about an axial centerline (central axis of 10 for instance, not shown), and the plurality of walls (of 32, figure 3) including a first wall (inner wall 32 for instance) and a second wall (outer wall 32 for instance) radially outboard of and axially overlapping the first wall (as seen in figurer 3);
each of the plurality of bodies (col 3, ll 17-23, apparent single body lower and upper sections for instance) configured to form a respective portion of the first wall (inner 32 for instance) and a respective portion of the second wall (outer 32 for instance);
a first of the plurality of bodies (col 3, ll 17-23, apparent single body lower section for instance) circumferentially adjacent and attached to the second of the plurality of bodies (col 3, ll 17-23, apparent single body upper section for instance) at a joint (Fig. 3, along joint surface 40 for instance);
the split case structure forming a compressor section inlet (Fig. 1, 32 for instance) and a turbine section outlet (39 for instance); and
each of the plurality of bodies (col 3, ll 17-23, apparent single body lower and upper sections for instance) extending axially along the axial centerline (Fig. 1, central axis of 10 for instance and parallel to 20 for instance) from the compressor section inlet (32) to the turbine section outlet (39).
Mane does not teach the plurality of bodies being “... monolithic bodies ....”
Eleftheriou is related to a casing for a gas turbine engine (abstract), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein the casing can be configured as a monolithic body (claim 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Mane wherein each of the plurality of bodies (of Mane) is configured as a monolithic body (as taught by Eleftheriou) such that the split case structure (of Mane) includes a plurality of walls and a plurality of monolithic bodies (as formed as taught by Eleftheriou), so as to use an art known technique (of a configuration of casing structures to have a monolithic structure as taught by Eleftheriou) to the case portions of the split case structure of Mane and predictably form the casing structure of Mane.
Claim(s) 3-6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 10,184,357 to Mane et al. (Mane) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2008/0014083 to Eleftheriou et al. (Eleftheriou), as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of US Patent 5,237,817 to Bornemisza et al. (Bornemisza).
In Reference to Claim 3
Mane, as modified by Eleftheriou, discloses the assembly of claim 1, except, “... wherein one of the plurality of walls comprises a diffuser wall ....”
Bornemisza is case structure for a gas turbine engine (Fig. 1) extending from a compressor inlet (50 for instance) to a turbine outlet (44 for instance) and including a plurality of walls (26 and 32 for instance), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein one of the plurality of walls comprises a diffuser wall (in section 22 for instance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Mane wherein one of the plurality of walls (of Mane configured to have a plurality of walls as taught by Bornemisza) and comprising a diffuser wall (as taught by Bornemisza), so as to use an art known technique (of using multiple wall structure in gas turbine engines, including having a diffuser wall, as taught by Bornemisza) into the system of Mane and predictably form the gas turbine engine for suitable operation.
In Reference to Claim 4
Mane, as modified by Eleftheriou, discloses the assembly of claim 1, except, “... wherein one of the plurality of walls comprises a combustor wall ....”
Bornemisza is case structure for a gas turbine engine (Fig. 1) extending from a compressor inlet (50 for instance) to a turbine outlet (44 for instance) and including a plurality of walls (26 and 32 for instance), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein one of the plurality of walls comprises a combustor wall (26 about 30 for instance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Mane wherein one of the plurality of walls (of Mane configured to have a plurality of walls as taught by Bornemisza) and comprising a combustor wall (as taught by Bornemisza), so as to use an art known technique (of using multiple wall structure in gas turbine engines, including having a combustor wall, as taught by Bornemisza) into the system of Mane and predictably form the gas turbine engine for suitable operation.
In Reference to Claim 5
Mane, as modified by Eleftheriou, discloses the assembly of claim 1, except, “... wherein one of the plurality of walls comprises a compressor wall ....”
Bornemisza is case structure for a gas turbine engine (Fig. 1) extending from a compressor inlet (50 for instance) to a turbine outlet (44 for instance) and including a plurality of walls (26 and 32 for instance), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein one of the plurality of walls comprises a compressor wall (of 26 and 32 about 20 for instance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Mane wherein one of the plurality of walls (of Mane configured to have a plurality of walls as taught by Bornemisza) and comprising a compressor wall (as taught by Bornemisza), so as to use an art known technique (of using multiple wall structure in gas turbine engines, including having a compressor wall, as taught by Bornemisza) into the system of Mane and predictably form the gas turbine engine for suitable operation.
In Reference to Claim 6
Mane, as modified by Eleftheriou, discloses the assembly of claim 1, except, “... wherein one of the plurality of walls comprises a turbine wall ....”
Bornemisza is case structure for a gas turbine engine (Fig. 1) extending from a compressor inlet (50 for instance) to a turbine outlet (44 for instance) and including a plurality of walls (26 and 32 for instance), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein one of the plurality of walls comprises a turbine wall (of 26 and 32 about section of 40 for instance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Mane wherein one of the plurality of walls (of Mane configured to have a plurality of walls as taught by Bornemisza) and comprising a turbine wall (as taught by Bornemisza), so as to use an art known technique (of using multiple wall structure in gas turbine engines, including having a turbine wall, as taught by Bornemisza) into the system of Mane and predictably form the gas turbine engine for suitable operation.
In Reference to Claim 15
Mane, as modified by Eleftheriou, discloses the assembly of claim 12, wherein each of the plurality of case segments (Mane, col 3, ll 17-23, lower and upper sections for instance) is configured to form a respective half of a wall (Mane, at least outer housing portions of 10 for instance), but does not explicitly teach “... wherein the split case structure includes a first wall and a second wall radially outboard of and axially overlapping the first wall; and each of the plurality of case segments is configured to form a respective half of the first wall and a respective half of the second wall ....”
Bornemisza is case structure for a gas turbine engine (Fig. 1) extending from a compressor inlet (50 for instance) to a turbine outlet (44 for instance), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein the case structure includes a first wall (wall 26 for instance) and a second wall (wall 32 for instance) radially outboard of and axially overlapping the first wall (as seen in figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Mane wherein the split case structure (of Mane) includes a first wall and a second wall radially outboard of and axially overlapping the first wall (as taught by Bornemisza); and each of the plurality of case segments (of Mane) is configured to form a respective half (as taught by Mane) of the first wall and a respective half of the second wall (multiple walls as taught by Bornemisza), so as to use an art known technique (of using multiple wall structure in gas turbine engines as taught by Bornemisza) into the system of Mane and predictably form the gas turbine engine for suitable operation of at least thrust generation.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 10,184,357 to Mane et al. (Mane) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2008/0014083 to Eleftheriou et al. (Eleftheriou), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent 8,784,041 to Durocher et al. (Durocher).
In Reference to Claim 8
Mane, as modified by Eleftheriou, discloses the assembly of claim 1, except explicitly teach, “... wherein the first case segment includes a channel; and the second case segment includes a seal element inserted within the channel to seal an interface between the first case segment and the second case segment at the joint ....”
Durocher is related to the connection of circumferential casing portions (Figs. 2-3, shroud 20 for instance, see also col 3, ll 35-37), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein a first case segment (Fig. 3, 20’ for instance) includes a channel (38’ for instance); and a second case segment (20) includes a seal element (40) inserted within the channel to seal an interface between the first case segment and the second case segment at the joint (between 20 and 20’ for instance, see also col 3, ll 15-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Mane wherein the first case segment (of Mane) includes a channel (as taught by Durocher); and the second case segment (of Mane) includes a seal element (as taught by Durocher) inserted within the channel to seal an interface between the first case segment (of Mane) and the second case segment at the joint (of Mane), so as to use an art known technique (of providing a seal between joined casing segments as taught by Durocher) into the system of Mane to predictably provide a seal between the casing segments of Jones.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, as cited in the Notice of References Cited, are cited to show single piece split structure casing for turbine structures.
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 WAYNE A LAMBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-3516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9 am - 7 pm.
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, Nathaniel E Wiehe can be reached at (571)272-8648. 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.
/WAYNE A LAMBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745