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 non-final rejection in response to the amendments and arguments filed 06/16/2026. Claims 1, 5-10 and 12-16 are currently pending with claims 9-10 withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1, 12, 15 and 16 has been amended, and claims 2-4 and 11 canceled.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to arguments to the amend claims, 1, 12 and 16, Examiner agrees that the combination of the prior art Mane and Eleftheriou does not teach all the limitations as amended in the claims. However, it is noted that the prior art Bornemisza teaches an assembly for a gas turbine engine and including a first wall and second wall structures (see rejection below). The prior art Mane also further teaches that split casing configuration may be applied to gas turbine engine assemblies, to possibly reduce the time of assembling an engine assembly that is made up of multiple longitudinal sections (see c. 1, l. 17-30). The split casing as taught by Mane includes upper and lower casing of the engine which encompasses all portions of the engine from end to end (see c. 4, l. 11-35). Additionally, the prior art US Patent Application Publication 2021/0025325 to Kobielski et al. teaches that entire turbine structures may be formed as a split case structure to reduce problems associated with multiple piece turbines that art assembled together (see ¶ [0004]). It is then obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art that a split casing configuration may be applied to gas turbine engine assemblies as is known in the art. See rejection to follow.
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, 5-7, and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 5,237,817 to Bornemisza et al. (Bornemisza) in view of US Patent 10,184,357 to Mane et al. (Mane) and in view of US Patent Application Publication 2021/0025325 to Kobielski et al. (Kobielski).
In Reference to Claim 1
Bornemisza discloses an assembly for a gas turbine engine (Fig. 1), comprising:
a case structure (double outer wall structure of assembly for instance) including a plurality of walls (walls adjacent 50, wall at 32 and walls at 36 for instance) and a plurality of case segments (left, middle and right portions of assembly for instance);
each of the plurality of walls extending axially along and circumferentially about an axial centerline (14 for instance), the plurality of walls including a first wall (28 for instance) and a second wall (26 for instance) radially outboard of and axially overlapping the first wall (28), and the first wall comprising a combustor wall (28 for instance) and the second wall comprising a diffuser wall (26 for instance); and
wherein the case structure forms a compressor section inlet (at 52 for instance) and a turbine section outlet (at 44 for instance).
Bornemisza does not teach, that the case structure is “... a split case structure ...”, that “... each of the plurality of case segments configured to form a respective portion of the first wall and a respective portion of the second wall, and the plurality of case segments including a first case segment and a second case segment circumferentially adjacent and attached to the first case segment at a joint ...”, or “... wherein each of the plurality of case segments extends axially along the axial centerline from the compressor section inlet to the turbine section outlet, and wherein each of the plurality of case segments is configured as a monolithic body ....”
Mane is related to an assembly for a gas turbine engine (Fig. 1), as the claimed invention, and teaches a split case structure (as seen of 10 in figure 1, see also c. 3, l. 17-23) including a plurality of
walls (Fig. 3, of 32 for instance) and a plurality of case segments (col 3, II 17-23, lower and upper sections for instance); wherein each of the plurality of case segments (c. 3, I. 17-23, lower and upper sections for instance) are configured to form a respective portion of walls of all sections of the assembly (from left to right of engine for instance), and the plurality of case segments including a first case segment (c. 3, l. 17-23, lower section for instance) and a second case segment (c. 3, l. 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 (c. 3, I. 17-23, lower and upper sections for instance) extends axially along an 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).
Kobielski is related to turbine assembly having a split case structure that houses a compressor and turbine section of the assembly (abstract), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein each of the plurality of case segments is configured as a monolithic body (see abstract), the split case configuration so as to improve upon the coupling of separate components of compressors and turbine which may bring about at least thermal stress problems, manufacturing problems and joint degradation problems (see ¶ [0004]).
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 case structure (of Bornemisza) to be a split case structure (as taught by Mane and Kobielski), such that the case structure (of Bornemisza) is a split case structure (as taught by Mane and Kobielski) that includes a plurality of walls (of Bornemisza) and a plurality of case segments (as taught by Mane and Kobielski), wherein each of the plurality of case segments (as taught by Mane) is configured to form a respective portion of the first wall and a respective portion of the second wall (of Bornemisza as configured as a split case structure for instance), and the plurality of case segments including a first case segment and a second case segment are circumferentially adjacent and attached to the first case segment at a joint (as taught by Mane), such that the split case structure (as taught by Mane) forms the compressor section inlet and the turbine section outlet (of Bornemisza), wherein each of the plurality of case segments (as taught by Mane) extends axially along the axial centerline from the compressor section inlet to the turbine section outlet (of Bornemisza), and wherein each of the plurality of case segments is configured as a monolithic body (as taught by Kobielski), so as to use an art known technique (of the configuration of gas turbine assemblies as split case structures that are monolithic as taught by Mane and Kobielski) into the system of Bornemisza (configuration of the gas turbine assembly as a split case assembly for instance) and predictably reduce time to assembly the engine (see Mane c. 1, l. 22-24) and at least reduce thermal stress problems, manufacturing problems and joint degradation problems that may be associated to the assembly of an engine (see Kobielski ¶ [0004]).
In Reference to Claim 5
Bornemisza, as modified by Mane and Kobielski, discloses the assembly of claim 1, wherein one of the plurality of walls comprises a compressor wall (Bornemisza, walls adjacent 50 for instance).
In Reference to Claim 6
Bornemisza, as modified by Mane and Kobielski, discloses the assembly of claim 1, wherein one of the plurality of walls comprises a turbine wall (Bornemisza, walls adjacent 40 for instance).
In Reference to Claim 7
Bornemisza, as modified by Mane and Kobielski, discloses the assembly of claim 1, wherein the first case segment (as taught by Mane as modifying of Bornemisza) includes a support member (Bornemisza, 50 that connects 32 and 26 for instance) that extends between and connects the first wall to the second wall (Bornemisza, walls 32 and 26 for instance).
In Reference to Claim 12
Bornemisza discloses an assembly for a gas turbine engine (Fig. 1), comprising:
a case structure (double outer wall structure of assembly for instance) for the gas turbine engine (Fig. 1), the case structure including a compressor wall (20 for instance), a combustor wall (2 for instance), a turbine wall (wall adjacent 40 for instance) and a plurality of case segments (left, middle and right portions of assembly for instance), the turbine wall forming a first wall (wall adjacent 40 for instance) of the case structure and the combustor wall forming a second wall (28 for instance) of the case structure, and the second wall (28) radially outboard of an axially overlapping the first wall (wall adjacent 40 for instance).
Bornemisza does not teach, that the case structure is “... a split case structure ...”, or “... each of the plurality of case segments configured to form a respective half of the compressor wall, a respective half of the combustor wall and a respective half of the turbine wall, each of the plurality of case segments configured as a monolithic body ....”
Mane is related to an assembly for a gas turbine engine (Fig. 1), as the claimed invention, and teaches a split case structure (as seen of 10 in figure 1, see also c. 3, l. 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 (c. 3, l. 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).
Kobielski is related to turbine assembly having a split case structure that houses a compressor and turbine section of the assembly (abstract), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein each of the plurality of case segments is configured as a monolithic body (see abstract), the split case configuration so as to improve upon the coupling of separate components of compressors and turbine which may bring about at least thermal stress problems, manufacturing problems and joint degradation problems (see ¶ [0004]).
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 case structure (of Bornemisza) to be a split case structure (as taught by Mane and Kobielski), such that the case structure (of Bornemisza) is a split case structure (as taught by Mane and Kobielski) for the gas turbine engine (of Bornemisza), the split case structure (as taught by Mane and Kobielski) includes a compressor wall, a combustor wall, a turbine wall (of Bornemisza as configured as a split case structure for instance) and to have a plurality of case segments (as taught by Mane and Kobielski), so that the turbine wall forming a first wall (of Bornemisza) is of the split case structure (as taught by Mane and Kobielski) and the combustor wall forming a second wall (of Bornemisza) is of the split case structure (as taught by Mane and Kobielski), wherein each of the plurality of case segments (as taught by Mane and Kobielski) is configured to form a respective half of the compressor wall (of Bornemisza), a respective half of the combustor wall (of Bornemisza) and a respective half of the turbine wall (of Bornemisza), and each of the plurality of case segments is configured as a monolithic body (as taught by Kobielski), so as to use an art known technique (of the configuration of gas turbine assemblies as split case structures that are monolithic as taught by Mane and Kobielski) into the system of Bornemisza (configuration of the gas turbine assembly as a split case assembly for instance) and predictably reduce time to assembly the engine (see Mane c. 1, l. 22-24) and at least reduce thermal stress problems, manufacturing problems and joint degradation problems that may be associated to the assembly of an engine (see Kobielski ¶ [0004]).
In Reference to Claim 13
Bornemisza, as modified by Mane and Kobielski, discloses the assembly of claim 12, wherein the plurality of case segments includes a first case segment (as taught by Mane, c. 3, l. 17-23, lower section for instance) and a second case segment (as taught by Mane, c. 3, l. 17-23, upper section for instance) circumferentially adjacent and attached to the first case segment at an axially extending joint (as taught by Mane, see joint surface in figure 3 for instance).
In Reference to Claim 14
Bornemisza, as modified by Mane and Kobielski, 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 (as taught by Mane, Fig. 1, of 32 for instance and as analogous to left side of engine in figure 1 of Bornemisza) to a compressor section of the gas turbine engine (of Bornemisza, portion at 50 and 20 for instance); or each of the plurality of case segments forms a respective half (as taught by Mane, c. 3, l. 17-23, lower and upper sections for instance) of an outlet (as taught by Mane, 39 for instance and as analogous to right side of engine in figure 1 of Bornemisza) from a turbine section of the gas turbine engine (of Bornemisza, portion at 40 and right for instance).
In Reference to Claim 15
Bornemisza, as modified by Mane and Kobielski, discloses the assembly of claim 12, wherein each of the plurality of case segments (as taught by Mane, c. 3, l. 17-23, lower and upper sections for instance) is configured to form a respective half of a wall (of Bornemisza as configure as a split casing for instance).
In Reference to Claim 16
Bornemisza discloses an assembly for a gas turbine engine (Fig. 1), comprising:
a case structure (double outer wall structure of assembly for instance) including a plurality of walls (walls adjacent 50, wall at 32 and walls at 36 for instance); each of the plurality of walls extending axially along and circumferentially about an axial centerline (14 for instance), the plurality of walls including a first wall (wall about 40 for instance) and a second wall (26 for instance) radially outboard of and axially overlapping the first wall (wall about 40 for instance), and the first wall comprising an inner turbine wall (wall about 40 for instance) and the second wall comprising the diffuser wall (26 for instance);
the case structure forming a compressor section inlet (at 52 for instance) and a turbine section outlet (at 44 for instance).
Bornemisza does not teach, that the case structure is “... a split case structure ...”, that “... each of the plurality of monolithic bodies configured to form a respective portion of the first wall and a respective portion of the second wall; a first body of the plurality of monolithic bodies circumferentially adjacent and attached to a second body of the plurality of monolithic bodies at a joint ...” or “... each of the plurality of monolithic bodies extending axially along the axial centerline from the compressor section inlet to the turbine section outlet ....”
Mane is related to an assembly for a gas turbine engine (Fig. 1), as the claimed invention, and teaches a split case structure (as seen of 10 in figure 1, see also c. 3, l. 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); a first of the plurality of bodies (c. 3, l. 17-23, apparent single body lower section for instance) circumferentially adjacent and attached to the second of the plurality of bodies (c. 3, l. 17-23, apparent single body upper section for instance) at a joint (Fig. 3, along joint surface 40 for instance); and each of the plurality of bodies (c. 3, l. 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).
Kobielski is related to turbine assembly having a split case structure that houses a compressor and turbine section of the assembly (abstract), as the claimed invention, and teaches a split case structure having a plurality of monolithic bodies (abstract), a first body (Fig. 2A, 207 for instance) of the plurality of monolithic bodies circumferentially adjacent and attached to a second body (210) of the plurality of monolithic bodies at a joint (between the bodies for instance), the split case configuration so as to improve upon the coupling of separate components of compressors and turbine which may bring about at least thermal stress problems, manufacturing problems and joint degradation problems (see ¶ [0004]).
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 case structure (of Bornemisza) to be a split case structure (as taught by Mane and Kobielski), such that the case structure (of Bornemisza) is a split case structure (as taught by Mane and Kobielski) that includes a plurality of walls (of Bornemisza) and a plurality of monolithic bodies (as taught by Kobielski), wherein each of the plurality of monolithic bodies (as taught by Kobielski) is configured to form a respective portion of the first wall and a respective portion of the second wall (of Bornemisza as configured as a split case structure for instance); wherein a first body of the plurality of monolithic bodies (as taught by Mane and Kobielski) is circumferentially adjacent and attached to a second body of the plurality of monolithic bodies at a joint (as taught by Mane and Kobielski); such that the split case structure (as taught by Mane) forms the compressor section inlet and the turbine section outlet (of Bornemisza); and wherein each of the plurality of monolithic bodies (as taught by Mane and Kobielski) extends axially along the axial centerline (of Bornemisza) from the compressor section inlet (of Bornemisza) to the turbine section outlet (of Bornemisza), so as to use an art known technique (of the configuration of gas turbine assemblies as split case structures that are monolithic bodies as taught by Mane and Kobielski) into the system of Bornemisza (configuration of the gas turbine assembly as a split case assembly for instance) and predictably reduce time to assembly the engine (see Mane c. 1, l. 22-24) and at least reduce thermal stress problems, manufacturing problems and joint degradation problems that may be associated to the assembly of an engine (see Kobielski ¶ [0004]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 5,237,817 to Bornemisza et al. (Bornemisza) in view of US Patent 10,184,357 to Mane et al. (Mane) and in view of US Patent Application Publication 2021/0025325 to Kobielski et al. (Kobielski), 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
Bornemisza, as modified by Mane and Kobielski, 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 c. 3, l. 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 c. 3, l. 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 Bornemisza wherein the first case segment includes a channel (as taught by Durocher); and the second case segment includes a seal element (as taught by Durocher) inserted within the channel to seal an interface between the first case segment and the second case segment at the joint (as taught by Durocher), so as to use an art known technique (of providing a seal between joined casing segments as taught by Durocher) into the system of Bornemisza to predictably provide a seal between the casing segments.
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 gas turbine engine assemblies.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights