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 .
Claims 11, 13-15 and 21-29 are currently pending. Claims 11, 13-15 and 21-29 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Pg. 5-6 of the response, filed October 30, 2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As best understood, Applicant asserts GTF is not reliable as a reference because it is not associated with Pratt & Whitney. However, no evidence has been provided to support unreliability. MPEP 2125, I states drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed… the origin of the drawing is immaterial. Thus, not being associated with Pratt & Whitney is immaterial to the reliability of GTF. GTF itself also asserts the model provided is of a high level of detail that allows for detailed close-up rendering. One of ordinary skill would expect a high fidelity model to be an accurate representation. Applicant has not provided evidence to show otherwise.
Regarding the argument that adding stages to the LPC changes the overall engine length, Applicant has not provided evidence to support the assertions of other changes which would affect the overall length. The rejection already explained the respective impact of stages to the total length that is evidenced by the number of repetitive stages having approximately equal length. In other words, the conclusions drawn by the rejection are supported by the art of record.
Regarding the statement of the current ratio being 0.46, Applicant has not provided evidence of the modification moving the ratio out of the claimed range. Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, it would take a great effort of lengthening to move out of the lower end of 0.4. The ratio of GTF-Suciu is approximately 0.48 (Non-Final of July 30, 2025, Pg. 5-6). Each stage accounts for about 2.3% of the total axial length of the engine. If it is assumed the modification requires the worst case scenario, where the addition of a stage is positioned such that it lengthens the overall axial length but not the claimed mount distance, this new stage would need to require the extension of the total length of the turbine by at least 20% to fall out of the claimed range of 0.4-0.7. For illustrative purposes, this is slightly more than the length of the entire row of high pressure compressor stages combined in GTF. It is also more than twice the total low pressure compressor length. Put another way, Applicant’s argument is suggesting adding a single stage to the low pressure compressor would require lengthening the compressor such that it is more than three times its current length. Applicant has not provided evidence such a requirement is needed to accommodate a singular new stage.
New Claim 27 has not been previously presented and will be addressed below. Applicant has not provided evidence of alleged requirements, nor shown such requirements would lead to falling out of the claimed range.
Regarding Maalouf, it is unclear why Applicant’s arguments are requiring the modification to change the mount location, length, and replace fan exit guide vanes. There is no evidence of such. This appears to be Applicant’s own interpretation of the art different than that proposed in the rejection. Additionally in Maalouf, A-frames (30) are supporting vanes (28) not replacing them [0017]. Thus, the arguments are found to be unpersuasive, since they appear to present a mischaracterized modification by adding additional requirements without evidence, and they do not point to specific errors in the combination proposed by the Office.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding Claims 21-23, these claims have dependency upon Claim 12, which is a canceled claim. Thus, Claims 21-23 are rejected for failing to contain reference to a claim previously set forth.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11, 13-14, 24, and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “GTF Cutaway Turbofan Engine”, hereinafter “GTF”, in view of Suciu et al. (US 2015/0361828 A1), hereinafter Suciu, and Hasel (US 2018/0230912 A1), hereinafter Hasel.
Regarding Claim 11, Figure 1 of “GTF” teaches a gas turbine engine comprising: a compressor section having a low pressure compressor, a high pressure compressor and a compressor intermediate case; a fan rotor driven by a fan drive turbine about an axis (through horizontal, longitudinal middle of the turbine) through a gear reduction to reduce a speed of said fan rotor relative to a speed of said fan drive turbine; a fan case surrounding said fan rotor, and an inner core housing surrounding said compressor section and a turbine section. See the annotated Figure below. These labels are well known in the art and may be compared with Figure 1C, [0019-0021] of Suciu. The “GTF” provided as NPL contains two models that are part of a collection illustrating the same engine. The tags in the model details on Pg. 5 and 13 (following total page number, not the annotated webpage number) of “GTF” list details specifying this is a turbine engine, particularly a PW1000G engine by Pratt & Whitney.
PNG
media_image1.png
800
1137
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“GTF” is silent regarding the combination of a first mount for said engine attached to one of said fan case, and a second mount for said engine attached to said inner core housing, said first and second mount for attaching the engine to an aircraft, and an axial length of said engine defined between a forwardmost point of said engine and a rearwardmost point of said engine and a mount distance being defined between a trailing edge of said first mount and a trailing edge of second mount, with each of said trailing edges measured from a radially innermost end, and a ratio of said mount distance to said axial length being between 0.4 and 0.7 as claimed. However, such mounts would have been obvious in view of Suciu.
Figures 1A-1C of Suciu teach a gas turbine engine with a first mount (17F) for said engine attached to said fan case (46, 48), and a second mount (17R) for said engine attached to said inner core housing (housing surrounding core path through 48, 49, 50, 52A-C, 54, 56), said first and second mount (17F, 17R) for attaching the engine to an aircraft, and an axial length of said engine defined between a forwardmost point of said engine and a rearwardmost point of said engine and a mount distance being defined between a trailing edge (right end in Figure 1C) of said first mount (17F) and a trailing edge (right end in Figure 1C) of second mount (17R), with each of said trailing edges measured from a radially innermost end. Mounts are used to mount the engine to aircrafts for usage [0002-0003]. The placement of the mounts (17F, 17R) at these specific locations has several advantages. Particularly, second mount (17R) is part of an assembly that produces a more aerodynamic configuration by allowing hiding of the pylon (12), allows the engine to be moved closer to the pylon (12) and wing (14), allows use of a larger pylon, and allows for a lighter casing for sections (54 and 56). The second mount (17R) helps absorb and dissipate loadings in the engine (10). The first mount (17F) reacts to loadings. And the combination of the two mounts (17F, 17R) allow for a more aerodynamic configuration with respect to the pylon (12) [0014-0018]. Thus, Suciu lists various reasons as to why one of ordinary skill would desire first and second mounts (17F, 17R) at the specific locations of the fan case and the inner core housing. While the illustrations of Suciu are not explicitly recited as being to scale, it is noted “GTF” is intended to be a model of a known gas turbine engine. Comparing the distance between where the mounts would be placed when modified by Suciu with the total axial distance results in a ratio of approximately 0.48, which is within the claimed range of 0.4 and 0.7. Therefore, the combination of “GTF” and Suciu anticipates the range of 0.4 and 0.7, since the value of 0.48 lies within the claimed range (see MPEP 2131.03).
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 taught by “GTF” with a first mount for said engine attached to one of said fan case, and a second mount for said engine attached to said inner core housing, said first and second mount for attaching the engine to an aircraft, and an axial length of said engine defined between a forwardmost point of said engine and a rearwardmost point of said engine and a mount distance being defined between a trailing edge of said first mount and a trailing edge of second mount, with each of said trailing edges measured from a radially innermost end as suggested by Suciu, to provide the benefits of allowing mounting of the engine to an aircraft at locations that allow for loading and more aerodynamic configurations. Anticipating the ratio of said mount distance to said axial length being between 0.4 and 0.7 is resulting from applying the teachings of Suciu to “GTF”, since the specific locations in “GTF” where the mounts are desired to be placed have such relative distances.
In the annotated Figure of “GTF” in Figure 11 above, it is seen that there are three illustrated low pressure compressor stages.
“GTF” does not expressly teach said low pressure compressor has four to six rotating stages as claimed. However, a number of stages would have been obvious in view of Hasel.
Figure 1 of Hasel teaches a gas turbine engine with a schematically illustrated low pressure compressor (18). The low pressure compressor has three or four rotating stages [0030]. Particular pressure ratios are known to be desirable at particular modes of operation [0132]. As such, the number of stages for the low pressure compressor (18) may be changed to achieve a desired pressure ratio [0149]. The stage of four is within the claimed range of four to six, therefore the claimed range is anticipated by the combination (see MPEP 2131.03).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the gas turbine engine taught by “GTF”-Suciu such that said low pressure compressor has four rotating stages as suggested by Hasel, to provide the benefit of altering the pressure ratio.
Note that at most in “GTF”, a stage encompasses about 2.3% of the total axial length. Thus, the addition of a stage would not alter the position of the mounts of Claim 11 to be outside of the claimed range. As stated above, the current ratio is about 0.48. In best case scenario where a new stage adds to both the mount distance and axial length, the resulting ratio is about 0.49. This is further within the claimed range. In the worst case where a new stage adds to only the axial length and not the mount distance, the resulting ratio is about 0.47. This is closer to an end of the claimed range, but significantly lacking enough to be out of the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 13, “GTF”, Suciu, and Hasel teach the gas turbine engine as set forth in Claim 11.
Figure 1 of “GTF” teaches wherein there is a high pressure turbine driving the high pressure compressor, and a mid-turbine frame defined between said high pressure turbine and said fan drive turbine. See the annotated Figure in Claim 11 above. This known operation can be confirmed by paragraphs [0019-0021] of Suciu.
The modification in Claim 11 by Suciu results in said second mount (17R) being attached to said inner core housing (housing surrounding core path through 48, 49, 50, 52A-C, 54, 56) at a location aligned with said mid-turbine frame (20), as illustrated in Figure 1C of Suciu [0014].
Regarding Claim 14, “GTF”, Suciu, and Hasel teach the gas turbine engine as set forth in Claim 11.
Figure 1 of “GTF” teaches wherein a plurality of fan exit guide vanes connect said fan case to said inner core housing. See the annotated Figure in Claim 11 above.
The modification in Claim 11 by Suciu results in said first mount (17F) being on said fan case (46, 48) at an axial location aligned with a radially outermost edge of said plurality of fan exit guide vanes (see unlabeled guide vanes radially between 17F and where annotation 24 points), as exemplified by Figures 1A-1C of Suciu [0017].
Regarding Claim 24, “GTF”, Suciu, and Hasel teach the gas turbine engine as set forth in Claim 13.
Figure 1 of “GTF” teaches wherein a plurality of fan exit guide vanes connect said fan case to said inner core housing. See the annotated Figure in Claim 11 above.
The modification in Claim 11 by Suciu results in said first mount (17F) being on said fan case (46, 48) at an axial location aligned with a radially outermost edge of said plurality of fan exit guide vanes (see unlabeled guide vanes radially between 17F and where annotation 24 points), as exemplified by Figures 1A-1C of Suciu [0017].
Regarding Claim 27, “GTF”, Suciu, and Hasel teach the gas turbine engine as set forth in Claim 11.
“GTF” does not expressly teach wherein the high pressure compressor has nine rotating stages. However, nine stages would have been obvious in view of Hasel.
Figure 1 of Hasel teaches a gas turbine engine with a schematically illustrated high pressure compressor (22). Hasel teaches an embodiment wherein the high pressure compressor has nine rotating stages [0036]. Note Hasel also contemplates eight to eleven stages [0146]. Particular pressure ratios are known to be desirable at particular modes of operation [0132]. As such, the number of stages for the high pressure compressor (22) may be changed to achieve a desired pressure ratio [0149].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the gas turbine engine taught by “GTF”-Suciu-Hasel such that the high pressure compressor has nine rotating stages as suggested by Hasel, to provide the benefit of altering the pressure ratio.
Note that at most in “GTF”, a stage of the high pressure compressor encompasses about 2-2.3% of the total axial length. Thus, the addition of a stage would not alter the position of the mounts of Claim 11 to be outside of the claimed range. See additional explanation in Claim 11 above related to the low pressure compressor, where similar logic applies.
Regarding Claim 28, “GTF”, Suciu, and Hasel teach the gas turbine engine as set forth in Claim 27.
“GTF” does not expressly teach wherein the low pressure compressor has five stages. However, five stages would have been obvious in view of Hasel.
Figure 1 of Hasel teaches a gas turbine engine with a schematically illustrated low pressure compressor (18). The low pressure compressor has three or four stages [0030]. Particular pressure ratios are known to be desirable at particular modes of operation [0132]. As such, the number of stages for the low pressure compressor (18) may be changed to achieve a desired pressure ratio [0149]. While the teachings of Hasel do not explicitly state an embodiment with five stages, the teachings encompass such a value. Paragraph [0149] previously cited does not particularly limit the exact number of low pressure compressor stages in its discussion of the number of stages. Additionally, paragraph [0147] even contemplates allowing having the same or greater number of stages than the high pressure compressor (22), which is exemplified to be eight to eleven in the embodiment paragraph [0146]. Hasel does not provide a specific limit to the number of stages, and five is well between the values of specifically exemplified embodiments. Note that while MPEP 2144.05, II is in relation to ranges of values, a similar reasoning is applicable. Paragraph [0149] evidences that the number of stages is results-effective, so one of ordinary skill would optimize the number of stages to obtain a desired pressure ratio.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the gas turbine engine taught by “GTF”-Suciu-Hasel such that said low pressure compressor has five stages as suggested by Hasel, to provide the benefit of altering the pressure ratio.
Note that at most in “GTF”, a stage encompasses about 2.3% of the total axial length. Thus, the addition of the stages would not alter the position of the mounts of Claim 11 to be outside of the claimed range. See the further explanation in Claim 11 above, where similar logic applies.
Regarding Claim 29, “GTF”, Suciu, and Hasel teach the gas turbine engine as set forth in Claim 11.
“GTF” does not expressly teach wherein the low pressure compressor has five stages. However, five stages would have been obvious in view of Hasel.
Figure 1 of Hasel teaches a gas turbine engine with a schematically illustrated low pressure compressor (18). The low pressure compressor has three or four stages [0030]. Particular pressure ratios are known to be desirable at particular modes of operation [0132]. As such, the number of stages for the low pressure compressor (18) may be changed to achieve a desired pressure ratio [0149]. While the teachings of Hasel do not explicitly state an embodiment with five stages, the teachings encompass such a value. Paragraph [0149] previously cited does not particularly limit the exact number of low pressure compressor stages in its discussion of the number of stages. Additionally, paragraph [0147] even contemplates allowing having the same or greater number of stages than the high pressure compressor (22), which is exemplified to be at least eight in the embodiment paragraph [0146]. Hasel does not provide a specific limit to the number of stages, and five is well between the values of specifically exemplified embodiments. Note that while MPEP 2144.05, II is in relation to ranges of values, a similar reasoning is applicable. Paragraph [0149] evidences that the number of stages is results-effective, so one of ordinary skill would optimize the number of stages to obtain a desired pressure ratio.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the gas turbine engine taught by “GTF”-Suciu-Hasel such that said low pressure compressor has five stages as suggested by Hasel, to provide the benefit of altering the pressure ratio.
Note that at most in “GTF”, a stage encompasses about 2.3% of the total axial length. Thus, the addition of the stages would not alter the position of the mounts of Claim 11 to be outside of the claimed range. See the further explanation in Claim 11 above, where similar logic applies.
Claims 15 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “GTF”, Suciu, and Hasel as applied to Claims 11, 24, and 14 above, and further in view of Maalouf et al. (US 2013/0084174 A1), hereinafter Maalouf.
Regarding Claim 15, “GTF”, Suciu, and Hasel teach the gas turbine engine as set forth in Claim 11.
“GTF” does not expressly teach wherein there are a plurality of A-frames each including a pair of legs rigidly connected at a connection point to said fan case, and each leg in said pair extending away from said connection point in opposed circumferential directions to be connected to said inner core housing. However, a plurality of A-frames would have been obvious in view of Maalouf.
Figures 1 and 2B of Maalouf teach a gas turbine engine with a plurality of A-frames (30) each including a pair of legs rigidly connected at a connection point to said fan case (at 32), and each leg in said pair extending away from said connection point in opposed circumferential directions to be connected to said inner core housing (at 34) [0011]. The A-frames (30) help provide reinforcement for the vanes (28) by adding torsional stability and rigidity [0017].
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 taught by “GTF”-Suciu-Hasel with a plurality of A-frames each including a pair of legs rigidly connected at a connection point to said fan case, and each leg in said pair extending away from said connection point in opposed circumferential directions to be connected to said inner core housing as suggested by Maalouf, to provide the benefit of reinforcement.
Regarding Claim 25, “GTF”, Suciu, and Hasel teach the gas turbine engine as set forth in Claim 24.
“GTF” does not expressly teach wherein there are a plurality of A-frames each including a pair of legs rigidly connected at a connection point to said fan case, and each leg in said pair extending away from said connection point in opposed circumferential directions to be connected to said inner core housing. However, a plurality of A-frames would have been obvious in view of Maalouf.
Figures 1 and 2B of Maalouf teach a gas turbine engine with a plurality of A-frames (30) each including a pair of legs rigidly connected at a connection point to said fan case (at 32), and each leg in said pair extending away from said connection point in opposed circumferential directions to be connected to said inner core housing (at 34) [0011]. The A-frames (30) help provide reinforcement for the vanes (28) by adding torsional stability and rigidity [0017].
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 taught by “GTF”-Suciu-Hasel with a plurality of A-frames each including a pair of legs rigidly connected at a connection point to said fan case, and each leg in said pair extending away from said connection point in opposed circumferential directions to be connected to said inner core housing as suggested by Maalouf, to provide the benefit of reinforcement.
Regarding Claim 26, “GTF”, Suciu, and Hasel teach the gas turbine engine as set forth in Claim 14.
“GTF” does not expressly teach wherein there are a plurality of A-frames each including a pair of legs rigidly connected at a connection point to said fan case, and each leg in said pair extending away from said connection point in opposed circumferential directions to be connected to said inner core housing. However, a plurality of A-frames would have been obvious in view of Maalouf.
Figures 1 and 2B of Maalouf teach a gas turbine engine with a plurality of A-frames (30) each including a pair of legs rigidly connected at a connection point to said fan case (at 32), and each leg in said pair extending away from said connection point in opposed circumferential directions to be connected to said inner core housing (at 34) [0011]. The A-frames (30) help provide reinforcement for the vanes (28) by adding torsional stability and rigidity [0017].
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 taught by “GTF”-Suciu-Hasel with a plurality of A-frames each including a pair of legs rigidly connected at a connection point to said fan case, and each leg in said pair extending away from said connection point in opposed circumferential directions to be connected to said inner core housing as suggested by Maalouf, to provide the benefit of reinforcement.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Lord (US 2015/0300253 A1) provides a specific example of a turbine with five low pressure compressor stages and nine high pressure compressor stages.
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 ELTON K WONG whose telephone number is (408)918-7626. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM - 5:00PM PST.
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, Court Heinle can be reached at (571)270-3508. 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.
/ELTON K WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights