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 .
Claim 11 is currently pending. Claim 11 is rejected.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 13, 2026, which refers to the filing of March 12, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Pg. 3 of the response, filed March 12, 2026 with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states repetition of all prior arguments. These have already been addressed on Pg. 2-3 of the Final Rejection filed January 12, 2026. A model is understood to be a physical representation of a structure, which, as noted previously, GTF alleges a high level of detail. Applicant has not provide evidence to support the assertion that a highly detailed physical representation lacks sufficient dimensional accuracy to address the claims. Applicant also states an actual gas turbine engine would be difficult to access. However, this is just a general assertion rather than evidence of unreliability of this specific instance. See MPEP 2125, the origin is immaterial. Applicant also states an actual gas turbine engine would not be cutaway, but enclosed. This statement misrepresents a cutaway. A “cutaway view” is a viewing technique to view the inside of an object, i.e. a cutaway of a turbine is understood to show a portion of a full turbine, not the operation of a turbine cut in half.
Regarding the comparing of Maalouf’s (US 2013/0084174 A1) fan case compared to GTF and Suciu (US 2015/0361828 A1), this argument is found to be unpersuasive. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Applicant’s arguments appear to attempt to bodily incorporate all three structures into one another in Applicant’s own fashion rather than consider the teaching of benefits of A-frames provided by Maalouf in the combination presented by the rejection.
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.
Claim 11 is 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, Hasel (US 2018/0230912 A1), hereinafter Hasel, and Maalouf et al. (US 2013/0084174 A1), hereinafter Maalouf. A copy of “GTF” was provided with the action of July 30, 2025.
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; 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; wherein a plurality of fan exit guide vanes connect said fan case to said inner core housing. 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; said second mount being attached to said inner core housing at a location aligned with said mid-turbine frame; said first mount being on said fan case at an axial location aligned with a radially outermost edge of said plurality of fan exit guide vanes 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; said second mount (17R) being attached to said inner core housing at a location aligned with said mid-turbine frame (20); 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 vanes radially inwards of 17F). 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; said second mount being attached to said inner core housing at a location aligned with said mid-turbine frame; said first mount being on said fan case at an axial location aligned with a radially outermost edge of said plurality of fan exit guide vanes 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” 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 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.
“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 as claimed. 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
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