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
Claims 1-13 and 15-22 are currently pending.
Claims 10-12 and 15 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 13 and 14 have been canceled.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments filed 12/09/2025 have been entered.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, and 12 have been amended. Claim 13 has been canceled. Claims 21 and 22 have been newly added.
The Section 102 rejections have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
However, new Section 103 rejections have been implemented upon further search and consideration of the claims.
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) 1-6, 7-9, 16-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spratt et al. (US 2015/0207383 A1) in view of Beneventi et al. (US 2023/0347584 A1).
Regarding claims 1-2, 5-7, and 17,
Spratt teaches a composite material for supporting a generator (structurally may be considered a skid as a skid is structurally a plate component) (Spratt: abstract; par. 0005). The skid component comprises or consists of a composite material (a matrix material) of a thermoplastic or thermoset polymeric material (an organic matrix) and may optionally be reinforced with glass fibers (an inorganic filler/additive material that is a reinforcement material) (Spratt: par. 0013).
Spratt does not explicitly teach wherein the matrix comprises an organic filler that is wood based or a thixotropic agent.
Beneventi teaches a thermosetting composite material for use in manufacturing parts with improved mechanical and heat-resistant properties (Beneventi: abstract; par. 0001, 0017-0018, and 0060). Particles (filler) may be added to the matrix to give thixotropic behavior and thus improve mechanical properties (Beneventi: par. 0014-0016). The thermosetting composite can further comprise particles made of cellulose or sawdust (wood-based additives) (Beneventi: par. 0027).
Spratt and Beneventi are in the corresponding field of thermosetting based composites which desire high heat-resistance (Spratt: par. 0013). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add filler/additives such as particles that give thixotropic properties (thixotropic agent) and/or particles such as wood-based additives to the matrix of Spratt to provide improved mechanical and heat-resistant properties as taught by Beneventi.
Claim 1 is drawn to a continuous flow engine skid component, the limitations requiring the component to be part of a flow engine skid or adapted to be part of a continuous flow engine skid that is adapted to fixate a continuous flow engine in a specified position are functional limitations or intended use of the claimed skid component. See MPEP 2173.05(g). As the skid component may be in the form of a base that attaches to an engine and is made of the claimed materials, it is fully capable of being adapted into the claimed engine skid.
Regarding claim 3,
Spratt in view of Beneventi teaches the continuous flow engine skid component required by claim 1. The limitation requiring the continuous flow engine skid component is a skid “adapted to fixate a continuous flow engine in a specific position is a functional limitation or intended use of the claimed skid component. See MPEP 2173.05(g). The base (the skid) is adapted to mount an engine and thus is structurally fully capable of adapting to fixate a continuous flow engine in a specified position (Spratt: par. 0019).
Regarding claim 4,
Spratt in view of Beneventi teaches the continuous flow engine skid component required by claim 1. The base (the skid) is adapted to mount an engine and thus may be considered a mounting element (Spratt: par. 0019).
Regarding claim 8,
Spratt in view of Beneventi teaches the continuous flow engine skid component required by claim 1. The limitation requiring the gas continuous flow engine to be a gas continuous flow engine is an example of intended use of the claimed skid component and does not further limit the structure of claimed skid component and thus not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2173.05(g).
Regarding claim 9,
Spratt in view of Beneventi teaches the continuous flow engine skid component required by claim 1. Claim 1 is drawn to a continuous flow engine skid component with claim 9 requiring a continuous flow engine skid, the limitations requiring the skid component or skid are adapted to fixate a continuous flow engine in a specified position are functional limitations or intended use of the claimed skid component or the claimed skid. See MPEP 2173.05(g). As the skid may be in the form of a base that attaches to an engine and is made of the claimed materials, it is fully capable of being adapted into the claimed engine skid.
Regarding claim 16,
Spratt in view of Beneventi teaches the continuous flow engine skid component required by claim 1. The limitations requiring the skid component to be “a transport skid adapted to transport the continuous flow engine” are functional limitations or intended use of the claimed skid component or the claimed skid. See MPEP 2173.05(g). As the skid component of Spratt teaches the skid may be in the form of a base that attaches to an engine and is made of the claimed materials, it is expected to be fully capable of being adapted to serve as a transport skid.
Regarding claim 20,
Spratt in view of Beneventi teaches the continuous flow engine skid component required by claim 1. Spratt teaches the bas may be molded as an integral one piece structure or multiple pieces as desired or necessary and may be constructed of glass reinforced plastics and thus the matrix material (which is plastic reinforced with an additive such as glass along multiple different pieces and thus would have to vary to some degree) may be distributed or vary with the skid component (Spratt: par. 0013).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spratt in view of Beneventi and in further view of Hutchinson (DE 11-2017/003276 T5).
Regarding claim 18,
Spratt in view of Beneventi teaches the continuous flow engine skid component required by claim 1. Spratt does not explicitly teach wherein the skid component comprises a noise reducing sound enclosure.
Hutchinson teaches a product comprising an engine (14) attached an engine mount (30, a skid) and additional a sound enclosure (11) to dampen the sound from the motor (Hutchinson: Fig. 2; pg. 3, par. 6; pg. 5, par. 4-6).
Spratt and Hutchinson are in the corresponding field of mounted engines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a sound enclosure to the skid of Spratt to provide improved sound dampening as taught by Hutchinson.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spratt in view of Beneventi and in further view of van Tooren et al. (US 2018/0356118 A1).
Regarding claim 19,
Spratt in view of Beneventi teaches the continuous flow engine skid component required by claim 1. Spratt does not explicitly teach the matrix material further comprises steel reinforcing fibers. However, Spratt does teach fiber reinforcing plastics (Spratt: par. 0013).
Van Tooren teaches thermoset parts reinforced with steel fibers to provide improved tensile strength (van Tooren: abstract; par. 0038-0041). Thus, it is known in thermoset composites to reinforce parts with steel fibers to improve tensile strength of the composite.
Spratt and van Tooren are in the corresponding field of fiber reinforced thermoset composites for use in parts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reinforce the matrix of Spratt with steel fibers to improve tensile strength of the matrix composite as taught by van Tooren.
Claim(s) 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spratt in view of Beneventi and in further view of Lettow (US 2012/0203670 A1).
Regarding claim 21,
Spratt in view of Beneventi teaches the continuous flow engine skid component required by claim 1. There appears to be no special definition in the specification for “unipartite”. Therefore, the broadest reasonable definition will be taken. As such, “unipartite” as being composed of one part as defined by the English Oxford Dictionary. As the “base” of Spratt is of one part, it may be considered a “unipartite” body.
Spratt and Beneventi do not teach wherein the unipartite body comprises more of the organic filler in a middle part than a remainder of the unipartite body.
Lettow teaches articles composed of composites that may be used in a variety of structures from articles or components gas or fuel tanks for vehicles or other fuel-powered devices (Lettow: abstract; par. 0073 and 0083-0085). The components may be composites such as thermoset polymer matrix with organic fillers, such as carbonaceous fillers, and/or inorganic fillers, such as glass fibers (Lettow: abstract; par. 0006, 0010, 0017, 0034, and 0063-0064). The organic filler may be distributed throughout the matrix as a gradient, such as a gradient towards the middle as shown in Figure 4 (Lettow: par. 0006, 0010-0013, and 0019). The gradient provides graded mechanical properties, such as rigidity (Lettow: par. 0002, 0074, and 0076).
Spratt and Lettow are in the corresponding field of composites for use as a part in engine components. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to distribute the organic filler of Spratt and Beneventi in a gradient such as a higher amount of filler in the middle part compared to other parts of the composite to provide a distribution of mechanical properties to provide advantages such as absorb or dampen vibrations of articles as taught by Lettow.
Regarding claim 22,
Spratt teaches a base comprising a composite material for supporting a generator (structurally may be considered a skid as a skid is structurally a plate component) (Spratt: abstract; par. 0005). The skid component comprises a composite material (a matrix material) of a thermoplastic or thermoset polymeric material (an organic matrix) and may be reinforced with glass fibers (an inorganic filler/additive material that is a reinforcement material) (Spratt: par. 0013). The base (corresponds to the skid) may be considered to be a mounting part as said engine is ultimate attached to said base (Spratt: par. 0010-0020) and there appears to be no special structural requirements for said mounting part being “configured to” mount an industrial gas turbine engine. There appears to be no special definition in the specification for “unipartite”. Therefore, the broadest reasonable definition will be taken. As such, “unipartite” as being composed of one part as defined by the English Oxford Dictionary. As the “base” of Spratt is of one part, it may be considered a “unipartite” body.
Spratt does not explicitly teach wherein the matrix comprises an organic filler.
Beneventi teaches a thermosetting composite material for use in manufacturing parts with improved mechanical and heat-resistant properties (Beneventi: abstract; par. 0001, 0017-0018, and 0060). Particles (filler) may be added to the matrix to give thixotropic behavior and thus improve mechanical properties (Beneventi: par. 0014-0016). The thermosetting composite can further comprise particles made of cellulose or sawdust (wood-based additives) (Beneventi: par. 0027).
Spratt and Beneventi are in the corresponding field of thermosetting based composites which desire high heat-resistance (Spratt: par. 0013). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add filler/additives such as particles that give thixotropic properties (thixotropic agent) and/or particles such as organic fillers to the matrix of Spratt to provide improved mechanical and heat-resistant properties as taught by Beneventi.
Spratt and Beneventi do not teach wherein the unipartite body comprises more of the reinforcing material in a middle part than a remainder of the unipartite body.
Lettow teaches articles composed of composites that may be used in a variety of structures from articles or components gas or fuel tanks for vehicles or other fuel-powered devices (Lettow: abstract; par. 0073 and 0083-0085). The components may be composites such as thermoset polymer matrix with organic fillers, such as carbonaceous fillers, and/or inorganic fillers, such as glass fibers (reinforcement materials) (Lettow: abstract; par. 0006, 0010, 0017, 0034, and 0063-0064). The filler/reinforcement material may be distributed throughout the matrix as a gradient, such as a gradient towards the middle as shown in Figure 4 (Lettow: par. 0006, 0010-0013, and 0019). The gradient provides graded mechanical properties, such as rigidity (Lettow: par. 0002, 0074, and 0076).
Spratt and Lettow are in the corresponding field of composites for use as a part in engine components. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to distribute the organic filler of Spratt and Beneventi in a gradient such as a higher amount of reinforcement materials in the middle part compared to other parts of the composite to provide a distribution of mechanical properties to provide advantages such as absorb or dampen vibrations of articles as taught by Lettow.
Claim 22 is drawn to a continuous flow engine skid component, the limitations requiring the component to be part of a flow engine skid or adapted to be part of a continuous flow engine skid that is adapted to fixate a continuous flow engine in a specified position are functional limitations or intended use of the claimed skid component. See MPEP 2173.05(g). As the skid component may be in the form of a base that attaches to an engine and is made of the claimed materials, it is fully capable of being adapted into the claimed engine skid.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments towards the ne limitations regarding the different amount of organic filler or glass fiber reinforcement is moot as they do not apply to the updated prior art rejection provided above.
Applicant argues that as Spratt values high heat resistance, impact resistance, stiffness, and rigidity, it teaches away from the modification with of Beneventi as the particles would reduce these properties.
The argument is not found persuasive as there is no explicit teaching away within in Spratt. Applicant provides no evidence in which Applicant’s arguments are conclusionary statements gleaned from their own knowledge. Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2145 I.
Applicant argues that there is no proper rational for the proposed combination.
The argument is not found persuasive as the two references are in a corresponding field and a proper advantage for the modification to motivate one of ordinary skill in the art was provided.
Applicant argues Spratt is not capable of being used as a mounting part for an industrial gas turbine engine. Applicant points to par. 0029 of Spratt as evidence for the assertion.
The argument is not found persuasive as par. 0029 of Spratt does not say anything about being incapable of being used in an industrial gas turbine engine mount. The cited paragraph states adding various features to aid in design, reinforcement, and functionality to be used for vehicle based applications. Further, the claims do not provide specific properties or weight requirements for said claimed skid. Applicant is reminded that the claims are drawn to a skid component, not the industrial gas turbine engine itself. Claim 22 is drawn to a continuous flow engine skid component, the limitations requiring the component to be part of a flow engine skid or adapted to be part of a continuous flow engine skid that is adapted to fixate a continuous flow engine in a specified position are functional limitations or intended use of the claimed skid component. See MPEP 2173.05(g). As the skid component may be in the form of a base that attaches to an engine and is made of the claimed materials, it is fully capable of being adapted into the claimed engine skid.
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 Travis M Figg whose telephone number is (571)272-9849. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Maria Veronica D. Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/TRAVIS M FIGG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783