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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/29/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 5-8 and 10-13 are currently being examined.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 5-8 and 10-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-7, 9-13 and 15-16 of copending Application No. 18/290925 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the copending application “anticipate” the claims of the instant application. Accordingly, the instant application claims are not patentably distinct from the copending application claims. Here, the more specific copending application claims encompass the broader instant application claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 is anticipated by each of claims 1, 4-7, 9-13 and 15-16 of the copending application.
Claim 5 is anticipated by claims 5-6 of the copending application.
Claim 6 is anticipated by claims 6-7 of the copending application.
Claim 7 is anticipated by claim 7 of the copending application.
Claims 8, 10, 11, 12 and 13 are anticipated by, respectively, claims 10, 12, 13, 1 and 15 of the copending application.
This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-8, 10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miller et al. 20160319748.
Regarding independent claim 1, Miller discloses a system (Figs. 2-4) for cooling oil (para. 0031,0033) in an aircraft turbine engine (10 Fig. 1; para. 0015 describes the gas turbine engine in Fig. 1 is a high-bypass turbofan jet engine 10, referred to herein as “turbofan engine 10,” as shown in Fig. 1 10 includes an outer nacelle 48 and para. 0023 also describes 10 as providing propulsive thrust, all of which are indicative of 10 being an aircraft turbine engine), and, the system comprising:
an intermediate support casing (labeled in annotated Fig. 1; intermediate support casing extends radially from a portion of casing 18 to outer liner 90 as shown in Fig. 3) configured to be located between a low-pressure compressor (22 Fig. 1) and a high-pressure compressor (24 Fig. 1) of the aircraft turbine engine (as shown in Fig. 1, intermediate casing is located between 22 and 24), and
a heat exchanger (assembly of 72 and associated ducting in Figs. 1-2; includes 122, 124, 126 extending from inlets 102 to outlets 68 in Figs. 2-4 and annular plenum between 90 and 92 as shown in Figs. 3-4) configured to cool the oil by heat exchange with air (as described in para. 0033 air through the heat exchangers, 72 including 122, 124, 126, removes heat from oil flowing through the heat exchangers with air flowing through the heat exchangers), the heat exchanger being at least partially integrated into the intermediate support casing (as shown in Figs. 1 and 2-4, heat exchanger assembly 72 including 122, 124, 126 and associated ducting are at least partially integrated into the intermediate support casing),
wherein the heat exchanger comprises a primary duct surface configured to cool the oil by heat exchange with air (surface of structure defining inlet 102 is a primary duct surface in outer liner 90 as seen in Fig. 4, primary duct surface of 102 is configured to bleed air from engine air flowpath 64 to cool the oil by heat exchange with the bleed air), said primary duct surface being configured to be in a primary duct (primary duct surface of 102 is configured to be in primary duct defined by 90 and 88 forming engine air flowpath 64 in Figs. 1-4) of the aircraft turbine engine (10) and between a most downstream vane of the low-pressure compressor, and a most upstream vane of the high-pressure compressor (as seen in Figs. 1 and 4, primary duct surface of 102 is in part of primary duct with swan-neck profile which is between a most downstream vane of 22 and a most upstream vane of 24).
PNG
media_image1.png
672
834
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Miller further discloses wherein the heat exchanger comprises a secondary duct surface (labeled in annotated Fig. 1 which is at outlets 68 of heat exchangers 72 shown in Figs. 2-4) configured to be in a secondary duct (bypass duct 54 in Fig. 1) of the aircraft engine.
Regarding claim 6, Miller further discloses wherein the heat exchanger is configured to extend radially between the primary duct (duct forming 64) and a secondary duct (bypass duct 54 in Fig. 1; heat exchanger assembly 72 extends radially from 64 to 54 in Fig. 1), and comprises a secondary duct surface (labeled in annotated Fig. 1 which is at outlets 68 of heat exchangers 72 shown in Figs. 2-4) configured to be in a secondary duct of the aircraft turbine engine (secondary duct surface is in 54 as seen in annotated Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Miller further discloses wherein the heat exchanger is configured to partially obstruct the secondary duct (as seen in Figs. 3-4, slots 134 extend radially outward from vents in outer casing 18 at outlets 68,120 of heat exchangers 72, where extending radially outward from 18 in Fig. 1 is extending into secondary duct 54, i.e., partially obstructing 54).
Regarding claim 8, Miller further discloses wherein the heat exchanger is annular (as described in para. 0036 and shown in Figs. 2-4, openings 136 defined in each of the plurality of radially extending sidewalls 94 forms an annular plenum of air between the outer liner 90 and the annular frame 92, and as described in para. 0037 vents may be positioned over one or more of the openings 118 in the outer casing 18 of the core engine 16 defining the outlets 68 of the bleed air flowpaths 66 which may allow the core engine 16 to focus the air from the annular plenum of air into one or more of the cooling air flowpaths 108, 110, 112, 114 and over or through certain of the heat exchangers 122, 124, 126 when, e.g., a large amount of cooling is required; i.e., heat exchanger assembly is annular) and is configured to extend around an axis of the aircraft turbine engine (as shown in Fig. 3 heat exchanger assembly 72 including 122, 124, 126 and associated ducting and annular air plenum extend in the circumferential direction around a central axis 12 of 10 in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Miller further discloses wherein the heat exchanger is a part fixed to the intermediate support casing (as shown in Figs. 1-4, assembly of heat exchanger 72 including 122, 124, 126 and associated ducting are fixed to walls and structures of intermediate support casing including at least portions of 18, 90 and 92).
Regarding claim 12, Miller further discloses an aircraft turbine engine (10 Fig. 1, 10 includes an outer nacelle 48 which indicates an aircraft turbine engine and para. 0023 also describes 10 as providing propulsive thrust) comprising the system according to claim 1, wherein the intermediate support casing is located between the low-pressure compressor and the high-pressure compressor (intermediate support casing is located between 22 and 24 in annotated Fig. 1).
Claims 1, 5-8 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ramos et al. 20190003390.
Regarding independent claim 1, Ramos discloses a system (Figs. 1-2) for cooling oil ([0046] describes Fig. 2 showing an inter-flow wall internally carrying a surface air-cooled oil cooler (SACOC) arranged, with an oil reservoir, in an inter-flow compartment (area II-II)) in an aircraft turbine engine ([0001]-[0002] describe aircraft with turbofan gas turbine engines and [0045] describes Fig. 1 is overall sectional view of the upstream portion of a turbofan engine), the system comprising:
an intermediate support casing 70, 71 ([0063] describes axially shortened intermediate case 70 with a case of the kit engine 71, Fig. 1) configured to be located between a low-pressure compressor 2 and a high-pressure compressor 3 of the aircraft turbine engine (in Fig. 1, casing 70,71 is axially between low-pressure compressor 2 and high-pressure compressor 3), and
a heat exchanger 18 (air-oil heat exchanger) configured to cool the oil by heat exchange with air ([0029]-[0030], [0066]-[0071]), the heat exchanger being at least partially integrated into the intermediate support casing (Figs. 1-2, 4, the heat exchanger is integrated into the intermediate wall 9 of the intermediate support casing, circumferentially between the outlets 106 of each passage 102, [0069]-[0072]) wherein the heat exchanger comprises a primary duct surface (radially outer surface of 18 which includes portions 18a-18c as shown in Figs. 2 and 4, the radially outer surface is a primary duct surface) configured to cool the oil by heat exchange with air (as described in [0071], 18 is a surface air-oil heat exchanger in which hot oil is cooled by gas flow 5 which is air flow in fan bypass duct shown in Fig. 1 such that primary duct surface of 18 is configured to cool the oil by heat exchange with air flow 5), said primary duct surface being configured to be in a primary duct (primary duct is defined between intermediate wall 9 and wall 8 shown in Fig. 1) of the aircraft turbine engine and between a most downstream vane of the low-pressure compressor, and a most upstream vane of the high-pressure compressor (in Figs. 1-2, primary duct surface of heat exchanger 18 is located at the same axial location of the outlets 106, which are axially between the entirety of the low-pressure compressor 2 and high-pressure compressor 3, and any vanes comprised therein).
Regarding claim 5, Ramos further discloses wherein the heat exchanger comprises a secondary duct surface (secondary duct surface is radially inner surface of 18 which extends circumferentially and which includes surface of oil ducts 29, 31 as shown in Fig. 4) configured to be in a secondary duct (secondary duct surface is configured to be in inter-flow compartment 110, i.e., a secondary duct, which is shown in Fig. 3) of the aircraft engine.
Regarding claim 6, Ramos further discloses wherein the heat exchanger is configured to extend radially between the primary duct and a secondary duct (inter-flow compartment 110, i.e., a secondary duct, in Fig. 3; heat exchanger 18 is configured to extend radially between primary duct, which is defined between intermediate wall 9 and wall 8, and secondary duct 110), and comprises a secondary duct surface (secondary duct surface is radially inner surface of 18 which extends circumferentially and which includes surface of oil ducts 29, 31 as shown in Fig. 4) configured to be in a secondary duct of the aircraft turbine engine (secondary duct surface is configured to be in secondary duct 110).
Regarding claim 7, Ramos further discloses wherein the heat exchanger is configured to partially obstruct the secondary duct (as seen in Fig. 4 heat exchanger 18 including oil ducts 29, 31 partially obstructs 110).
Regarding claim 8, Ramos further discloses wherein the heat exchanger is annular (as seen in Figs. 2 and 4 heat exchanger 18 is annular as portions of 18 and intervening connecting structure form a ring, i.e., is annular) and is configured to extend around an axis of the aircraft turbine engine (as shown in Figs. 1-2 and 4, heat exchanger 18 extends around axis 100 of aircraft turbine engine).
Regarding claim 10, Ramos further discloses wherein the heat exchanger is a part fixed to the intermediate support casing (as shown in Figs. 1-2, heat exchanger 18 is a part fixed to intermediate support casing 70, 71).
Regarding claim 11, Ramos further discloses the heat exchanger is integral with the intermediate support casing ([0076] describes heat exchange portions are built into first intermediate wall 9 of intermediate support casing 70, 71 and the wall and its built-in channels may be made by additive manufacturing, such that 18 is integral with intermediate support casing 70,71)
Regarding claim 12, Ramos further discloses an aircraft turbine engine ([0001]-[0002] describe aircraft with turbofan gas turbine engines, and [0045] and [0051] describe Fig. 1 is overall sectional view of the upstream portion of a turbofan engine) comprising the system according to claim 1 (turbofan engine in Fig. 1 has system shown in Figs. 2 and 4), wherein the intermediate support casing is located between the low-pressure compressor and the high-pressure compressor (intermediate support casing 70, 71 is located between low-pressure compressor 2 and high-pressure compressor 3 in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Ramos further discloses an aircraft ([0001] describes the present invention relates to the field of turbomachines, i.e. gas turbine engines, in particular those intended for the propulsion of aircraft, and [0002] describes commercial aircraft are equipped with turbofan engines which consist of a gas turbine engine driving a ducted fan) comprising the aircraft turbine engine according to claim 12 (aircraft turbine engine of claim 12 is the turbofan engine shown in Fig. 1).
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.
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(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. 20160319748 in view of Kalevi et al. 20210262385.
Regarding claim 11, Miller discloses all that is claimed above but is silent regarding the heat exchanger is integral with the intermediate support casing in light of instant specification para. 0010 and the term integral.
Kalevi teaches a gas turbine engine (Fig. 1) with a casing frame 100 defining a core flowpath 78 as shown in Fig. 4 including heat exchangers (passages 230 at outer wall 130 receive a flow of fluid 86 which generally includes thermal energy that is transferred from the fluid 86 in the passage 230 to the outer wall 130 of the frame 100 per para. 0059). Kalevi teaches the heat exchanger is integral with the casing (per para. 0098 the components may be fabricated via additive process, and per para. 0104 integral formation of the multipart components through additive manufacturing may advantageously improve the overall assembly process, reduce potential leakage, reduce thermodynamic losses, improve thermal energy transfer, or provide higher power densities; and the integral formation reduces the number of separate parts that must be assembled, thus reducing associated time, overall assembly costs, reduces potential leakage pathways, or reduces potential thermodynamic losses).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the heat exchanger of the invention of Miller integral with the intermediate support casing as taught by Kalevi since integral formation of the multipart components through additive manufacturing may advantageously improve the overall assembly process, reduce potential leakage, reduce thermodynamic losses, improve thermal energy transfer, or provide higher power densities; and the integral formation reduces the number of separate parts that must be assembled, thus reducing associated time, overall assembly costs, reduces potential leakage pathways, or reduces potential thermodynamic losses.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. 20160319748.
Regarding claim 13, Miller further discloses the aircraft turbine engine according to claim 12 but does not explicitly disclose an aircraft comprises the aircraft turbine engine according to claim 12.
Since Miller does disclose aircraft turbine engine 10 provides propulsive thrust (para. 0023), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the aircraft turbine engine of Miller with an aircraft as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, in this case combining the aircraft turbine engine with an aircraft to provide propulsive thrust for the aircraft.
"The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. . . . [W]hen a patent 'simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform' and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious." KSR at 1395-66 (citing Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/29/2026 regarding the 102 rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 6 of Remarks, regarding the 102 rejection of claim 1, Applicant disagrees with the interpretation of Miller in the Advisory Action and Applicant argues Miller expressly distinguishes heat exchangers 122, 124, 126 from airflow admission and control structures such as inlet 102 and opening 104 which are defined in outer liner 90 and serve solely to divert air from engine air flowpath 64 into radial flowpaths under control of a variable bleed valve door 106. However, Applicant previously admits that Miller teaches 122, 124 and 126 are for cooling oil and are positioned such that dedicated cooling air flowpaths extend in order to remove heat from oil flowing therethrough. The dedicated cooling air for cooling the oil in heat exchanger 72 which includes 122,124,126 enters via inlet 102 and opening 104.
Applicant further argues that Miller does not disclose any oil passage, oil flowpath, heat-transfer wall, or oil-to-air thermal interaction at inlet 102 or that inlet 102 participates in any heat exchange function. However, again Miller teaches inlet 102 is the inlet through which cooling air flows to cool the oil. Claim 1 does not claim any oil passage, oil flowpath or heat-transfer wall.
Applicant further argues regarding claim 1 as currently amended, that Miller discloses heat exchangers 122,124,126 are structurally separate components located radially outward of the outer liner and do not form a surface of the primary duct at the claimed location. However, Miller teaches a heat exchanger assembly 72 which includes 122,124,126 and inlet 102 and surface of structure defining inlet 102 is a primary duct surface in outer liner 90 as seen in Fig. 4, primary duct surface of 102 is configured to bleed air from engine air flowpath 64 to cool the oil by heat exchange with the bleed air. The limitation “configured to cool oil by heat exchange with air” is a broad functional limitation and the surface of inlet 102 is configured to bleed air expressly for cooling oil with the bleed air, and functioning of heat exchanger 72 would not function to cool oil without bleed air entering through inlet 102.
Applicant argues Miller fails to disclose at least a heat exchanger comprising a primary duct surface that performs oil-to-air heat exchange at the claimed location, as recited in claim 1. However, claim 1 recites “a primary duct surface configured to cool oil by heat exchange with air” and a primary duct surface of inlet 102 is configured to bleed air as part of heat exchanger 72 to cool oil by heat exchange with the bleed air.
Applicant argues one of ordinary skill in the art would have no reason to modify Miller alone or in combination with other references to arrive at subject matter of claim 1 but Miller does not need to be modified and reads on amended claim 1.
Therefore, Miller does teach all limitations of claim 1.
As shown above in the current 102 rejections, newly cited prior art Ramos et al. 20190003390 teaches all limitations of claim 1 as well.
Applicant does not provide any arguments regarding the dependent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSON JOAN HARRINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2359. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5 pm EST.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached on (571) 270-5426. 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.
/A.J.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/LORNE E MEADE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741