FINAL REJECTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 12/23/2025 has been entered. Claims 2-3, 8, 14 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 4-7, 9-13, 15-16 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings, Specification and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 09/23/2025.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 10-11, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niergarth (US 2019/0218971 A1) in view of Breeze-Stringfellow (US 2019/0204010 A1, henceforth Breeze).
Regarding independent claim 1, 4, Niergarth discloses a triple-flow aircraft turbine engine (Fig. 1 below), comprising:
a primary duct 19 in which a low-pressure compressor 22 and a high pressure compressor 24 of the aircraft gas turbine engine are arranged (core flowpath for airflow 81, Fig. 1 below, Para. 0030);
a secondary duct 48 (fan bypass airflow passage, Fig. 1, Para. 0031);
a tertiary duct 49 (third stream bypass airflow passage, Para. 0033, Fig. 1); and
a system 100 for cooling oil in an aircraft turbine engine (Para. 0035, “cooled cooling air (CCA) heat exchanger system”, using a coolant supply system 110 that can be a lubricant system, Para. 0038, 0056), the system comprising:
an intermediate support casing configured to be located between the low-pressure compressor 22 and the high-pressure compressor 24 of the aircraft turbine engine (Fig. 1 below, see the portion of the outer casing 18 that is axially between the low-pressure compressor 22 and high-pressure compressor 24, aligned with the fan outlet guide vanes/struts 46; naturally some support casing would exist in this location between the LP & HP compressors 22 & 24); and
a heat exchanger 100 configured to cool the oil by heat exchange with air (Para. 0035-36, 0038, 0056), the heat exchanger being at least partially integrated into the intermediate support casing (the heat exchanger 100 is shown at the location of the support casing between the low and high pressure compressors),
wherein the heat exchanger 100 is configured to be between a most downstream vane of the low-pressure compressor 22, and a most upstream vane of the high-pressure compressor 24 (Fig. 1 below, the heat exchanger 100 is axially between the low-pressure compressor 22 and the high-pressure compressor 24, and would consequently be between the most downstream vane of the low-pressure compressor 22, and a most upstream vane of the high-pressure compressor 24).
PNG
media_image1.png
732
867
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Niergarth fails to disclose wherein the heat exchanger is configured to partially obstruct or delimit the primary duct of the aircraft turbine engine; wherein the heat exchanger is configured to partially obstruct the primary duct.
Breeze teaches a gas turbine engine 10 (Fig. 1) including a primary duct (Fig. 1, Para. 0019) where a low-pressure compressor 16 (booster) and high-pressure compressor 18 are arranged; an intermediate support casing 32 (fan frame, Fig. 1, Para. 0019) located between the low-pressure and high-pressure compressors (Fig. 1, the portion of the frame 18 that is between the compressors, aligned with the strut 52); and a heat exchanger 36 containing a second fluid (which can be oil, Para. 0045) configured to partially obstruct the primary duct of the aircraft turbine engine (Fig. 2, Para. 0026, the flowpath 46 of the heat exchanger 36 may form part of the primary flowpath of the engine), and configured to be between a most downstream vane of the low-pressure compressor 16 and high-pressure compressor 18 (Para. 0023, “a heat exchanger 36 used as intercooler in a gooseneck duct 38 between the booster 16 and high-pressure compressor 18”).
PNG
media_image2.png
431
734
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the engine of Niergarth such that the heat exchanger that is between the low and high-pressure compressors partially obstructs the primary duct of the engine, as taught by Breeze, in order to immerse the heat exchanger in the compressed airflow of the primary duct, providing heat exchange surfaces (in the form of fins 58 subdividing the primary duct into a plurality of parallel flow passages, shown in Breeze Fig. 2 & 3) through which heat exchanger between the compressed air and the heat exchanger fluid can occur, while allowing the heat exchanger to act as turbine vanes for the flow leading into the high-pressure compressor, reducing pressure loss (Breeze Para. 0046, “Depending upon the relative temperatures of the first and second fluids, heat is transferred … from the second fluid into the fins 58, then to the first fluid”).
Regarding claim 10, Niergarth in view of Breeze teaches the triple-flow aircraft turbine engine according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the heat exchanger is annular and is configured to extend around an axis of the aircraft turbine engine.
Breeze teaches the heat exchanger is annular and configured to extend around an axis 11 of the engine (Fig. 2 & 3, Para. 0025, “the heat exchanger 36 may be configured as a partially or wholly arcuate body, formed by partial or complete revolution about an axis exterior to the peripheral walls 42,44, for example the centerline axis 11”; Para. 0039, the fins 58 of the heat exchanger can be annular).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the engine of Niergarth in view of Breeze such that the heat exchanger is annular and extends around the engine axis, as taught by Breeze, in order to maximize the heat exchange surface area of the heat exchanger by extending the heat exchanger completely around the axis of the engine to encompass the full revolution of the primary flowpath, increasing the exposure of the heat transfer surfaces to the compressed airflow (Breeze Para. 0025, 0039).
Regarding claim 11, Niergarth in view of Breeze teaches the triple-flow aircraft turbine engine according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the heat exchanger comprises fins configured to extend radially and parallel to an axis of the aircraft turbine engine.
Breeze teaches the heat exchanger comprises fins 58 configured to extend radially and parallel to an axis of the aircraft turbine engine (Fig. 2, there are a plurality of fins 58 of the heat exchanger, some of which have a shape that extends radially outward and/or inward as the fin extends axially, and at least one of which extends parallel to an axis (the “middle” fin as shown in Fig. 2, Para. 0039, “the fins 58 are depicted as being arcuate, annular, or extending parallel to an axis”; additional supports/stiffeners can also be included that extend in an axial-radial plane; note, the claim does not explicitly define what the “axis” of the turbine engine is).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the engine of Niergarth in view of Breeze such that the heat exchanger comprises fins configured to extend radially and parallel to an axis of the aircraft turbine engine, as taught by Breeze, in order to provide fins that are shaped to define a plurality of flow channels therebetween that are generally parallel to each other and are oriented generally parallel to the peripheral walls of the flow passage through the heat exchanger (i.e. the walls of the primary duct; Breeze Para. 0033-39).
Regarding claim 15, Niergarth in view of Breeze teaches the triple-flow aircraft turbine engine according to claim 1, and Niergarth further teaches an aircraft comprising the triple-flow aircraft turbine engine (Niergarth Para. 0029, 0032, 0075, the engine is a turbofan engine that is used for propulsive thrust for an aircraft).
Claims 12, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niergarth in view of Breeze-Stringfellow, further in view of Karam (US 9,771,867 B2).
Regarding claims 12 & 13, Niergarth in view of Breeze teaches the triple-flow aircraft turbine engine according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the heat exchanger is a part fixed to the intermediate support casing; or wherein the heat exchanger is integral with the intermediate support casing.
Karam teaches a gas turbine engine having a heat exchanger 30 (plate fin heat exchanger having annularly arranged modules, Fig. 4, Col. 5, ln. 4-28) positioned between a low pressure compressor 32 and a high pressure compressor 34 in a primary duct 38 (Fig. 3, Col. 3, ln. 60-Col. 4, ln. 13), and an intermediate support casing 54, 56 between the low and high pressure compressors (Fig. 3, see the casing structure as shown), wherein the heat exchanger is a part fixed to the intermediate support casing and is integral with the intermediate support casing (Fig. 3, the heat exchanger is shown coupled to and forming at least a part of the intermediate support casing).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the engine of Niergarth in view of Breeze, such that the heat exchanger is a part fixed to, and integral with, the intermediate support casing, as taught by Karam, in order to structurally support the heat exchanger across the radial extent of the primary duct at the section of the primary duct between the low and high-pressure compressors (Karam Col. 3,ln. 60-col. 4, ln. 13; Col. 4, ln. 37- Col. 5, ln. 3). Both Niergarth and Breeze do not describe how their heat exchangers are supported within the primary duct between the compressor sections, and one skilled in the art would know to support the heat exchanger at the intermediate support casing (i.e. the portion of the casing between the compressors), to secure the heat exchanger within the primary duct.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 9, 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 4-7, 9-13, 15-16 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection that was necessitated by Applicant’s amendment. However, to the extent possible, Applicant’s arguments have been addressed in the body of the rejections, at the appropriate locations.
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 ALAIN CHAU whose telephone number is (571)272-9444. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm 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, Devon Kramer can be reached at 571 272 7118. 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.
/ALAIN CHAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741