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 .
This is in response to the correspondence received on 2/6/2026.
Figs 3 and 7 are elected species.
Figs 1, 4A-4C, 5-6, 8A-8B are non-elected species.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/14/2025 has been entered.
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 (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 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) 1-5, 7, 10, 17, 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giridharan 20220412563 in view of in view of Hall 2952973, Binks 8197191 and Tse 20020073690.
Regarding claim 1, Giridharan teaches:
An engine system (inter alia 100), comprising:
an aircraft structure (inter alia, “outer nacelle 134 is provided, circumferentially surrounding the fan 126 and/or at least a portion of the turbomachine 104” [0026], Fig 2)
an engine core (Fig 2) including a flowpath (121 Fig 2, [0025]), a compressor section (110, 112), a combustor section (300), a turbine section (116, 118) and
an engine housing structure (Image below),
the flowpath extending through the compressor section, the combustor section and the turbine section ([0025], Fig 2) from an inlet into the flowpath to an exhaust from the flowpath ([0025]), and
the engine housing structure housing the compressor section, the combustor section and the turbine section (Fig 2 and 3, Image below, inter alia 310);
a fuel containment structure (106) outboard of and connected to the engine housing structure (Fig 2);
the fuel containment structure including a first endwall, a second endwall (Image below; the endwalls in this case comprises the end portions of the two walls surrounding the engine, i.e., portion of 106 and portion of the wall encasing the engine) and a sidewall (Image below) extending between the first endwall and the second endwall (Image below)
the fuel containment structure between and fluidly separating a fuel containment plenum (Plenum indicated in the Image below, Fig 2) from a compartment volume within the aircraft structure (140), and the compartment volume extending about the engine core (see 140 in Fig. 2, 140 [0026])
the fuel containment plenum (Image below) formed by and located between the fuel containment structure and the engine housing structure (Image below, Fig 2); and
a fuel delivery system (inter alia 200, Fig 2) including a plurality of fuel injectors (340, 400, [0027] Fig 3), a fuel supply line (inter alia 202) and a fuel manifold (252, 254, [0049]) fluidly coupling the fuel supply line to the plurality of fuel injectors (Fig 3), the fuel manifold and a connection between the fuel manifold and the fuel supply line arranged within the fuel containment plenum (Fig 2 depicts 202 directing fuel to the area within the fuel containment plenum, and Fig 3 shows the further downstream elements and connections).
Giridharan is silent about:
the engine housing structure formed by a plurality of interconnected engine cases
a first of the plurality of interconnected engine cases comprising a compressor section case or a combustor section case, a second of the plurality of interconnected engine cases comprising the combustor section case or a turbine case,
However, Hall teaches a casing for a gas turbine engine (Fig. 1), and:
the engine housing structure formed by a plurality of interconnected engine cases (“Referring first to Figure 1 for a general description of the engine, it comprises an outer casing or shell 10 composed of a number of sections suitably connected together” Col 1 ll. 37-41).
a first of the plurality of interconnected engine cases (Hall Image below) comprising a compressor section (see compressor 23) case or a combustor section case, a second of the plurality of interconnected engine cases (Hall Image below) comprising the combustor section case (see combustor 24, image below) or a turbine case (turbine section and case also seen in image below, to the right of, aft, of the combustor)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Giridharan with Hall’s structure, discussed above, providing an outer casing composed of a number of sections suitably connected (Hall Col 1 ll. 37-41) in order to provide an outer casing or shell composed of sections which are easier and cheaper to manufacture and allow easier access for maintenance and for replacement.
Giridharan in view of Hall is silent about the first endwall and second endwall being fastened as claimed.
However, Brink teaches and aircraft engine (title) and:
endwalls (38, 34, 36 Fig 1B) mechanically fastened (fasteners 37, 47 and as indicated in Brink image below) to an engine nacelle
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Giridharan in view of Hall with Brink's structure discussed above to connect the walls to the engine cases, such that the first endwall mechanically fastened to a first of the plurality of interconnected engine cases, and the second endwall mechanically fastened to the combustor section case or a forward end of the turbine case, because “The fasteners 37, 47 secure the components of the inlet portion 24 together, and transmit loads between fastened components” as taught by Binks Col 1 ll 55-65.
Giridharan in view of Hall and Brink teaches the aircraft structure as the nacelle […] circumferentially surrounding the fan 126 and/or at least a portion of the turbomachine [0026], but Fig. 2 does not show the engine core housed entirely within the aircraft structure;
However, Tse teaches “A gas turbine engine of a fan bypass type includes an exhaust shroud having a perforated tubular wall extending between a forward end and an aft end” (abstract), Fig. 2, and an aircraft structure (inter alia, 86 and 60, Fig. 2):
the engine core (82, [0032], Fig. 2) housed entirely within the aircraft structure (“The fan blades 84 and the core engine 82 are disposed inside a nacelle structure 86 which together with the core engine 82 forms an annular bypass duct 88 for directing a predetermined portion of the air flow 36 from the fan blades 84 over a plurality of stator vanes 89 and a mixer device 90 toward the exhaust nozzle 92 for producing the thrust in a manner well known in the art” [0032]);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Giridharan in view of Hall and Brink with Tse's structure discussed above in order to “form[s] an annular bypass duct 88 for directing a predetermined portion of the air flow 36 from the fan blades 84 over a plurality of stator vanes 89 and a mixer device 90 toward the exhaust nozzle 92 for producing the thrust in a manner well known in the art” [0032] and so “the exhaust shroud 60 enhances the mixing of the combustion gases 52 and the bypass air flow 36 to effectively reduce the downstream jet noise contribution volume of the engine exhaust gases, resulting in reduction of aero-engine exhaust jet noise” as taught by Tse [0031-0032].
PNG
media_image1.png
1439
2008
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
691
1088
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
821
1338
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Image from Hall Fig. 1
Regarding claim 2, Giridharan in view of Hall, Brink and Tse teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Giridharan further teaches:
wherein the connection between the fuel manifold and each of the plurality of fuel injectors is arranged within the fuel containment plenum (see Fig 3).
Regarding claim 3, Giridharan in view of Hall, Brink and Tse teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Giridharan further teaches:
wherein the fuel delivery system further includes a flow regulator configured to regulate fuel flow to the plurality of fuel injectors (inter alia, 240, 242, 246); and
the flow regulator is arranged within the fuel containment plenum (Figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 4, Giridharan in view of Hall, Brink and Tse teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Giridharan further teaches:
wherein the fuel manifold includes a plurality of manifold lines and a plurality of manifold fittings (connecting 252, 254, to the system) interconnecting the plurality of manifold lines (Figs. 2 and 3 teach elements of the system that are interconnected); and
the plurality of manifold lines and the plurality of manifold fittings are arranged within the fuel containment plenum (Figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 5, Giridharan in view of Hall, Brink and Tse teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Giridharan further teaches:
wherein the engine housing structure is between and fluidly separates the fuel containment plenum from the flowpath (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 7, Giridharan in view of Hall, Brink and Tse teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Giridharan further teaches:
wherein the fuel containment structure circumscribes the engine core (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 10, Giridharan in view of Hall, Brink and Tse teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1.
As already discussed for claim 1, Giridharan in view of Hall and Brink teaches the plurality of interconnected engine cases.
Giridharan further teaches:
wherein the fuel containment structure completely axially overlaps at least one of the plurality of interconnected engine cases (image below shows the fuel containment overlapping the engine case, therefore overlapping at least one of the plurality of interconnected engine cases)
PNG
media_image4.png
938
1430
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Giridharan in view of Hall, Brink and Tse teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Giridharan further teaches:
wherein the fuel delivery system further includes a hydrogen (hydrogen fuel [0020, 0023], Abstract) fuel reservoir (“configured to store the fuel for the engine 100 in the fuel tank 212 […] fuels such as hydrogen fuel (diatomic hydrogen) or hydrogen enriched fuels. In the embodiments discussed herein, the fuel is a hydrogen fuel” [0031]) arranged outside of the fuel containment plenum (Figs 1, 2); and the fuel supply line fluidly couples the hydrogen fuel reservoir to the fuel manifold (Figs 2 and 3, inter alia 202).
Regarding claim 21, Giridharan in view of Hall, Brink and Tse teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Giridharan further teaches:
the fuel containment structure is radially outboard of and circumscribes the combustor section (image below).
PNG
media_image5.png
1047
1390
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, Giridharan in view of Hall, Brink and Tse teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Giridharan in view of Hall, Brink and Tse, as discussed above, teaches the plurality of interconnected engine cases, the cases comprising the engine as seen above, but does not specifically teach the first endwall fastened to the aft end of the compressor section case or a forward end of the combustor section case.
However, Hall teaches:
wherein the first endwall (image below) is mechanically fastened (as already discussed) to an aft end of the compressor section case (image below) or a forward end of the combustor section case.
PNG
media_image6.png
1122
1849
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Image from Hall Fig. 1
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giridharan 20220412563 in view of in view of Hall 2952973, Binks 8197191 and Tse 20020073690 and further in view of Pretty 20200011202.
Regarding claim 8, Giridharan in view of Hall, Binks and Tse teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Giridharan further teaches:
wherein the fuel containment structure includes an arcuate first segment (Fig 2, top half of 106) and an arcuate second segment (Fig 2, bottom half of 106);
Giridharan in view of Hall, Binks and Tse is silent about:
the arcuate second segment circumferentially engages and is mechanically fastened to the arcuate first segment.
However, Pretty teaches:
an arcuate second segment circumferentially engages and is mechanically fastened to an arcuate first segment (Pretty 28, Fig 1, 5, 6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Giridharan in view of Hall, Binks and Tse with Pretty's structure discussed above such that the arcuate second segment circumferentially engages and is mechanically fastened to the arcuate first segment, in order to provide “a door assembly and, more particularly, to controlling opening of a door assembly” as taught by Pretty [0001].
Claim(s) 9, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giridharan 20220412563 in view of in view of Hall 2952973, Binks 8197191 and Tse 20020073690, and further in view of LaBelle 20220356839.
Regarding claim 9, Giridharan in view of Hall, Binks and Tse teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Giridharan in view of Hall, Binks and Tse does not explicitly teach:
the fuel containment structure is mechanically fastened to a flange of the engine housing structure.
However, LaBelle teaches:
containment structure (inter alia 112, 130, 132, 114, 152, LaBelle Fig 3) is mechanically fastened (flange bolt 172, 176, 178 [003.1]) to a flange (144, Fig 3) of the engine structure (inter alia 150, 108).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Giridharan in view of Hall, Binks and Tse with LaBelle's structure discussed above, such the that fuel containment structure is mechanically fastened to a flange of the engine housing structure, because “forming inlet attachment flange 144 of nacelle […] structures […] integrally formed with at least a portion of tubular portion 142 eliminates the need for such mechanical fasteners, and also offers weight benefits over the metallic attachment rings of the prior art” as taught by LaBelle [0023].
Regarding claim 12, Giridharan in view of Hall, Binks and Tse teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Giridharan further teaches:
wherein the fuel containment plenum is formed by and is axially between the first endwall and the second endwall (image below); and
the fuel containment plenum is formed by and is radially between the engine housing structure and the sidewall (image below).
Furthermore, as matter of obviousness, LaBelle teaches:
the containment plenum is formed by and is axially between the first endwall and the second endwall (Fig 3); and
the fuel containment plenum is formed by and is radially between engine structure (inter alia 152, 150, 154, 140) and the sidewall (Fig 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Giridharan in view of Hall, Brinks and Tse with LaBelle's structure discussed above, in order to support for the structures relative to one another as taught by LaBelle [0027].
PNG
media_image7.png
857
1204
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giridharan 20220412563 in view of in view of Hall 2952973, Binks 8197191, Tse 20020073690 and further in view of Sibbach 20220307428.
Regarding claim 18, Giridharan in view of Hall, Brinks and Tse teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1.
Giridharan in view of Hall, Brinks and Tse is silent about the fuel purge circuit configured to purge fuel as claimed.
However, Sibbach teaches:
a fuel purge circuit (inter alia 208, Fig 3) configured to purge (vent valve 208 [0056]) fuel (hydrogen leak [0056]), which is leaked (venting the area of the hydrogen fuel leak [0056]) into the fuel containment plenum from the fuel delivery system (Fig 3), out of the fuel containment plenum (inter alia 18) and vent the leaked fuel to an external environment (“a vent valve 208 to vent the pylon 18 to the atmosphere” [0056]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Giridharan in view of Hall, Brinks and Tse with Sibbach's structure discussed above such that the system further comprising a fuel purge circuit configured to purge fuel, which is leaked into the fuel containment plenum from the fuel delivery system, out of the fuel containment plenum and vent the leaked fuel to an external environment, in order to permit “venting the area of the hydrogen fuel leak to atmosphere to minimize the buildup of hydrogen or to keep the hydrogen concentration below an acceptable limit (such as the minimum concentration of hydrogen necessary to sustain combustion)” as taught by Sibbach [0056].
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giridharan 20220412563 in view of Binks 8197191, LaBelle 20220356839 and Hall 2952973.
Regarding claim 19, Giridharan teaches:
An engine system (inter alia 100), comprising:
an engine core including a flowpath (121 Fig 2, [0025]), a compressor section (110, 112), a combustor section (300), a turbine section (116, 118) and an engine case (Image below),
the flowpath extending through the compressor section, the combustor section and the turbine section from an inlet into the flowpath to an exhaust from the flowpath (121 Fig 2, [0025]), and
the engine case housing at least a portion of the combustor section (Image below);
a fuel containment structure including a first endwall, a second endwall (image below; the endwalls in this case comprises the end portions of the two walls surrounding the engine, i.e., portion of 106 and portion of the wall encasing the engine) and a sidewall extending axially along the engine case between the first endwall and the second endwall (image below),
the first endwall projecting radially inward from the sidewall to the engine case, and the second endwall projecting radially inward from the sidewall to the engine case (Image below);
a fuel containment plenum formed by and extending between the first endwall and the second endwall, and the fuel containment plenum formed by and extending between the engine case and the sidewall (Image below); and
a fuel delivery system (inter alia 200, Fig 2) configured to direct fuel into a combustion chamber within the combustor section (300, Fig 2-3) the fuel delivery system comprising a plurality of components arranged within the fuel containment plenum (Fig 2 depicts 202 directing fuel to the area within the fuel containment plenum, and Fig 3 shows the further downstream elements and connections).
Giridharan is silent about
the first endwall mechanically fastened to an end of the combustor section
However, Brink teaches and aircraft engine (title) and:
endwalls (38, 34, 36 Fig 1B) mechanically fastened (fasteners 37, 47 and as indicated in Brink image below) to an engine nacelle
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Giridharan in view of Hall with Brink's structure discussed above to connect the walls to the engine cases, providing the first endwall mechanically fastened to an end of the combustor section, because “The fasteners 37, 47 secure the components of the inlet portion 24 together, and transmit loads between fastened components” as taught by Binks Col 1 ll 55-65.
Furthermore, as a matter of obviousness, LaBelle teaches an aircraft engine (Figs. 1-2), and:
the first endwall projecting radially inward from the sidewall to the engine case (112, LaBelle Fig 3),
and the second endwall projecting radially inward from the sidewall to the engine case (114).
a containment plenum formed by and extending between the first endwall and the second endwall, and the containment plenum formed by and extending between the case (inter alia 152, 150, 154, 140) and the sidewall (130, 132. See Fig 3);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Giridharan in view of Binks with LaBelle's structure discussed above, in order "to support inlet inner barrel 140 and inlet outer barrel 130 relative to one another” as taught by LaBelle [0027].
Giridharan in view of Binks and LaBelle teaches endwalls mechanically fastened as discussed above, but is silent about the first endwall mechanically fastened to an end of the combustor section, as claimed.
However, Hall teaches a casing for a gas turbine engine (Fig. 1), and
the first endwall (Hall, image below) mechanically fastened (as discussed above) to an end of the combustor section (see combustor 24, image below).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Giridharan in view of Binks and LaBelle with Hall’s structure, discussed above, providing an outer casing composed of a number of sections suitably connected (Hall Col 1 ll. 37-41) in order to provide an outer casing or shell composed of sections which are easier and cheaper to manufacture and allow easier access for maintenance and for replacement.
PNG
media_image8.png
820
1150
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
1132
1849
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Giridharan 20220412563 in view of Binks 8197191 and Hall 2952973.
Regarding claim 20, Giridharan teaches:
An engine system (inter alia 100), comprising:
an engine core including a flowpath (121 Fig 2, [0025]), a compressor section, a combustor section (110, 112), a turbine section (116, 118) and an engine case (Image below),
the flowpath extending through the compressor section, the combustor section and the turbine section from an inlet into the flowpath to an exhaust from the flowpath (121 Fig 2, [0025]), and
the engine case housing at least a portion of the combustor section (Image below);
a fuel containment structure radially outboard of and circumscribing the engine case (Image below);
the fuel containment structure including a first endwall, a second endwall and a sidewall extending axially along the engine case between the first endwall and the second endwall (Image below; the endwalls in this case comprises the end portions of the two walls surrounding the engine, i.e., portion of 106 and portion of the wall encasing the engine),
a fuel containment plenum formed by and located radially between the engine case and the fuel containment structure (Image below); and
a fuel delivery system (inter alia 200, Fig 2) including a plurality of fuel injectors (340, 400, [0027] Fig 3), a fuel supply line (inter alia 202) and a fuel manifold (252, 254, [0049]) fluidly coupling the fuel supply line to the plurality of fuel injectors (Fig 3), the fuel manifold arranged within the fuel containment plenum (Fig 2 depicts 202 directing fuel to the area within the fuel containment plenum, and Fig 3 shows the further downstream elements and connections).
Giridharan is silent about the first endwall and second endwall being fastened as claimed.
However, Brink teaches and aircraft engine (title) and: endwalls (38, 34, 36 Fig 1B) mechanically fastened (fasteners 37, 47 and as indicated in Brink image below) to an engine nacelle
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Giridharan with Brink's structure discussed above to connect the walls to the engine cases, such that the first endwall mechanically fastened to the engine case, and the second endwall mechanically fastened to the engine case because “The fasteners 37, 47 secure the components of the inlet portion 24 together, and transmit loads between fastened components” as taught by Binks Col 1 ll 55-65.
Giridharan in view of Brink teaches the first endwall and second endwall mechanically fastened to the engine as discussed above, but is silent about being fastened at a forward end of the combustor section, and the second endwall mechanically fastened to the combustor section, as claimed.
However, Hall teaches a casing for a gas turbine engine (Fig. 1), and
the first endwall (Hall Image below) mechanically fastened (already discussed above) to the engine case at a forward end of the combustor section (Combustor 24, Fig. 2, Image below), and the second endwall (Image below) mechanically fastened to the combustor section (Hall Image below);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Giridharan in view of Brink with Hall’s teachings, discussed above, providing an outer casing composed of a number of sections suitably connected (Hall Col 1 ll. 37-41) in order to provide an outer casing or shell composed of sections which are easier and cheaper to manufacture and allow easier access for maintenance and for replacement.
PNG
media_image10.png
1439
2008
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
1132
1849
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but they are not persuasive because they do not apply to the new combination of references, i.e., adding a new reference to the old combination of references, that was necessitated by applicant’s amendment.
Applicant argues on page 8 of the Remarks filed on 2/6/2026:
PNG
media_image12.png
413
1075
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s response: As best understood, it appears that applicant argues that no rationale with a motivation to apply the Hall reference in the rejection of claim 23 (applicant refers o page 14 of the Office Correspondence dated 11/6/2025) was provided. Examiner notes that Claim 23 of the claims filed on 7/14/2025 was dependent on Claim 1, and the rejection of Claim 1 had already discussed the motivation to apply Hall in the rejection.
Applicant argues on page 10:
PNG
media_image13.png
228
1079
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s response: The “fuel containment structure” is taught by the base reference, Giridharan, as clearly discussed in the previous rejection and also above. Hall is applied to teach “the engine housing structure formed by a plurality of interconnected engine cases”.
Applicant argues on page 13:
PNG
media_image14.png
146
859
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s response: the first end wall as part of a fuel containment structure si taught by the base reference Giridharan, as discussed in the rejection.
Applicant argues on page 13:
PNG
media_image15.png
225
1065
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
265
1045
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s response: Examiner disagrees, the rationale supporting the application of Hall in the rejection was stated in the rejection, as explained, the casing composed of separate sections is directly connected to the limitations taught by Hall, the segments and separate parts being mechanically fastened to compose the overall structure. See MPEP 2144 (IV) Rationale different from applicant’s is permissible: The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings.”); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991)
Applicant argues on page 15:
PNG
media_image17.png
180
851
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s response: applicant’s arguments and examiner’s responses related to claims 1 and 19, as already discussed above, also apply to the arguments regarding claim 20 as noted above.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Roberto T. Igue whose telephone number is (303)297-4389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 PT.
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.
/ROBERTO TOSHIHARU IGUE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/PHUTTHIWAT WONGWIAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741