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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/24/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3-4, 8-10, 13-15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kupratis (2013/0025286). See the 103 section, which the teachings of Kupratis are set forth. For conciseness it will not be repeated.
PNG
media_image1.png
472
964
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
560
817
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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, 3-4, 8-10, 13-15, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kupratis (2013/0025286), as applied above, and further in view of Legras et al (2024/0150030) and/or WO 02/081883 [see Examiner provided machine translation]1. Kupratis [see annotations] teaches (1) An assembly for an aircraft, comprising: a support structure; a fan rotor 22 rotatably supported by the support structure [above 44]; a power turbine rotor 30 coupled to and configured to drive rotation of the fan rotor 22; a power turbine case 56 housing the power turbine rotor 30; an intermediate case [see annotations] extending axially along an axis between and structurally tying the power turbine case [left of 68] to the support structure [above 44]; a bypass flowpath [upstream 58 and connected to 72, see annotations] fluidly coupled with and downstream of the fan rotor 22, an inner wall of the bypass flowpath formed by the intermediate case; a core duct 68 extending radially across the intermediate case [see annotations]; and a core flowpath 70 extending across the power turbine rotor 30 and through the core duct 68; wherein the core duct 68 is structurally independent of the intermediate case 56 [see Figs. 2-4] – note that the core duct is a separate structure from the intermediate case and may broadly be considered “structurally independent” with definition 4 from https://www.dictionary.com/browse/independent as “not dependent; not depending or contingent upon something else for existence, operation, etc. (3) wherein the core duct 68 is movable relative to the intermediate case 56 [inherently, e.g. during installation]. (4) wherein the core duct 68 further extends radially across the bypass flowpath [upstream of 58]. (8) wherein the core duct 68 is one of a plurality of core ducts 68 extending radially across the intermediate case 56, the plurality of core ducts are arranged circumferentially about the axis in an array; and the core flowpath 70 splits into a plurality of flowpath legs downstream of the power turbine rotor 30, and each of the plurality of flowpath legs extends through a respective one of the plurality of core ducts 68 [see Figs. 2-4]. (9) wherein the support structure [above 44] comprises an inner platform [left of 56]; the inner platform [left of 56] is axially next to and downstream of the fan rotor 22; and the inner wall 56 is a first inner wall [right of 68], and the inner platform forms a second inner wall [left of 56] of the bypass flowpath [upstream of 58] upstream of the first inner wall [right of 56]. (10) a geartrain [¶ 0013] coupling the power turbine rotor 30 to the fan rotor 22; the support structure [above 44] circumscribing and supporting the geartrain. (13) an inner nacelle structure axially overlapping and extending circumferentially about the power turbine case [left of 68]; the inner wall comprising a first inner wall, and the inner nacelle structure forming a second inner wall of the bypass flowpath 72 downstream of the first inner wall. (14) a fan section comprising the fan rotor 22; a power turbine section 30 comprising the power turbine rotor 30; and a turbine engine core 28-24 including a core compressor section 24, a core combustor section 26 and a core turbine section 28; the core flowpath 70 extending through the core compressor section 24, the core combustor section 26, the core turbine section 28, the power turbine section 30 and the core duct 68 between an inlet into the core flowpath 70 and an exhaust from the core flowpath. (15) wherein the power turbine section 30 is disposed axially between the fan section 22 and the turbine engine core.
Kupratis et al broadly teaches (2) wherein the core duct 68 is structurally independent of the intermediate case 56 [see Figs. 2-4]. (3) wherein the core duct 68 is movable relative to the intermediate case 56 [inherently, e.g. during installation]. Kupratis et al do not teach (21) wherein the core duct radially crosses the intermediate case without a structural coupling between the core duct and the intermediate case. For an alternate/narrower treatment of these limitations and to treat claim 23, Legras et al teach (2) wherein the core duct 30, 31 is structurally independent [not rigidly fixed, compare the movement of joint 61-63 from Fig. 1 to Fig. 2] of the case 35 and (3) wherein the core duct 30, 31 is movable relative to the case 35 [see Figs. 1, 2; ¶ 0018, 0068-0069] so that the core duct / case junction can accommodate thermal expansion in a way that stabilizes the core duct during flight [note the case 3 is the fixed structure]; Alternately, WO ‘183 teaches (2) wherein the core duct 5 is structurally independent of the intermediate case [see annotations]. (3) wherein the core duct 5 is movable relative to the intermediate case [see annotations]; (21) wherein the core duct 5 radially crosses the intermediate case without a structural coupling between the core duct 5 and the intermediate case [see annotations]. WO ‘883 teaching:
“In order to avoid tension between the hot and cold parts of such an embodiment, the profile tips and profile ends of the gas guide channels 5 are designed as housing supports 15 and the profile middle part [Ex. Note: 13] as a gas guide channel, while there is no fixed connection between the two functional parts mentioned. [Ex. Note: between 5 and 13] In this way, the hot gas routing channels 5 can expand freely, while the housing support profile parts 15 arranged at a short distance from the hot part fulfill their function at a small - insulating - distance without influencing heat. [pages 7-8 of Examiner provided machine translation] ”
Note Fig. 10b (applied) shows the core duct / gas guide channels 5 which are separate from the fixed structure 15 and there is no fixed connection between the 5 and 13, which allows 5 to expand freely relatively to 15 and thus the core duct 5 radially crosses the intermediate case without a structural coupling between the core duct 5 and the intermediate case, since the structural coupling as at 15. In order for the core duct to expand freely in Fig. 10b, it requires structural independence with the intermediate case, as otherwise, it would prevent the core duct expansion. Contrast this where the core duct cannot expand since it is integral with the fixed structure 15 in Fig. 10d and thus structurally tied to the intermediate case. Also, note that Fig. 17 shows that the core duct 5 is completely independent of the casing or strut as it is generally concentric with the strut 15, teaching wherein the core duct 5 is structurally independent of the intermediate case; (3) wherein the core duct 5 is movable relative to the intermediate case [not fixed since it strut 15 blocks any connection]; and (21) wherein the core duct 5 radially crosses the intermediate case without a structural coupling between the core duct 5 and the intermediate case. By making the core duct pass through the casing independently of the strut, it would also pass through independently of the casing when combined with Kupratis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make (2) the core duct structurally independent of the intermediate case and (3) wherein the core duct movable relative to the intermediate case, , as taught by Legras et al and/or WO ‘883, in order to accommodate thermal expansion of the core duct(s) and/or stabilize it during flight. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ (21) wherein the core duct radially crosses the intermediate case without a structural coupling between the core duct and the intermediate case, as taught by WO ‘883, to in order to accommodate thermal expansion of the core duct(s) and/or stabilize it during flight. In one interpretation, an additional core duct 15 may be added as per Fig. 17 of WO ‘883 so that it is within the existing strut of Kupratis and thus structurally independent of the core intermediate case. By making the core duct pass through the casing independently of the strut [concentric therewith], it would also pass through independently of the casing [concentric therewith] when combined with Kupratis.
PNG
media_image3.png
421
658
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
444
716
media_image4.png
Greyscale
=
PNG
media_image5.png
432
633
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 5-7, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kupratis (2013/0025286) alone or Kupratis combination, as applied above, and further in view of Klingels (20230286661). Kupratis does not teach (5) an evaporator disposed in the core duct nor (6, 7) a condenser disposed radially outboard of the bypass flowpath; the core flowpath extending away from the power turbine rotor, through the evaporator, to the condenser. Klingels teaches (5) an evaporator 30 disposed in the core duct; (6, 7) a condenser disposed radially outboard of the bypass flowpath 37; the core flowpath [within 30] extending away from the power turbine rotor, through the evaporator 30, to the condenser 32. Klingels teaches the evaporator and condenser are part of a heat recovery system that recovers waste heat from the core exhaust flow, provides cooling thereof, additional power generation via steam and improves efficiency [¶ 0009-0010, 0015]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ (5) an evaporator disposed in the core duct; (6, 7) a condenser disposed radially outboard of the bypass flowpath; the core flowpath extending away from the power turbine rotor, through the evaporator, to the condenser, as taught by Klingels, in order to utilize a heat recovery system that recovers waste heat from the core exhaust flow, provides cooling thereof, additional power generation via steam and improves efficiency [¶ 0009-0010, 0015]. For claim 10, Kupratis already teach (10) a geartrain [¶ 0013, not illustrated] coupling the power turbine rotor 30 to the fan rotor 22; the support structure [above 44] circumscribing and supporting the geartrain [for the fan]. Kupratis does not illustrate the geartrain coupled to the fan rotor. Klingels teaches the gear train 11 coupling the power turbine rotor 18 to the fan rotor 10; the support structure circumscribing and supporting the geartrain [for the fan 10] is typically utilized in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the gear train coupling the power turbine rotor to the fan rotor; the support structure circumscribing and supporting the geartrain [for the fan], in the manner taught by Klingels, as consistent with the desire of Kupratis of using a geared transmission which allows driving the fan at lower speeds.
Claim(s) 11, 12, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kupratis (2013/0025286) alone or Kupratis combination, as applied above, and further in view of Glemarec et al (2025/0215830) and Howard et al (3540682). Kupratis does not teach (11) an airframe structure; and a thrust link extending radially across the intermediate case and structurally tying the support structure to the airframe structure, the thrust link coupled to the support structure independent of the intermediate case; (12) a torque link structurally tying at least one of the intermediate case or the power turbine case to the airframe structure; nor Glemarec et al teach (11) an airframe structure 28; and a thrust link 56 extending radially across the intermediate case and structurally tying [at W] the support structure [within the case ¶ 0104] to the airframe structure 28, the thrust link coupled [at W, e.g. Fig. 7] to the support structure [within 12] independent of the intermediate case; (12) a torque link 50 structurally tying at least one of the intermediate case or the power turbine case to the airframe structure 26. Glemarec et al teach the thrust / mounting link passes through casings [¶ 0027, 0104] and takes the thrust loads. Howard et al teach the thrust / mounting link 156 passes through the intermediate casing 20 [Fig. 6] and is independent of the intermediate case 20. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize (11) an airframe structure; and a thrust link extending radially across the intermediate case and structurally tying the support structure to the airframe structure, the thrust link coupled to the support structure independent of the intermediate case, as taught by Glemarec et al, where Howard et al teach the link is coupled to the support structure independent of the intermediate case, in order to utilize a typical mounting link utilized in the art to support the engine and take up thrust loads. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ (12) a torque link structurally tying at least one of the intermediate case or the power turbine case to the airframe structure, as taught by Glemarec et al, as typically done in the art, in order to provide against circumferential torque loads.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20 are allowed.
Claim 23 is 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 filed 6/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant requested annotation to clarify the intermediate case, the support structure, power turbine case. This has been provided by the Examiner. As applicant’s own “intermediate case” and “power turbine” case are axially connected, per applicant’s Fig. 1, there should be no issue in axially different portions of case 56 being designated the intermediate case and power turbine case. Furthermore, the bypass flowpath has been annotated – which again meets the limited requirements of the claims. Note the portion of 72 that is upstream of 58 was considered the bypass flowpath and annotated above for clarity.
All [rejected] claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to TED KIM whose telephone number is 571-272-4829. The Examiner can be reached on regular business hours before 5:00 pm, Monday to Thursday and every other Friday.
The fax number for the organization where this application is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Devon Kramer, can be reached at 571-272-7118 Alternate inquiries to Technology Center 3700 can be made via 571-272-3700.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. Should you have questions on Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). General inquiries can also be directed to the Inventors Assistance Center whose telephone number is 800-786-9199. Furthermore, a variety of online resources are available at https://www.uspto.gov/patent
/Ted Kim/
Telephone
571-272-4829
Primary Examiner
Fax
571-273-8300
September 3, 2026
1 Kupratis combination
Prosecution Insights