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 .
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-10, 13-15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kupratis (2013/0025286). Kupratis 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 [left of 68] 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 72 fluidly coupled with and downstream of the fan rotor 22, an inner wall of the bypass flowpath 72 formed by the intermediate case; a core duct 68 extending radially across the intermediate case 56; 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 72. (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 72 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.
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) 1-4, 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 et al was applied to broadly teach (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_image1.png
421
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
444
716
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
432
633
media_image3.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, 18-20, 22 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 also teach (18) An assembly for an aircraft, comprising: a support structure [above 44]; a fan section comprising a fan rotor 22, the fan rotor 22 rotatably supported by the support structure [above 44]; a power turbine section comprising a power turbine rotor 30, the power turbine rotor 30 coupled to and configured to drive rotation of the fan rotor 22; a power turbine case [left of 68] housing the power turbine section; an intermediate case 56 extending axially along an axis between and structurally tying the power turbine case [left of 68] to the support structure [above 44]; turbine engine core 28-24 including a core compressor section 24, a core combustor section 26 and a core turbine section 28, wherein a core flowpath 70 extends through the core compressor section 24, the core combustor section 26, the core turbine section 28, the power turbine section 30 and radially 68 across the intermediate case 56 and a bypass flowpath 72 between an inlet into the core flowpath 70 and an exhaust from the core flowpath 70; the bypass flowpath 72 downstream of the fan rotor 22 and radially outboard of the intermediate case 56, the power turbine section 30 and the turbine engine core. (20) a plurality of core ducts 68 arranged circumferentially around the axis, each of the plurality of core ducts extending radially across and structurally independent of the intermediate case 56; the core flowpath 70 splitting into a plurality of flowpath legs downstream of the power turbine section, and each of the plurality of flowpath legs extending through a respective one of the plurality of core ducts 68.
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 (18) an airframe structure; and a mounting link extending radially across the intermediate case and structurally tying the support structure to the airframe structure, the mounting link coupled to the support structure independent of the intermediate case; (19) wherein the mounting link comprises a thrust link; nor (22) wherein the mounting link extends radially across the bypass flowpath and is de-coupled from the intermediate case. 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; (18) an airframe structure 28, and a mounting link 56 extending radially across the intermediate case 56 and structurally tying [at W, e.g. Fig. 7] the support structure to the airframe structure 28, the mounting link 56 coupled [at W] to the support structure [above 44] independent of the intermediate case; (19) wherein the mounting link 56 comprises a thrust link 56. 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; (22) wherein the mounting link 156 extends radially across the bypass flowpath 14d and is de-coupled from 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; (18) a mounting link extending radially across the intermediate case and structurally tying the support structure to the airframe structure, the mounting link coupled to the support structure independent of the intermediate case; (19) wherein the mounting link comprises a thrust link and 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. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make (22) the mounting link extends radially across the bypass flowpath and is de-coupled from the intermediate case, as taught by Howard, to keep the mounting link coupled to the support structure independent of the intermediate case.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Kupratis argue that
“Kupratis is silent regarding whether the FEGV structure 66 (which forms the turning flowpath 68) is structurally independent from the inner case structure 56. Additionally, Applicants submit that FIG. 2 of Kupratis fails to support the Examiner's interpretation that the FEGV structure 66 (which forms the turning flowpath 68) is structurally independent from the inner case structure 56”
In rebuttal, “structurally independent of the intermediate case 56 [see Figs. 2-4] – can be construed fairly broadly, as applicant has not clearly defined what this covers in the claim. 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. Accordingly, Kupratis broadly anticipates claim 1.
Applicant argues that Kupratis was used to anticipate claim 18. On the contrary, it was combined with Glemarec et al (2025/0215830) and Howard et al (3540682). Claim 18’s limitations were merely listed with the anticipated claims. To address applicant’s concerns, these limitations have been moved to the 103 section for ease of review.
Applicant additionally argues that
“First, Applicants respectfully submit that Legras fails to teach or suggest "wherein the core duct is structurally independent of the intermediate case" as recited in claim 1. Legras teaches an exhaust duct 30, 31 extending though a passage 40 of a cowl 35. A stabilization system 50 includes one or more fastening 60 that connects the exhaust duct 30, 31 to the cowl 35. (Para. [0079]-[0080] of Legras). Because the exhaust duct 30,31 is fastened to the cowl 35, Legras fails to teach or suggest that the exhaust duct 30, 31 is structurally independent from the cowl 35.”
To address applicant’s concerns, the core duct 30, 31 is structurally independent has been construed as [not rigidly fixed, compare the movement of joint 61-63 from Fig. 1 to Fig. 2] of the case 35.
Applicant additionally argues for WO ‘883 that:
The Office Action alleges that claimed intermediate case corresponds to "outside 12" in WO '883. Reference numeral 12 in WO '883 is a deflection area 12 to which intake air enters therein and then passes to a compressor. "Outside 12" cannot correspond to the claimed intermediate case because "outside 12" in WO '883 correspond to an aft section of the engine that does not extend axially along an axis between and structurally tying a power turbine case to a support structure (see FIG. 1 of WO '883).
The intermediate case has been relabeled in the annotated drawings for greater clarity.
Applicant alleges the previous citation provided by the Examiner is irrelevant to “wherein the core duct is structurally independent of the intermediate case” as it only discusses the guide channels 5 configuration with respect to housing supports 15. In rebuttal, note that the citation is also relevant to claim 3 which teaches the relative movement.
“In FIG. 10d, the base engine 4 is in the counterflow mode, so that exhaust gas admixture or heat recirculation into the secondary flow in the deflection area 6 in the front third of the engine housing according to the direction of the arrow 6a are possible without any significant design effort. The exhaust noise reduction is correspondingly high.
The gas routing channels 5 can at the same time be designed as housing supports and in particular can be supplemented by conventional housing supports located between them.
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 as a gas guide channel, while there is no fixed connection between the two functional parts mentioned. 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. [from page 7 of the machine translation]”
Accordingly, when viewed in context, the previous citation in addition to the one directly above contrast the structural independent arrangement of Fig. 10b vs the structural dependent arrangement of Fig. 10d. 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
Applicant’s arguments concerning claim 18 and Glenmarec and Howard are not persuasive.
“Page 12 of the Office Action alleges that both the claimed mounting link and the claimed intermediate case both correspond to a thrust absorbing rod 56 that extends from upstream support members 48 to a gas generator 12. However, how can the thrust absorbing rod 56 be coupled to [allegedly coupled at W] the support structure [allegedly above 44] independent of the thrust absorbing rod 56? Applicants respectfully submit that the allegations in the Office Action regarding Glemarec are unclear and contradictory because the trust [sic thrust] absorbing rod 56 cannot be coupled at "W" independent of itself. Moreover, Glemarec is silent regarding any structural independence between the thrust absorbing rod 56 and other components of the aircraft turbine engine 10 when connected to point W.”
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because they appear to misunderstand the reference. Since the inner end of the thrust absorbing rod 56 is connected to point W, and it is clear that point W is on the gas generator 12, per paragraphs 0104 and 0003
“[0104] Thrust-absorbing rods 56 extend from the members 48 to the gas generator 12. The connecting rods 56 extend radially outwardly from upstream to downstream and comprise first radially internal ends 56a connected, for example by clevises, to the wall 42 or to points W of the gas generator 12 located radially inwardly of this wall 42. These points W may be located upstream of the splitter nose 32. However, this is not always the case, as illustrated by the alternatives 14 to 16 described below.”
“[0003] As shown in FIG. 1, an aircraft turbine engine 10 generally comprises a gas generator 12 comprising at least one compressor 14, an annular combustion chamber 16 and at least one turbine 18.”
Accordingly, point W is schematically in line with the strut 56 and shown as on the case of the gas generator 12, which is inside and passing through the case 42 and eventually to point W. Applicant alleges that since Howard does not discuss the connection between 156 and 20, that Howard is silent regarding structural independence of these elements. On the contrary, Howard, in particularly, clearly show the strut 156 is not structurally tied to the casing 20. Howard clearly illustrates that these elements are not fastened together and thus fairly teaches one of ordinary skill in the art to not fasten them together, i.e. maintain structural independence.
MPEP 2125 states:
I. DRAWINGS CAN BE USED AS PRIOR ART
Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). However, the picture must show all the claimed structural features and how they are put together. Jockmus v. Leviton, 28 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1928). The origin of the drawing is immaterial. For instance, drawings in a design patent can anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention as can drawings in utility patents. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). See MPEP § 2121.04 for more information on prior art drawings as “enabled disclosures.”
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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.
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
March 20, 2026
1 Kupratis combination