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 filed on 1/16/2026 and interview on 1/27/2025 and 1/27/2025.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are:
Paragraph [0059] describes “A movement member 13 is configured to move the movable disk 12b”, but figures 5A-5B, 7-9 depict element 13 connected to 12a, and not 12b.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and dependent claims 3-11, 15-16, and claim 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1: the limitation “the fixed disk being integrally mounted with the support member” does not appear to be supported by the Specification. Paragraph [0059, 0061] indicated the “fixed disk” is element 12a, but this element is mounted to element 13 as seen in figures in Figs. 5A and 5B, and not “integrally mounted with the support member” as claimed.
Claim 20: the limitation “mixed shaft is rotated with the rotor of the very low-speed motor when the clutch system is declutched or is rotated with the rotor of the high-speed equipment when the clutch system is clutched” does not appear to be supported by the Specification. The clutched/declutched conditions appear to be be discussed in the specification in paragraph [0012]: “in a clutched position of the clutch system, the very low-speed motor is coupled to the mixed shaft, so as to rotatably drive the high-pressure spool, when the turbomachine is stopped, and o in a declutched position of the clutch system, the very low-speed motor is decoupled from the mixed shaft in order to be protected from the speeds transmitted by the high- pressure spool to drive the high-speed equipment when the turbomachine is in operation” [0012].
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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finke 20220348347 in view of Clauson 10801371 and Halimi 5771695.
Regarding claim 12, Finke teaches:
An accessory gearbox for an aircraft turbomachine (22) extending along a longitudinal axis (Fig 1, horizontal axis through the center of 12 and 14) and comprising a low-pressure spool (48) and comprising a low-pressure spool (48), a high-pressure spool (50), a radial shaft (88) connected to the high-pressure spool ([0033]), a gear train comprising at least one input shaft configured to be mechanically coupled to the radial shaft ([0005-0006]),
a clutch system (inter alia,108, Fig 4, 5) mounted to the mixed shaft so that the mixed shaft directly rotates at least part of the clutch system (shaft indicated in image below);
Finke is silent about a plurality of output shafts and a very low speed motor as claimed.
However, Clauson teaches a bowed rotor prevention system (abstract), and:
and a plurality of output shafts (shafts within 40 connecting to 41A, 41B, and shaft between 40 and 64) with at least one of the plurality of output shafts being a mixed shaft (68) rotatably coupled to a high-speed equipment (inter alia, 62) configured to operate over a high speed range (connected to High Pressure spool), the mixed shaft having a lengthwise axis and the high-speed equipment mounted along the lengthwise axis (Fig. 5), the accessory gearbox comprising:
a very low-speed motor (44) mounted to the clutch system along the lengthwise axis of the mixed shaft and coaxial with the high-speed equipment (Fig 5),
the very low-speed motor is configured to operate over a low speed range (very low speed is a relative term; “bowed rotor prevention motor 44 rotates turbomachinery of the gas turbine engine 10 at a low speed (e.g., <5 RPM)” Col 7 ll 55-60), below the high speed range of said high- speed equipment (Col 7 ll 55-60), below the high speed range of said high-speed equipment” (Col 7 ll 55-60), and
wherein the clutch system comprises:
(1) a clutched position (Col 7 ll 15-20), when the turbomachine is stopped (“controller 46 is operable to engage the bowed rotor prevention motor 44 based on detecting an engine shutdown” Col 5 ll 63-67; “clutch 78 can allow the bowed rotor prevention motor 44 to be selectively engaged and disengaged” Col 7 ll 15-19) characterized by the very-low-speed motor being coupled toThe clutch 78 can allow the bowed rotor prevention motor 44 to be selectively engaged and disengaged, Col 7 ll 15-20) to rotatably drive the mixed shaft to drive the high- pressure spool (Fig 5), and
(2) a declutched position (Col 7 ll 15-19), when the turbomachine is in operation characterized by the very low-speed motor being decoupled from the mixed shaft
in order to be protected from speeds transmitted to the mixed shaft by the high-pressure spool to drive the high-speed equipment (“high pressure spool 33 does not drive rotation of the bowed rotor prevention motor 44” Col 8 ll 39-40).
Clauson teaches the motor 44 directly connected to clutch 78 via a shaft 50, but does not explicitly teach the very low-speed motor being mounted to the clutch system.
However, Halimi teaches:
the very low-speed motor being mounted to the clutch system (Halimi Fig 9; “magnetic clutch, shown generally at 300, is mounted onto motor 330 having a drive shaft 332”, Col 4 ll 65-67).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Clauson with Halimi's structure discussed above, such that the very low-speed is motor mounted to the clutch system along the lengthwise axis of the mixed shaft and coaxial with the high-speed equipment, so that “a drive connection can be established between the motor of the added apparatus and the rotary compressor shaft by means of a [...] clutch” Col 4 ll 62-64, and also making the assembly more compact and saving space in the system and aircraft.
PNG
media_image3.png
729
959
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finke 20220348347 in view of Clauson 10801371, Halimi 5771695 and Pech 20170234237
Regarding claim 13, Finke in view of Clauson and Halimi teaches the invention as discussed for claim 12. Finke in view of Clauson and Halimi as discussed so far is silent about the generator as claimed.
However, Clauson teaches:
wherein the high-speed equipment is a generator (41B) comprising a stator and a rotor (generators have stator and rotor).
Finke in view of Clauson and Halimi is silent about the rotor being mounted as claimed.
However, Pech teaches a gear train 70 coupled to the turbomachine 250, and:
wherein the rotor (552) of the high-speed equipment (main generator 550) is integrally mounted to the mixed shaft (570) so as to be directly rotatable by the mixed shaft (Fig. 2, [0043]).
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 Clauson in view of Halimi with Petch's structure discussed above in order to rotate the rotating portion 552 with torque directly from the gearbox, reducing the number of moving parts and weight.
Regarding claim 14, Finke in view of Clauson, Halimi and Pech teaches the invention as discussed for claim 13. Finke in view of Clauson, Halimi and Pech is silent about the flywheel as claimed.
However, Finke teaches:
the clutch system (inter alia,108, Fig 4, 5) comprises a flywheel (116) coupled to the mixed shaft (shaft in the Image below) and wherein the flywheel is longitudinally moveable (left/right on the image below, and see Fig. 4 and 5 to see the movement) relative to the mixed shaft.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Finke in view of Clauson, Halimi and Pech with Finke's structure discussed above, in order to provide “a selectively activable clutch” [0007] that when activated allows for torque to be transferred between different elements of the system as taught by Finke [0035], in this case transferring to the mixed shaft.
PNG
media_image4.png
729
959
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finke 20220348347 in view of Pech 20170234237 and Clauson 10801371.
Regarding claim 17, Finke teaches:
An accessory gearbox for an aircraft turbomachine (22), the turbomachine extending along a longitudinal axis (Fig 1, horizontal axis through the center of 12 and 14) and comprising a low-pressure spool (48), a high-pressure spool (50), and a radial shaft (88) operatively connected to the high-pressure spool ([0033]), the accessory gearbox comprising:
a gear train comprising at least one input shaft configured to be mechanically coupled to the radial shaft of the turbomachine ([0005-0006]),
a clutch system (inter alia,108, Fig 4, 5) operatively connected to the mixed shaft (shaft indicated in image below), the clutch system comprising a flywheel (116) rotatably connected to the mixed shaft so as to be rotatable by the mixed shaft (image below), a support member (image below) having the rotor of the very low-speed motor mounted thereto (the support member is attached the rotor, which surrounds the shaft), and an actuator to selectively engage or disengage the support member to or from the flywheel (Fig. 4 and Fig. 5),
Finke is silent about:
a plurality of output shafts with at least one of the plurality of output shafts being a mixed shaft having a lengthwise axis,
a high-speed equipment comprising a generator comprising a rotor and a stator and the mixed shaft projecting through the high-speed equipment such that the rotor is mounted along the lengthwise axis of the mixed shaft to be rotatable by the mixed shaft at a high-speed range,
a very low-speed motor configured to operate over a low speed range, below the high- speed range, the mixed shaft projecting through the very low-speed motor such that the very low- speed motor is mounted along the lengthwise axis of the mixed shaft and coaxial with the high- speed equipment, the very low-speed motor comprising a rotor and a stator,
However, Pech teaches a gear train 70 coupled to the radial shaft 60 of the turbomachine 250, and ”the variable frequency generator 500 may be used regularly for cool-down motoring [0040], and:
a plurality of shafts (Fig. 1, inter alia, shafts connecting 70 to 500 and 120) with at least one of the plurality of output shafts being a mixed shaft (570) having a lengthwise axis (left to right in Fig. 2, axis of rotation w [0043]),
a high-speed equipment comprising a generator (the rotation of the shaft 570 rotates the rotating portion 522 of the permanent magnet generator 520 and also the magnets 523 on the rotating portion 522. The rotation of magnets 523 generates an alternating current voltage on windings 524 of the stator portion 525 [0044]) comprising a rotor (rotating portion 522) and a stator (stator portion 525) and the mixed shaft projecting through the high-speed equipment (Fig. 2) such that the rotor is mounted along the lengthwise axis of the mixed shaft to be rotatable by the mixed shaft (Fig. 2) at a high-speed range (variable frequency generator 500 and configured to rotate with the shaft 570 around an axis of rotation w [0043])
a very low-speed motor configured to operate over a low speed range (the variable frequency generator 500 may be used to rotate the rotational components 260 of the gas turbine engine 250, such as, for example, cool down motoring. When the variable frequency generator 500 is activated, current is applied to the generator armature winding 555 of the main generator 550 such that a flux field is generated and this flux field interacts with the a main field winding 553 on the rotating portion 552 to cause the rotating portion 552 and subsequently the shaft 570 to rotate about the rotational axis W. [0044]), below the high-speed range (cool down motoring [0044]), the mixed shaft projecting through the very low-speed motor such that the very low- speed motor is mounted along the lengthwise axis of the mixed shaft and coaxial with the high-speed equipment (Fig. 2), the very low-speed motor comprising a rotor and a stator (552, 554).
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 Finke with Pech's structure discussed above in order to “to rotate the rotational components 260 of the gas turbine engine 250 for cool-down motoring to prevent bowed rotor” [0041] as taught by Pech.
Finke in view of Pech is silent about:
plurality of output shafts
o in a clutched position of the clutch system when the turbomachine is stopped, the support member is engaged to the flywheel to couple the very low-speed motor to the mixed shaft to rotatably drive the mixed shaft to drive the high-pressure spool and the rotor of the high-speed equipment, and
o in a declutched position of the clutch system when the turbomachine is in operation and the support member is disengaged from thy flywheel, the very low-speed motor is decoupled from the mixed shaft to be protected from speeds transmitted by the high- pressure spool to the mixed shaft.
However, Clauson teaches a bowed rotor prevention system (abstract) with a clutch and low speed motor, a gearbox, and:
a plurality of output shafts (shafts within 40 connecting to 41A, 41B, and shaft between 40 and 64) [with at least one of the plurality of output shafts being a mixed shaft having a lengthwise axis] (inter alia, 68, Fig. 5),
o in a clutched position of the clutch system (Col 7 ll 15-20) when the turbomachine is stopped (“controller 46 is operable to engage the bowed rotor prevention motor 44 based on detecting an engine shutdown” Col 5 ll 63-67; “clutch 78 can allow the bowed rotor prevention motor 44 to be selectively engaged and disengaged” Col 7 ll 15-19), couple the very low-speed motor to the mixed shaft to rotatably drive the mixed shaft to drive the high-pressure spool and the rotor of the high-speed equipment (The clutch 78 can allow the bowed rotor prevention motor 44 to be selectively engaged and disengaged, Col 7 ll 15-20; Fig. 5), and
o in a declutched position of the clutch system (Col 7 ll 15-19), the very low-speed motor is decoupled from the mixed shaft to be protected from speeds transmitted by the high- pressure spool to the mixed shaft (“clutch 64 may be a one-way driven clutch such that rotation of the high pressure spool 33 does not drive rotation of the bowed rotor prevention motor 44“ Col 6 ll 37-41; clutch 78 can allow the bowed rotor prevention motor 44 to be selectively engaged and disengaged, for instance, to support a maintenance operation or during an engine start operation., Col 7 ll 15-20; Fig. 5).
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 Finke in view of Pech with Clauson's structure discussed above in order to provide a “bowed rotor prevention system” and “drive rotation of the gas turbine engine below an engine starting speed until a bowed rotor prevention threshold condition is met” (abstract), to prevent bowing of the rotor.
Finke in view of Clauson is silent about the motor is mounted to the clutch system as claimed.
However, Halimi teaches:
the rotor of the very low-speed motor is mounted to the clutch system (Halimi Fig 9; “magnetic clutch, shown generally at 300, is mounted onto motor 330 having a drive shaft 332”, Col 4 ll 65-67).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Finke in view of Clauson with Halimi's structure discussed above, so “a drive connection can be established between the motor of the added apparatus and the rotary compressor shaft by means of a [...] clutch” Col 4 ll 62-64, and also making the assembly more compact and saving space in the system and aircraft.
PNG
media_image3.png
729
959
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Finke in view of Pech, Clauson and Halimi teaches the invention as discussed for claim 17.
Finke further teaches:
further comprising a movable disk having a first body and a fixed disk having a second body mounted along the longitudinal axis (doted line on the shaft, as indicated in the image above) on either side of the flywheel (image below).
PNG
media_image5.png
729
959
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Finke in view of Pech, Clauson and Halimi teaches the invention as discussed for claim 17.
Finke further teaches:
further comprising a set of bearings located between the support member and the mixed shaft (image below).
PNG
media_image6.png
729
959
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Finke in view of Pech, Clauson and Halimi teaches the invention as discussed for claim 17. (also see rejection of claim 20 under 112(a) above).
Finke in view of Pech, Clauson and Halimi, as discussed so far, is silent about:
mixed shaft is rotated with the rotor of the very low-speed motor when the clutch system is declutched or is rotated with the rotor of the high-speed equipment when the clutch system is clutched.
However, Pech teaches:
mixed shaft (570) is rotated with the rotor (552) of the very low-speed motor when the clutch system is declutched (570 and 552 rotate with 70, Fig. 2) or is rotated with the rotor of the high-speed equipment when the clutch system is clutched.
Regarding claim 21, Finke in view of Pech, Clauson and Halimi teaches the invention as discussed for claim 17.
Finke in view of Pech, Clauson and Halimi, as discussed so far, is silent about:
wherein the clutch system is located between the high-speed equipment and the very low-speed motor.
However, Clauson teaches multiple clutches, 78, 62 in Fig. :
the clutch system (78, 62) is located between the high-speed equipment and the very low-speed motor (Fig. 5).
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, that was necessitated by applicant’s amendment. However, applicant’s arguments, have been addressed in the body of the rejections above, at the appropriate location.
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