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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-14, 16-17, and 21-24 are pending and Claims 1, 5, 11-13, 16-17, and 21-24 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. As of the date of this application, the Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 03/26/2024 has/have been taken into account.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 4, Subspecies 4e in the reply filed on 03/09/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 2-4, 6-10, and 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/09/2026.
Claim 9 has been withdrawn for being directed towards non-elected species 3.
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated 03/09/2026, the following has occurred: Claims 17 have been amended; Claims 15 and 18-20 have been canceled; Claims 21-24 have been added. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 1210 and 1240. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 13 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claims 1, 5, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by White (US 4,725,019).
In regards to Claim 1, White discloses a gas turbine engine, comprising: a first mount (White: Fig. 3; 12); a first frame portion (White: Fig. 2; 6 – front portion) to be coupled to a pylon (White: Fig. 2-3; 10) via the first mount; a second frame portion (White: Fig. 2; 6 – rear portion) coupled to the first frame portion such that the second frame portion is cantilevered from the first frame portion; and a second mount (White: Fig. 3; 14) to couple the second frame portion to the pylon, the second mount defining a load path between the pylon and the second frame portion, the second mount including an elastic element (White: Fig. 5-6; 30) disposed in the load path.
In regards to Claim 5, White discloses the gas turbine engine of claim 1, wherein the elastic element (White: Fig. 5-6; 30) is a leaf spring.
In regards to Claim 13, White discloses an apparatus, comprising: a first mount (White: Fig. 3; 12) coupling a first frame portion (White: Fig. 2; 6 – front portion) of a gas turbine engine to a pylon (White: Fig. 2-3; 10); and a second mount (White: Fig. 3; 14) coupling a second frame portion (White: Fig. 2; 6 – rear portion) of the gas turbine engine to the pylon, the second mount including an elastic element (White: Fig. 5-6; 30), the second frame portion cantilevered relative to the first frame portion, the second mount defining a load path between the pylon and the second frame portion, wherein the elastic element is disposed in the load path.
In regards to Claim 16, White discloses the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the elastic element (White: Fig. 5-6; 30) is a spring.
Claims 1, 13, 16-17, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brochard et al. (US 2014/0183298).
In regards to Claim 1, Brochard discloses a gas turbine engine, comprising: a first mount (Brochard: Fig. 1; 16); a first frame portion (Brochard: Fig. 1; 10 - portion connected to 16) to be coupled to a pylon (Brochard: Fig. 1; 12) via the first mount; a second frame portion (Brochard: Fig. 1; 10 - portion connected to 14) coupled to the first frame portion such that the second frame portion is cantilevered from the first frame portion; and a second mount (Brochard: Fig. 1; 14) to couple the second frame portion to the pylon, the second mount defining a load path between the pylon and the second frame portion, the second mount including an elastic element (Brochard: Fig. 12; 128b, 136b’, 134) disposed in the load path.
In regards to Claim 13, Brochard discloses an apparatus, comprising: a first mount (Brochard: Fig. 1; 16) coupling a first frame portion (Brochard: Fig. 1; 10 - portion connected to 16) of a gas turbine engine to a pylon; and a second mount (Brochard: Fig. 1; 14) coupling a second frame portion (Brochard: Fig. 1; 10 - portion connected to 14) of the gas turbine engine to the pylon, the second mount including an elastic element (Brochard: Fig. 12; 130b, 136b’, 134), the second frame portion cantilevered relative to the first frame portion, the second mount defining a load path between the pylon and the second frame portion, wherein the elastic element is disposed in the load path.
In regards to Claim 16, Brochard discloses the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the elastic element (Brochard: Fig. 12; 134) is a spring.
In regards to Claim 17, Brochard discloses the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the second mount further includes a slot linkage (Brochard: Fig. 12-13; 132b, 136a, 138ba) coupling an eye (Brochard: Fig. 12; 130b) of the spring to the second frame portion.
In regards to Claim 21, Brochard discloses the apparatus of claim 17, wherein the slot linkage includes a pin (Brochard: Fig. 12-13; 132b) that extends through the eye of the spring, wherein the slot linkage includes a slot (Brochard: Fig. 13; 138ba) that facilitates movement of the pin in a pitch direction.
In regards to Claim 22, Brochard discloses the apparatus of claim 21, wherein the eye (Brochard: Fig. 12; 130b) of the spring is a first eye defined at a first end of the spring, wherein the spring includes a second eye (Brochard: Fig. 12; 130c) defined at a second end of the spring, and wherein the second eye is in a fixed position relative to the second frame portion.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thies et al. (US 2013/0160459) in view of Brochard (US 2014/0064950).
In regards to Claim 1, Thies discloses a gas turbine engine, comprising: a first mount (Thies: Fig. 3; 16); a first frame portion (Thies: Fig. 3; 54) to be coupled to a pylon (Thies: Fig. 3; 14) via the first mount; a second frame portion (Thies: Fig. 3; 55) coupled to the first frame portion such that the second frame portion is cantilevered from the first frame portion; and a second mount (Thies: Fig. 3; 18) to couple the second frame portion to the pylon, the second mount defining a load path between the pylon and the second frame portion.
Thies fails to disclose the second mount including an elastic element disposed in the load path. However, Brochard teaches a second mount (Brochard: Fig. 8; 72, 134, 136) including an elastic element (Brochard: Fig. 8; 134) disposed in the load path.
Thies and Brochard are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. aircraft supports. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second mount in Thies with the elastic element from Brochard, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a mounting that includes an elastic means allowing relative displacement of the ends of the engine mounting, (Brochard: [00162]), thereby facilitating movement of the engine caused by or encountered during use.
In regards to Claim 11, Thies, as modified, teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 1, further including: a first thrust linkage (Thies: Fig. 3; 30) extending between a third frame portion and the pylon at a first block attachment point; a second thrust linkage (Thies: Fig. 3; 32) extending between the third frame portion and the pylon at a second block attachment point laterally displaced from the first block attachment point; and a third thrust linkage (Thies: Fig. 3; 46) extending between the third frame portion and a third block attachment point vertically displaced from the first block attachment point.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thies et al. (US 2013/0160459) in view of Brochard (US 2014/0064950) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cysewski et al. (US 2020/0108904).
In regards to Claim 12, Thies, as modified, teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 11, wherein: the first thrust linkage (Thies: Fig. 3; 30) has a first length; and the third thrust linkage (Thies: Fig. 3; 46) has a second length, the first length greater than the second length.
Thies fails to disclose the first thrust linkage includes a first material; and the third thrust linkage includes a second material, the first material having a lower coefficient of thermal expansion than the second material. However, Cysewski teaches a first linkage (Cysewski: Fig. 1A-1B; 112) that includes a first material; and a third linkage (Cysewski: Fig. 1A-1B; 112) that includes a second material, the first material having a lower coefficient of thermal expansion than the second material (Cysewski: [0042]).
Thies and Cysewski are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. aircraft supports. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the linkages with the materials from Cysewski, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide linkages that achieve a functionally gradient material with a varying coefficient of thermal expansion (Cysewski: [0042]), thereby improving their performance in response to heat.
Claims 13, 16, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes et al. (US 2012/0085859) in view of Thies et al. (US 2013/0160459) and .
In regards to Claim 13, Barnes discloses an apparatus, comprising: a first mount (Barnes: [0004] – front suspension) coupling a first frame portion of a gas turbine engine to a pylon; and a second mount (Barnes: Fig. 2-3; 2) coupling a second frame portion (Barnes: Fig. 2; 6) of the gas turbine engine to the pylon, the second mount defining a load path between the pylon and the second frame portion.
Barnes fails to explicitly disclose a second frame portion cantilevered relative to the first frame portion. However, Thies teaches a second frame portion (Thies: Fig. 3; 55) cantilevered relative to a first frame portion (Thies: Fig. 3; 54).
Barnes and Thies are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. aircraft supports. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the engine in Barnes with the cantilevered second frame portion of Thies, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a specific well-known structure for the rear portion of a turbine engine that facilitates proper air flow (Thies: [0042]-[0043]).
Furthermore, Barnes fails to disclose the second mount including an elastic element, wherein the elastic element is disposed in the load path. However, Roach teaches an elastic element (Roach: Fig. 4-5; 120), wherein the elastic element is disposed in the load path.
Barnes and Roach are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. aircraft supports. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second mount in Barnes to be elastic as taught by Roach, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a support means that also has a dampening effect, thereby enabling it to reduce the magnitude of the load transferred to the airframe during use (Roach: Col. 4, Ln. 31-67; Col. 5, Ln. 1-11).
In regards to Claim 16, Barnes, as modified, teaches the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the elastic element (Roach: Fig. 4-5; 120) is a spring.
In regards to Claim 23, Barnes, as modified, teaches the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the second mount includes a rigid structural member (Barnes: Fig. 2-3; 3) including a first end (Barnes: Fig. 2-3; 33) coupled to the spring (Roach: Fig. 4-5; 120) and a second end (Barnes: Fig. 2-3; 31) coupled to the pylon.
In regards to Claim 24, Barnes, as modified, teaches the apparatus of claim 23, wherein the spring (Roach: Fig. 4-5; 120) includes a first end and a second end (Roach: Fig. 4-5; 110A, 110B) coupled to the second frame portion, wherein the rigid structural member (Barnes: Fig. 2-3; 3) couples to the spring between the first end and the second end.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for cited references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Taylor Morris whose telephone number is (571)272-6367. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10AM-6PM PST / 1PM-9PM EST.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/Taylor Morris/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights