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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 11-13, 15, and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 11, 12, 15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kray et al. (US 2021/0032992), referred to hereafter as Kray in view of Nastuk et al. (US 5,537,814), referred to hereafter as Nastuk, and Tirone, III et al. (US 2012/0107098), referred to hereafter as Tirone, and Wesling et al. (US 6,250,878), referred to hereafter as Wesling.
With regard to claim 1:
Kray discloses a turbofan engine (Fig. 1), comprising: a tie rod assembly (Fig. 2. Note that a tie rod assembly is a broad limitation. In this case, the tie rod assembly of Kray is the assembly shown in Fig. 2 including 110); a plurality of coupling nuts comprising a first coupling nut, a second coupling nut, and a third coupling nut (170, 172, 174); a forward shaft (see 160 in Fig. 2. Also see [0062] disclosing “forward portion 160”); a bladed disk (Fig. 2); a high pressure compressor comprising: a high pressor compressor rotor (the rotor of compressor 102 in Fig. 2. Regarding high pressure, see [0048], [0055], [0067], [0068]); and a cone shaft (see annotated Fig. 2 of Kray), an engagement provided at the cone shaft of the high pressure compressor rotor (see annotated Fig. 2 of Kray); and a high pressure turbine rotor (120), wherein the first coupling nut (174) of the plurality of coupling nuts is coupled to the high pressure turbine rotor (through 110, see Fig. 2), the second coupling nut (170) of the plurality of coupling nuts is coupled to the forward shaft (Fig. 2), and the third coupling nut (172) of the plurality of coupling nuts is coupled to an aft end stage of the high pressure turbine rotor (Fig. 2).
Kray does not appear to explicitly disclose that the bladed disk is a blisk (short for integrally bladed disk). Regarding a thread engagement provided at the cone shaft of the high pressure compressor rotor, Kray depicts an unnumbered engagement provided between a cone shaft of the high pressure compressor rotor with the tie rod assembly (see annotated Fig. 2 of Kray), but is silent about its details, hence it does not appear to explicitly disclose that the unnumbered engagement is a thread engagement. Kray also doesn’t appear to explicitly discloses that the cone shaft of the high compressor rotor extends from the high pressure compressor rotor in a forward axial direction toward the second coupling nut.
Regarding the bladed disk being a blisk, Nastuk teaches that blisk is an alternative and lighter rotor design for use in compressors and turbines (Col. 1; lines 41-44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique, namely making bladed disks as blisk, to improve similar devices in the same way. Furthermore, this combination would make the rotor lighter.
Regarding the thread engagement, Tirone teaches a turbofan comprising a tie rod assembly (Fig. 1) and further teaches a thread engagement ([0010]) provided at a cone shaft (30) of a compressor rotor (in Fig. 1, see the thread engagement at 40). Tirone further teaches that a dual tie rod assembly is advantageous over a single tie rod assembly (see [0004] teaching away from a single tie rod assembly and abstract teaching a dual tie rod assembly. Also see [0006] and Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique, namely splitting the tie rod assembly through a threaded engagement, to improve similar devices in the same way. Furthermore, the above combination would provide the advantages of having a dual tie rod assembly as taught by Tirone.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would apply the teaching of Tirone to the unnumbered engagement of Kray rather than the other ones, such as the engagement at 170, because Kray already discloses a nut engagement at 170, 172, and 174, but is silent about the type and details of the unnumbered engagement, and since the person of ordinary skill would need an engagement type for the unnumbered engagement, the teaching would be applied to that engagement so it becomes known. Moreover, Tirone doesn’t teach away from using their engagement at the unnumbered engagement as used in this rejection.
Regarding the cone shaft of the high compressor rotor extending from the high pressure compressor rotor in a forward axial direction toward the second coupling nut, Wesling teaches a turbofan with a cone shaft (in Fig. 2, see the cone shaft on the left hand side) of a high compressor rotor (18, Fig. 1, 2) and further teaches that the cone shaft of the high compressor rotor extends from the high pressure compressor rotor in a forward axial direction toward the second coupling nut (Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique, namely extending a cone shaft of a high compressor rotor from the high pressure compressor rotor in a forward axial direction, to improve similar devices in the same way.
PNG
media_image1.png
488
568
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
341
427
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Kray
With regard to claim 11:
Kray discloses a gas turbine engine (Fig. 1), comprising: a tie rod assembly (Fig. 2. Note that a tie rod assembly is a broad limitation. In this case, the tie rod assembly of Kray is the assembly shown in Fig. 2 including 110); a forward shaft (see 160 in Fig. 2. Also see [0062] disclosing “forward portion 160”); a bladed disk (Fig. 2); a compressor comprising: a compressor rotor (the rotor of compressor 102 in Fig. 2); and a cone shaft (see annotated Fig. 2 of Kray); an engagement provided at the cone shaft of the compressor rotor (see annotated Fig. 2 of Kray); a first coupling nut and a second coupling nut (170, 172); a turbine rotor (120); wherein the first coupling nut (170) is coupled to the forward shaft (Fig. 2), and the second coupling nut (172) is coupled to an aft end stage of the turbine rotor (Fig. 2).
Kray does not appear to explicitly disclose that the bladed disk is a blisk (short for integrally bladed disk). Regarding a thread engagement provided at the cone shaft of the high pressure compressor rotor, Kray depicts an unnumbered engagement provided between a cone shaft of the high pressure compressor rotor with the tie rod assembly (see annotated Fig. 2 of Kray), but is silent about its details, hence it does not appear to explicitly disclose that the unnumbered engagement is a thread engagement. Kray also doesn’t appear to explicitly discloses that the cone shaft of the high compressor rotor extends from the high pressure compressor rotor in a forward axial direction toward the second coupling nut.
Regarding the bladed disk being a blisk, Nastuk teaches that blisk is an alternative and lighter rotor design for use in compressors and turbines (Col. 1; lines 41-44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique, namely making bladed disks as blisk, to improve similar devices in the same way. Furthermore, this combination would make the rotor lighter.
Regarding the thread engagement, Tirone teaches a turbofan comprising a tie rod assembly (Fig. 1) and further teaches a thread engagement ([0010]) provided at a cone shaft (30) of a compressor rotor (in Fig. 1, see the thread engagement at 40). Tirone further teaches that a dual tie rod assembly is advantageous over a single tie rod assembly (see [0004] teaching away from a single tie rod assembly and abstract teaching a dual tie rod assembly. Also see [0006] and Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique, namely splitting the tie rod assembly through a threaded engagement, to improve similar devices in the same way. Furthermore, the above combination would provide the advantages of having a dual tie rod assembly as taught by Tirone.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would apply the teaching of Tirone to the unnumbered engagement of Kray rather than the other ones, such as the engagement at 170, because Kray already discloses a nut engagement at 170, 172, and 174, but is silent about the type and details of the unnumbered engagement, and since the person of ordinary skill would need an engagement type for the unnumbered engagement, the teaching would be applied to that engagement so it becomes known. Moreover, Tirone doesn’t teach away from using their engagement at the unnumbered engagement as used in this rejection.
Regarding the cone shaft of the high compressor rotor extending from the high pressure compressor rotor in a forward axial direction toward the second coupling nut, Wesling teaches a turbofan with a cone shaft (in Fig. 2, see the cone shaft on the left hand side) of a high compressor rotor (18, Fig. 1, 2) and further teaches that the cone shaft of the high compressor rotor extends from the high pressure compressor rotor in a forward axial direction toward the second coupling nut (Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique, namely extending a cone shaft of a high compressor rotor from the high pressure compressor rotor in a forward axial direction, to improve similar devices in the same way.
With regard to claim 2, the combination of Kray, Nastuk, Tirone, and Wesling further discloses that the thread engagement is configured to engage internal threads of the forward shaft with external threads of the tie rod assembly (see annotated Fig. 1 of Tirone).
PNG
media_image3.png
414
561
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Tirone
With regard to claim 3:
The combination of Kray, Nastuk, Tirone, and Wesling discloses the turbofan of claim 1, as set forth above, and further discloses a plurality of compressor stages (Kray, [0058]), wherein at least one compressor stage comprises a first type of disk (Kray, Fig. 2).
The combination of Kray, Nastuk, Tirone, and Wesling does not appear to explicitly disclose that a second compressor stage comprises a second type of disk.
However, a careful examination of the specification reveals no criticality for the second compressor stage comprising a second type of disk, nor any reason as to why the turbofan of applicant with this disk type combination would operate any different than the turbofan of the combination of Kray, Nastuk and Tirone, and Applicant has not disclosed that this combination arrangement provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. On the contrary, the specification discloses that different combinations/types of blade attachments can be used interchangeably at any stage of the compressor ([0061]). Moreover, the specification discloses that combining different types of disk type is merely an example and describes it as “By way of example”, and that the discloses types “are not limited to these types and/or numbers of disks” ([0063]). Hence the recited disk type combination arrangement is considered to be a design choice by the applicant. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the combination of Kray, Nastuk, Tirone, and Wesling, and Applicant’s invention, to perform equally well, because both would perform the same function of compressing fluid.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine a second type of disk for the second compressor stage as claimed with the turbofan of the combination of Kray, Nastuk, Tirone, and Wesling in order to achieve a desired dimension, arrangement, or configuration, as they are a matter of design choice. Such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
With regard to claims 5 and 15, the combination of Kray, Nastuk, Tirone, and Wesling further discloses that the thread engagement is coupled to the tie rod assembly (see annotated Fig. 1 of Tirone).
With regard to claim 12, the combination of Kray, Nastuk, Tirone, and Wesling further discloses a third coupling nut (Kray,174) that is coupled to the turbine rotor (Kray, through 110, see Fig. 2).
With regard to claim 21, the combination of Kray, Nastuk, Tirone, and Wesling further discloses that the high pressure compressor further comprises: a plurality of spacer arms (Kray, Fig. 2. See the spacer arms at the top of disks), wherein the cone shaft of the high pressure compressor rotor extends directly from the thread engagement (Kray, Fig. 2. Note that in claim 1, the engagement was modified to be a threaded engagement) to at least one of the plurality of spacer arms via a portion (via the lower portion in Fig. 2 of Kray) of the high pressure compressor rotor (Kray, Fig. 2).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kray et al. (US 2021/0032992), referred to hereafter as Kray in view of Nastuk et al. (US 5,537,814), referred to hereafter as Nastuk, and Tirone, III et al. (US 2012/0107098), referred to hereafter as Tirone, and Wesling et al. (US 6,250,878), referred to hereafter as Wesling, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of KR’948 (KR 100314948).
With regard to claims 4 and 13:
The combination of Kray, Nastuk, Tirone, and Wesling discloses the turbofan of claim 1 and the gas turbine engine of claim 11, as set forth above.
The combination of Kray, Nastuk, Tirone, and Wesling does not appear to explicitly disclose that the forward shaft comprises an alloy.
However, KR’948 teaches a shaft made of IN718 (see 3rd paragraph on page 8 of the attached translation). Based on applicant’s specification (see [0058]), IN718 is an alloy.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique, namely making shafts out of IN718, to improve similar devices in the same way.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to the attached form PTO-892 for pertinent prior art disclosing similar turbofans such as US 20110219784.
US-3709637 discloses a cone shaft extending in a forward axial direction. It also discloses spacer arms and the cone shaft extending directly from an engagement to the spacer arms via a portion of the compressor rotor.
PNG
media_image4.png
365
593
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BEHNOUSH HAGHIGHIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7558. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:00am-15:00pm.
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, Courtney D Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. 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.
/BEHNOUSH HAGHIGHIAN/
Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745