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 .
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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 13 January 2026 has been entered.
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 1-7, 9-14, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charier 11293300 in view of Gajowniczek 11674414 and Ronski 10293950.
Regarding claim 1, Charier teaches a system (Fig 1) comprising:
a turbine engine (10) including an engine core casing (a casing of the primary flow duct 36 defining an inner boundary of the annular space; col.4 l.57 – col.5 l.16), a low-pressure spool (12a), and a high-pressure spool (12b);
a low spool gearbox (AGB 56) disposed within a core compartment (“annular space” per col.4 l.57 – col.5 l.16; Fig 1) of the turbine engine, the low spool gearbox configured to transfer mechanical power between the low-pressure spool and a first accessory (stated and intended use of an AGB; see also, Fig 2);
a high spool gearbox (AGB 52) disposed within the core compartment of the turbine engine (Fig 1), the high spool gearbox configured to transfer mechanical power between the high-pressure spool and a second accessory (stated and intended use of an AGB, see also, Fig 2).
Charier further teaches the two gearboxes being circumferentially adjacent (Fig 2).
Charier does not teach an interlink mechanically coupling the low spool gearbox to the high spool gearbox, the low spool gearbox mechanically coupled to the engine core casing via at least a first rocker link, the first rocker link including a shock mount configured to absorb vibration between the first rocker link, the engine core casing, and the low spool gearbox; and the high spool gearbox mechanically coupled to the engine core casing via at least a second rocker link.
However, Gajowniczek teaches a system (Fig 1) comprising:
a turbine engine (10) including a core casing (28), a low-pressure spool (22), a high-pressure spool (20), and a casing (28) of a primary flow duct (through 12, 14, 16) which is housed in a nacelle (col.3 ll.13-15) thereby defining an annular space therebetween with the casing forming an inner boundary of the annular space;
two large and heavy components (36, 50), such as an accessory gearbox AGB (col.3 ll.30-39) connected to various accessories (col.3 ll.16-29), secured to the casing in the annular space (col.1 ll.10-17, col.3 ll.30-39; Figs 1 and 3-4B) in circumferential adjacency (Figs 3-4B); and
an interlink (62, 162) mechanically coupling the two components (Figs 3-6D),
wherein a first of the components is mounted at a plurality of points (via 38, 138 incl. 40a-c) of different degrees of freedom and flexion as shown in Figs 2, 5 (to allow for thermal expansion in a relatively low weight manner; col.3 l.40 – col.4 l.15) including at least one rocker link (40c, 140c), and
the second of the components is mounted circumferentially adjacent thereto with mount (52) having at least three or four structures (Fig 3; col.4 ll.51-58) and providing a torsional degree of freedom (col.4 l.51 – col.5 l.18) such that the relative motion of the components in response to axial vibration can be harnessed to dynamically stiffen the overall assembly using the interlink, which can be tuned as desired (Figs 2-6D; col.5 l.13 – col.6 l.5). In order to provide the torsion degree of movement with 3-4 distributed links/structures, at least one of the links must be capable of “rocking” motion, i.e. an extra degree of rotation about the torsional axis 54, besides pin rotation.
Gajowniczek further teaches the mounting arrangement being adaptable to different relative orientations, e.g. by maintaining the torsion axis (e.g. of mount 52) normal to the main orientation of vibration (col.6 ll.13-17).
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 non-descript gearbox mounting for the two AGBs of Charier to use the mounting arrangement (incl. interlink) of Gajowniczek, in order to provide a low weight mounting arrangement with sufficient overall dynamic stiffness and high natural frequency (Gajowniczek, col.3 l.61 – col.4 l.15; col.5 l.13 – col.6 l.17).
Charier in view of Gajowniczek still does not teach the first rocker link including a shock mount configured to absorb vibration.
However, Ronski teaches replacing one or more thrust (48) and/or rocker (44) accessory gearbox mounts (Fig 2) with a shock mount (46) to simultaneously allow for thermal expansion while providing damping and stiffness in response to vibrations (i.e. absorb vibration; Abstract, col.3 ll.8-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify one or more of the mount pieces (e.g. rocker link) in Charier in view of Gajowniczek to be shock mount as taught by Ronski, in order to protect against vibrations while facilitating thermal expansion (Ronski, col.3 ll.8-43).
Regarding claim 10, Charier teaches an apparatus (Fig 1) comprising:
a low spool gearbox (AGB 56) configured to be disposed within a core compartment (“annular space” per col.4 l.57 – col.5 l.16; Fig 1) of a turbine engine (10),
the low spool gearbox configured to transfer mechanical power between a low-pressure spool (12a) of the turbine engine and an accessory (stated and intended use of an AGB; see also, Fig 2),
wherein the turbine engine further comprises a high spool gearbox (AGB 52).
Charier further teaches a core casing of the primary flow duct (36) defining an inner boundary of the annular space (col.4 l.57 – col.5 l.16) and the two gearboxes being circumferentially adjacent (Fig 2).
Charier does not teach the low spool gearbox is configured to be mechanically coupled to the high spool gearbox via an interlink; and wherein the low spool gearbox is configured to be mechanically coupled to the engine core casing via a rocker link, the rocker link including a shock mount configured to absorb vibration between the rocker link, the engine core casing, and the low spool gearbox.
Charier in view of Gajowniczek still does not teach the rocker link including a shock mount configured to absorb vibration.
However, Ronski teaches replacing one or more thrust (48) and/or rocker (44) accessory gearbox mounts (Fig 2) with a shock mount (46) to simultaneously allow for thermal expansion while providing damping and stiffness in response to vibrations (i.e. absorb vibration; Abstract, col.3 ll.8-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify one or more of the mount pieces (e.g. rocker link) in Charier in view of Gajowniczek to be shock mount as taught by Ronski, in order to protect against vibrations while facilitating thermal expansion (Ronski, col.3 ll.8-43).
Regarding claim 16, Charier teaches an apparatus (Fig 1) comprising:
a high spool gearbox (AGB 52) configured to be disposed within a core compartment (“annular space” per col.4 l.57 – col.5 l.16; Fig 1) of a turbine engine (10),
the high spool gearbox configured to transfer mechanical power between a high-pressure spool (12b)of the turbine engine and an accessory (stated and intended use of an AGB; see also, Fig 2),
wherein the turbine engine further comprises a low spool gearbox (AGB 56).
Charier further teaches a core casing of the primary flow duct (36) defining an inner boundary of the annular space (col.4 l.57 – col.5 l.16) and the two gearboxes being circumferentially adjacent (Fig 2).
Charier does not teach the high spool gearbox is configured to be mechanically coupled to the low spool gearbox via an interlink; and the high spool gearbox is configured to be mechanically coupled to the engine core casing of the turbine engine via a rocker link, the rocker link including a shock mount configured to absorb vibration between the rocker link, the engine core casing, and the high spool gearbox.
However, Gajowniczek teaches an apparatus (Fig 1) comprising:
a turbine engine (10) including a low-pressure spool (22), a high-pressure spool (20), and a casing (28) of a primary flow duct (through 12, 14, 16) which is housed in a nacelle (col.3 ll.13-15) thereby defining an annular space therebetween with the casing forming an inner boundary of the annular space;
two large and heavy components (36, 50), such as an accessory gearbox AGB (col.3 ll.30-39) connected to various accessories (col.3 ll.16-29), secured to the casing in the annular space (col.1 ll.10-17, col.3 ll.30-39; Figs 1 and 3-4B) in circumferential adjacency (Figs 3-4B); and
an interlink (62, 162) mechanically coupling the two components (Figs 3-6D),
wherein a first of the components is mounted at a plurality of points (via 38, 138 incl. 40a-c) of different degrees of freedom and flexion as shown in Figs 2, 5 (to allow for thermal expansion in a relatively low weight manner; col.3 l.40 – col.4 l.15), and
the second of the components is mounted circumferentially adjacent thereto with mount (52) having at least three to four structures (Fig 3; col.4 ll.51-58) and a torsional degree of freedom (col.4 l.51 – col.5 l.18), such that the relative motion of the components in response to axial vibration can be harnessed to dynamically stiffen the overall assembly using the interlink, which can be tuned as desired (Figs 2-6D; col.5 l.13 – col.6 l.5). In order to provide the torsion degree of movement with 3-4 distributed links/structures, at least one must be capable of “rocking” motion (or extra degree of rotation about the torsional axis 54, besides pin rotation).
Gajowniczek further teaches the mounting arrangement being adaptable to different relative orientations, e.g. by maintaining the torsion axis (e.g. of mount 52) normal to the main orientation of vibration (col.6 ll.13-17).
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 non-descript gearbox mounting for the two AGBs of Charier to use the mounting arrangement (incl. interlink) of Gajowniczek, in order to provide a low weight mounting arrangement with sufficient overall dynamic stiffness and high natural frequency (Gajowniczek, col.3 l.61 – col.4 l.15; col.5 l.13 – col.6 l.17).
Charier in view of Gajowniczek still does not teach the first rocker link including a shock mount configured to absorb vibration.
However, Ronski teaches replacing one or more thrust (48) and/or rocker (44) accessory gearbox mounts (Fig 2) with a shock mount (46) to simultaneously allow for thermal expansion while providing damping and stiffness in response to vibrations (i.e. absorb vibration; Abstract, col.3 ll.8-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify one or more of the mount pieces (e.g. rocker link) in Charier in view of Gajowniczek to be shock mount as taught by Ronski, in order to protect against vibrations while facilitating thermal expansion (Ronski, col.3 ll.8-43).
Regarding claims 3, 11, and 17, Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski as discussed so far, does not teach the interlink includes a clearance hole configured to provide load sharing between the low spool gearbox and the high spool gearbox (i.e. the two heavy components to be mounted) with some independent freedom of movement between the low spool gearbox and the high spool gearbox.
However, Gajowniczek further teaches the interlink includes a clearance hole (sliding mount 186 requires clearance to allow for sliding; evidentiary reference: Andreas Velling, Limits and Fits, 14 August 2020, fractory.com, https://fractory.com/limits-and-fits/#:~:text=Parts%20will%20turn%20and%20slide,parts%20of%20machine%20tools%2C%20etc.&text=Using%20a%2025%20mm%20diameter%2C%20a%20H7%2Fg6%20fit%20gives,max%20clearance%20of%200.041%20mm, see p.14 under “sliding fit”) configured to provide load sharing (limited sliding via limiting structures in Fig 6C provides load sharing at the limiting extents of motion) between the two heavy components with some independent freedom of movement between the two heavy components (col.6 ll.57-63).
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 gearbox mounting of Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski to use the interlink of Gajowniczek, in order to provide a low weight mounting arrangement with sufficient overall dynamic stiffness and high natural frequency (Gajowniczek, col.3 l.61 – col.4 l.15; col.5 l.13 – col.6 l.17).
Regarding claims 4, 12, and 18, Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski as discussed so far, does not teach the interlink is configured to provide vibration isolation between the low spool gearbox and the high spool gearbox (i.e. the two heavy components to be mounted).
However, Gajowniczek further teaches the interlink may comprise a damper for absorbing kinetic energy, i.e. provide vibration isolation, between the two heavy components (col.7 ll.38-40).
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 gearbox mounting of Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski to use the interlink of Gajowniczek, in order to provide a low weight mounting arrangement with sufficient overall dynamic stiffness and high natural frequency (Gajowniczek, col.3 l.61 – col.4 l.15; col.5 l.13 – col.6 l.17).
Regarding claim 5, Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above (including the two heavy components being high and low spool gearboxes, each comprising at least one rocker link).
Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski as discussed so far, does not teach at least a first thrust link coupling the low spool gearbox to the core casing and at least a second thrust link coupling the high spool gearbox to the core casing.
However, Gajowniczek further teaches the first of the heavy components is mechanically coupled to the engine core casing via at least a first thrust link (e.g. 40b providing a load path between 36 and the core casing); and
the second of the heavy components is mechanically coupled to the engine core casing via at least a second thrust link (mount 52 having at least three or four structures per Fig 3 and col.4 ll.51-58; at least one of the structures of mount 52 provides a load path between the second component and the core casing for mounting, and is considered the claimed second thrust link).
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 gearbox mounting of Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski to use the interlink of Gajowniczek, in order to provide a low weight mounting arrangement with sufficient overall dynamic stiffness and high natural frequency (Gajowniczek, col.3 l.61 – col.4 l.15; col.5 l.13 – col.6 l.17).
Regarding claim 13, Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above (including the two heavy components being high and low spool gearboxes).
Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski as discussed so far, does not teach the low spool gearbox (first heavy component) is mechanically coupled to the engine core casing via a thrust link.
However, Gajowniczek further teaches the first of the heavy components is mechanically coupled to the engine core casing via a thrust link (e.g. 40b, providing a load path between 36 and 28).
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 gearbox mounting of Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski to use the interlink of Gajowniczek, in order to provide a low weight mounting arrangement with sufficient overall dynamic stiffness and high natural frequency (Gajowniczek, col.3 l.61 – col.4 l.15; col.5 l.13 – col.6 l.17).
Regarding claim 19, Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above (including the two heavy components being high and low spool gearboxes).
Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski as discussed so far, does not teach the high spool gearbox (second heavy component) is mechanically coupled to the engine core casing via a thrust link.
However, Gajowniczek further teaches the second of the heavy components is mechanically coupled to the engine core casing via at least a thrust link (at least another one of the structures of mount 52 provides a load path between the second component and the core casing for mounting, and is considered the claimed thrust link).
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 gearbox mounting of Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski to use the interlink of Gajowniczek, in order to provide a low weight mounting arrangement with sufficient overall dynamic stiffness and high natural frequency (Gajowniczek, col.3 l.61 – col.4 l.15; col.5 l.13 – col.6 l.17).
Regarding claim 7, Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above (including the two heavy components being high and low spool gearboxes). Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski as discussed so far, does not teach at least one of the interlink, the first thrust link, the second thrust link, the first rocker link, and the second rocker link is configured to establish a kinematic layout for the low spool gearbox and the high spool gearbox (the two heavy components).
However, Gajowniczek further teaches the combination of the interlink and the rest of the structural ties (incl. 40b, 40c, 140b, 140c, 52) of the two heavy components establish a kinematic layout (defined by Applicant in the Specification at [0030] as “a direction of relative motion…during dynamic events”) for the two heavy components (as seen in Figs 4A-B).
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 gearbox mounting of Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski to use the interlink of Gajowniczek, in order to provide a low weight mounting arrangement with sufficient overall dynamic stiffness and high natural frequency (Gajowniczek, col.3 l.61 – col.4 l.15; col.5 l.13 – col.6 l.17).
Regarding claim 9, Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski as discussed so far, does not teach the low spool gearbox and the high spool gearbox are arranged within the core compartment according to locations of the first accessory and the second accessory within the system.
However, Gajowniczek teaches locating AGBs within the core compartment according to locations of the first accessory and the second accessory within the system to avoid harsh temperatures (col.3 ll.16-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the AGBs of Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski as taught by Gajowniczek, in order to avoid harsh temperatures (Gajowniczek, col.3 ll.16-39).
Regarding claim 2, Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above (including the two heavy components being high and low spool gearboxes; the second rocker link configured to absorb vibration between the second rocker link, the engine core casing, and the high spool gearbox). Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski as discussed so far, does not teach the second rocker link includes a shock mount configured to absorb vibration.
However, Ronski (as discussed above) teaches replacing one or more thrust (48) and/or rocker (44) accessory gearbox mounts (Fig 2) with a shock mount (46) to simultaneously allow for thermal expansion while providing damping and stiffness in response to vibrations (i.e. absorb vibration; Abstract, col.3 ll.8-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify one or more of the mount pieces (e.g. second rocker link) in Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski to be shock mount as taught by Ronski, in order to protect against vibrations while facilitating thermal expansion (Ronski, col.3 ll.8-43).
Regarding claims 6, 14, and 20, Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above (including the two heavy components being high and low spool gearboxes). Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski as discussed so far, also teaches (claim 6) the first thrust link and the second thrust link, (claim 14) the (first) thrust link, and (claim 20) the (second) thrust link, configured to provide vibration isolation between the engine core casing and the respective gearbox(es).
However, Gajowniczek teaches all of the links (including thrust and rocker links, 40b-c, 140b-c, 52) working cooperatively with the interlink (62, 162) to provide vibration isolation between the engine core casing and the respective gearbox(es) (the combined mounting structures limit vibrations and isolate the components from at least resonant vibrations; col.1 ll.35-38, col.3 ll.30-39, col.4 ll.16-25, col.7 ll.11-31).
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 gearbox mounting of Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski to use the arrangement of Gajowniczek, in order to provide a low weight mounting arrangement with sufficient overall dynamic stiffness and high natural frequency (Gajowniczek, col.3 l.61 – col.4 l.15; col.5 l.13 – col.6 l.17).
Additionally, Ronski teaches replacing one or more thrust (48) and/or rocker (44) accessory gearbox mounts (Fig 2) with a shock mount (46) to simultaneously allow for thermal expansion while providing damping and stiffness in response to vibrations (Abstract, col.3 ll.8-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify one or more of the mount pieces in Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski to be shock mount as taught by Ronski, in order to protect against vibrations while facilitating thermal expansion (Ronski, col.3 ll.8-43).
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski, and further in view of White 11415023 and Bingelis1.
Tony Bingelis, Firewalls, March 1995, EAA, originally published in Experimenter, https://www.eaa.org/eaa/aircraft-building/builderresources/while-youre-building/building-articles/engines-and-firewalls/firewalls
Regarding claim 8, Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above (including two separate AGBs in the core compartment). Charier further teaches the AGBs being located in the core compartment aft of the low pressure compressor and the casing (40 comprising arms 42, 44).
Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski as discussed so far, does not teach the low spool gearbox and the high spool gearbox are disposed aft of an engine firewall.
However, White teaches installing AGBs (e.g. 40) in the core compartment aft of the low pressure compressor and a casing comprising arms (Fig 4 below),
PNG
media_image1.png
546
736
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein an engine firewall (48) is disposed at the aft end of the casing, thereby separating the oil tank from the hot components of the engine (i.e. high pressure compressor and combustor).
Additionally, Bingelis teaches both the purpose of firewalls in aircraft engines is to prevent hazardous quantities of liquid, gas, or flame from escaping the engine compartment, and that engine accessories are typically located in the engine compartment (paras.1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the turbofan engine of Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski included, or could be modified to include, a firewall separating the engine compartment (including AGBs) from the forward portion of the engine as taught by White in order to isolate the engine compartment and accessories from, e.g. an oil tank, and prevent any potential fires in the engine compartment from spreading to other parts of the engine or aircraft (White, Fig 4; Bingelis paras.1-2). Additionally, it has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, the AGBs in both Charier (in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski) and White being located in the same place relative to the rest of the engine, and the firewall of White being installed forward thereof (at the forward end of the hot zone of the engine compartment), yielded the predictable result of protection against hazardous fluids or flames from escaping from the hot zone to the rest of the aircraft as taught by Bingelis.
Claim 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski, and further in view of Fert 8607578.
Regarding claim 15, Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski as discussed so far, does not teach the apparatus is a line removable unit (LRU) that includes the accessory.
However, Gajowniczek teaches mounting the AGB (including its accessories) via a mount (52, 38, 138) and interlink (62), thus making the AGB (and included accessories) “line-replaceable” (Figs2-6D; col.3 ll.16-39).
Additionally, Fert teaches mounting AGBs as line replaceable units to facilitate maintenance thereof.
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 mounting of Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski to facilitate line replacement as taught by Gajowniczek and Fert, in order to facilitate maintenance (Gajowniczek Figs 2-6D, Fert, col.2 ll.27-29).
Claims 6, 14, and 20 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski, and further in view of Van Duyn 6212974.
Regarding claims 6, 14, and 20, Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. In case Applicant believes it is unclear how to modify the thrust link of Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski to include the shock mount structure of Ronski (or how to replace the thrust link structure of Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski with shock mounts that still provide thrust link functions), The additional combination of Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski in further view of Van Duyn is explained below.
That is:
Gajowniczek teaches at least one thrust link (40b, 140b) for the first component and at least one thrust link for the second component (based on the description/depiction of the mount 52 in col.4 l.51 to col.5 l.18 and Fig 3 (see also col.5 l.13 - col.6 l.5). An exemplary thrust link (140b) is shown in detail in Fig 6A.
Ronski’s thrust link (48) provides a similar structure/function of a link that is fixed relative to the casing, and rotatable relative to the component (Fig 2).
In both cases, the thrust link includes at least an axial length that may be modified as taught by Van Duyn below.
Van Duyn teaches that shock mount structures can be implemented with differently shaped links to achieve vibration damping (Figs 4-10; col.6 ll.29-40). At least Figs 9-10 shows a link very similar to the prior art link (Figs 4-5), and teaches the modifications necessary to convert a link of prior art geometry to a link including shock mount geometry.
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 thrust links of Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski to be shock mounts or include shock mount features while still retaining the thrust reaction function of thrust links as taught by Van Duyn, in order to provide a cost-effective manner of mitigating damage to the gearbox that still fits into the envelope of prior art gearboxes (ideal for retrofitting; col.6 ll.13-41).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that rejection(s) over Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski “does not establish that the layshaft links 48 and side hanger links 44 of Ronski are equivalent to a thrust link or a rocker link”.
However, the office action sets forth basic definitions of thrust link and rocker link in the rejection of the independent/relevant claims over the interpretation(s) of the prior art reference (particularly Gajowniczek). The corresponding/analogous links are identified in Ronski as 48 (thrust link) and 44 (rocker link) due to their specific structures corresponding to the previously set definitions (i.e. 48 reacts loads, 44 provides an extra degree of movement about at least one pin axis). Thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the improvement of links 48 and 44 of Ronski would have been applicable to the corresponding thrust/rocker links of Gajowniczek.
Applicant further argues that a rocker link “including” a shock mount is different from the concept of replacing layshaft link 48 and side hanger links 44 with shock mounts (Applicant asserts a “rocker link including a shock mount is distinct from the mere shock mount of Ronski).
However, the shock mounts of Ronski are capable of operating as either/both a thrust link and a rocker link. Thus, replacing the thrust and rocker links of Gajowniczek with the shock mounts of Ronski would still read on the claim. Particularly for the rocker links, a direct replacement should achieve the predictable result of additional vibration isolation to the system of Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski while still providing the combined vibration damping as described by Gajowniczek. For the case that thrust link modification/replacement is not clear, new reference Van Duyn is introduced in the additional rejection above.
Applicant’s arguments against Gajowniczek are moot in view of the combination of references now including Ronski and/or Van Duyn to teach the claims.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE SEBASCO CHENG whose telephone number is (469)295-9153. The examiner can normally be reached on 1000-1600 ET.
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, Devon Kramer 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEPHANIE SEBASCO CHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741