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.
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, Ronski 10293950, Suciu 20110239660 and Sadil 5435124.
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 the core casing including a first flange and a second flange; the low spool gearbox being mechanically coupled to the first flange 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; the low spool gearbox being mechanically coupled to the second flange via at least a first thrust link; an interlink mechanically coupling the low spool gearbox to the high 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 low-pressure spool (22), a high-pressure spool (20), and an engine core 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 at least a first thrust link (e.g. 40b, 140b providing a load path between 36 and the core casing), the rocker link and the thrust link attaching to the core casing at two different locations (Figs 2-6A), 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; the core casing including a first flange and a second flange such that the low spool gearbox is mechanically coupled to the first flange via at least the first rocker link and mechanically coupled to the second flange via at least the first thrust link.
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).
Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski still does not teach the core casing including a first flange and a second flange (such that the low spool gearbox is mechanically coupled to the first flange via at least the first rocker link and mechanically coupled to the second flange via at least the first thrust link).
However, the use of separate flanges on a core casing to mount a gearbox using respective links was known in the art. See, for example, Suciu’s Figs 2-5 and Sadil’s Figs 1-2.
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 nondescript core casing of Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski to use flanges to connect to the rocker and thrust links of the gearboxes as taught by Suciu and Sadil, because 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, combining the flanges of Suciu and/or Sadil for mounting gearboxes using links with the core casing of Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski mounting gearboxes to a core casing using links, would have yielded the predictable results of gearboxes (as taught by Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski) mounted to the core casing (of Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski) using flanges (as taught by Suciu and/or Sadil).
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; wherein the low spool gearbox is configured to be mechanically coupled to a first flange of 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; and wherein the low spool gearbox is configured to be mechanically coupled to a second flange of the engine core casing via a thrust link.
However, Gajowniczek teaches an apparatus (Fig 1) comprising:
an engine core 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 at least a first thrust link (e.g. 40b, 140b providing a load path between 36 and the core casing), the rocker link and the thrust link attaching to the core casing at two different locations (Figs 2-6A), 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 rocker link including a shock mount configured to absorb vibration; the core casing including a first flange and a second flange such that the low spool gearbox is mechanically coupled to the first flange via at least the first rocker link and mechanically coupled to the second flange via at least the first thrust link.
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).
Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski still does not teach the core casing including a first flange and a second flange (such that the low spool gearbox is mechanically coupled to the first flange via at least the first rocker link and mechanically coupled to the second flange via at least the first thrust link).
However, the use of separate flanges on a core casing to mount a gearbox using respective links was known in the art. See, for example, Suciu’s Figs 2-5 and Sadil’s Figs 1-2.
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 nondescript core casing of Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski to use flanges to connect to the rocker and thrust links of the gearboxes as taught by Suciu and Sadil, because 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, combining the flanges of Suciu and/or Sadil for mounting gearboxes using links with the core casing of Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski mounting gearboxes to a core casing using links, would have yielded the predictable results of gearboxes (as taught by Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski) mounted to the core casing (of Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski) using flanges (as taught by Suciu and/or Sadil).
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; the high spool gearbox is configured to be mechanically coupled to a first flange of 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; and the high spool gearbox configured to be mechanically coupled to a second flange of the engine core casing via a thrust link.
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 spaced-apart 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 spaced-apart 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) and at least one other provides a load path between the second component of the core casing. Thus, teaching at least one rocker link and at least one thrust link.
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; and the core casing including a first flange and a second flange (such that the high spool gearbox is mechanically coupled to the first flange via at least the rocker link and mechanically coupled to the second flange via at least the thrust link).
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).
Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski still does not teach the core casing including a first flange and a second flange (such that the high spool gearbox is mechanically coupled to the first flange via the rocker link and mechanically coupled to the second flange via the thrust link).
However, the use of separate flanges on a core casing to mount a gearbox using respective links was known in the art. See, for example, Suciu’s Figs 2-5 and Sadil’s Figs 1-2.
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 nondescript core casing of Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski to use flanges to connect to the rocker and thrust links of the gearboxes as taught by Suciu and Sadil, because 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, combining the flanges of Suciu and/or Sadil for mounting gearboxes using links with the core casing of Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski mounting gearboxes to a core casing using links, would have yielded the predictable results of gearboxes (as taught by Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski) mounted to the core casing (of Charier in view of Gajowniczek and Ronski) using flanges (as taught by Suciu and/or Sadil).
Regarding claim 2, Charier in view of Gajowniczek, Ronski, Suciu, and Sadil 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, Ronski, Suciu, and Sadil as discussed so far, does not teach the second rocker link includes a shock mount configured to absorb the 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, Ronski, Suciu, and Sadil 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, Ronski, Suciu, and Sadil teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Charier in view of Gajowniczek, Ronski, Suciu, and Sadil 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, Ronski, Suciu, and Sadil 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, Ronski, Suciu, and Sadil teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Charier in view of Gajowniczek, Ronski, Suciu, and Sadil 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, Ronski, Suciu, and Sadil 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, Ronski, Suciu, and Sadil 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; and the first rocker link coupled to the first flange and the first thrust link coupled to the second flange).
Charier in view of Gajowniczek, Ronski, Suciu, and Sadil as discussed so far, does not teach the second flange (with first thrust link) is disposed rearward from the first flange (with first rocker link) with respect to a forward position of the turbine engine; and at least a second thrust link mechanically coupling the high spool gearbox to the core casing.
However, Gajowniczek further teaches the first of the heavy components (36) 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);
according to Figs 1-6A, the first thrust link and the first rocker link being axially separated such that one is more rearward than the other;
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).
In Fig 3, the first heavy component (36) is on a first circumferential side of the engine (and the second heavy component 50 which is top-mounted), which results in the rocker link being rearward of the thrust link. However, Gajowniczek repeatedly states this is just an exemplary arrangement ([0002,0014, 21, 29-30, 32) and one of ordinary skill in the art could readily envision the first heavy component being on the other circumferential side of the second heavy component. This results in the thrust link being rearward of the rocker 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, Ronski, Suciu, and Sadil 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). Furthermore, 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 arrangement of the heavy components such that 36 is on the other circumferential side of 50 and the thrust link is rearward of the rocker link, because MPEP2144.04 provides that the reversal (section VI, item A) or rearrangement of parts (section VI, item C) are considered obvious extensions of the prior art when the reversal or rearrangement does not contradict the operation of the device and/or when location/placement may be considered design choice (i.e. there is no functional difference between the placement choices).In this case, there is a functional relationship between placement and operation of the linkages, however, the specific rearrangement of switching the circumferential side preserves the operation of the linkages (e.g. as demonstrated in Figs 4A-B).
Regarding claim 13, Charier in view of Gajowniczek, Ronski, Suciu, and Sadil teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above (including the two heavy components being high and low spool gearboxes; and the first rocker link coupled to the first flange and the first thrust link coupled to the second flange).
Charier in view of Gajowniczek, Ronski, Suciu, and Sadil as discussed so far, does not teach the second flange (with thrust link) is disposed rearward from the first flange (with rocker link) with respect to a forward position of the turbine engine.
However, Gajowniczek further teaches (Figs 1-6A) the thrust link and the first rocker link being axially separated such that one is more rearward than the other. In Fig 3, the first heavy component (36) is on a first circumferential side of the engine (and the second heavy component 50 which is top-mounted), which results in the rocker link being rearward of the thrust link. However, Gajowniczek repeatedly states this is just an exemplary arrangement ([0002,0014, 21, 29-30, 32) and one of ordinary skill in the art could readily envision the first heavy component being on the other circumferential side of the second heavy component. This results in the thrust link being rearward of the rocker 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 arrangement of the heavy components in Charier in view of Gajowniczek, Ronski, Suciu, and Sadil such that 36 is on the other circumferential side of 50 and the thrust link is rearward of the rocker link, because MPEP2144.04 provides that the reversal (section VI, item A) and/or rearrangement of parts (section VI, item C) are considered obvious extensions of the prior art when the reversal or rearrangement does not contradict the operation of the device and/or when location/placement may be considered design choice (i.e. there is no functional difference between the placement choices).In this case, there is a functional relationship between placement and operation of the linkages, however, the specific rearrangement of switching the circumferential side preserves the operation of the linkages (e.g. as demonstrated in Figs 4A-B).
Regarding claim 19, Charier in view of Gajowniczek, Ronski, Suciu, and Sadil teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above (including the two heavy components being high and low spool gearboxes; and the rocker link coupled to the first flange and the thrust link coupled to the second flange).
Charier in view of Gajowniczek, Ronski, Suciu, and Sadil as discussed so far, does not teach the second flange disposed rearward from the first flange with respect to a forward position of the turbine engine.
However, MPEP2144.04 provides that the reversal (section VI, item A) and/or rearrangement of parts (section VI, item C) are considered obvious extensions of the prior art when the reversal or rearrangement does not contradict the operation of the device and/or when location/placement may be considered design choice (i.e. there is no functional difference between the placement choices). In this case, it is not clear which link would be forward or rearward of the other. Nevertheless, if the rocker link was rearward of the thrust link for the arrangement of Fig 3, placing the first component on the opposite circumferential side of the second component would switch the arrangement of links such that the thrust link was rearward of the rocker link.
If the thrust link is rearward of the rocker link in the arrangement of Fig 3, it would have simply 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, Ronski, Suciu, and Sadil to use the link 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).
If the rocker link was rearward of the thrust link in the arrangement of Fig 3, 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 arrangement of the heavy components in Charier in view of Gajowniczek, Ronski, Suciu, and Sadil such that 36 is on the other circumferential side of 50 and the thrust link is rearward of the rocker link, because MPEP2144.04 provides that the reversal (section VI, item A) and/or rearrangement of parts (section VI, item C) are considered obvious extensions of the prior art when the reversal or rearrangement does not contradict the operation of the device and/or when location/placement may be considered design choice (i.e. there is no functional difference between the placement choices).In this case, there is a functional relationship between placement and operation of the linkages, however, the specific rearrangement of switching the circumferential side preserves the operation of the linkages (e.g. as demonstrated in Figs 4A-B).
Regarding claims 6, 14, and 20, Charier in view of Gajowniczek, Ronski, Suciu, and Sadil 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, Ronski, Suciu, and Sadil 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, Ronski, Suciu, and Sadil 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, Ronski, Suciu, and Sadil 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 7, Charier in view of Gajowniczek, Ronski, Suciu, and Sadil 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, Ronski, Suciu, and Sadil 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, Ronski, Suciu, and Sadil 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, Ronski, Suciu, and Sadil teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Charier in view of Gajowniczek, Ronski, Suciu, and Sadil 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, Ronski, Suciu, and Sadil as taught by Gajowniczek, in order to avoid harsh temperatures (Gajowniczek, col.3 ll.16-39).
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charier in view of Gajowniczek, Ronski, Suciu, and Sadil, 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, Ronski, Suciu, and Sadil 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, Ronski, Suciu, and Sadil 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, Ronski, Suciu, and Sadil 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, Ronski, Suciu, and Sadil) 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, Ronski, Suciu, and Sadil, and further in view of Fert 8607578.
Regarding claim 15, Charier in view of Gajowniczek, Ronski, Suciu, and Sadil teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Charier in view of Gajowniczek, Ronski, Suciu, and Sadil 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, Ronski, Suciu, and Sadil 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, Ronski, Suciu, and Sadil, and further in view of Van Duyn 6212974.
Regarding claims 6, 14, and 20, Charier in view of Gajowniczek, Ronski, Suciu, and Sadil 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, Ronski, Suciu, and Sadil to include the shock mount structure of Ronski (or how to replace the thrust link structure of Charier in view of Gajowniczek, Ronski, Suciu, and Sadil with shock mounts that still provide thrust link functions), The additional combination of Charier in view of Gajowniczek, Ronski, Suciu, and Sadil, 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, Ronski, Suciu, and Sadil 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 21 May 2026 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.
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 STEPHANIE SEBASCO CHENG whose telephone number is (469)295-9153. The examiner can normally be reached 0600-0900 AM ET M-F and 1-2PM T/R.
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 at 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.
/STEPHANIE SEBASCO CHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights