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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to Claim 1 is supported by at least previously presented Claims 4-5 and Figure 5. The amendment has necessitated a new ground a rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boulanger (US20120224944A1).
Claim 1
Boulanger teaches a method of assembling an aircraft engine having a case assembly, the case assembly of the aircraft engine including a first section (1) and a second section (36) securable to one another (¶0017), each of the first section and the second section including one or more cases of the case assembly (Figure 3), the method comprising: mounting the first section to a cradle (2) at a first location on the first section (The first location is the end surface of the first section (1) as shown in Figure 1-2), the first section oriented with a central axis of the aircraft engine being substantially perpendicular to a ground (Figure 2); mounting a support arm (15) to both of the cradle (14) and the first section at a second location (Figure 1, Item 16) on the first section, the second location being axially offset from the first location relative to the central axis; while the first section is supported by the support arm (Figure 1): rotating the first section to orient the first section with the central axis being substantially parallel to the ground (Figure 3); subsequent to the rotating the first section, assembling the second section of the case assembly to the first section with the central axis being substantially parallel to the ground (Figure 3 and ¶0017 teach the assembling of the module (1) with the second, another module (36). This assembling is indicated as separate from the previously mentioned docking step.), and mounting an engine support to the second section (Figure 3 and ¶0017 teach the first module (1) is moved to dock (interpreted as mounting) with the second module (36). The end flange of the first module (1) is shown as moving into proximity with the end face of the second module (36) during this step in Figure 3. The end flange of the first module (1) is interpreted as an engine support in that the connection point supports the engine. No specific structure is recited for the “support”.) and disconnecting the support arm from the case assembly. (Prior to the aircraft engine entering service, the lifting arm (15) is removed from the assembly of Boulanger. The claim does not specify when this occurs.)
Claim 6
Boulanger teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the mounting of the engine support to the second section includes mounting the engine support to an axial extremity of the second section. (Boulanger, Figure 3 teaches the engine support (end flange of the module (1)) is mounted to the axial end of Item 36.)
Claim 7
Boulanger teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the mounting of the engine support to the axial extremity of the second section includes abutting a flange of the engine support to an axial end face of the second section. (Boulanger, Figure 3 teaches the engine support (end flange of the module (1)) is mounted to the axial end of Item 36.)
Claim 9
Boulanger teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the mounting of the first section to the cradle includes mounting the first section to the cradle via one or more bracket, the one or more bracket secured to both of the cradle and the first section. (Boulanger, Figures 1-2 teach a bracket (tooling, 12) that is connected to the module (1) and is connected to the cradle (2) by connecting a skid (21) on the tooling to a groove (22) in the cradle (2). See ¶0017.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boulanger in view of Murphy (US20190153900A1).
Claim 2
Boulanger teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the support arm includes a longitudinal section (15) secured to the cradle and a section mounted to the longitudinal section, the mounting of the support arm including mounting the section to the first section at least at two locations circumferentially spaced apart from one another. (¶0015 (the end) teaches that the connection of the end (16) of the lifting arm is done through by bolting to a flange (17) at the front of the module. Figure 1 shows the end (16) contacts the flange at two places circumferentially spaced from one another. The claim does not specify the “mounting” specifics.)
Boulanger does not disclose the specific shape of the other section, and thus does not disclose arcuate section mounted to the longitudinal section, the mounting of the support arm including mounting the arcuate section to the first section at least at two locations circumferentially spaced apart from one another.
However, Murphy teaches an arcuate section (330) mounted to the longitudinal section (102), the mounting of the support arm including mounting the arcuate section to the first section at least at two locations circumferentially spaced apart from one another (Figure 5 shows the support structure (102) has a mount connected to one end of the first module (300) and the arcuate section (330) is located spaced from the mount.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known arcuate shape of the support technique from Murphy to the support of Boulanger to choose that shape in order to support a flange (Murphy ¶0059).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known arcuate shape of the support technique from Murphy to the support of Boulanger because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is that the end of Boulanger (16) will have an arcuate shape that interacts with the flange of the first module (1).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boulanger in view of Murphy, as applied in Claim 2, further in view of Machado (US20220333504A1).
Claim 3
Boulanger in view of Murphy teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the module comprises an annular flange located at an intersection between two cases of the first section. (Boulanger teaches that the module (1) has a number of annular flanges in between sections of the module (See Figure 1) and that the lifting arm (15) is connected to flanges (¶0015).)
Boulanger in view of Murphy does not explicitly disclose mounting the arcuate section to an annular flange located at an intersection between two cases of the first section.
However, Machado teaches connecting the mounting section to an annular flange located at an intersection between two cases of the first section. (Figure 3 teaches a gas generator (102) that has a number of flanges and is carried by a hoist (202) having a longitudinal section (206) as well as mounting sections (302, 304, 306) along the longitudinal section. These mounting sections include one at each end of the module (308a/b and 312a/b) and an intermediate one (310a/b) located at a flange between sections of the outer case.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known technique of having an intermediate mounting section of Machado to the mounting arm of Boulanger in view of Murphy in order to balance and secure the gas engine assembly relative to the hoist (Machado, ¶0041) and use a suitable number of connectors/brackets depending upon the weight of the object to be hoisted. (Machado, ¶0041)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known technique of having an intermediate mounting section of Machado to the mounting arm of Boulanger in view of Murphy because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is that the lifting arm of Boulanger will have a plurality of arcuate connection pieces that cooperate with flanges of the first module.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boulanger in view of Reinhardt (US20180156125A1).
It is noted that the first named inventor on US20180156125A1 is Murphy. In order to avoid confusion with the previously discussed Murphy (US20190153900A1), the ‘125 publication will be referred to as Reinhardt.
Claim 8
Boulanger teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first module includes compressor and the high-pressure turbine, and the combustion chamber; (¶0015) and mounting of the engine support to the second section includes mounting the engine support to the second section. (¶0017)
Boulanger does not disclose what comprises the second section (36), and therefore does not explicitly disclose wherein the second section includes an inlet case of the aircraft engine.
However, Reinhardt (US20180156125A1) teaches mounting of an inlet case (62) to a core consisting of a compressor (54), high pressure turbine (38) and combustor (26).
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known inlet case mounting to the core of the engine technique from Reinhardt to the engine assembly method of Boulanger in order to position the fan to drive air along a flow path through the core (See ¶0042 of Reinhardt)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the inlet case mounting to the core of the engine technique from Reinhardt to the engine assembly method of Boulanger because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is that the engine core of Boulanger will be assembled to a fan inlet case during the method.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 12/22/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 USC 102 using Murphy, Lawlor and Hofner are withdrawn.
Applicant has incorporated a narrower version of Claims 4-5 into Claim 1. Murphy and Hofner did not teach the previously presented Claims 4-5, and the more precise order of operations presented in Claim 1 as amended overcomes the rejection using Lawlor.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found on the PTO 892 Notice of References Cited Form.
US20180311808A1 – Figures 1-2 teach an aircraft engine assembly stand with a longitudinal section and an arcuate section that attaches to the engine.
US20180283215A1 – Figures 1 and 3A teach an aircraft engine assembly stand with a longitudinal section and an arcuate section that attaches to the engine.
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 Michael W Hotchkiss whose telephone number is (571)272-3854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 0800-1600.
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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/MICHAEL W HOTCHKISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights