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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the previously presented prior art does not describe the pin body or the welding structure that has been added to each of the independent claims. The examiner disagrees and has updated the rejections below to show how the references teach the new limitations.
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(s) 1-5 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maurya (US 20210231021) in view of McGivern (US 20210071547) and further in view of Hansen (US 20100266399).
Regarding claim 1, Maurya discloses An exhaust diffuser assembly (Paragraph 0017 describes that the system can be an exhaust diffuser) for a turbomachine, the exhaust diffuser assembly comprising:
an exhaust diffuser having an inner liner (Figure 4, item 16), an outer liner spaced apart from the inner liner such that an exhaust flow passage is defined therebetween (Figure 4, item 14 with the flowpath 12 defined between them), and a plurality of struts disposed within the exhaust flow passage and extending between the inner liner and the outer liner (Figures 4 and 5, item 20); and
However, Maurya does not explicitly disclose one or more vibrational damping assemblies affixed to the exhaust diffuser on at least one of the inner liner, the outer liner, and at least one strut of the plurality of struts, wherein each vibrational damping assembly of the plurality of vibrational damping assemblies includes:
at least one pin assembly coupled to the exhaust diffuser, the at least one pin assembly having a pin body extending from a base welded to a surface of the exhaust diffuser to a tip, and wherein the pin includes a disk coupled to the pin body; and
at least one plate disposed between the disk and the exhaust diffuser, wherein the at least one plate surrounds the at least one pin, and wherein the at least one plate is movable between the disk and the exhaust diffuser relative to the pin body and relative to the exhaust diffuser to dampen vibrations experienced by the exhaust diffuser.
Maurya and McGivern are analogous prior art because both describe gas turbine structures that desire vibrational damping. McGivern teaches one or more vibrational damping assemblies (Figures 6 or 7 show damping assemblies), wherein each vibrational damping assembly of the plurality of vibrational damping assemblies includes:
at least one pin assembly coupled to the exhaust diffuser (Figures 7 or 8, item 456 shows a pin assembly coupled to the structure 36), at least one pin assembly having a pin body extending from a base (Figures 7 and 8 show the shaft of the fastener and the nut combining to form the pin body, where either the top 74 or the nut 76 can be considered the base that the pin extends from) fixedly coupled to a surface of the exhaust diffuser to a tip (Figures 7 and 8 show the pin body being secured to the exhaust diffuser 36 with a bolt and nut connection with the end of the pin described above opposite the base being the tip. As described above, because the bolt and nut connection prevents movement between the bolt and the exhaust diffuser, it provides a fixed connection. The connection provided by the bolt and nut is further described in paragraph 0057), the at least one pin assembly having a disk coupled to the pin body (Figures 7 and 8 show discs 454 or 465 coupled to the pin body); and
at least one plate disposed between the disk and the exhaust diffuser (Figures 7 and 8 show plates 46 and 44 between the disc and component 36), wherein the at least one plate surrounds the at least one pin (Figures 7 and 8 show the plates surrounding the pin and Figure 6 shows the plates extending entirely around the pins), and wherein the at least one plate is movable between the disk and the exhaust diffuser relative to the pin body and relative to the exhaust diffuser to dampen vibrations experienced by the exhaust diffuser (Paragraph 0023 describes that the system dampens vibrations. Paragraphs 0064-0065 describe friction occurring between the components which requires movements of the plates relative to the disk and the exhaust diffuser. Further, with regards to Figure 8, the Belleville washer has a tunable compressive force that would allow the two plates to shift radially relative to the shaft, disk, and component 36 as part of the operation of the system).
Maurya already describes that high vibrations are an issue for the life of the duct structure (Par. 0018). McGivern describes that the inclusion of the plates on the duct walls helps to change the resonant frequency of the engine to dampen the vibrations of the duct (Par. 0007) to increase the useful life of the duct and reduce noise produced by the vibrations (Par. 0045). Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the anti-vibration plates of McGivern in the exhaust duct of Maurya because the inclusion of the plates on the duct walls helps to change the resonant frequency of the engine to dampen the vibrations of the duct (Par. 0007) to increase the useful life of the duct and reduce noise produced by the vibrations (Par. 0045).
As McGivern describes the plates being affixed to the outer walls of a duct (Figure 6), shows that they can be affixed to multiple walls (Par. 0042, Figure 2), and describes that the damper may be installed in several locations (Par. 0063), it would have been obvious to fix the liners to either or both of the inner or outer liner of Mayra in order to provide the desired effect.
However, Mayra in view of McGivern does not explicitly disclose the pin body base being welded to a surface of the exhaust diffuser. Mayra in view of McGivern and Hansen are analogous prior art because both describe fixing engine components together with pins. Hansen teaches a pin (Figure 7, item 80) that is welded to the components (Par. 0043). McGivern already describes that welding can be used on the components (Par. 0039) so the welding of Hansen would be possible to join the parts of Mayra in view of McGivern and the welding of the pin would provide predictable results. Further, welding is known in the art to provide a stronger connection than bolting and is commonly used to connect two parts. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to, as described in Hansen, weld the pin and nut of Mayra in view of McGivern (with the nut being considered part of the pin body) to the exhaust component because the inclusion of a weld creates a stronger bond without sacrificing the structure of Mayra in view of McGivern and combining prior art elements according to known methods is obvious with predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Further, welding the pin body to the component would not interfere with the damping provided by the plates 44 and 46 shown in McGivern as it would still allow those components to shift relative to each other. As both or either of the pin and the nut are welded to a surface of the exhaust diffuser, the welded portion can serve as the base of the pin with the opposing end being the tip. The limitations do not define a specific structure required for the base or the tip and as such either can meet the limitations required.
Regarding claim 2, Maurya in view of McGivern and further in view of Hansen teaches a plurality of vibrational damping assemblies (see discussion of multiple panels for the inner and outer liners in the rejection of claim 1 above) and affixed to at least one of the outer liner and the inner liner outside of the exhaust flow passage (McGivern Figure 6 shows the panels being located outside of the flow duct). However, Maurya in view of McGivern does not explicitly teach that the panels are circumferentially spaced apart from one another. A person of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading Maurya and McGivern, would have recognized that placing multiple panels circumferentially spaced around both the inner and outer liners is one of a finite number of solutions known to be useful for effectively damping the vibrations of both liners. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention place liner panels circumferentially between each of the strut structures because a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. Further, McGivern describes that the damper system is specifically effective for unsupported duct sections (Par. 0063), so the panels would provide the best effect if located between each of the struts in the unsupported areas. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but or ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 3, Maurya in view of McGivern and further in view of Hansen teaches that each strut of the plurality of struts defines an interior extending between an outer opening defined in the outer liner and an inner opening defined in the inner liner (Maurya Figure 7 shows openings in the struts 18 that extend between and to openings in the liners), wherein at least one vibrational damping assembly is affixed to the outer liner and is disposed between circumferentially neighboring outer openings, and wherein at least one vibrational damping assembly is affixed to the inner liner and is disposed between circumferentially neighboring inner openings. See rejection of claim 2 above for obviousness of multiple vibration damping assemblies being placed on each of the inner and outer liners circumferentially between the struts and openings.
Regarding claim 4, Maurya in view of McGivern and further in view of Hansen teaches that the at least one plate comprises an outer plate and an inner plate (McGivern Figures 7 and 8, items 46 and 44 show two plates).
Regarding claim 5, Maurya in view of McGivern and further in view of Hansen teaches that the outer plate is offset from the inner plate such that the inner plate and the outer plate partially overlap (McGivern Figures 7 and 8 show that 46 and 44 are offset radially and partially overlap in each of the other directions as they are stacked).
Regarding claim 7, Maurya in view of McGivern and further in view of Hansen teaches the limitations of claim 1 in the 102 rejection above. However, Maurya in view of McGivern and further in view of Hansen does not explicitly describe that the at least one plate defines a ratio between a thickness of the at least one plate and a width of the at least one plate of between about 1:100 and 1:5000.
MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A) describes that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. The instant application provides no criticality for these dimensions and does not describe why providing such dimension are critical to the invention or what specific effect they have on the overall structure. The closest description provided in the specification of the instant application is the variations on the ratio described in paragraph 0051 and describing that the plate may be thin walled. However, this still does not provide criticality to the dimensions and even the thin walled nature does not mention the width of the plate or describe how the relationship between the width and the thickness is essential. As such, the dimensions are considered merely a matter of design choice.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the ratio between the thickness of the plate and the width of the plate of Maurya in view of McGivern and further in view of Hansen be between about 1:100 and 1:5000 since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component. Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Regarding claim 8, Maurya in view of McGivern and further in view of Hansen teaches that the at least one plate comprises two or more plates disposed between the disk and the exhaust diffuser (McGivern Figures 7 and 8, items 46 and 44 show two plates).
Regarding claim 9, Maurya in view of McGivern and further in view of Hansen teaches that the at least one plate includes a first plate having a first thickness and a second plate having a second thickness, the second thickness being greater than the first thickness. McGivern Figures 7 and 8 show that the plate 44 is thicker than the plate 46.
Regarding claim 10, Maurya in view of McGivern and further in view of Hansen teaches that the at least one pin assembly comprises a plurality of pin assemblies arranged in an array on the exhaust diffuser, and wherein the plurality of pin assemblies includes at least one positioning pin assembly. McGivern Figure 6 shows a plurality of pin assemblies securing the plates with the central pin of the set being the positioning pin assembly.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maurya (US 20210231021) in view of McGivern (US 20210071547) and further in view of Hansen (US 20100266399) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Fryer (US 20170306792).
Regarding claim 11, Maurya in view of McGivern and further in view of Hansen teaches the limitations of claim 10 as set forth in the above 103 rejection. However, Maurya in view of McGivern and further in view of Hansen does not explicitly disclose the positioning pin assembly includes an annular wall extending from the disk of the positioning pin assembly towards the exhaust diffuser to a free end, wherein the free end is spaced apart from the exhaust diffuser, and wherein the at least one plate contacts the annular wall of the positioning pin.
Maurya in view of McGivern and further in view of Hansen and Fryer are analogous prior art because both describe pin assemblies for reducing vibration in gas turbine engine components. Fryer teaches a plate (Figure 5, item 50) having an annular wall extending from the disk of the positioning pin assembly towards the exhaust diffuser to a free end (Figure 5 item 50 shows the sleeve extending radially from the plate towards the components and the free end of 36), wherein the free end is spaced apart from the exhaust diffuser (Figure 5 shows the free end of 36 is spaced form the component it is fastened to), and wherein the at least one plat contacts the annular wall of the positioning pin assembly (Figure 5 shows the wall of 50 contacting both the components and the supporting washers 46). Fryer describes that the guide sleeve 50 helps to more precisely control the concentricity of the first and second sets of Belleville washers. Maurya in view of McGivern and further in view of Hansen already shows plates between the bolt head and the component (McGivern Figures 7 and 8, items 454 and 465) and shows a gap available between the bolt and the plates, so the addition of the sleeve would help to ensure that the plates are not allowed to shift when fastened. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the sleeve structure of Fryer in the disk of Maurya in view of McGivern and further in view of Hansen because the guide sleeve 50 helps to more precisely control the position of the plates of Maurya in view of McGivern.
Claim(s) 12-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGivern (US 20210071547) and further in view of Hansen (US 20100266399).
Regarding claim 12, McGivern discloses A vibrational damping assembly (Figure 6) affixed to a turbomachine component (Figure 6, item 24, paragraph 0004 describes that the duct is part of a gas turbine and as such is a turbomachine component), the vibrational damping assembly comprising: at least one pin assembly coupled to the turbomachine component (Figures 7 or 8, item 456), the at least one pin having a pin body extending from a base (Figures 7 and 8 show the shaft of the fastener and the nut combining to form the pin body, where either the top 74 or the nut 76 can be considered the base that the pin extends from) fixedly coupled to a surface of the turbomachine component to a tip (Figures 7 and 8 show the pin body being secured to the exhaust diffuser 36 with a bolt and nut connection with the end of the pin described above opposite the base being the tip. As described above, because the bolt and nut connection prevents movement between the bolt and the exhaust diffuser, it provides a fixed connection. The connection provided by the bolt and nut is further described in paragraph 0057) and wherein the pin includes a disk coupled to the pin body (Items 454 and 465 show discs coupled to the pin and the pin body); and at least one plate disposed between the disk and the turbomachine component (Figures 7 and 8, items 44 and 46), wherein the at least one plate surrounds the at least one pin (Figures 7 and 8 show the plates surrounding the pin and Figure 6 shows the plates extending entirely around the pins), and wherein the at least one plate is movable between the disk and the turbomachine component relative to the at least one pin and relative to the turbomachine component to dampen vibrations experienced by the turbomachine component (Paragraph 0023 describes that the system dampens vibrations. Paragraphs 0064-0065 describe friction occurring between the components which requires movements of the plates relative to the disk and the exhaust diffuser. Further, with regards to Figure 8, the Belleville washer has a tunable compressive force that would allow the two plates to shift radially relative to the shaft, disk, and component 36 as part of the operation of the system).
However, McGivern does not explicitly disclose the pin body base being welded to a surface of the exhaust diffuser. McGivern and Hansen are analogous prior art because both describe fixing engine components together with pins. Hansen teaches a pin (Figure 7, item 80) that is welded to the components (Par. 0043). McGivern already describes that welding can be used on the components (Par. 0039) so the welding of Hansen would be possible to join the parts of McGivern and the welding of the pin would provide predictable results. Further, welding is known in the art to provide a stronger connection than bolting and is commonly used to connect two parts. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to, as described in Hansen, weld the pin and nut of McGivern (with the nut being considered part of the pin body) to the exhaust component because the inclusion of a weld creates a stronger bond without sacrificing the structure of McGivern and combining prior art elements according to known methods is obvious with predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Further, welding the pin body to the component would not interfere with the damping provided by the plates 44 and 46 shown in McGivern as it would still allow those components to shift relative to each other. As both or either of the pin and the nut are welded to a surface of the exhaust diffuser, the welded portion can serve as the base of the pin with the opposing end being the tip. The limitations do not define a specific structure required for the base or the tip and as such either can meet the limitations required.
Regarding claim 13, McGivern in view of Hansen teaches the limitations of claim 12 in the 102 rejection above. However, McGivern in view of Hansen does not explicitly teach that the at least one plate defines a ratio between a thickness of the at least one plate and a width of the at least one plate of between about 1:100 and 1:5000.
MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A) describes that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. The instant application provides no criticality for these dimensions and does not describe why providing such dimension are critical to the invention or what specific effect they have on the overall structure. The closest description provided in the specification of the instant application is the variations on the ratio described in paragraph 0051 and describing that the plate may be thin walled. However, this still does not provide criticality to the dimensions and even the thin walled nature does not mention the width of the plate or describe how the relationship between the width and the thickness is essential. As such, the dimensions are considered merely a matter of design choice.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the ratio between the thickness of the plate and the width of the plate of McGivern in view of Hansen be between about 1:100 and 1:5000 since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component. Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Regarding claim 14, McGivern in view of Hansen teaches that the at least one plate comprises two or more plates disposed between the disk and the turbomachine component (McGivern Figures 7 and 8, items 46 and 44 show two plates).
Regarding claim 15, McGivern in view of Hansen teaches that the at least one plate includes a first plate having a first thickness and a second plate having a second thickness, the second thickness being greater than the first thickness. McGivern Figures 7 and 8 show that the plate 44 is thicker than the plate 46.
Regarding claim 16, McGivern in view of Hansen teaches that the at least one plate defines a plurality of apertures, and wherein each pin assembly of the at least one pin assembly extends through a respective aperture of the plurality of apertures. McGivern Figures 7 and 8 show an aperture that each pin 456 passes through.
Regarding claim 17, McGivern in view of Hansen teaches that the at least one pin assembly comprises a plurality of pin assemblies arranged in an array on the turbomachine component (McGivern Figure 6 shows a plurality of pins assembled on the structure).
Regarding claim 18, McGivern in view of Hansen teaches that the plurality of pin assemblies includes at least one positioning pin assembly (McGivern Figure 6 shows a plurality of pin assemblies securing the plates with the central pin of the set being the positioning pin assembly).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGivern (US 20210071547) in view of Hansen (US 20100266399) and further in view of Fryer (US 20170306792).
Regarding claim 19, McGivern in view of Hansen teaches the limitations of claim 18 as set forth in the above 102 rejection. However, McGivern in view of Hansen does not explicitly teach the positioning pin assembly includes an annular wall extending from the disk of the positioning pin assembly towards the turbomachine component to a free end, wherein the free end is spaced apart from the turbomachine component, and wherein the at least one plate contacts the annular wall of the positioning pin assembly.
McGivern in view of Hansen and Fryer are analogous prior art because both describe pin assemblies for reducing vibration in gas turbine engine components. Fryer teaches a plate (Figure 5, item 50) having an annular wall extending from the disk of the positioning pin assembly towards the turbomachine component to a free end (Figure 5 item 50 shows the sleeve extending radially from the plate towards the components and the free end of 36), wherein the free end is spaced apart from the turbomachine component (Figure 5 shows the free end of 36 is spaced form the component it is fastened to), and wherein the at least one plat contacts the annular wall of the positioning pin assembly (Figure 5 shows the wall of 50 contacting both the components and the supporting washers 46). Fryer describes that the guide sleeve 50 helps to more precisely control the concentricity of the first and second sets of Belleville washers. McGivern in view of Hansen already shows plates between the bolt head and the component (Figures 7 and 8, items 454 and 465) and shows a gap available between the bolt and the plates, so the addition of the sleeve would help to ensure that the plates are not allowed to shift when fastened. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the sleeve structure of Fryer in the disk of McGivern in view of Hansen because the guide sleeve 50 helps to more precisely control the position of the plates of McGivern in view of Hansen.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is allowed.
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Full reasons for allowability for claim 6 can be found in the Non-Final rejection filed 09 May 2025 and reasons for allowability for claim 21 can be found in the Final rejection filed 28 August 2025.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE C RIBADENEYRA whose telephone number is (469)295-9164. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00 (CT).
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, Nathan Wiehe can be reached at (571)-272-8648. 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.
/THEODORE C RIBADENEYRA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights