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 .
Claims 1-8, 10-17, 19, and 21-23 are currently pending. Claims 1-8 and 10-11 are allowed. Claim 13 is objected to. Claims 12, 14-17, 19, and 21-23 are rejected.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 23, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 8 of the response, filed February 23, 2026, with respect to the objection of Claim 16 and rejection of Claims 1-6, 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of amendments. The objection of Claim 16 and rejection of Claims 1-6, 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Pg. 8 of the response, filed with respect to the rejection of Claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 12, Applicant asserts the references are not obvious over the amendments. The Office respectfully disagrees as detailed in the rejection below.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 9 of the response, filed with respect to the rejection of Claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn.
Regarding Claim 16, the amendments sufficiently differentiate the configuration from the art of record.
No further arguments have been provided regarding remaining claims. Mentioned claims appear to be status updates.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 1 is allowable. Claims 7-8, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, require all the limitations of an allowable claim. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(a), the restriction requirement between Species I and III, as set forth in the Office action mailed on April 25, 2025, is hereby withdrawn and Claims 7-8 are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Objections
Claims 16-17, 19, and 21-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 16, Line 12 recites “the first pressure spool”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since a first pressure spool has not been previously introduced.
Claims 17, 19, and 21-22 are subsequently objected to for their dependencies upon a previously objected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 16-17, 19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 16, Line 7 recites “a second pressure spool”. A second pressure spool has already been recited in the line above. It is unclear if this refers to the same spool or requires an additional second pressure spool. For purposes of examination, it is believed this refers to the same spool.
Claims 17, 19, and 21-22 are subsequently rejected for their dependencies upon a previously rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding Claim 23, the claim recites “wherein the gearset is independent from the speed changing element and the power transfer clutch”. This limitation is already recited in Claim 12, Line 7, which Claim 23 depends upon. Thus, the claim is rejected for failing to further limit the claim upon which it depends, since the claim merely recites limitations already present in Claim 12.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hield et al. (US 5,694,765 A), hereinafter Hield, in view of Ernst (US 2016/0053691 A1), hereinafter Ernst.
Regarding Claim 12, Figure 5 of Hield teaches a transmission operatively connected to a turbine engine of an aircraft (see Col. 2, Lines 11-17) to selectively transfer power from a first pressure spool (24, note entire spool is labeled 16 in Figure 1 with shaft portion 24) of the turbine engine to a second pressure spool (38, note entire spool is labeled 20 in Figure 1 with shaft portion 38) of the turbine engine and to power an accessory (mounted on 44, Col. 1, Lines 33-35), the transmission comprising: a speed changing element (42 or 44) operatively connected to and powered by the second pressure spool (38); a power transfer clutch (200) operatively connected to the first pressure spool (24); a gearset (180 or 42) independent from the speed changing element (42 or 44) and the power transfer clutch (200); wherein the power transfer clutch (200) is configured in a first configuration to transfer power through the gearset (180 or 42) from the second pressure spool (38) to power the accessory (mounted on 44); and wherein power transfer clutch (200) is configured in a second configuration to transfer power through the gearset (180 or 42) from the first pressure spool (24) to the second pressure spool (38) (Col. 6, Line 65 – Col. 7, Line 45). Note that the claim is broad regarding the interpretation of various limitations, such as the speed changing element limitation where there various elements that can meet “speed changing”. The first configuration is described in Col. 7, Lines 1-6. Since the power transfer clutch (200) is shown to be in connection in the transmission, the operation described is considered a first configuration. The second configuration is described in Col. 7, Lines 22-26.
Hield does not expressly teach an accessory clutch operatively connected to the speed changing element as claimed. However, an accessory clutch would have been obvious in view of Ernst.
Figure 1 of Ernst teaches a transmission with an accessory clutch (138) operatively connected to the speed changing element (134). The clutch (138) allows for the balancing of the application of power by the turbine engine over the course of operation [0039]. For example, paragraph [0035] notes there are instances where accessory pump (144) would operate closer to optimal speeds when disengaged from the main drive of the turbine. Paragraph [0042] notes engagement of clutch (138) may allow the turbine to power the accessories (140, 144). Thus, there are instances throughout operation where it is recognized that it would be beneficial to have the accessory be engaged or disengaged through a clutch. Since the clutch (138) is added as part of the combination, the engagement state it has is treated as having a first/second configuration with the power transfer clutch. In particular, the first configuration would require engagement of clutch (138), since paragraph [0042] of Ernst requires a connection for transfer to accessories (140, 144).
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 transmission taught by Hield with an accessory clutch operatively connected to the speed changing element, the accessory clutch configured in a first and second configuration as suggested by Ernst, to provide the benefit of balancing the application of power with respect to the accessories throughout different modes of operation.
Regarding Claim 14, Hield and Ernst teach the transmission as set forth in Claim 12.
Hield and Ernst teach wherein each of the speed changing element (Hield Figure 5, 42 or 44), the power transfer clutch (Hield Figure 5, 200), and the accessory clutch (Ernst Figure 1, 138) are separate components. The components are illustrated as separate components.
Regarding Claim 15, Hield and Ernst teach the transmission as set forth in Claim 12.
Hield and Ernst teach operating the transmission in the first configuration to drive the accessory (Col. 7, Lines 1-6 of Hield discuss transferring power from the turbine engine, paragraphs [0039, 0042] of Ernst discuss engagement of clutch (138) with accessories (140, 144) to power accessories) and in the second configuration to transfer the power produced from the first pressure spool to the second pressure spool (Col. 7, Lines 22-26 of Ernst describe clutch (200) transferring power from first spool (16) to second spool (20)).
Hield does not expressly teach a controller with processing circuitry configured to operate the transmission as claimed. However, a controller would have been obvious in view of Ernst.
Ernst teaches a transmission having a controller (154) with processing circuitry configured to operate the transmission. The presence of a controller allows for control of the overall operate of the turbine engine through use of control logic (156) to appropriately control the clutch (138) according to analyzed data or control signals (164, 166, 168) from the operation of the engine [0038].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the transmission taught by Hield-Ernst with a controller with processing circuitry configured to operate the transmission as suggested by Ernst, to provide the benefit of allowing control of the clutches according to the operation of the turbine.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 10-11, as far as they are definite and understood, would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 13 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.
Claims 16-17, 19, and 21-22, as far as they are definite and understood, would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 1-8 and 10-11 remain allowable for the same reasons set forth in the Final Rejection filed November 24, 2025.
Regarding Claim 13, the transmission has been amended to further recite details of the arrangement of elements. Claim 16 is considered allowable for the same reasons set forth regarding Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 16, the method has been amended to further recite details of the arrangement of elements. Claim 16 is considered allowable for the same reasons set forth regarding Claim 1.
Claims 17, 19, and 21-22 subsequently depend upon Claim 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELTON K WONG whose telephone number is (408)918-7626. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM - 5:00PM PST.
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, Court Heinle can be reached at (571)270-3508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ELTON K WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745