CTNF 18/817,394 CTNF 94004 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This is the third office action on the merits. This office action is in response to the request for continued examination filed on 03/17/2026. Applicant has amended claims 1 and 10 and added claim 21. Claim 11 remains withdrawn from further consideration. Claims 1-10, 12-13, and 20-21 are pending and examined. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 07-42-04 AIA 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 17, 2026 has been entered. Priority 02-09 AIA Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows: The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc. , 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The disclosure of the prior-filed provisional application, Application No. 62/915,364, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Application 62/915,364 has no disclosure of “an accessory gearbox mechanically coupled to the low speed spool at a first connection point of the low speed spool; an electric machine mechanically coupled to the low speed spool at a second connection point” (claim 1, lines 4-7). Accordingly, claims 1-10, 12-13 and 20-21 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior provisional application filing date. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9, line 2: “a high speed spool” is believed to refer to the same “high speed spool” in claim 1, line 10, and should therefore be changed to “ the high speed spool” Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 3, 7, 9-10, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romero (US 2021/0246837 A1), in view of Frost (US 2016/0040601 A1), Steinert (US 2020/0017229 A1), and Suciu (US 2015/0330300 A1) . Regarding claim 1 , Romero teaches (Figs. 1 and 4) a gas turbine engine (20 – Fig. 1) comprising: a turbomachine (400 – Fig. 4. Note that the dual rotor system 400 of Fig. 4 is an embodiment of the gas turbine engine 20 of Fig. 1 – see ¶ [0035], ll. 3-6) comprising a low speed spool (30 – Fig. 1; 206A – Fig. 4); a rotor assembly (42 – Fig. 1) coupled to the low speed spool (30); an electric machine (212A – Fig. 4) mechanically coupled to the low speed spool (206A) at a second connection point (Fig. 4: left-most end of 206A. Note that ¶ [0037], ll. 15-16 teaches “the first electric motor 212 A may be indirectly coupled through a tower shaft to the first shaft 206 A”); and a high speed spool (206B); wherein the low speed spool (30, 206A) comprises a low speed compressor (44 – Fig. 1; 204A – Fig. 4), and wherein the second connection point is positioned at a location forward (to the left) of the low speed compressor (204A). However, Romero does not teach an accessory gearbox mechanically coupled to the low speed spool at a first connection point of the low speed spool; wherein the first connection point is positioned at a location forward of the low speed compressor. Frost teaches (Fig. 1) a similar gas turbine engine (100) comprising: a turbomachine (50) comprising a low speed spool (30); and an accessory gearbox (40) mechanically coupled to the low speed spool (30) at a first connection point (intersection of shafts 30 and 35) of the low speed spool (30); wherein the low speed spool (30) comprises a low speed compressor (5), and wherein the first connection point is positioned at a location forward (to the left) of the low speed compressor (5). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Romero by including an accessory gearbox mechanically coupled to the low speed spool at a first connection point of the low speed spool; wherein the first connection point is positioned at a location forward of the low speed compressor, in order to drive various support components (such as a fuel pump, an oil pump, an air driven starter, and air/oil separator, and an electrical generator) required to sustain engine operation (¶ [0004], ll. 1-6), and to fit the accessories driven by the accessory gearbox within the nacelle or the engine bay and also not interfere with the engine casing (¶ [0006], ll. 9-15 and ¶ [0035], ll. 1-6), as taught by Frost. However, Romero, in view of Frost, does not teach a clutch positioned in a torque path of the low speed spool between the first connection point and the rotor assembly. Steinert teaches (Fig. 1) a similar gas turbine engine (100) comprising: a turbomachine (104) comprising a low speed spool (116); a rotor assembly (170) coupled to the low speed spool (116); and a clutch (150) positioned in a torque path of the low speed spool (116) aft of the rotor assembly (170). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Romero, in view of Frost, by including a clutch positioned in a torque path of the low speed spool aft of the rotor assembly, in order to provide selective rotation of the rotor assembly such as during instances when thrust is not required from the aircraft engine, thereby reducing power loss, as taught by Steinert (¶ [0003], ll. 19-27 and ¶ [0013], ll. 1-10), therefore providing: a clutch (Steinert, 150) positioned in a torque path of the low speed spool (Romero, 206A) between the first connection point (Romero, Fig. 1: located on low speed spool 30 and forward of low speed compressor 44) and the rotor assembly (Romero, 42) – (note that Steinert’s clutch 150 is a “gearbox clutch” and therefore must be located directly next to a gearbox 160 as shown in Steinert’s Fig. 1. Therefore, Steinert’s gearbox clutch 150 would also be located directly next to Romero’s gearbox 48 and the first connection point would be aft of gearbox clutch 150, thus providing the clutch 150 in-between the first connection point and rotor assembly 42). However, Romero, in view of Frost and Steinert, does not teach an inter-spool clutch positioned between the low speed spool and the high speed spool, wherein the inter-spool clutch is configured to be engaged by rotation of the low speed spool during starting operations such that the low speed spool rotates the high speed spool across the inter-spool clutch. Suciu teaches (Figs. 1 and 3) a similar gas turbine engine (14 – Fig. 1) comprising: a turbomachine (14) comprising a low speed spool (40 – Fig. 3) and a high speed spool (42 – Fig. 3); and further teaches: an inter-spool clutch (46 – Fig. 3) positioned between the low speed spool (40) and the high speed spool (42), wherein the inter-spool clutch (46) is configured to be engaged by rotation of the low speed spool (40) during starting operations such that the low speed spool (40) rotates the high speed spool (42) across the inter-spool clutch (46) – (¶ [0045], ll. 1-4: “the high spool 42 is connected to the low spool 40 by a ratchet type one way clutch 46 . Both spools 40 and 42 spin at the same speed, under power of the starter 44 ”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Romero, in view of Frost and Steinert, by including an inter-spool clutch positioned between the low speed spool and the high speed spool, wherein the inter-spool clutch is configured to be engaged by rotation of the low speed spool during starting operations such that the low speed spool rotates the high speed spool across the inter-spool clutch, in order to use the electric machine as an engine starter, thus eliminating the need of a second electric machine (see *Note below) to start the engine via connection of a tower shaft to the high pressure spool, which ultimately provides for a more compact engine, as taught by Suciu (¶ [0003] and [0047], ll. 3-4). *Note: Romero teaches in Fig. 4 a second electric machine (212B) coupled to the high speed spool (206B) via a tower shaft (405). The modification with Suciu would eliminate the need for second electric machine 212B to act as a starter for turbomachine 400 via connection of tower shaft 405 to high speed spool 206B. Regarding claim 3 , Romero, in view of Frost, Steinert, and Suciu, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and the combination further teaches the clutch (Steinert, 150) is moveable between an engaged position in which the rotor assembly (Romero, 42) is rotatable with the low speed spool (Romero, 30) and a disengaged position in which the rotor assembly (42) is rotatably disengaged from the low speed spool (30) – (Steinert, ¶ [0010], ll. 13-16 teaches “the low pressure turbine shaft 116 is selectively coupled to and decoupled from a gearbox 160 through a selectively operable gearbox clutch 150 in order to cause selective rotation of a rotor system 170 ”). Regarding claim 7 , Romero, in view of Frost, Steinert, and Suciu, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Romero further teaches (Fig. 1) the gas turbine engine (20) is configured as a single rotor engine (Fig. 1 shows a turbofan), and wherein the rotor assembly (42) comprises a single stage of rotor blades (as shown in Fig. 1, fan 42 consists of only one set of blades). However, Romero, in view of Frost, Steinert, and Suciu as discussed so far, does not teach that the single rotor engine in a single unducted rotor engine, and the single stage of rotor blades is a single stage of unducted rotor blades. As shown in Fig. 1 of Romero, the gas turbine engine (100) is a turbofan engine having a single ducted rotor engine and a single stage of ducted rotor blades (42). However, it is noted that Romero teaches “the concepts described herein are not limited to use with two-spool turbofans as the teachings may be applied to other types of turbine engines” (¶ [0021], ll. 11-14). Steinert further teaches (Fig. 1) an unducted rotor engine having a stage of unducted rotor blades (170). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Romero, in view of Frost and Steinert as discussed so far , by substituting a stage of unducted rotor blades for Romero’s fan 42, because it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element (in this case, a stage of unducted rotor blades, as taught by Steinert) for another (in this case, Romero’s fan) to obtain predictable results (in this case, to apply the concepts of Romero to a single unducted rotor engine, as suggested by Romero in ¶ [0021], ll. 11-14 ), was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. , 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007), MPEP 2143 (I) (B). Regarding claim 9 , Romero, in view of Frost, Steinert, and Suciu, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Romero further teaches (Fig. 4) the turbomachine (400) further comprises a core (402B) having a high speed spool (206B). Regarding claim 10 , Romero teaches (Figs. 1 and 4) a method of operating a gas turbine engine (20 – Fig. 1) comprising a low speed spool (30 – Fig. 1; 206A – Fig. 4. Note that the dual rotor system 400 of Fig. 4 is an embodiment of the gas turbine engine 20 of Fig. 1 – see ¶ [0035], ll. 3-6) including a low speed compressor (44 – Fig. 1; 204A – Fig. 4), a rotor assembly (42 – Fig. 1) coupled to the low speed spool (30), and an electric machine (212A – Fig. 4) coupled to the low speed spool (206A) at a second connection point (Fig. 4: left-most end of 206A. Note that ¶ [0037], ll. 15-16 teaches “the first electric motor 212A may be indirectly coupled through a tower shaft to the first shaft 206A”), and a high speed spool (206B), wherein the second connection point is positioned at a location forward (to the left) of the low speed compressor (204A). However, Romero does not teach an accessory gearbox coupled to the low speed spool at a first connection point of the low speed spool, wherein the first connection point is positioned at a location forward of the low speed compressor. Frost teaches (Fig. 1) a similar gas turbine engine (100) comprising a low speed spool (30) including a low speed compressor (5), and an accessory gearbox (40) coupled to the low speed spool (30) at a first connection point (intersection of shafts 30 and 35) of the low speed spool (30), wherein the first connection point is positioned at a location forward (to the left) of the low speed compressor (5). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Romero by including an accessory gearbox coupled to the low speed spool at a first connection point of the low speed spool, wherein the first connection point is positioned at a location forward of the low speed compressor, in order to drive various support components (such as a fuel pump, an oil pump, an air driven starter, and air/oil separator, and an electrical generator) required to sustain engine operation (¶ [0004], ll. 1-6), and to fit the accessories driven by the accessory gearbox within the nacelle or the engine bay and also not interfere with the engine casing (¶ [0006], ll. 9-15 and ¶ [0035], ll. 1-6), as taught by Frost. However, Romero, in view of Frost, does not teach moving a clutch positioned in a torque path of the low speed spool between the first connection point and the rotor assembly to a disengaged position such that the low speed spool rotates independently from the rotor assembly; and moving the clutch to an engaged position such that the low speed spool rotates with the rotor assembly. Steinert teaches (Fig. 1) a similar gas turbine engine (100) comprising a low speed spool (116), a rotor assembly (170) coupled to the low speed spool (116); and further teaches: moving a clutch (150) positioned in a torque path of the low speed spool (116) aft of the rotor assembly (170) to a disengaged position such that the low speed spool (116) rotates independently from the rotor assembly (170); and moving the clutch (150) to an engaged position such that the low speed spool (116) rotates with the rotor assembly (170) – (Steinert, ¶ [0010], ll. 13-16 teaches “the low pressure turbine shaft 116 is selectively coupled to and decoupled from a gearbox 160 through a selectively operable gearbox clutch 150 in order to cause selective rotation of a rotor system 170 ”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Romero, in view of Frost, by including a clutch positioned in a torque path of the low speed spool aft of the rotor assembly, and including the steps of moving the clutch to a disengaged position such that the low speed spool rotates independently from the rotor assembly; and moving the clutch to an engaged position such that the low speed spool rotates with the rotor assembly, in order to provide selective rotation of the rotor assembly such as during instances when thrust is not required from the aircraft engine, thereby reducing power loss, as taught by Steinert (¶ [0003], ll. 19-27 and ¶ [0013], ll. 1-10), therefore providing: a clutch (Steinert, 150) positioned in a torque path of the low speed spool (Romero, 206A) between the first connection point (Romero, Fig. 1: located on low speed spool 30 and forward of low speed compressor 44) and the rotor assembly (Romero, 42) – (note that Steinert’s clutch 150 is a “gearbox clutch” and therefore must be located directly next to a gearbox 160 as shown in Steinert’s Fig. 1. Therefore, Steinert’s gearbox clutch 150 would also be located directly next to Romero’s gearbox 48 and the first connection point would be aft of gearbox clutch 150, thus providing the clutch 150 in-between the first connection point and rotor assembly 42). However, Romero, in view of Frost and Steinert, does not teach an inter-spool clutch positioned between the low speed spool and the high speed spool, wherein the inter-spool clutch is configured to be engaged by rotation of the low speed spool during starting operations such that the low speed spool rotates the high speed spool across the inter-spool clutch. Suciu teaches (Figs. 1 and 3) a similar gas turbine engine (14 – Fig. 1) comprising: a turbomachine (14) comprising a low speed spool (40 – Fig. 3) and a high speed spool (42 – Fig. 3); and further teaches: an inter-spool clutch (46 – Fig. 3) positioned between the low speed spool (40) and the high speed spool (42), wherein the inter-spool clutch (46) is configured to be engaged by rotation of the low speed spool (40) during starting operations such that the low speed spool (40) rotates the high speed spool (42) across the inter-spool clutch (46) – (¶ [0045], ll. 1-4: “the high spool 42 is connected to the low spool 40 by a ratchet type one way clutch 46 . Both spools 40 and 42 spin at the same speed, under power of the starter 44 ”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Romero, in view of Frost and Steinert, by including an inter- spool clutch positioned between the low speed spool and the high speed spool, wherein the inter-spool clutch is configured to be engaged by rotation of the low speed spool during starting operations such that the low speed spool rotates the high speed spool across the inter-spool clutch, in order to use the electric machine as an engine starter, thus eliminating the need of a second electric machine (see *Note below) to start the engine via connection of a tower shaft to the high pressure spool, which ultimately provides for a more compact engine, as taught by Suciu (¶ [0003] and [0047], ll. 3-4). *Note: Romero teaches in Fig. 4 a second electric machine (212B) coupled to the high speed spool (206B) via a tower shaft (405). The modification with Suciu would eliminate the need for second electric machine 212B to act as a starter for turbomachine 400 via connection of tower shaft 405 to high speed spool 206B. Regarding claim 12 , Romero, in view of Frost, Steinert, and Suciu, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 10, and the combination further teaches moving the clutch (Steinert, 150) from the disengaged position to a transition position (inherent, since there must be a transition b/t the engaged and disengaged positions) until the rotor assembly (Romero, 42) rotates at substantially the same speed as the low speed spool (Romero, 30) – (per Steinert, ¶ [0010], ll. 13-16), and wherein moving the clutch (150) to the engaged position such that the low speed spool (30) rotates with the rotor assembly (42) comprises moving the clutch (150) to the engaged position after moving the clutch (150) from the disengaged position to the transition position until the rotor assembly (42) rotates at substantially the same speed as the low speed spool (30) – (per Steinert, ¶ [0010], ll. 13-16). Note that moving clutch 150 to the “engaged position” will obviously involve moving it from a “disengaged position” to a “transition position”, and finally to the “engaged position”. Regarding claim 20 , Romero, in view of Frost, Steinert, and Suciu, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, except for the first connection point is between the clutch and the second connection point, and wherein the second connection point is between the first connection point and the low speed compressor. As discussed in the rejection of claim 1, the combination of Romero, in view of Frost and Steinert, teaches the first connection point and the second connection point are both between the clutch and the low speed compressor. Regarding the placement of the first connection point relative to the second connection point, there can only exist one of two scenarios: (1) the first connection point is forward of the second connection point, or (2) the first connection point is aft of the second connection point. In scenario (1), the combination teaches the first connection point (Frost, intersection of shafts 30 and 35) is between the clutch (Steinert, 150) and the second connection point (Romero, left-most end of 206A), and wherein the second connection point is between the first connection point and the low speed compressor (Romero, 44 or 204A). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Romero, in view of Frost, Steinert, and Suciu, such that the first connection point is between the clutch and the second connection point, and wherein the second connection point is between the first connection point and the low speed compressor, because it has been held under the “obvious to try” provision, that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (in this case, to choose between one of two scenarios: (1) the first connection point is forward of the second connection point, or (2) the first connection point is aft of the second connection point), with a reasonable expectation of success (in this case, to select between the two solutions based on the desired arrangement of the accessory gearbox via the first connection point relative to the electric machine via the second connection point) was an obvious extension of prior art teachings. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007), MPEP 2143 (I)(E) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romero (US 2021/0246837 A1), in view of Frost (US 2016/0040601 A1), Steinert (US 2020/0017229 A1), and Suciu (US 2015/0330300 A1), and in further view of Otto (US 8,235,193 B2: IDS reference) . Regarding claim 2 , Romero, in view of Frost, Steinert, and Suciu, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, except for the clutch is a two-stage clutch. Otto teaches (Figs. 8B-8C) a clutch (8000) is a two-stage clutch (first stage is plate 8030, second stage is mounting hub 8032). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the clutch in Romero, in view of Frost, Steinert, and Suciu’s system with a two-stage clutch, because it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element (in this case, a two-stage clutch, as taught by Otto) for another (in this case, the clutch in Romero, in view of Frost, Steinert, and Suciu’s system) to obtain predictable results (in this case, to obtain a device for coupling and decoupling rotating devices) was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. , 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007), MPEP 2143 (I)(B). Regarding claim 4 , Romero, in view of Frost, Steinert, and Suciu, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 3, except for the clutch comprises a first portion and a second portion, wherein the clutch is further moveable to a transition position, wherein the first portion includes a first friction plate, wherein the second portion includes a second friction plate, and wherein the first friction plate and the second friction plate contact one another when the clutch is in the transition position. Otto teaches (Figs. 8B-8C), a clutch (8000) comprises a first portion (8030) and a second portion (8032), wherein the clutch (8000) is further moveable to a transition position (intended use – see end of this section), wherein the first portion includes a first friction plate (col. 13, ll. 3-4: “Friction surface 8015 is located on sliding plate 8030 ”), wherein the second portion includes a second friction plate (col. 13, l. 4-5: “mounting hub 8032 ”, which is shown as a plate in the figures and inherently has friction surfaces), and wherein the first friction plate (8030) and the second friction plate (8032) contact one another when the clutch (8000) is in the transition position (intended use – first friction plate 8030 and second friction plate 8032 are capable of contacting one another by moving first friction plate 8030 axially to contact second friction plate 8032, as shown in Fig. 8D). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the clutch in Romero, in view of Frost, Steinert, and Suciu’s system with a friction clutch that comprises a first friction plate and a second friction plate, because it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element (in this case, a friction clutch, as taught by Otto) for another (in this case, the clutch in Romero, in view of Frost, Steinert, and Suciu’s system) to obtain predictable results (in this case, to obtain a device for coupling and decoupling rotating devices) was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. , 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007), MPEP 2143 (I)(B). The limitations “the clutch is further moveable to a transition position” and “the first friction plate and the second friction plate contact one another when the clutch is in the transition position” are statements of intended use and the structure of the device as taught by Romero, in view of Frost, Steinert, Suciu, and Otto, can perform the function. It has been held that “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. , 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original); MPEP 2114. It has also been held that, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best , 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2112.01. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham , 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); MPEP 2114(II). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. The structure of the applied prior art, being similar to the structure of the present application, as claimed and disclosed, the two structures will obviously function the same under similar circumstances. Regarding claim 5 , Romero, in view of Frost, Steinert, and Suciu, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 3, except for the clutch comprises a first portion and a second portion, wherein the first portion comprises first geometric features, wherein the second portion comprises second geometric features complementary in shape with the first geometric features, and wherein the first geometric features mesh with the second geometric features when the clutch is in the engaged position. Otto teaches (Figs. 8B-8C), a clutch (8000) comprises a first portion (8030) and a second portion (8032), wherein the first portion (8030) comprises first geometric features (8003), wherein the second portion (8032) comprises second geometric features (8033) complementary in shape with the first geometric features (8003), and wherein the first geometric features (8003) mesh with the second geometric features (8033) when the clutch is in the engaged position (as shown in Fig. 8D). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the clutch in Romero, in view of Frost, Steinert, and Suciu’s system with a clutch that comprises a first portion and a second portion, wherein the first portion comprises first geometric features, wherein the second portion comprises second geometric features complementary in shape with the first geometric features, and wherein the first geometric features mesh with the second geometric features when the clutch is in the engaged position, because it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element (in this case, the clutch taught by Otto) for another (in this case, the clutch in Romero, in view of Frost, Steinert, and Suciu’s system) to obtain predictable results (in this case, to obtain a device for coupling and decoupling rotating devices) was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. , 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007), MPEP 2143 (I)(B). Regarding claim 6 , Romero, in view of Frost, Steinert, Suciu, and Otto as discussed so far, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 5, except for the clutch is further moveable to a transition position, wherein the first portion includes a first friction plate, wherein the second portion includes a second friction plate, wherein the first and second friction plates contact one another when the clutch is in the transition position, and wherein the first geometric features are spaced from the second geometric features when the clutch is in the transition position. Otto further teaches (Figs. 8B-8C), the clutch (8000) is further moveable to a transition position (intended use – see end of this section), wherein the first portion (8030) includes a first friction plate (col. 13, ll. 3-4: “Friction surface 8015 is located on sliding plate 8030 ”), wherein the second portion (8032) includes a second friction plate (col. 13, l. 4-5: “mounting hub 8032 ”, which is shown as a plate in the figures and inherently has friction surfaces), and wherein the first and second friction plates (8030 and 8032) contact one another when the clutch (8000) is in the transition position, and wherein the first geometric features (8003) are spaced apart from the second geometric features (8033) when the clutch is in the transition position (intended use – first and second friction plates 8030 and 8032 are capable of contacting one another by moving first friction plate 8030 axially to contact second friction plate 8032 before first geometric features 8003 are engaged with second geometric features 8033. This is accomplished in Figure 8B simply by moving first friction plate 8030 to the right). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Romero, in view of Frost, Steinert, Suciu, Otto as discussed so far, by having the clutch further movable to a transition position and including a first friction plate and a second friction plate, wherein the first and second friction plates contact one another when the clutch is in the transition position, and wherein the first geometric features are spaced from the second geometric features when the clutch is in the transition position, for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 5, therefore providing: wherein a rotational speed of the rotor assembly (Romero, 42) is configured to increase while the clutch (Otto, 8000) is in the transition position to match a rotational speed of the low speed spool (Romero, 30) – (intended use. Moving clutch 8000 from the “disengaged position” to the “transition position” will obviously involve gradually increasing the rotational speed of the rotor assembly from zero to the speed of the low speed spool. The rotational speed of the rotor assembly will match the rotational speed of the low speed spool when clutch 8000 is fully in the “engaged position”). The limitations “the clutch is further moveable to a transition position”, “the first and second friction plates contact one another when the clutch is in the transition position, and wherein the first geometric features are spaced apart from the second geometric features when the clutch is in the transition position”, “wherein a rotational speed of the rotor assembly is configured to increase while the clutch is in the transition position to match a rotational speed of the low speed spool” are statements of intended use and the structure of the device as taught by Romero, in view of Frost, Steinert, Suciu, and Otto, can perform the function. It has been held that “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. , 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original); MPEP 2114. It has also been held that, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best , 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2112.01. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham , 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); MPEP 2114(II). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. The structure of the applied prior art, being similar to the structure of the present application, as claimed and disclosed, the two structures will obviously function the same under similar circumstances . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romero (US 2021/0246837 A1), in view of Frost (US 2016/0040601 A1), Steinert (US 2020/0017229 A1), and Suciu (US 2015/0330300 A1), and in further view of Zatorski (US 2015/0291276 A1: IDS reference) . Regarding claim 8 , Romero, in view of Frost, Steinert, and Suciu, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 7, except for a stage of unducted guide vanes positioned downstream of the single stage of unducted rotor blades. Zatorski teaches (Fig. 1) a stage of unducted guide vanes (31) positioned downstream of a single stage of unducted rotor blades (21). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the engine of Romero, in view of Frost, Steinert, and Suciu, comprise a stage of unducted guide vanes positioned downstream of the single stage of unducted rotor blades, in order to increase the propulsive efficiency of the engine, as taught by Zatorski (¶ [0031], ll. 1-5) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romero (US 2021/0246837 A1), in view of Frost (US 2016/0040601 A1), Steinert (US 2020/0017229 A1), and Suciu (US 2015/0330300 A1), and in further view of Rolling (US 9,605,557 B1: IDS reference) . Regarding claim 13 , Romero, in view of Frost, Steinert, and Suciu, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 10, and Romero further teaches (Fig. 4) converting rotational energy from the low speed spool (206A) to electrical power with the electric machine (212A) – (¶ [0038], ll. 1-3: “the first electric motor 212 A may be configured to act as a generator by extracting power from the first shaft 206 A”). However, Romero, in view of Frost, Steinert, and Suciu, does not teach operating the gas turbine engine at a speed equal to at least about 60% of a rated speed while the clutch is in the disengaged position; and converting rotational energy from the low speed spool to electrical power with the electric machine while operating the gas turbine engine at the speed equal to at least about 60% of the rated speed while the clutch is in the disengaged position . Rolling teaches (Fig. 1) a similar gas turbine engine (10) comprising a low speed spool (22), a rotor assembly (16) coupled to the low speed spool (22), and a clutch (50); and Rolling further teaches: operating the gas turbine engine (10) at a speed equal to at least about 60% of a rated speed while the clutch (50) is in the disengaged position (when clutch 50 is disengaged, gas turbine engine 10 operates in “turbojet mode”, that is, low speed spool 22 is spinning at full speed, which is at least about 60% of a rated speed – see col. 3, ll. 60-63). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Romero, in view of Frost, Steinert, and Suciu, by operating the gas turbine engine at a speed equal to at least about 60% of a rated speed while the clutch is in the disengaged position, in order to allow the pilot to select the configuration best suited to a given mission leg, in this case, high performance, high fuel consumption operation may be selected by disabling the propulsor and redirecting ram air to the compressor, which allows cooling of the components contained within the core housing, as taught by Rolling (col. 4, ll. 44-50), therefore providing: converting rotational energy from the low speed spool (Romero, 206A) to electrical power with the electric machine (Romero, 212A) while operating the gas turbine engine (Romero, 20) at the speed equal to at least about 60% of the rated speed while the clutch (Steinert, 150) is in the disengaged position (per Rolling’s teaching: when clutch 50 disengages, Rolling’s gas turbine engine 10 operates as a “turbojet”, which continues to spin low speed spool 22 at full speed. Therefore, in the case of Romero’s gas turbine engine 20, the attached electric machine 212A converts the rotational energy from low speed spool 206A to electrical power) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romero (US 2021/0246837 A1), in view of Frost (US 2016/0040601 A1), Steinert (US 2020/0017229 A1), and Suciu (US 2015/0330300 A1), and in further view of Altamura (US 2018/0283464 A1) . Regarding claim 21 , Romero, in view of Frost, Steinert, and Suciu, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Romero further teaches (Fig. 1) a cowl (see annotated Fig. 1 on next page) encasing the turbomachine (400 – Fig. 4). PNG media_image1.png 481 740 media_image1.png Greyscale However, Romero, in view of Frost, Steinert, and Suciu, does not teach the electric machine (see *Note on page 23) and the accessory gearbox are disposed in the cowl. Altamura teaches (Fig. 1) a similar gas turbine engine (10) comprising: a turbomachine (19) comprising a low speed spool (36); a rotor assembly (38) coupled to the low speed spool (36); an accessory gearbox (45) mechanically coupled to the low speed spool (36) at a first connection point (where shaft 47 connects to 36) of the low speed spool (36); an electric machine (¶ [0039], ll. 8-10: “an electric machine (i.e., a starter motor/generator) may be coupled to the accessory gearbox 45 ”) mechanically coupled to the low speed spool (36) at a second connection point (same as first connection point); and further teaches: a cowl (18) encasing the turbomachine (16), wherein the electric machine and the accessory gearbox (45) are disposed in the cowl (18) – (as shown in Fig. 1, see also ¶ [0046], ll. 4-6: “The accessory gearbox 100 may be attached to a gas turbine engine at an outer casing of the gas turbine engine, such as at or within the casing 18 of the turbine engine 10 ”. The electric machine will also be disposed in the cowl because it is coupled to the accessory gearbox). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Romero, in view of Frost, Steinert, and Suciu, by disposing the electric machine and the accessory gearbox in the cowl, because it has been held under the “obvious to try” provision, that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (in this case, to choose between one of two scenarios: (1) the electric machine and the accessory gearbox are attached to the gas turbine engine at an outer casing of the gas turbine engine, or (2) the electric machine and the accessory gearbox are attached to the gas turbine engine within an outer casing of the gas turbine engine), with a reasonable expectation of success (in this case, disposing the electric machine and the accessory gearbox within an outer casing of the gas turbine engine will protect both components from the exterior environment) was an obvious extension of prior art teachings. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007), MPEP 2143 (I)(E). *Note: based on the proximity of electric machine 212A to low speed compressor 204A as shown in Fig. 4 of Romero, it can be assumed that electric machine 212A is disposed in the cowl. Alternatively, the nacelle (where “22” is pointing to in Fig. 1) may also be considered “the cowl”, and in this case, electric machine 212A would also be disposed in the cowl . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments regarding the new limitations in claims 1, 10, and 21 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, necessitated by Applicant's amendments. To the extent possible, Applicant's arguments have been addressed in the body of the rejections at the appropriate locations. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure : see attached form PTO-892 “Notice of References Cited” . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY NG whose telephone number is (571)272-2318. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Devon Kramer can be reached at 571-272-7118. 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. /HENRY NG/Examiner, Art Unit 3741 /DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/817,394 Page 2 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/817,394 Page 3 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/817,394 Page 4 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/817,394 Page 5 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/817,394 Page 6 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/817,394 Page 7 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/817,394 Page 8 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/817,394 Page 9 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/817,394 Page 10 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/817,394 Page 11 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/817,394 Page 12 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/817,394 Page 13 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/817,394 Page 14 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/817,394 Page 15 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/817,394 Page 16 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/817,394 Page 17 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/817,394 Page 18 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/817,394 Page 19 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/817,394 Page 20 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/817,394 Page 21 Art Unit: 3741
Prosecution Insights