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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/3/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The 101 and 112(b) issues have been addressed and are therefore withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 9/3/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “if Meyer intended to convey that the axial position along the thrust strut 202 that is coupled to the casing 128 may be tuned to affect frequencies of interest, Meyer would have mentioned the position of the elongate member 304, or at least the restraining structure 208/400 more generally, as opposed to only the annular member 306”. This is not found convincing, and it is not clear how applicant can read this line as not meaning exactly what it is stating. It appears Meyer’s intention was to convey that the axial position of 306 along the thrust link may be varied depending on frequencies of interest – because that is exactly what is stated in the quote - "[a]n axial position of the annular member 306 along the length of the thrust strut 202 may also be tuned to affect frequencies of interest."
It is not quite clear why applicant thinks Meyer intended something other than what was written. Applicant does state that Meyer’s statement of adjusting the position of 306 appears to be intended to provide a localized increase in mass and/or stiffness. But it is not clear what evidence there is for this or how this would negate the teaching of adjusting the position of 306 along the thrust link. 306 is a part of the complete bumper structure 208 (Para 0053), and therefore adjusting a position of 306 teaches Meyer’s intent of adjusting the bumper location based on frequencies.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 10 and 16 are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8-9 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.
Claim 1 states “and is configured to receive a force in response to deflection of the bumper from contact with the annular fan casing, the nacelle, the pylon, or the aircraft”. It is not clear what element is the subject that precedes this statement and to which it refers. It appears that “a bumper” might be the subject as it starts this line, but applicant’s arguments state “the thrust link is to receive a force in response to deflection of the bumper from contact…” so then it seems that the intention is for “the thrust link” to be the subject. Further, depending on what is intended, is there support for this limitation in the disclosure?
All dependent claims not addressed above are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marche (US 7063290 B2).
For claim 16, Marche discloses an apparatus to support an aircraft engine, the apparatus comprising:
a thrust link 14 including:
a forward end Fig. 2 coupled to the aircraft engine; and
an aft end Fig. 1: aft end coupled to the aircraft engine or a pylon, a thrust link span extending from the forward end to the aft end span of thrust link; and
a bumper Fig. 2: 34, which is a bumper as it smooths out bumps and the piston may bump against the cavity coupled to (i) the thrust link between the forward end and the aft end Fig. 2 and (ii) to an annular fan casing Fig. 2: casing 26, a nacelle, the pylon, or an aircraft associated with the aircraft engine, wherein the annular fan casing, the nacelle, the pylon, or the aircraft to which the bumper couples includes an orifice through which a portion of the bumper extends Fig. 2: chamber 38, wherein the orifice has a greater diameter than the portion of the bumper as the bumper portion 34b is within the chamber 38 such that the portion of the bumper is at least partially separated from the annular fan casing, the nacelle, or the pylon to which the bumper couples bumper is separate from casing via chamber 38 to enable movement of at least the portion of the bumper in a circumferential direction defined by the gas turbine engine Fig. 1-2: piston portion 34b moves at least in the circumferential direction of the engine (axes x/z).
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) 1-3, 8, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer.
For claim 1, Meyer discloses an apparatus to support an aircraft engine, the apparatus comprising:
a thrust link 202 including:
a forward end 212 coupled to the aircraft engine; and
an aft end Fig. 1: aft end coupled to the aircraft engine or a pylon; and
a bumper 208 coupled to (i) the thrust link between the forward end and the aft end Fig. 2 and (ii) to an annular fan casing Fig. 4: casing 128, a nacelle, the pylon, or an aircraft associated with the aircraft engine, a bumper distance percentage defined between the aft end and a location on the thrust link at which the bumper couples to the thrust link may be defined this way and is (interpreted as “the thrust link is”) configured to receive a force in response to deflection of the bumper from contact with the annular fan casing, the nacelle, the pylon, or the aircraft configured for this as the bumper is in contact with the thrust link and attenuates vibrations during operation of the engine, wherein the location is aft of the forward end Fig. 2.
Meyer fails to disclose the relationship between outer diameter and bumper distance, and therefore fails to disclose:
wherein the thrust link includes an outer diameter (OD), wherein the bumper distance percentage is represented as bumper distance pct, wherein
EQ1 =OD(in.)+Bumperdistancepct(%)/10,
EQ2 =OD(in.)-Bumperdistancepct(%)/5,
and wherein EQ1 is greater than or equal to 5.16 and less than or equal to 7.66, and wherein EQ2 is greater than or equal to -2.44 and less than or equal to 2.66.
However, these equations simply establish a relationship such that for a given outer diameter of the thrust link, there is a claimed range of bumper distances. As Meyer discloses a thrust link with some fixed diameter, whatever it may be, this limitation therefore requires that the bumper be placed at a range of locations along the thrust link.
As established, Meyer discloses that the position of the bumper (a result effective variable, as it effects frequencies) is chosen based on desired frequencies to tune Para 0056: “An axial position of the annular member 306 along the length of the thrust strut 202 may also be tuned to affect frequencies of interest”. Additionally, Meyer teaches that it is known that said frequencies will vary as a result of the outer diameter of the thrust link Para 0059: “a thrust strut may typically need to have a large diameter to increase the natural frequencies”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the bumper at a range of locations (such as in the claimed relationship above) on the strut in order “to affect frequencies of interest”, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claim 2, Meyer discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but fails to disclose that the thrust link includes an outer diameter that has a range of 2 inches to 7 inches.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to size the diameter (which affects the strength of the strut, as well as the frequencies) in the range of 2-7 inches in order to provide the necessary strength without excessive weight depending on the anticipated loads, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claim 3, Meyer discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but fails to disclose that the thrust link defines a thrust link span that extends from the forward end to the aft end, wherein the bumper distance percentage has a range of 10% to 30% of the thrust link span.
Meyer does disclose that the position of the bumper is chosen based on desired frequencies to tune Para 0056: “An axial position of the annular member 306 along the length of the thrust strut 202 may also be tuned to affect frequencies of interest”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the bumper 10-30 percent of the distance of the strut length in order “to affect frequencies of interest”, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claim 8, Meyer discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but fails to disclose that the thrust link defines a thrust link span that extends from the forward end to the aft end, 0% of the thrust link span defined at the forward end, 100% of the thrust link defined at the aft end, and wherein the location on the thrust link at which the bumper couples to the thrust link is between 60% and 90% of the thrust link span.
Meyer does disclose that the position of the bumper is chosen based on desired frequencies to tune Para 0056: “An axial position of the annular member 306 along the length of the thrust strut 202 may also be tuned to affect frequencies of interest”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the bumper 60-90 percent from the forward end of the distance of the strut length in order “to affect frequencies of interest”, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claim 21, Meyer discloses the apparatus of claim 16, but fails to disclose that a bumper distance percentage is defined between the aft end of the thrust link and the portion of the thrust link to which the bumper is coupled, the bumper distance percentage having a range of 10% to 30% of the thrust link span.
Meyer does disclose that the position of the bumper is chosen based on desired frequencies to tune Para 0056: “An axial position of the annular member 306 along the length of the thrust strut 202 may also be tuned to affect frequencies of interest”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the bumper 10-30 percent of the distance of the strut length in order “to affect frequencies of interest”, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Kramer (US-6314342-B1).
For claim 4, Meyer discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the position of the bumper is chosen based on desired frequencies to tune Para 0056: “An axial position of the annular member 306 along the length of the thrust strut 202 may also be tuned to affect frequencies of interest” and Para 0072: “The restraining structures 208 may be disposed on sections of the thrust strut 202 which are expected to experience high strains for one or more vibrational modes of interest, for example, bow modes” – the frequencies/modes defining a damping ratio, therefore the location is based on the damping ratio.
Further, Kramer teaches that “characteristics, such as natural frequencies and damping ratios, define the system's transient and steady state response characteristics, which in turn define optimum values for active or passive control parameters” (Col 1, lines 32-36), therefore explicitly stating that both frequencies and the damping ratio are used to define the desired response.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Meyer by using a damper ratio to define optimum values for the damper as disclosed by Kramer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to affect frequencies of interest and to define a desired response.
For claim 5, Meyer discloses the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the bumper distance percentage is based on (a) a target response to a resonant vibration frequency produced by the aircraft engine, (b) an initial amplitude of the aircraft engine, (c) an exponential function, (d) a decay rate, (e) the resonant vibration frequency, and (f) a phase angle of a response to the initial amplitude Meyer, Para 0056: “An axial position of the annular member 306 along the length of the thrust strut 202 may also be tuned to affect frequencies of interest”; further Kramer states “characteristics, such as natural frequencies and damping ratios, define the system's transient and steady state response characteristics, which in turn define optimum values for active or passive control parameters”; the variables in the claim being response characteristics which define the optimum values for the control parameters – in this case such as the location of the bumper, as defined by Meyer.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer and Kramer, further in view of Lang (US 20160305278 A1).
For claim 6, Meyer discloses the apparatus of claim 4, but fails to disclose that the damping ratio has a range of 0.5 to 2.0.
Lang teaches “a damping ratio of the semi-annular array 50 may be critically damped (ζ=1)” (Para 0022). Damping ratio is a unitless variable in which 1 represents a critically damped system. This may be desirable as it represents an optimally damped system in terms of speed and stability.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the damping ratio be in the rage of .5 to 2 in order to achieve a balance of speed and stability in the response, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Olsen (US 6328293 B1).
For claim 9, Meyer discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but fails to disclose that the aft end of the thrust link is coupled to the aircraft engine or the pylon via a damper.
However, Olsen teaches engine mounting struts which attach at their ends via dampers Fig. 2a: isolators 32.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Meyer by using dampers to attach the thrust link as disclosed by Olsen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to reduce vibrations and to further tune the damping response.
Claim(s) 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Madjlesi (US 20190329895 A1).
For claim 10, Meyer discloses an apparatus to support an aircraft engine, the apparatus comprising:
a thrust link 202 including:
a forward end 212 coupled to the aircraft engine; and
an aft end Fig. 1: aft end coupled to the aircraft engine or a pylon, a thrust link span extending from the forward end to the aft end; and
a bumper 208 coupled to (i) the thrust link between the forward end and the aft end Fig. 2 and (ii) to an annular fan casing Fig. 4: casing 128, a nacelle, or the pylon;
but fails to disclose:
a damping insert spanning a damping insert span that is less than the thrust link span, wherein the damping insert wraps around an outer surface of the thrust link along the damping insert span, wherein the damping insert is positioned at the aft end of the thrust link and extends toward the forward end.
However, Madjlesi teaches a thrust link Fig. 2: 106 with a damping insert Fig. 5 spanning a damping insert span length of insert that is less than the thrust link span, the thrust link surrounding the damping insert along the damping insert span Fig. 5A.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Meyer by including a damping insert as disclosed by Madjlesi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification such that it “pushes the structural mode of the combined elements outside the frequency range of the engine, in addition to the damping member acting to reduce noise at particular frequencies (e.g. by dampening the dynamic loads of the fan and/or core shaft of the engine)” (Madjlesi, Para 0044).
Madjlesi further teaches that the position of damping insert may move along the length of the thrust link Para 0050: “the external body 116 is movable relative to the load transferring member 110 at least along the longitudinal direction X”. It appears this includes locating it at the aft end of the thrust link.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the damper at the aft end in order to dampen a particular frequency of interest, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the damper at the aft end in order to dampen a particular frequency of interest (as the location of the damper is a result effective variable which effects the frequencies that are dampened), since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
For claim 11, Meyer discloses the apparatus of claim 10, but fails to disclose that a ratio of the damping insert span to the thrust link span is between 0.25 and 0.5.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the ratio (which affects the dampening properties such as frequencies) be between 0.25-0.5 in order to provide the desired damping properties, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claim 12, Meyer discloses the apparatus of claim 10, but fails to disclose that the thrust link includes a diameter that has a range of 2 inches to 7 inches.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to size the diameter (which affects the strength of the strut, as well as the frequencies) in the range of 2-7 inches in order to provide the necessary strength without excessive weight depending on the anticipated loads, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claim 13, Meyer discloses the apparatus of claim 10, but fails to disclose that a bumper distance percentage is defined between the aft end of the thrust link and the portion of the thrust link to which the bumper is coupled, the bumper distance percentage having a range of 10% to 30% of the thrust link span.
Meyer does disclose that the position of the bumper is chosen based on desired frequencies to tune Para 0056: “An axial position of the annular member 306 along the length of the thrust strut 202 may also be tuned to affect frequencies of interest”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the bumper 10-30 percent of the distance of the strut length in order “to affect frequencies of interest”, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claim 14, Meyer discloses the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the damping insert is made of at least one of a foam, rubber, or metal Kannan, Col 2, lines 10-11: “the damper rod is formed of high strength steel”.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer and Madjlesi, further in view of Olsen (US 6328293 B1).
For claim 15, Meyer discloses the apparatus of claim 10, but fails to disclose that the aft end of the thrust link is coupled to the aircraft engine or the pylon via a damper.
However, Olsen teaches engine mounting struts which attach at their ends via dampers Fig. 2a: isolators 32.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Meyer by using dampers to attach the thrust link as disclosed by Olsen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to reduce vibrations and to further tune the damping response.
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marche in view of Kannan (US 11603212 B1).
For claim 17, Marche discloses the apparatus of claim 16, but fails to disclose:
a damping insert positioned inside the thrust link, the damping insert spanning a damping insert span that is less than the thrust link span, the thrust link surrounding the damping insert along the damping insert span.
However, Kannan teaches an engine strut 150 with a damping insert Fig, 2: 330 positioned inside the thrust link, the damping insert spanning a damping insert span L2 that is less than the thrust link span L1, the thrust link surrounding the damping insert along the damping insert span Fig. 2.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Marche by including a damping insert as disclosed by Kannan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide additional damping to increase lifespan of the strut.
For claim 18, Marche discloses the apparatus of claim 17, wherein a ratio of the damping insert span to the thrust link span is between 0.25 and 0.5 Kannan, Col 5, lines 10-11: “the second length L2 is 50 to 90 percent of the first length L1”.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the ratio (which affects the damping properties) be between 0.25-0.5 in order to provide the desired damping properties, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claim 19, Marche discloses the apparatus of claim 17, but fails to disclose that the thrust link includes a diameter that has a range of 2 inches to 7 inches.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to size the diameter (which affects the strength of the strut, as well as the frequencies) in the range of 2-7 inches in order to provide the necessary strength without excessive weight depending on the anticipated loads, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marche and Kannan, further in view of Olsen (US 6328293 B1).
For claim 20, Marche discloses the apparatus of claim 17, but fails to disclose that the aft end of the thrust link is coupled to the aircraft engine or the pylon via a damper.
However, Olsen teaches engine mounting struts which attach at their ends via dampers Fig. 3: isolators 32 at top end of strut and at bottom end are isolators 34, Fig. 4-5: elastomer layer 36.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Marche by using dampers to attach the thrust link as disclosed by Olsen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to reduce vibrations and to further tune the damping response.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN N M ZOHOORI whose telephone number is (571)272-7996. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, JOSHUA J MICHENER can be reached at (571)272-1467. 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.
/COLIN ZOHOORI/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights