Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 6/03/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the prior drawing objections, Applicant’s amendments overcome all prior objections.
Regarding the prior art rejection of claim 1, in paragraph 4 of page 7 through paragraph 2 of page 9 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant’s arguments are directed to that the prior art fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the features/limitations of original claim 1, particularly that:
If the motor and power transfer systems remain located at a common location, then there would be no need to modify those power transfer systems to be independent of one another and, thus, more physically and operationally complicated.
Respectfully, the argument is not persuasive because the Liotte in view of Lafargue rejection does not rely on the systems remaining located at a common location as identified by Applicant’s remarks.
The motor and engine power transfer systems would not be included as part of the same gearbox and thus commonly located.
Respectfully, the argument is not persuasive because the Liotte in view of Lafargue rejection teaches a gearbox including an engine power transfer system and a motor power transfer as claimed.
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of Applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., “commonly located”) are not recited in the rejected claim 1. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification and/or arguments are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
“the alleged rationale for making the combination of Liotte and Lafargue teaches away from the foregoing feature of claim 1.”
Respectfully, the argument is not persuasive because the prior art references do not teach away from anything claimed or teach away from anything as combined, as alleged by Applicant’s remarks.
In paragraph 3 of page 9 through the middle of page 10 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant’s arguments are directed to that claims which each depend from allowable claim 1 are allowable. Respectfully, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because claim 1 is not currently allowable.
Regarding new claim 21, please see the action below for any relevant details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-12, 15, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 3038003 A1 (Liotte) in view of US 20210362869 A1 (hereinafter Lafargue).
Regarding claims 1-4, 8-9, 11-12, 15, Liotte discloses:
An assembly for an aircraft powerplant, comprising
a gearbox (2; Fig 1) including an engine power transfer system (Fig 1);
an engine core including a flowpath, a compressor section, a combustor section, a turbine section and an engine rotating assembly, the flowpath extending through the compressor section, the combustor section and the turbine section, the engine rotating assembly comprising a turbine rotor in the turbine section (this is all inherent to an aeronautical turbomachine as disclosed),
a motor-generator (22; Fig 1) comprising a rotor (inherent) operatively coupled to a turbine shaft (8; Fig 1).
The gearbox comprises a gear train (4) having gears (6).
The motor-generator operates in generator mode (e.g. line 113) or motor mode (e.g. lines 118-119).
Liotte may not explicitly disclose:
the gearbox including a motor power transfer system independent of the engine power transfer system,
an electric motor comprising an electric motor rotor operatively coupled to a motor accessory rotor through the motor power transfer system.
However, Lafargue, in the same field of endeavor, turbines, teaches (some of the following components can make up a motor power transfer system) an electric generator (38; Fig 1) connected to a shaft of a gas turbine engine, the generator connected via an electric connection (40) to an accessory gearbox (16), the accessory gearbox has an electric motor (42) which in turn powers accessories (41a-c). The accessory gearbox (16) is independent from a power transmission gearbox (12). This setup allows an electrically powered accessory gearbox to be placed in a favorable location (e.g. para 0062-0063) using only electrical cables rather than relying on a mechanical connection and can also enable directly transmitting electrical energy to electrically powered equipment (e.g. para 0065; the electric motor 42 is enabled to be electrically powered not mechanically).
The electric motor comprises an electric motor rotor (inherent).
The accessory gearbox comprises gears (e.g. para 0074).
The accessories (41a-c) can comprise a fuel pump and an oil pump (e.g. para 0065).
Therefore, 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 Liotte to include Lafargue’s teachings as described above, having an electric generator at a turbine shaft power via electrical connection an electric motor on an accessory gearbox powering accessories, in order to allow an electrically powered accessory gearbox to be placed in a favorable location (e.g. para 0062-0063) using only electrical cables rather than relying on a mechanical connection and also enabling directly transmitting electrical energy to electrically powered equipment (e.g. para 0065; the electric motor 42 is enabled to be electrically powered not mechanically).
Official notice was taken in a prior office action that it is well known and conventional in the art of motor accessories to have a motor accessory comprising a motor accessory rotor (Lafargue’s motor accessories are pumps; all radial pumps inherently have a rotor, but reciprocating positive displacement pumps using, for example, a diaphragm might not have a rotor) for the purposes of having the motor accessories operate as radial motor accessories. The prior art above may be silent regarding this because it is so well known and conventional. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of the claimed invention, that motor accessories of the prior art above would comprise motor accessory rotors in order to have the motor accessories operate as radial motor accessories. See MPEP 2144.03. This official notice, originally made in the office action mailed on 3/03/2026, is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant did not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice. Please see MPEP 2144.03.
Regarding claim 5, Liotte, as modified above, discloses that the motor power transfer system and the engine power transfer system, as a collective, have at least a portion of the collective housed within the case shown in Liotte’s Fig 1.
Regarding claim 10, Liotte, as modified above, discloses an electrical system (e.g. some of the electrical components of Lafargue Fig 1); wherein the electric generator (Lafargue 38), which may be considered a part of an/the engine accessory, is electrically coupled to the electric motor through the electrical system.
Regarding claim 21, Liotte discloses:
An assembly for an aircraft powerplant, comprising
a gearbox (2; Fig 1) including a compartment (the case shown in Liotte’s Fig 1), an engine power transfer system (Fig 1);
an engine core including a flowpath, a compressor section, a combustor section, a turbine section and an engine rotating assembly, the flowpath extending through the compressor section, the combustor section and the turbine section, the engine rotating assembly comprising a turbine rotor in the turbine section (this is all inherent to an aeronautical turbomachine as disclosed),
a motor-generator (22; Fig 1) comprising a rotor (inherent) mechanically coupled to a turbine shaft (8; Fig 1).
The gearbox comprises a gear train (4) having gears (6) (this facilitates a mechanical coupling).
Liotte may not explicitly disclose:
the gearbox including a motor power transfer system independent of the engine power transfer system,
an electric motor comprising an electric motor rotor mechanically coupled to a motor accessory rotor through the motor power transfer system.
the motor power transfer system and the engine power transfer system housed within the compartment of the gearbox.
However, Lafargue, in the same field of endeavor, turbines, teaches (some of the following components can make up a motor power transfer system) an electric generator (38; Fig 1) connected to a shaft of a gas turbine engine, the generator connected via an electric connection (40) to an accessory gearbox (16), the accessory gearbox has an electric motor (42) which in turn powers accessories (41a-c). The accessory gearbox (16) is independent from a power transmission gearbox (12). This setup allows an electrically powered accessory gearbox to be placed in a favorable location (e.g. para 0062-0063) using only electrical cables rather than relying on a mechanical connection and can also enable directly transmitting electrical energy to electrically powered equipment (e.g. para 0065; the electric motor 42 is enabled to be electrically powered not mechanically).
The electric motor comprises an electric motor rotor (inherent).
The accessory gearbox comprises gears (e.g. para 0074; this facilitates a mechanical coupling between the electric motor rotor and a motor accessory rotor).
The accessories (41a-c) can comprise a fuel pump and an oil pump (e.g. para 0065).
Therefore, 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 Liotte to include Lafargue’s teachings as described above, having an electric generator at a turbine shaft power via electrical connection an electric motor on an accessory gearbox powering accessories, in order to allow an electrically powered accessory gearbox to be placed in a favorable location (e.g. para 0062-0063) using only electrical cables rather than relying on a mechanical connection and also enabling directly transmitting electrical energy to electrically powered equipment (e.g. para 0065; the electric motor 42 is enabled to be electrically powered not mechanically).
Regarding the limitation “the motor power transfer system and the engine power transfer system housed within the compartment of the gearbox,”
Liotte, as modified above, discloses that the motor power transfer system and the engine power transfer system, as a collective, have at least a portion of the collective housed within the case shown in Liotte’s Fig 1. This limitation is similar to claim 5.
Official notice was taken in a prior office action that it is well known and conventional in the art of motor accessories to have a motor accessory comprising a motor accessory rotor (Lafargue’s motor accessories are pumps; all radial pumps inherently have a rotor, but reciprocating positive displacement pumps using, for example, a diaphragm might not have a rotor) for the purposes of having the motor accessories operate as radial motor accessories. The prior art above may be silent regarding this because it is so well known and conventional. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of the claimed invention, that motor accessories of the prior art above would comprise motor accessory rotors in order to have the motor accessories operate as radial motor accessories. See MPEP 2144.03. This official notice, originally made in the office action mailed on 3/03/2026, is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant did not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice. Please see MPEP 2144.03.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liotte in view of Lafargue as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of non-patent literature “Machinery Lubrication” (hereinafter MachineryLubrication).
Regarding claim 7, Liotte, as modified above, discloses all claim limitations (see above) except may not explicitly disclose the motor power transfer system and the engine power transfer system are serviced by a common lubrication system.
However, MachineryLubrication, in the same field of endeavor, machinery that requires lubrication, provides a general teaching that using a centralized lubrication system instead of a non-centralized lubrication system has advantages such as, for example, more efficient use of lubricants (pages 2-3). Therefore, 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 Liotte as modified above to include MachineryLubrication’s teachings as described above, having a centralized lubrication system instead of a non-centralized lubrication system, in order to, for example, have more efficient use of lubricants and any of the other applicable benefits recited on pages 2-3).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liotte in view of Lafargue as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liotte.
Regarding claim 13, Liotte, as modified above, discloses all claim limitations (see above) except may not explicitly disclose a hydraulic pump attached to the accessory (Lafargue’s) gearbox.
However, Liotte does teach a hydraulic pump (16a, 16b) attached to a gearbox in order to have a working hydraulic pump at a gearbox (Liotte Fig 1). Therefore, 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 Liotte as modified above to include Liotte’s teachings as described above, having a hydraulic pump be one of the accessories attached to the accessory (Lafargue’s) gearbox, in order to have a working hydraulic pump at the accessory gearbox (Liotte Fig 1).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liotte in view of Lafargue as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 10883540 B1 (hereinafter Anglin).
Regarding claim 14, Liotte, as modified above, discloses all claim limitations (see above) except may not explicitly disclose a de-oiler.
However, Anglin, in the same field of endeavor, turbines, teaches a de-oiler attached to a gearbox (col 3 line 36). Therefore, 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 Liotte as modified above to include Anglin’s teachings as described above, having a de-oiler be one of the accessories attached to the gearbox, in order to, have a working de-oiler in the system (col 3 line 36).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liotte in view of Lafargue as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20220195884 A1 (hereinafter Foutch).
Regarding claim 16, Liotte, as modified above, discloses two turbine spools (Fig 2).
Liotte, as modified above, may not disclose the second turbine spool is incorporated into the gearbox, coupled to an accessory, independent of the motor power transfer system.
However, Foutch, in the same field of endeavor, turbines, teaches a gearbox (148; e.g. Fig 9) which has accessories powered by an input of a low speed spool (144) and/or a high speed spool (146) across various modes (e.g. Figs 11-14) via incorporating a clutch (150) in order to enable either the high-speed spool or the low-speed spool to provide mechanical power to the aircraft accessory via the accessory gearbox (e.g. abstract).
Therefore, 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 Liotte as modified above to include Foutch’s teachings as described above, having a gearbox which has accessories powered by an input of a low speed spool and/or a high speed spool across various modes via incorporating a clutch in order to enable either the high-speed spool or the low-speed spool to provide mechanical power to the aircraft accessory via the accessory gearbox (e.g. abstract).
The various power transfer systems resulting from this modification are independent in that at least certain portions are apart from other portions of the various power transfer systems.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim(s) 6 is/are 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.
Claim 6 was identified as allowable over prior art in the office action mailed on 3/03/2026. Please see allowable subject matter in that office action for details.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Art Golik whose telephone number is (571)272-6211. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Courtney 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.
/Art Golik/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights