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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an engine static structure”, “electric machine”, “power distribution management units” in claim 1. These are being interpreted as an engine case, an electric motor/generator, and a power electronic module respectively.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruce (US-Pub 2021/0071583) in view of Menon (10049963), and McCune (10247020), as evidenced by Zhang (US-Pub 2023/0313738).
Regarding claim 1, Bruce discloses a gas turbine engine (101, fig 1) comprising: a fan (102, fig 1), a compressor section (104, 105, fig 1), a turbine section (107, 108, fig 1) that includes a rotating shaft (fig 1, shaft connecting turbine sections to compressor sections), and a combustion section (106, fig 1) in flow communication with the compressor section and the turbine section; an engine static structure (engine case surrounding the engine core, fig 1); an electric power system comprising: at least one electric machine (111, 113, fig 1) drivingly coupled to the rotating shaft and generating electricity as a first type of current; a plurality of power converters (203, 204, fig 2) electrically coupled with the at least one electric machine, the plurality of power converters converting the electricity as the first type of current from the at least one electric machine to a second type of current (the role of a converter is to convert between AC and DC); and a power distribution management unit (115, fig 1) electrically coupled with the plurality of power converters (par. 0065) and located separately from the at least one electric machine (fig 2, the dashed line outlines a separate structure from the electric machines), the power distribution management unit supplying the electricity as the second type of current to the gas turbine engine; and a gearbox assembly (109, fig 1) comprising: a gearbox having a gearbox volume defined by an outer diameter of the gearbox and a gearbox length of the gearbox (fig 1, the gearbox is going to have a length and volume), wherein the power distribution management unit and power converters are separate from the at least one electric machine (fig 2).
Bruce does not disclose a gutter for collecting a gearbox lubricant scavenge flow from the gearbox, the gutter having a gutter volume defined by an inner surface of a gutter wall of the gutter and being characterized by a lubricant extraction volume ratio between 0.01 and 0.3, inclusive of the endpoints for a maximum gearbox power of between 35,000 HP and 90,000 HP, or that is between 0.03 to 0.3, inclusive of the endpoints for a maximum gearbox power of less than or equal to 35,000 HP, the lubricant extraction volume ratio defined by: VG/VGB , wherein VG is the gutter volume of the gutter and VGB is the gearbox volume, and VGB is between 800 and 3000 cubic inches, inclusive of endpoints, for an engine power between 18000 HP and 35000 HP, and a plurality of power distribution management units, wherein at least one of the plurality of power converters is integrated together with the plurality of power distribution management units in a power distribution management housing.
McCune teaches a gas turbine gearbox (20, fig 1) with a gutter (40, fig 1) for collecting a gearbox lubricant scavenge flow from the gearbox, the gutter having a gutter volume (44, fig 1) defined by an inner surface of a gutter wall of the gutter and being characterized by a lubricant extraction volume ratio between 0.03 and 0.3 (and between 0.01 and 0.3, as this volume ratio entirely contains the first ratio) inclusive of the endpoints, the lubricant extraction volume ratio defined by: VGVGB , wherein VG is the gutter volume of the gutter and VGB is the gearbox volume (col 2, line 12- line 18, the channel may have an axial length of 15% of the outer bore and a radial depth of 8% of the outer bore, as can be seen in figure 1, the gearbox has a radial depth (the outer end of outermost gear as set forth in fig. 3 and par. 0049 of applicants spec, gearbox length, annotated fig 1) approximately 90% of the outer bore and an axial length (the distance between the front and back of the gears as set forth in fig 2 and par. 0130 of applicants spec. and gearbox length, annotated fig 1) of approximately 3.5x the gutter length of 15% of the bore radius. Using the formula for a hollow cylinder for the gutter volume the volume equals 0.08R, while the volume for a full cylinder for the volume of the gearbox yields 1.65R, meaning that Vg/VgB of McCune is ~0.0485).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gearbox disclosed by Bruce by using a gearbox with a gutter having a volume ratio of between .03 and 0.3 based on the teachings of McCune. Doing so would improve fluid capture efficiency of the gutter (col 1, lines 35-37), as suggested by McCune.
The presence of a known result-effective variable would be a motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. See KSR; MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). A particular parameter is a result-effective variable when the variable is known to achieve a recognized result. See In re Antonie, 559 F2d 618, 620, 195 USPQ 6,8 (CCPA 1977).
Here, Zhang teaches that a gutter can be sized to accommodate oil volume to avoid windage losses and oil churn (par. 0014). Therefore, an ordinary skill worker would recognize that gutter size is a result-effective variable that impacts efficiency of the gearbox. Thus, the gutter size ratio of 0.03-0.3 is found to be an obvious optimization of the prior art obtainable by an ordinary skilled worker through routine experimentation.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. the gutter size ratio, were disclosed in the prior art by McCune, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gutter size of Bruce by having a gearbox gutter size of between 0.03 and 0.3 based on the teachings of McCune in order to select an appropriate gutter size to supply sufficient lubricant while minimizing oil churn and windage losses (par. 0014) as taught by Zhang. It has been held “where the general conditions of a claim are discloses in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”, In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
PNG
media_image1.png
592
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Menon teaches using a plurality of power distribution management units in a gas turbine engine (col 2, lines 10-20), wherein at least one of the plurality of power converters is integrated together with the plurality of power distribution management units in the power distribution management unit housing (col 4, lines 1-8, Menon, the module is mounted into a converter structure of a motor/generator, meaning that the housing would contain both the converters and pdmu’s and thus meet the claimed limitation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the power distribution management unit disclosed by Bruce by Using multiple power distribution management modules, wherein the module and converter are within a single housing based on the teachings of Menon. Doing so would allow modules to be added or swapped to meet converter requirements (col 4, lines 1-9), as suggested by Menon.
Sutton teaches a gas turbine engine (page 25, col 1), with a gearbox (fig 1, page 25, col 2), wherein the engine produces 32,000 HP (page 26, col 1, last paragraph), which is between 18000 HP and 35000 Hp.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the engine of Bruce and McCune output between 18000 and 35000 HP based on the teachings of Sutton. Doing so would be able to provide a gas turbine with a common core to cover a wide section of the engine market (page 25, “Common core for a new family”), as suggested by Sutton.
Regarding claim 3, Bruce as modified by Menon discloses wherein the plurality of power converters includes a plurality of low-pressure power converters (converters supplying the low pressure electric machine 113, fig 1, Bruce) thermally coupled together by a first power converter cold plate (3, fig 1, Menon) that cools the plurality of low-pressure power converters.
Regarding claim 4, Bruce as modified by Menon discloses wherein the plurality of power converters includes a plurality of high-pressure power converters (converters supplying the high pressure electric machine 111, fig 1) thermally coupled together by a second power converter cold plate (the two systems can be separate PDMU’s as taught by Menon, meaning that they would have a first and second system for cooling) that cools the plurality of high-pressure power converters.
Regarding claim 5, Bruce discloses wherein the rotating shaft is a low-pressure shaft, the turbine section includes a high-pressure shaft, and the at least one electric machine includes a low-pressure electric machine drivingly coupled to the low-pressure shaft and a high-pressure electric machine drivingly coupled to the high-pressure shaft (111, 113, fig 1, the low and high pressure shafts each have their own electric machine).
Regarding claim 8, Bruce as modified by Menon in claim 1 discloses wherein the plurality of power distribution management units includes a first power distribution management unit and a second power distribution management unit that are integrated together in a power distribution management unit housing (Menon, col 3, lines 60-67, the multiple pdmu’s share a single housing).
Regarding claim 9, Bruce as modified by Menon in claim 1 discloses wherein the first power distribution management unit is thermally coupled with the second power distribution management unit via a power distribution management unit cold plate (10, fig 1, Menon) that cools the first power distribution management unit and the second power distribution management unit.
Regarding claim 10, Bruce as modified by Menon in claim 1 discloses wherein at least one of the plurality of power converters is integrated together with the plurality of power distribution management units in the power distribution management unit housing (col 4, lines 1-8, Menon, the module is mounted into a converter structure of a motor/generator, meaning that the housing 13 of Bruce would contain both the converters and pdmu’s and thus meet the claimed limitation).
Regarding claim 11, Bruce as modified by Menon in claim 1 discloses wherein the plurality of power converters includes a first low-pressure power converter and a first high-pressure power converter (2, fig 1, Menon, there is no claim language as to what low or high pressure converter mean, therefore any converter devices, of which there are two in Menon, would read on this claim) thermally coupled together by a first power converter cold plate (3, fig 1, Menon).
Regarding claim 12, Bruce as modified by Menon in claim 1 discloses wherein the plurality of power converters includes a second low-pressure power converter and a second high-pressure power converter (2, fig 1, Menon, there is no claim language as to what low or high pressure converter mean, therefore any converter devices, of which there are two in Menon, would read on this claim) thermally coupled together by a second power converter cold plate (3, fig 1, Menon).
Regarding claim 13, Bruce discloses a gas turbine engine (101, fig 1) comprising: a fan (102, fig 1), a compressor section (104, 105, fig 1), a turbine section (107, 108, fig 1) that includes a low-pressure shaft and a high-pressure shaft (two shafts in fig 1), and a combustion section (106, fig 1) in flow communication with the compressor section and the turbine section; an engine static structure (casing surrounding the engine core); an electric power system comprising: a low-pressure electric machine (113, fig 1) drivingly coupled to the low-pressure shaft and generating electricity as a first type of current; a high-pressure electric machine (111, fig 1) drivingly coupled to the high-pressure shaft and generating electricity as the first type of current; a plurality of low-pressure power converters (403, 404, fig 4) electrically coupled with the low-pressure electric machine, the plurality of low-pressure power converters converting the electricity as the first type of current from the low-pressure electric machine to a second type of current; a plurality of high-pressure power converters (401, 402, fig 4) electrically coupled with the high-pressure electric machine, the plurality of high-pressure power converters converting the electricity as the first type of current from the high-pressure electric machine to the second type of current; and a power distribution management unit (115, fig 1) separate from the low pressure electric machine and high pressure electric machine, electrically coupled with the plurality of low-pressure power converters and the plurality of high-pressure power converters, the power distribution management unit supplying the electricity as the second type of current to the gas turbine engine; and a gearbox assembly (109, fig 1) comprising: a gearbox having a gearbox volume defined by an outer diameter of the gearbox and a gearbox length of the gearbox (these are physical dimensions of the gearbox which it would need to have).
Bruce does not disclose a plurality of power distribution management units, wherein the plurality of power distribution management units includes a first power distribution management unit and a second power distribution management unit that are integrated together in a power distribution management unit housing, wherein at least one of the plurality of low-pressure power converters or one of the plurality of high-pressure power converters is integrated together with the plurality of power distribution management units in the power distribution management unit housing, and a gutter for collecting a gearbox lubricant scavenge flow from the gearbox, the gutter having a gutter volume defined by an inner surface of a gutter wall of the gutter and being characterized by a lubricant extraction volume ratio between 0.01 and 0.3, inclusive of the endpoints, the lubricant extraction volume ratio defined by: VGVGB , wherein VG is the gutter volume of the gutter and VGB is the gearbox volume.
McCune teaches a gas turbine gearbox (20, fig 1) with a gutter (40, fig 1) for collecting a gearbox lubricant scavenge flow from the gearbox, the gutter having a gutter volume (44, fig 1) defined by an inner surface of a gutter wall of the gutter and being characterized by a lubricant extraction volume ratio between 0.01 and 0.3, inclusive of the endpoints, the lubricant extraction volume ratio defined by: VGVGB , wherein VG is the gutter volume of the gutter and VGB is the gearbox volume (col 2, line 12- line 18, the channel may have an axial length of 15% of the outer bore and a radial depth of 8% of the outer bore, as can be seen in figure 1, the gearbox has a radial depth (the outer end of outermost gear as set forth in fig. 3 and par. 0049 of applicants spec, gearbox length, annotated fig 1) approximately 90% of the outer bore and an axial length (the distance between the front and back of the gears as set forth in fig 2 and par. 0130 of applicants spec. and gearbox length, annotated fig 1) of approximately 3.5x the gutter length of 15% of the bore radius. Using the formula for a hollow cylinder for the gutter volume the volume equals 0.08R, while the volume for a full cylinder for the volume of the gearbox yields 1.65R, meaning that Vg/VgB of McCune is ~0.0485).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gearbox disclosed by Bruce by using a gearbox with a gutter having a volume ratio of between .01 and 0.3 based on the teachings of McCune. Doing so would improve fluid capture efficiency of the gutter (col 1, lines 35-37), as suggested by McCune.
Menon teaches using a plurality of power distribution management units in a gas turbine engine (col 2, lines 10-20) that are contained together in a single housing (col 3, lines 60-67), wherein a plurality power converters is integrated together with the plurality of power distribution management units in the power distribution management unit housing (col 4, lines 1-8, Menon, the module is mounted into a converter structure of a motor/generator, meaning that the housing 13 of Bruce would contain both the converters and pdmu’s and thus meet the claimed limitation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the power distribution management unit disclosed by Bruce by Using multiple power distribution management modules within a single housing based on the teachings of Menon. Doing so would allow modules to be added or swapped to meet converter requirements (col 4, lines 1-9), as suggested by Menon.
Sutton teaches a gas turbine engine (page 25, col 1), with a gearbox (fig 1, page 25, col 2), wherein the engine produces 32,000 HP (page 26, col 1, last paragraph), which is between 18000 HP and 35000 Hp.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the engine of Bruce and McCune output between 18000 and 35000 HP based on the teachings of Sutton. Doing so would be able to provide a gas turbine with a common core to cover a wide section of the engine market (page 25, “Common core for a new family”), as suggested by Sutton.
Regarding claim 15, Bruce as modified by Menon in claim 1 discloses wherein the plurality of low-pressure power converters (converters supplying the low pressure electric machine 113, fig 1, Bruce) thermally coupled together by a first power converter cold plate (3, fig 1, Menon) that cools the plurality of low-pressure power converters.
Regarding claim 16, Bruce as modified by Menon in claim 1 discloses wherein the plurality of high-pressure power converters (converters supplying the high pressure electric machine 111, fig 1) is thermally coupled together by a second power converter cold plate (the two systems can be separate PDMU’s as taught by Menon, meaning that they would have a first and second cold plate) that cools the plurality of high-pressure power converters.
Regarding claim 17, Bruce as modified by Menon in claim 1 discloses wherein a second low-pressure power converter of the plurality of low-pressure power converters is integrated together with the first low-pressure power converter in the power distribution management unit housing (2, fig 1 shows multiple converters in a single housing, meaning that all the high pressure ones would be located in said single housing, Menon).
Regarding claim 18, Bruce as modified by Menon in claim 1 discloses wherein a second high-pressure power converter of the plurality of high-pressure power converters is integrated together with the first high-pressure power converter in the power distribution management unit housing (2, fig 1 shows multiple converters in a single housing, meaning that all the high pressure ones would be located in said single housing, Menon).
Regarding claim 19, Bruce as modified by Menon in claim 13 discloses wherein the first power distribution management unit is thermally coupled with the second power distribution management unit via a power distribution management unit cold plate (10, fig 1, Menon) that cools the first power distribution management unit and the second power distribution management unit.
Regarding claim 20, Bruce as modified by Menon in claim 13 discloses wherein the plurality of low-pressure power converters and the plurality of high-pressure power converters is integrated together with the plurality of power distribution management units in the power distribution management unit housing (col 4, lines 1-8, Menon, the module is mounted into a converter structure of a motor/generator, meaning that the housing 13 of Bruce would contain both the converters and pdmu’s and thus meet the claimed limitation).
Claims 2, 6, 7, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruce as modified by Menon and McCune as evidenced by Zhang in claims 1 and 13, further in view of Chong (11930709).
Regarding claim 2, Bruce does not disclose wherein a second power converter of the plurality of power converters is integrated together with at least one electric machine in a power converter housing.
Chong teaches a gas turbine engine with a plurality of electric machines (111, 113, fig 1), a plurality of power converters (131, fig 5), and a power distribution management unit (115, fig 1), wherein at least one of the plurality of power converters is integrated together with the at least one electric machine in a power converter housing (col 7, lines 10-20, the housing for the electric machine and power converter can be a single housing).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a second power converter integrated with the at least one electric machine while a first power converter is integrated in a power distribution management housing, since applicant has not disclosed that using the two in combination solves any stated problem which is not solved by the individual embodiments. Furthermore, applicant specification cites that the electric machine having an integrated power converter (fig 8A) and the power converters being integrated into the PDMU housing (fig 5a) are alternate embodiments of each other, and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that these two could be used in combination based on engine spacing availability and power requirements.
Regarding claim 6, Bruce does not disclose wherein a second power converter is integrated together with the low pressure electric machine in a low pressure power converter housing.
Chong teaches a gas turbine engine with a plurality of electric machines (111, 113, fig 1), a plurality of power converters (131, fig 5), and a power distribution management unit (115, fig 1), wherein the plurality of power converters includes a plurality of low-pressure power converters integrated together with the low-pressure electric machine in a low-pressure power converter housing (col 7, lines 10-20, the power converters can be integrated into a single housing along with the electric machine).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a second power converter integrated with the at least one electric machine while a first power converter is integrated in a power distribution management housing, since applicant has not disclosed that using the two in combination solves any stated problem which is not solved by the individual embodiments. Furthermore, applicant specification cites that the electric machine having an integrated power converter (fig 8A) and the power converters being integrated into the PDMU housing (fig 5a) are alternate embodiments of each other, and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that these two could be used in combination based on engine spacing availability and power requirements.
Regarding claim 7, Bruce discloses wherein a second power converter is integrated together with the low pressure electric machine in a low pressure power converter housing.
Chong teaches a gas turbine engine with a plurality of electric machines (111, 113, fig 1), a plurality of power converters (131, fig 5), and a power distribution management unit (115, fig 1), wherein the plurality of power converters includes a plurality of high-pressure power converters integrated together with the high-pressure electric machine in a high-pressure power converter housing (col 7, lines 10-20, the power converters can be integrated into a single housing along with the electric machine).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a second power converter integrated with the at least one electric machine while a first power converter is integrated in a power distribution management housing, since applicant has not disclosed that using the two in combination solves any stated problem which is not solved by the individual embodiments. Furthermore, applicant specification cites that the electric machine having an integrated power converter (fig 8A) and the power converters being integrated into the PDMU housing (fig 5a) are alternate embodiments of each other, and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that these two could be used in combination based on engine spacing availability and power requirements.
Regarding claim 14, Bruce discloses wherein a second low pressure power converter of the plurality of low pressure power converters is integrated together with the low pressure electric machine or a second high pressure power converter of the plurality of high pressure power converters is integrated together with the high pressure electric machine.
Chong teaches a gas turbine engine with a plurality of electric machines (111, 113, fig 1), a plurality of power converters (131, fig 5), and a power distribution management unit (115, fig 1), wherein at least one of the plurality of low-pressure power converters is integrated together with the low-pressure electric machine or the plurality of high-pressure power converters is integrated together with the high-pressure electric machine (fig 5, each electric machine has its own set of integrated power converters).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a second power converter integrated with the at least one electric machine while a first power converter is integrated in a power distribution management housing, since applicant has not disclosed that using the two in combination solves any stated problem which is not solved by the individual embodiments. Furthermore, applicant specification cites that the electric machine having an integrated power converter (fig 8A) and the power converters being integrated into the PDMU housing (fig 5a) are alternate embodiments of each other, and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that these two could be used in combination based on engine spacing availability and power requirements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 6/4/2025, with respect to the 112(b) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112b rejections of claims 1-20 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 6/4/2025, with respect to the claim objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claim 14 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the combination under McCune is improper as it is a drawing which is not to scale. Applicants arguments are not persuasive because although the measurements may not be exact, the size falls into right in the middle of the claimed range, therefore, even if the drawings were off, the volume ratio of McCune would still be within the claimed range. Furthermore, McCune deals specifically about sizing the gutter to allow for proper lubricant flow, and thus is attempting to solve the same problem that applicants gutter is attempting to solve. Applicant further argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to use Sutton to modify the gearbox volume of McCune, this argument is not persuasive as Sutton is no longer required for teaching gearbox volume as per the claims. Furthermore, McCune falls within the range of both engine sizes below 35000 HP and above, meaning that even if the engine size were different the structure of McCune would still read on the claimed extraction ratio.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN V MEILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-9229. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-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, 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.
/SEAN V MEILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741