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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 12/04/2025. Claims 2 and 12 are canceled. Claims 21-22 are new. Claims 1, 3-7, 11, 13-17, and 21-22 are examined.
Specification
Amendments to the specification were received. The amended specification has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings filed 12/04/2025 have been entered.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 11, 13-16, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Drake 2016/0169521.
Regarding Claim 1, Drake teaches combustor assembly 80 of a combustor 56 in a combustion section 26 of a turbine engine, the combustor assembly 80 ([0046]; Figs. 1, 5 & 8) comprising:
a dome assembly 80 ([0042]; Fig. 3);
a first separable portion 108 defining at least a portion of a mixer assembly 90, the mixer assembly 90 placed within the dome assembly 80 ([0045-47]; Fig. 5); and
a second separable portion 118 defining at least a portion of a deflector assembly 96 ([0049]; Figs. 5& 8),
the first separable portion 108 and the second separable portion 118 are coupled together at a fitted interface 112 to fasten the mixer assembly 90 and the deflector assembly together 96, such that the first separable portion 108 and the second separable portion 118 are (a) removably (removable) coupled at the fitted interface 112 by a plurality of threads 110, 120 or one or more of a press fit, a tight fit, or an interface fit and (b), free from welds and brazes (the fitted interface 112 facilitates facilitate removal, repair, or replacement of the swirler, therefore the interface is inherently free from welds or brazes which hamper removal, repair, or replacement, see [0046]) so that the mixer assembly 90 or the deflector assembly 96 can be replaced (to facilitate removal, repair, or replacement) without significantly damaging or destroying the mixer assembly 90 or the deflector assembly 90 ([0046-0049; 0054]; Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 11, Drake teaches a gas turbine engine 20 (Fig. 1) comprising: a core engine 24, 26, 28 including a compressor section 24, a combustion section 26, and a turbine section 28 in serial flow relationship, the combustion section 26 comprising a combustor assembly 80 ([0034, 0046]; Fig. 1),
the combustor assembly 80 (seen in Figs. 1, 5 & 8) including:
a dome assembly 80 ([0042]; Fig. 3);
a first separable portion 108 defining at least a portion of a mixer assembly 90, the mixer assembly 90 placed within the dome assembly 80 ([0045-47]; Fig. 5); and
a second separable portion 118 defining at least a portion of a deflector assembly 96 ([0049]; Figs. 5& 8),
the first separable portion 108 and the second separable portion 118 are coupled together at a fitted interface 112 to fasten the mixer assembly 90 and the deflector assembly together 96, such that the first separable portion 108 and the second separable portion 118 are (a) removably (removable) coupled at the fitted interface 112 by a plurality of threads 110, 120 or one or more of a press fit, a tight fit, or an interface fit and (b), free from welds and brazes (the fitted interface 112 facilitates facilitate removal, repair, or replacement of the swirler, therefore the interface is inherently free from welds or brazes which hamper removal, repair, or replacement, see [0046]) so that the mixer assembly 90 or the deflector assembly 96 can be replaced (to facilitate removal, repair, or replacement) without significantly damaging or destroying the mixer assembly 90 or the deflector assembly 90 ([0046-0049; 0054]; Fig. 5).
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, Drake teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claims 1 and 11, respectively, and Drake further teaches
the plurality of threads 110, 120 includes a male threaded interface (threads 110, 120 both have male threaded interfaces, seen as peaks extending outward of the body in Figs. 5 & 8) and a female threaded interface 120 (threads 110, 120 both have female threaded interfaces, seen as valleys of the threads in Figs. 5 & 8) ([0047, 0049, 0051]; Figs. 5 & 8).
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, Drake teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claims 3 and 13, respectively, and Drake further teaches
the first separable portion 108 defines the male threaded interface (peaks of 110 extending outward of body 108), and the second separable portion 118 defines the female threaded interface (valleys of 120, seen in Figs. 5 & 8) ([0047, 0049, 0051]; Figs. 5 & 8).
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, Drake teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claims 3 and 13, respectively, and Drake further teaches
the first separable portion 108 defines an outer diameter or a surrounding surface (seen in Figs. 5 & 8) relative to the second separable portion 118, the first separable portion 108 defining the female threaded interface (valleys of 110, seen in Figs. 5 & 8) and the second separable portion 118 defining the male threaded interface (peaks of 120 extending outward of body 118) ([0047, 0049, 0051]; Figs. 5 & 8).
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, Drake teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claims 3 and 13, respectively, and Drake further teaches
the plurality of threads 110, 120 includes a ballnose feature [a] (seen in annotated Fig. 8, below) between the male threaded interface (peaks of element 110) and the female threaded interface (valleys of element 120) (Annotated Fig. 8, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
649
741
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: Annotated Fig. 8 of Drake (US.2016/0169521)
Regarding Claims 21, Drake teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Drake further teaches
a cup 98 (element 98 reads on a cup – not mentioned in specification, seen in Fig. 3) formed in the dome assembly 80 (Fig. 3), the cup 98 defining an opening 92 in the dome assembly 80, the mixer assembly 90 being mounted to the cup 98 ([0042]; Fig. 2)
Regarding Claims 22, Drake teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Drake further teaches
comprising a plurality (multiple of swirlers 90) of the mixer assemblies 90 placed circumferentially within the dome assembly 80 ([0042]; Figs. 1-2).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drake.
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, Drake teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claims 6 and 16, respectively, and Drake further teaches
the ballnose feature [a] defines a straight end or radius (seen in figure below) (annotated Fig. 8, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
649
741
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: Annotated Fig. 8 of Drake (US.2016/0169521)
Drake does not expressly state that teach the ballnose feature [a] (seen in annotated Fig. 8 above) has an end or radius configured to provide an air seal between the plurality of threads 110, 120;
however, an ordinary skilled worker, upon the preponderance of evidence, would conclude that the ballnose feature [a] ([a] is the gap between threads) arranged between the plurality of threads 110, 120, has a straight end (seen on the right side at the opening to the combustion chamber) and on the left hand side, has an opening to space 122 (in annotated Fig. 8, above) is configured to provide an air seal between the plurality of threads, as claimed. The description of the article pictured (in annotated Fig. 8, above) can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 193 USPQ 332 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2125 II. Therefore, the ballnose feature [a] having a straight end, seen in the annotated Fig. 8 above, is configured to provide an air seal between the plurality of threads. An ordinary skilled worker would understand that the ballnose feature provides an air seal between the plurality of threads, in order to prevent hot combustion gases from flowing back toward the swirler.
Drake, as discussed so far, does not teach the ballnose feature defines a rounded end or radius configured to provide an air seal between the plurality of threads.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the ballnose feature [a] having a straight edge or radius, and applicant's invention, to perform equally well with either the ballnose feature having a straight end or radius, as taught by Drake, or the ballnose feature having a rounded end or radius, because both ballnose features would perform the same function of providing an air seal between the plurality of threats.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Drake to obtain the invention as specified in claims 7 and 17, respectively, because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Drake. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47. MPEP 2144.04 IV (B).
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments, filed on 12/04/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 103 rejections of claims , 3-7, 11, 13-17, and 21-22 have been considered, but are moot because the arguments do not apply to new combination of references used in the current rejection, necessitated by Applicant’s amendment. However, to the extent possible, Applicant’s arguments have been addressed in the body of the rejections at the appropriate locations.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACEK LISOWSKI whose telephone number is (408) 918-7635. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 10 am - 6 pm PST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Devon Kramer can be reached on (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.
/JACEK LISOWSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/PHUTTHIWAT WONGWIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741