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 .
This is the first Office action responsive to application 19003432 filed 12/27/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 9, 11-12, 15, 17-18, & 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1:
The recitation “a gearbox input shaft portion of the core shaft” (l. 6) is believed to be in error for - - a gearbox input shaft, the gearbox input shaft being a portion of the core shaft - -. This suggestion is made to ensure consistent terminology throughout the claims (which refer back to the “gearbox input shaft” rather than the “gearbox input shaft portion”, see, e.g., claim 2).
The recitation “receives the input from the core shaft” (l. 8) is believed to be in error for - - receives the input from the gearbox input shaft - -.
The recitation “the shaft” (last line) is believed to be in error for - - the gearbox input shaft - -.
Regarding Claim 5:
The recitations “the shaft” (l. 15, l. 16, twice at l. 23, l, 25, l. 28) are believed to be in error for - - the gearbox input shaft - -.
Regarding Claim 9:
The recitation “the cross-section” is believed to be in error for - - a cross-section - -.
The recitation “its length” is believed to be in error for - - the length of the gearbox input shaft - -.
Regarding Claim 11:
The recitations “the engine” (l. 3, l. 5) are believed to be in error for - - the gas turbine engine - -.
The recitation “the flow at exit of the combustor” (l. 7) is believed to be in error for - - a flow at an exit of a combustor - -.
The recitation “the specific enthalpy rise” (l. 10) is believed to be in error for - - a specific enthalpy rise - -.
The recitation “the translation velocity of the fan tip at the leading edge of the tip” (l. 11) is believed to be in error for - - a translational velocity of a fan tip at a leading edge of the fan tip - -.
Regarding Claim 12:
The recitation “a gearbox input shaft portion of the core shaft” (l. 6) is believed to be in error for - - a gearbox input shaft, the gearbox input shaft being a portion of the core shaft - -. This suggestion is made to ensure consistent terminology throughout the claims (which refer back to the “gearbox input shaft” rather than the “gearbox input shaft portion”, see, e.g., claim 13).
The recitation “input from the core shaft” (l. 8) is believed to be in error for - - input from the gearbox input shaft - -.
The recitation “the forward point of the shaft” (l. 14) is believed to be in error for - - a forward point of the gearbox input shaft - -.
The recitation “the axis” (l. 15) is believed to be in error for - - an axis - -.
The recitation “the rearward end” (l. 16) is believed to be in error for - - a rearward end - -.
Regarding Claim 15:
The recitations “the shaft” (l. 5, l. 6, twice at l. 13, l. 15) are believed to be in error for - - the gearbox input shaft - -.
The recitation “the a point at the forward end of the shaft corresponding” (ll. 18-19) is believed to be in error for - - the forward point corresponding - -.
Regarding Claim 17:
The recitations “the engine” (l. 3, l. 5) are believed to be in error for - - the gas turbine engine - -.
The recitation “the specific enthalpy” (l. 8) is believed to be in error for - - a specific enthalpy - -.
The recitation “the translational velocity of the fan tip at the leading edge of the tip” (l. 9) is believed to be in error for - - a translational velocity of a fan tip at a leading edge of the fan tip - -.
The recitation “its hub to the radius of the fan blade at its tip” (l. 11) is believed to be in error for - - a hub to the radius of the fan blade at the fan tip - -.
Regarding Claim 18:
The recitation “a gearbox input shaft portion of the core shaft” (l. 6) is believed to be in error for - - a gearbox input shaft, the gearbox input shaft being a portion of the core shaft - -.
The recitation “input from the core shaft” (l. 8) is believed to be in error for - - input from the gearbox input shaft - -.
The recitation “the forward point of the shaft” (l. 14) is believed to be in error for - - a forward point of the gearbox input shaft - -.
The recitation “the shaft” (l. 15) is believed to be in error for - - the gearbox input shaft - -.
The recitation “the rearward end” (l. 15) is believed to be in error for - - a rearward end - -.
The recitation “the shaft, at which point the shaft” (l. 22) is believed to be in error for - - the gearbox input shaft, at which the gearbox input shaft - -.
The recitation “the shaft” (l. 24) is believed to be in error for - - the gearbox input shaft - -.
The recitation “the a point at the forward end of the shaft corresponding” (l. 27) is believed to be in error for - - the forward point corresponding - -.
Regarding Claim 20:
The recitation “the cross-section” (l. 2) is believed to be in error for - - a cross-section - -.
The recitation “its length” (l. 2) is believed to be in error for - - a length of the gearbox input shaft - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8, 11-14, & 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3, 8, 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,781,487. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each and every element of the identified claims of the instant application is recited in the identified patent claims. Inasmuch as dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, 13-14, & 17 recite different ranges of the tilt stiffness, radial bending stiffness, and gear ratio in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 I. The ranges claimed in the instant application’s claims 2-4, 6-8,13-14, & 17 lie inside (for claimed stiffnesses) or overlap (for claimed gear ratio) ranges claimed by the reference patent.
Claims 1-8, 10-14, & 17 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4 & 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,221,929. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each and every element of the identified claims of the instant application is recited in the identified patent claims. Inasmuch as dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, 10, & 13-14, recite different ranges of the tilt stiffness, radial bending stiffness, and fan diameter in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 I. The ranges claimed in the instant application’s claims 2-4, 6-8, 10, & 13-14 lie inside (for claimed stiffnesses) or overlap (for claim fan diameter) ranges claimed by the reference patent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20 are allowed.
Claims 9 & 15 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Dependent Claim 9, the prior art fails to teach, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim, a cross-section of the gearbox input shaft is not constant along the length of the gearbox input shaft.
Regarding Dependent Claim 15, the prior art fails to teach, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim, the recited ranges of torsional stiffness or effective linear torsional stiffness, each measured as claimed (only for the gearbox input shaft, assuming the connection between the gearbox input shaft and the core shaft is rigid as claimed).
Regarding Independent Claim 18, the prior art fails to teach, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim, the recited torsional stiffness or effective linear torsional stiffness, each measured as claimed (only for the gearbox input shaft, assuming the connection between the gearbox input shaft and the core shaft is rigid as claimed).
Note that should Applicant file terminal disclaimers to obviate the double patenting rejections discussed above, Claims 1 & 12 distinguish over all other prior art and would be allowable.
The closest prior art is Spruce 11781487 (“Spruce 1”), Spruce 12221929 (“Spruce 2”) (both as cited above in the double patenting rejections), McCune 20140140819, and Sonder 3208217. Spruce 1 and Spruce 2, as discussed in the double patenting rejections above, fail to recite the non-constant cross-section of the gearbox input shaft along the length of the gearbox input shaft, as recited in claim 9 of the instant Applicant. Spruce 1 and Spruce 2 also fail to recite the claimed torsional stiffness or effective linear torsional stiffness (measured as claimed with the claimed rigidity assumption of the connection between the gearbox input shaft and the remainder of the core shaft). McCune teaches a gas turbine engine (Fig. 1) with an epicyclic gearbox (48) having an input shaft (Fig. 3, 62) connected to a core shaft (see 30 in Fig. 3). McCune teaches a stiffness of the input shaft (see, e.g. para. [0056]). McCune, however teaches the stiffness of the input shaft is proportional to the stiffnes of the frame (Figs. 3-4) or gear mesh (Figs. 5-6). McCune fails to teach particular values of the stiffness. Sonder teaches a gas turbine engine (Fig. 1) with a gearbox (17) having an input shaft (within torque tube 16) connected to a core shaft (drive shaft of turbine engine). Sonder teaches adjusting the rigidity of the torque tube (Col. 4, ll. 9-19) in order to absorb all normal loads between the gearbox and the engine without deflecting appreciably. Sonder, however, adjusts the rigidity of the torque tube rather than the shaft itself. Even if the stiffnesses of the input shaft of McCune were to be optimized to find optimal or workable stiffnesses of the input shaft based on the stiffnesses of the other components, even taking into account Sonder’s teaching of ensuring sufficient stiffness to absorb normal loads without deflecting appreciably, there is insufficient evidence of record to suggest that such a modification would result in the claimed invention. McCune’s input shaft is not a portion of the core shaft but is instead a separate, connected structure (a coupling; para. [0052]). Given that the claims require the determination of stiffnesses of the gearbox input shaft (which is a portion of the core shaft itself) while assuming a rigid connection between the gearbox input shaft and the remainder of the core shaft, the broadest reasonable interpretation inherently assumes different stiffnesses between the gearbox input shaft and the remainder of the core shaft in order for these structural limitations of the gearbox input shaft (in terms of stiffnesses) to have meaning. This is consistent with Applicant’s specification (p. 29, ll. 10-21) which describes dividing the core shaft 26 into two sections (26a, the “gearbox input shaft”, and 26b, the remainder of the core shaft) such that the gearbox input shaft has a lower stiffness than the second section with the second section “designed to be effectively rigid (as compared to the stiffness of the first section 26a). The prior art fails to fairly teach or suggest modifying a core shaft to have two different stiffnesses with the gearbox input shaft portion having lower stiffnesses within the claimed ranges.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J WALTHOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-4999. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10 a.m.-6 p.m. Eastern.
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.
/SCOTT J WALTHOUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights