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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “with first shaft coupled to the input shaft” should be “with a first shaft…”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avery US 3,596,467 in view of Van Spijk US 2002/0002089.
Regarding claim 1, Avery discloses a fuel system for a gas turbine engine comprising: a fuel pump 32 providing fuel flow 18 during engine operation; and a transmission system including an output shaft 25 coupled to drive the fuel pump; and an input shaft 23 driven through a mechanical link to a shaft of the gas turbine engine, shown by the dashed line at an acute angle to 23 in fig. 1, wherein the output shaft 25 drives the fuel pump at a variable speed that is independent of a rotational speed of the input shaft 23, see col. 5, line 63 to col. 6, line 22, wherein the transmission comprises a continuously variable transmission (CVT) with a first shaft coupled to the input shaft, a second shaft coupled to the output shaft, id. the CVT is an infinitely variable transmission, the first and second shaft are interpreted as the portions of 25, 23 that are connected to 26, 24. Avery does not discloses a flexible link coupled the first shaft to the second shaft.
Van Spijk discloses a continuously variable transmission comprising a set of pulleys and a belt forming a CVT including hydraulic chambers 34, 28. The transmission 2 utilizes a metal belt in order to convert the variable speed of the input shaft 10 to a near constant output speed. See para. [0011]. The hydraulic chambers are controlled via an associated control valve. Id. The invention provides for a variable transmission that is easily mounted without compromising the quality of the belt/pulley transmission. See para. [0002].
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled worker to substitute the toroidal CVT of Avery with the CVT of Van Spijk and including the hydraulic drive driven by the mechanical link, the output shaft is coupled to the hydraulic drive driven by the mechanical link, the output shaft is coupled to the hydraulic drive and a control valve controls the hydraulic fluid flow to the hydraulic drive for controlling a speed of the output shaft, the hydraulic drive comprise a constant speed drive and a flexible link 3, as discussed above, in order to provide a transmission that takes a variable load and outputs a near constant load and with an assembly that’s easily mounted. Id.
Regarding claim 2, Avery, in view of Van Spijk, discloses the first shaft includes a primary pulley 14, 20 and the second shaft includes a secondary pulley 32, 30 with the flexible link 3 disposed between the primary pulley and the secondary pulley, wherein each of the primary pulley and the second pulley include halves split relative to the axis of rotation, the halves 32, 30 of one pulley and the halves 20, 14 of the other pulley, and the flexible link comprises a v-shape in cross section, the belt 3 has a v shaped cross section as seen in fig. 1, wherein a distance between the halves of each of the primary pulley and the secondary pulley is variable to change a drive ratio between the input shaft and the output shaft, see para. [0012].
Regarding claim 3, Avery, in view of Van Spijk, discloses an apparatus capable of altering the variable speed of the output shaft so as to be controlled responsive to a fuel flow demand of the gas turbine engine. Furthermore Van Spijk teaches the CVT should be controlled based on the fuel demand. See col. 5, lines 33-41.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avery, in view of Van Spijk, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Sabatino US 7,260,926.
Regarding claim 5, Avery, in view of Van Spijk, discloses all elements except for a heat exchanger for transferring heat into the fuel flow generated by the fuel pump.
Sabatino teaches a fuel cooled engine oil HEX downstream from the fuel pumps. The fuel is heated and then delivered to the injectors of the combustor. Sabatino teaches that it is desirable to heat the fuel delivered to the main engine to maximize efficiency of the engine. See col. 1, lines 10-18.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled worker to provide a thermal management system of Sabatino, in the apparatus of Avery, in view of Van Spijk, in order to provide a means to efficiently heat the fuel (i.e. minimize air to liquid HXs) in order to increase the efficiency of the engine. Id.
Claim(s) 6, 8 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avery US 3,596,467 in view of Armstrong US 2016/0369746 and Van Spijk.
Regarding claim 6, Avery discloses a gas turbine engine comprising: a core engine including a compressor 12 communicating compressed air to a combustor 16 where compressed air from 14 is mixed with fuel from 18 and ignited to generate a high energy gas flow expanded through a turbine 10; and a fuel system including: a fuel pump 32 providing fuel flow during engine operation; and a transmission system including an output shaft 25 coupled to drive the fuel pump and an input shaft 23 driven through a mechanical link to a shaft of the gas turbine engine, see fig. 1 the dashed line at an acute angle to the shaft 23, wherein the output shaft drives the fuel pump at a variable speed that is independent of a rotational speed of the input shaft, see col. 5, line 63 to col. 6, line 22. Avery does not disclose a fan rotatable with a fan nacelle.
Armstrong teaches a gas turbine engine a fan 218, 22 rotatable with a fan nacelle 24, 222. Armstrong states that gas turbines typically include compressors, bypass fans, and turbines, and that thrust is produced by the bypass fan. See para. [0003].
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled worker to provide a fan inside a fan nacelle in the apparatus of Avery, as taught by Armstrong, in order to produce thrust via the bypass flow. Id.
Avery, in view of Armstrong, discloses all elements but does not disclose a flexible link between the first and second shaft. Referring claim 1 above, Avery does disclose a CVT including the first and second shafts.
Referring to claim 1 above, Van Spijk teaches the flexible link.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to provide the CVT of Van Spijk to replace the CVT of Avery, in view of Armstrong, for the reasons stated in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, referring to claims 2-3 above, Avery, in view of Armstrong and Spijk, discloses all elements.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avery, in view of Armstrong and Van Spijk, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Sabatino US 7,260,926.
Regarding claim 10, referring to claim 5 above, Avery, in view of Armstrong discloses all elements except for the fuel heating. Sabatino teaches the fuel heating elements as discussed in claim 5 above and the obviousness of the combination would be the same.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/8/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 1 and 7 have not been materially amended from that presented at the time of final rejection. The Applicant argues that the proposed modification destroys the Avery reference since the toroidal drive is not intended nor disclosed as providing a constant output speed and therefore the drive of Van Spijk, which is intended to provide a constant output speed, would destroy the Avery reference. Additionally, the Van Spijk reference requires hydraulic fluid to control operation and thus the structure are very different. The Examiner disagrees.
Avery states that the fuel pump no longer requires bypassing and fuel temperature increases are avoided to allow better function as a heat exchange medium by providing an infinitely variable toroidal drive that maintains the RPM of the pump impeller at a level which maintains the fuel flow required by the engine irrespective of the widely varying rotation of the rotor assembly. See col. 5, lines 63-71. Furthermore, with a step up/down ratio of 3.1:1, the engine car run from 7,500 RPM to 75,000 RPM in order to maintain a constant pump speed of 23,700 RPM. See col. 6, lines 1-10. In other words, traditional fuel pumps would vary speed based on the variation of speed of the gas turbine shaft. This causes undesired increases in fuel temperature and simultaneously requires the bypassing of the fuel pump, typically back to the fuel tank, which decreases the effectiveness of the fuel as a heat sink. In order to alleviate these problems, the invention provides a CVT that provides constant RPM to the fuel pump without regard to variations in the gas turbine engine rotor speed. Thus, the Applicant’s characterization that Avery does not suggest or disclose the CVT provides constant speed is not supported in the prior art. Furthermore, even assuming arguendo, the Applicant was correct that the CVT of Avery seeks to provide different speeds and the CVT of Van Spijk was intended to provide a constant speed, the Examiner does not agree that the CVT of Van Spijk destroys the CVT of Avery. This is because the CVT of Van Spijk is capable of altering the output speed through its control means for controlling the transmission ratio varying function, i.e. variator, see for example para. [0015]. Thus, contrary to the Applicant’s assertion, even if the CVT of Avery was intended to provide a variable output speed, Van Spijk’s CVT does not destroy the Avery reference because Van Spijk’s CVT is capable of varying its output speed.
The Applicant further argues that the CVT of Van Spijk, in sum, structurally different from that of Avery and thus not obvious. "Whether a reference teaches away from a claimed invention [is a] question of fact." In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Our reviewing court has required the presence of disparaging or criticizing statements to find a teaching away. In re Fulton, 391F.3d1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Our reviewing court also has consistently held that prior art references must be considered as a whole. W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721F.2d1540, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Considering a reference as a whole includes consideration of the reasons why a particular combination is discouraged. Where those reasons might not be a concern to those skilled in the art, a reference will not lead one skilled in the art away from a particular combination. See, e.g., In re Nehrenberg, 280 F.2d 161, 164 (CCPA 1960). Here, the Applicant points to no portion of and the Examiner finds no indication in the references of disparaging statements against the combination. Rather as noted above, Van Spijk’s CVT allows for at least ease of assembly. That the prior art structures are different is insufficient to warrant removal of the obviousness rejection in light of the benefits provided. For these reasons the Examiner disagrees.
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 GERALD LUTHER SUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3765. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 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 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.
/GERALD L SUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741