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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kupratis 11319882
Regarding claim , Kupratis teaches an electric machine assembly (incl. 100) for a gas turbine engine assembly (Fig 1) having a gas turbine engine (incl. 22, 24, 26),
the gas turbine engine comprising a turbomachine (22, 24, 26 comprising compressor, combustor, and turbine components) defining a core air flowpath (from inlet at 50 to outlet at 25) and the gas turbine engine defining a bypass flowpath (for 36 through 28) extending over the turbomachine (radially outward thereof; Fig 1)
the electric machine assembly comprising:
a shaft coupling (incl. 102) configured to connect a shaft assembly (94)of the gas turbine engine with the electric machine assembly (Fig 1);
an electric machine assembly housing (incl. 40);
an assembly housing coupling (any structure(s) for coupling the static components of the engine together with the stator of the electric machine 100) configured to connect a cowl assembly (static nacelle/cowl extending around the core air flowpath of the turbomachine forward/upstream of fan 42 and defining at least inlet 50) of the gas turbine engine with the electric machine assembly (Fig 1; all the static components are coupled together for mounting to the aircraft); and
an electric machine (100) disposed within the electric machine assembly housing aft of the cowl assembly when the shaft coupling is connected to the shaft assembly and the assembly housing coupling is connected to the cowl assembly (Fig 1),
PNG
media_image1.png
709
755
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein an aft airflow passage (Fig 1 above) is defined between an electric machine housing (defining the physical boundary of 100 and/or as shown in Fig 1 above) of the electric machine and the electric machine assembly housing (Fig 1), and wherein the core air flowpath and the bypass flowpath of the gas turbine engine merge into the aft airflow passage (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 2, Kupratis teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Kupratis further teaches the electric machine is configured to transfer a torque to or from the shaft assembly of the gas turbine engine (col.9 ll.60-63).
Regarding claim 3, Kupratis teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Kupratis further teaches the electric machine assembly further comprises an electric machine shaft (output from rotor of 100 to 102), wherein the electric machine shaft is configured to input the torque to the electric machine and from the electric machine (Fig 1; col.9 ll.60-63).
Regarding claim 5, Kupratis teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above.
PNG
media_image2.png
537
677
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kupratis further teaches at least one support connecting the electric machine to the electric machine assembly housing (Fig 1 above).
Regarding claim 6, Kupratis teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Kupratis further teaches a power supply (86) disposed outside of the electric machine assembly housing (Fig 1), wherein a supply connection provides power to the electric machine from the power supply (incl. 88, 90).
Regarding claim 13, Kupratis teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above.
PNG
media_image3.png
472
677
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kupratis further teaches the electric machine housing is aft of a tail cone of the turbomachine (just as Applicant’s “tail cone” is a portion of the engine where a frustoconical fairing exists between the core engine and the electric machine, shaded Fig 1 above teaches a “tail cone” that is a frustoconical fairing between the core engine and the electric machine).
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 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kupratis in view of Van der Merwe 20190085715.
Regarding claim 4, Kupratis teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Kupratis further teaches the shaft coupling includes a gearbox (102).
Kupratis does not teach the shaft coupling is a flexible coupling.
However, Van der Merwe teaches an electric machine (246) mounted aft of a core engine (incl. turbine 30), wherein a shaft coupling (incl. 522, 506) between the electric machine and a gearbox (522) further includes a flexible shaft portion (506) in order to mechanically isolate or insulate the electric machine from various forces acting on or within the gas turbine engine during operation, e.g., for increasing a useful life of the electric machine ([0191]).
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 shaft coupling of Kupratis to include the flexible portion as taught by Van der Merwe, in order to mechanically isolate or insulate the electric machine from various forces acting on or within the gas turbine engine during operation, e.g., for increasing a useful life of the electric machine ([0191]).
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kupratis in view of Barnett 20130133336.
Regarding claim 7, Kupratis teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Kupratis does not teach the electric machine housing includes an inner liner and an outer liner, wherein the inner liner and the outer liner each include one or more flexible structures to allow expansion along an axial direction of the gas turbine engine.
However, Barnett teaches an electric machine assembly (incl.32) for a gas turbine engine assembly (Figs 1-2) having a gas turbine engine (10), the electric machine assembly comprising:
a shaft coupling (at 44) configured to connect a shaft assembly (incl.24) of the gas turbine engine with the electric machine assembly (Figs 1-2);
an electric machine (32) disposed aftward in the gas turbine engine assembly (Fig 1); and
an electric machine housing (incl. 30 and defining the exterior of the electric machine 32) including an inner liner (defining the exterior of the electric machine 32 in Fig 2) and an outer liner (30),
wherein the inner liner and the outer liner each include one or more flexible structures to allow expansion along an axial direction of the gas turbine engine (38 and 40 including multiple of 40A,C,D are each connected to both the inner and outer liners and may each be considered to be included in either the inner liner or the outer liner; all of which work together to facilitate thermal expansion, which includes axial expansion; [0002-3, 0029-30]).
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 electric machine housing of Kupratis to use the flexible structures of Barnett, in order to facilitate thermal expansion ([0002-3, 0029-30]).
Claims 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kupratis in view of Miller 10442547.
Regarding claim 9, Kupratis teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Kupratis does not teach an electric machine sensor adjacent the electric machine, the electric machine sensor configured to provide feedback about operation of the electric machine.
However, Miller teaches an electric machine assembly(incl. 246, 247) for a gas turbine engine assembly (Fig 3) having a gas turbine engine (200),
a shaft assembly of the gas turbine engine (224) connected with the electric machine assembly (252),
an electric machine (246, 247) disposed aftward in the gas turbine engine assembly (Figs 3-4), and an electric machine sensor (331) adjacent the electric machine (Fig 4), the electric machine sensor configured to provide feedback about operation of the electric machine (current, voltage, torque output, power output, etc.; col.11 ll.48-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kupratis to use a sensor as taught by Miller, in order to monitor the health of the electric machine (Miller, col.1 ll.38-59, col.2 ll.1-8,57-end, col.3 ll.1-23).
Regarding claim 10, Kupratis in view of Miller teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Kupratis in view of Miller as discussed so far, does not teach the electric machine sensor is disposed in the electric machine housing.
However, Miller further teaches the electric machine sensor is disposed in the electric machine housing (Fig 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kupratis in view of Miller to use the sensor as taught by Miller, in order to monitor the health of the electric machine (Miller, col.1 ll.38-59, col.2 ll.1-8,57-end, col.3 ll.1-23).
Regarding claim 11, Kupratis in view of Miller teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Kupratis in view of Miller as discussed so far, does not teach the feedback comprises shaft speeds, temperatures, current draw, vibrations, or a combination thereof of the electric machine.
However, Miller further teaches the feedback comprises current draw of the electric machine (col.11 ll.48-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kupratis in view of Miller to use the sensor as taught by Miller, in order to monitor the health of the electric machine (Miller, col.1 ll.38-59, col.2 ll.1-8,57-end, col.3 ll.1-23).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on 30 December 2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE SEBASCO CHENG whose telephone number is (469)295-9153. The examiner can normally be reached on 1000-1600 ET.
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 (571-270-5426. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEPHANIE SEBASCO CHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741