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 on the merits in response to the above identified patent application filed on 07/23/2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and being examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 and 16-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 8: “the core” is believed to be in error for --the engine core-- (see claim 1, line 2)
Claim 1, lines 13-14 and 17: “at least one actuator of the plurality of actuators” (line 13) and “the at least one fueldraulic actuator” (line 17) are believed to refer to the same element. Either change the first limitation to “at least one fueldraulic actuator of the plurality of actuators” or change the second limitation to “the at least one actuator”.
Claims 2-8 and 16-17: regarding “the at least one fueldraulic actuator”, see the above claim objection for claim 1, lines 13-14 and 17.
Claim 9, line 2: “the engine” is believed to be in error for --the gas turbine engine-- (see claim 1, line 1)
Claim 10, line 1: “the turbine engine” is believed to be in error for --the gas turbine engine-- (see claim 1, line 1)
Claim 10, line 3: “the engine” is believed to be in error for --the gas turbine engine-- (see claim 1, line 1)
Claim 18, line 1: “the engine” is believed to be in error for --the gas turbine engine-- (see claim 18, line 1)
Claim 18, line 8: “the core” is believed to be in error for --the engine core-- (see claim 1, line 2)
Claim 18, line 15: “fuel comprising at least 25% SAF by volume” is believed to be in error for --the fuel comprising at least 25% SAF by volume-- (see claim 18, line 13)
Claim 18, lines 16 and 17: “at least one actuator of the plurality of actuators” (line 16) and “the at least one fueldraulic actuator” (line 17) are believed to refer to the same element. Either change the first limitation to “at least one fueldraulic actuator of the plurality of actuators” or change the second limitation to “the at least one actuator”.
Claim 19, line 2: “the fuel supply” is believed to be in error for --the fuel supply system” (see claim 18, line 11)
Claim 20, line 2: “the fuel supply” is believed to be in error for --the fuel supply system” (see claim 18, line 11)
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 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 13-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,416,266 in view of Jones (US 2025/0172097 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 12,416,266 teaches (in claims 1 and 15) a gas turbine engine for an aircraft comprising (claim 1, col. 47, l. 25):
an engine core comprising a turbine, a combustor, a compressor, and a core shaft connecting the turbine to the compressor (col. 47, ll. 26-28);
a fan located upstream of the engine core and arranged to be driven by the core shaft, the fan comprising a plurality of fan blades (col. 47, ll. 29-31);
a nacelle surrounding the fan and the engine core and defining a bypass duct located radially outside of the engine core, where a bypass ratio, defined as the ratio of the mass flow rate of the flow through the bypass duct to the mass flow rate of the flow through the core at cruise conditions, is at least 4 (col. 47, ll. 32-37);
a plurality of actuators (col. 47, l. 38); and
a fuel supply system, wherein the fuel supply system is arranged to supply fuel for combustion in the combustor, and to supply fuel to fueldraulically drive at least one actuator of the plurality of actuators (col. 47, ll. 39-42), and
wherein the fuel supply system is arranged such that a peak differential pressure of the fuel across the at least one fueldraulic actuator during cruise conditions is at least 2400 kPa (claim 15).
However, U.S. Patent No. 12,416,266 does not teach (see *NOTE 1 on next page) the fuel comprises at least 25% sustainable aviation fuel – SAF – by volume.
Jones teaches (Fig. 1) a similar gas turbine engine (122) for an aircraft (100) comprising a fuel supply system (114, 124, and 125), wherein the fuel comprises at least 25% SAF by volume (¶ [0047], ll. 3-5: “the central fuel tank 114 contains a second fuel having a composition with a relatively high proportion of SAF (e.g. 100% SAF)”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify U.S. Patent No. 12,416,266 such that the fuel comprises at least 25% sustainable aviation fuel – SAF – by volume, in order to provide an alternative fuel in aviation that produces fewer emissions, is more environmentally-friendly, and is more sustainable than traditional aviation fuel, as taught by Jones (¶ [0003], ll. 6-7 and ¶ [0006], ll. 1-8).
*NOTE 1:
Examiner further notes that the type of fuel being used for combustion in the combustion chamber and for fueldraulically driving at least one actuator (in this case, a fuel comprising at least 25% SAF by volume) is an intended use recitation – “inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims”, In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935); see MPEP 2115. In this case, the fuel is considered the material or article worked upon and do not impart patentability to the claims, since the recitation of a fuel comprising at least 25% SAF by volume is merely the material that the combustion chamber and the at least one actuator work upon in its intended use.
For dependent claim 2, the recited limitations are contained in patent claim 16.
For dependent claims 3-4, the recited limitations are taught by Suggs (US 3,398,692). See the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 3-4 below.
For dependent claim 5, the recited limitations are contained in patent claim 13.
For dependent claim 6, the recited limitations are contained in patent claim 14.
For dependent claim 7, the recited limitations are taught by Razak (US 2020/0369400). See the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 7 below.
For dependent claim 8, the recited limitations are taught by Suggs. See the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 8 below.
For dependent claim 9, the recited limitations are contained in patent claim 2.
For dependent claim 10, the recited limitations are contained in patent claim 3.
For dependent claims 11-15, the recited limitations are taught by Jones. See the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 11-15 below.
For dependent claims 16-17, the recited limitations are taught by Crowley (US 2017/0321608 A1). See the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 16-17 below.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 8, and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crowley (US 2017/0321608 A1), in view of Jones (US 2025/0172097 A1) and Suggs (US 3,398,692).
Regarding claim 1, Crowley teaches (Figs. 1-2) a gas turbine engine (20 – Fig. 1) for an aircraft (¶ [0033], l. 2) comprising:
an engine core (Fig. 1: flow path “C”) comprising a turbine (28 – Fig. 1), a combustor (26 and 56), a compressor (34 – Fig. 1), and a core shaft (40 – Fig. 1) connecting the turbine (28) to the compressor (34);
a fan (42 – Fig. 1) located upstream (to the left) of the engine core and arranged to be driven by the core shaft (40), the fan (42) comprising a plurality of fan blades (inherent in a fan of a turbofan);
a nacelle (15 – Fig. 1) surrounding the fan (42) and the engine core and defining a bypass duct (Fig. 1: flow path “B”) located radially outside of the engine core, where a bypass ratio, defined as the ratio of the mass flow rate of the flow through the bypass duct (“B”) to the mass flow rate of the flow through the core (“C”) at cruise conditions, is at least 4 (¶ [0033], ll. 2-3: “the engine 20 bypass ratio is greater than about six (6)”);
a plurality of actuators (62F – Fig. 2); and
a fuel supply system (60), wherein the fuel supply system (60) is arranged to supply fuel (FS – Fig. 2) for combustion in the combustor (56), and to supply fuel to fueldraulically drive at least one actuator of the plurality of actuators (62F).
However, Crowley does not teach (see *NOTE 1 on next page) the fuel comprises at least 25% sustainable aviation fuel – SAF – by volume.
Jones teaches (Fig. 1) a similar gas turbine engine (122) for an aircraft (100) comprising a fuel supply system (114, 124, and 125), wherein the fuel comprises at least 25% SAF by volume (¶ [0047], ll. 3-5: “the central fuel tank 114 contains a second fuel having a composition with a relatively high proportion of SAF (e.g. 100% SAF)”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Crowley such that the fuel comprises at least 25% sustainable aviation fuel – SAF – by volume, in order to provide an alternative fuel in aviation that produces fewer emissions, is more environmentally-friendly, and is more sustainable than traditional aviation fuel, as taught by Jones (¶ [0003], ll. 6-7 and ¶ [0006], ll. 1-8).
However, Crowley, in view of Jones, does not teach (see *NOTE 2 on next page) the fuel supply system is arranged such that a peak differential pressure of the fuel across the at least one fueldraulic actuator during cruise conditions is at least 2400 kPa.
It is noted that Crowley teaches a fuel pump (62B), but does not specify any operating pressures of said fuel pump (62B).
Suggs teaches (Fig. 1) a similar gas turbine engine (top portion of Fig. 1 comprising 12, 14, and 16) for an aircraft (col. 1, l. 12) comprising a fuel supply system (bottom portion of Fig. 1 comprising fuel pump 30 and fuel tank 34), wherein a peak pressure of the fuel is at least 2400 kPa (via fuel pump 30 – see col. 3, ll. 55-57: “the maximum pressure at the pump outlet of the fuel that can be tolerated for efficient operation of the pump and safety considerations is 850-950 p.s.i.” Note that 850-950 psi is equivalent to 5860-6550 kPa).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Crowley, in view of Jones, by operating the fuel pump at a maximum pressure of 850-950 psi, in order to provide efficient operation of the pump and safety considerations, as taught by Suggs (col. 3, ll. 55-57), therefore providing:
the fuel supply system (Crowley, 60) is arranged such that a peak differential pressure of the fuel across the at least one fueldraulic actuator (Crowley, 62F) during cruise conditions (intended use) is at least 2400 kPa (per Suggs’ teaching of operating the fuel pump at a maximum pressure of 850-950 psi).
*NOTE 1:
Examiner further notes that the type of fuel being used for combustion in the combustion chamber and for fueldraulically driving at least one actuator (in this case, a fuel comprising at least 25% SAF by volume) is an intended use recitation – “inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims”, In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935); see MPEP 2115. In this case, the fuel is considered the material or article worked upon and do not impart patentability to the claims, since the recitation of a fuel comprising at least 25% SAF by volume is merely the material that the combustion chamber and the at least one actuator work upon in its intended use.
*NOTE 2:
The limitation “the fuel supply system is arranged such that a peak differential pressure of the fuel across the at least one fueldraulic actuator during cruise conditions is at least 2400 kPa” is a statement of intended use and the structure of the device as taught by Crowley can perform the function by operating the fuel pump (62B) to pump fuel at a pressure of at least 2400 kPa during cruise conditions. It has been held that “While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function”, In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), MPEP 2114 (I). “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established, In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 2, Crowley, in view of Jones and Suggs, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and the combination further teaches the fuel supply system (Crowley, 60) is arranged such that the peak differential pressure of the fuel across the at least one fueldraulic actuator (Crowley, 62F) during cruise conditions (intended use) is at least 2500 kPa (per Suggs’ teaching of operating the fuel pump at a maximum pressure of 850-950 psi, or equivalently, 5860-6550 kPa).
Regarding claim 3, Crowley, in view of Jones and Suggs, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and the combination further teaches the fuel supply system (Crowley, 60) is arranged such that the peak differential pressure of the fuel across the at least one fueldraulic actuator (Crowley, 62F) during cruise conditions (intended use) is at least 2800 kPa (per Suggs’ teaching of operating the fuel pump at a maximum pressure of 850-950 psi, or equivalently, 5860-6550 kPa).
Regarding claim 4, Crowley, in view of Jones and Suggs, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and the combination further teaches the fuel supply system (Crowley, 60) is arranged such that the peak differential pressure of the fuel across the at least one fueldraulic actuator (Crowley, 62F) during cruise conditions (intended use) is at least 3000 kPa (per Suggs’ teaching of operating the fuel pump at a maximum pressure of 850-950 psi, or equivalently, 5860-6550 kPa).
Regarding claim 8, Crowley, in view of Jones and Suggs, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and the combination further teaches the fuel supply system (Crowley, 60) is arranged such that the peak differential pressure of the fuel across the at least one fueldraulic actuator (Crowley, 62F) at idle (intended use) is in the range from 1000 kPa to 1250 kPa (per Suggs’ teaching of operating the fuel pump at a maximum pressure of 850-950 psi, or equivalently, 5860-6550 kPa. Since these are maximum pressures, the pump would also be capable of operating at pressures lower than the maximum, namely 1000 kPa to 1250 kPa).
Regarding claim 10, Crowley, in view of Jones and Suggs, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Crowley further teaches (Fig. 1) wherein the turbine engine (20) comprises a gearbox (48) that receives an input from the core shaft (40) and outputs drive to the fan (42) so as to drive the fan (42) at a lower rotational speed than the core shaft (40), such that the engine (20) is a geared turbine engine (¶ [0031], ll. 3-7).
Regarding claim 11, Crowley, in view of Jones and Suggs, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and the combination further teaches the fuel comprises at least 50% SAF by volume (Jones, ¶ [0047], ll. 3-5: “the central fuel tank 114 contains a second fuel having a composition with a relatively high proportion of SAF (e.g. 100% SAF)”).
Regarding claim 12, Crowley, in view of Jones and Suggs, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and the combination further teaches the fuel comprises at least 55% SAF by volume (Jones, ¶ [0047], ll. 3-5: “the central fuel tank 114 contains a second fuel having a composition with a relatively high proportion of SAF (e.g. 100% SAF)”).
Regarding claim 13, Crowley, in view of Jones and Suggs, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and the combination further teaches the fuel comprises at least 60% SAF by volume (Jones, ¶ [0047], ll. 3-5: “the central fuel tank 114 contains a second fuel having a composition with a relatively high proportion of SAF (e.g. 100% SAF)”).
Regarding claim 14, Crowley, in view of Jones and Suggs, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and the combination further teaches the fuel comprises at least 65% SAF by volume (Jones, ¶ [0047], ll. 3-5: “the central fuel tank 114 contains a second fuel having a composition with a relatively high proportion of SAF (e.g. 100% SAF)”).
Regarding claim 15, Crowley, in view of Jones and Suggs, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and the combination further teaches the fuel comprises at least 70% SAF by volume (Jones, ¶ [0047], ll. 3-5: “the central fuel tank 114 contains a second fuel having a composition with a relatively high proportion of SAF (e.g. 100% SAF)”).
Regarding claim 16, Crowley, in view of Jones and Suggs, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Crowley further teaches (Fig. 2) the at least one fueldraulic actuator 62F) is a variable stator vane actuator (¶ [0035], ll. 19-22: “Example actuators can include fuel-draulics actuators such as one or more vane actuators. The vane actuator may be utilized to vary an angle of a variable vane in the compressor section 24, for example.” In this case, the variable vane may be chosen as a variable stator vane in the compressor section).
Regarding claim 17, Crowley, in view of Jones and Suggs, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Crowley further teaches (Fig. 2) the at least one fueldraulic actuator 62F) is a variable inlet guide vane actuator (¶ [0035], ll. 19-22: “Example actuators can include fuel-draulics actuators such as one or more vane actuators. The vane actuator may be utilized to vary an angle of a variable vane in the compressor section 24, for example.” In this case, the variable vane may be chosen as a variable inlet guide vane in the compressor section).
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster (US 2012/0324859 A1), in view of Sabnis (US 2017/0175675 A1), Jones (US 2025/0172097 A1), and Suggs (US 3,398,692).
Regarding claim 1, Foster teaches (Figs. 1-2) a gas turbine engine (10) for an aircraft comprising:
an engine core (within “19” – Fig. 1) comprising a turbine (16 and 18 – Fig. 1), a combustor (15 – Fig. 1), a compressor (13 and 14 – Fig. 1), and a core shaft (along axis X-X – Fig. 1) connecting the turbine (16 and 18) to the compressor (13 and 14);
a fan (12 – Fig. 1) located upstream of the engine core and arranged to be driven by the core shaft, the fan (12) comprising a plurality of fan blades;
a nacelle (21 – Fig. 1) surrounding the fan (12) and the engine core and defining a bypass duct (22 – Fig. 1) located radially outside of the engine core;
a plurality of actuators (30 and 68 – Fig. 2); and
a fuel supply system (60 – Fig. 2), wherein the fuel supply system (60) is arranged to supply fuel (“From Fuel Tank” – Fig. 2) for combustion in the combustor (via burners 71 – Fig. 2), and to supply fuel to fueldraulically drive at least one actuator of the plurality of actuators (30 and 68).
However, Foster does not teach where the bypass ratio, defined as the ratio of the mass flow rate of the flow through the bypass duct to the mass flow rate of the flow through the core at cruise conditions, is at least 4.
Sabnis teaches (Fig. 1) a similar gas turbine engine (20) where a bypass ratio, defined as the ratio of the mass flow rate of the flow through a bypass duct (arrow “B”) to the mass flow rate of the flow through the core (arrow “C”) at cruise conditions, is at least 4 (¶ [0046], ll. 1-5 teaches a bypass ratio greater than about 6 and another greater than about 10).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Foster to have a bypass ratio of at least 4 at cruise conditions, in order to provide a significant amount of thrust, thereby providing a more thrust efficient turbofan engine, as taught by Sabnis (¶ [0048], ll. 1-3 and ¶ [0069]).
However, Foster, in view of Sabnis, does not teach (see *NOTE 1 on next page) the fuel comprises at least 25% sustainable aviation fuel – SAF – by volume.
Jones teaches (Fig. 1) a similar gas turbine engine (122) for an aircraft (100) comprising a fuel supply system (114, 124, and 125), wherein the fuel comprises at least 25% SAF by volume (¶ [0047], ll. 3-5: “the central fuel tank 114 contains a second fuel having a composition with a relatively high proportion of SAF (e.g. 100% SAF)”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Foster, in view of Sabnis, such that the fuel comprises at least 25% sustainable aviation fuel – SAF – by volume, in order to provide an alternative fuel in aviation that produces fewer emissions, is more environmentally-friendly, and is more sustainable than traditional aviation fuel, as taught by Jones (¶ [0003], ll. 6-7 and ¶ [0006], ll. 1-8).
However, Foster, in view of Sabnis and Jones, does not teach (see *NOTE 2 on next page) the fuel supply system is arranged such that a peak differential pressure of the fuel across the at least one fueldraulic actuator during cruise conditions is at least 2400 kPa.
It is noted that Foster teaches a fuel pump (62), but does not specify any operating pressures of said fuel pump (62).
Suggs teaches (Fig. 1) a similar gas turbine engine (top portion of Fig. 1 comprising 12, 14, and 16) for an aircraft (col. 1, l. 12) comprising a fuel supply system (bottom portion of Fig. 1 comprising fuel pump 30 and fuel tank 34), wherein a peak pressure of the fuel is at least 2400 kPa (via fuel pump 30 – see col. 3, ll. 55-57: “the maximum pressure at the pump outlet of the fuel that can be tolerated for efficient operation of the pump and safety considerations is 850-950 p.s.i.” Note that 850-950 psi is equivalent to 5860-6550 kPa).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Foster, in view of Sabnis and Jones, by operating the fuel pump at a maximum pressure of 850-950 psi, in order to provide efficient operation of the pump and safety considerations, as taught by Suggs (col. 3, ll. 55-57), therefore providing:
the fuel supply system (Foster, 60) is arranged such that a peak differential pressure of the fuel across the at least one fueldraulic actuator (Foster, 30 and 68) during cruise conditions (intended use) is at least 2400 kPa (per Suggs’ teaching of operating the fuel pump at a maximum pressure of 850-950 psi).
*NOTE 1:
Examiner further notes that the type of fuel being used for combustion in the combustion chamber and for fueldraulically driving at least one actuator (in this case, a fuel comprising at least 25% SAF by volume) is an intended use recitation – “inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims”, In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935); see MPEP 2115. In this case, the fuel is considered the material or article worked upon and do not impart patentability to the claims, since the recitation of a fuel comprising at least 25% SAF by volume is merely the material that the combustion chamber and the at least one actuator work upon in its intended use.
*NOTE 2:
The limitation “the fuel supply system is arranged such that a peak differential pressure of the fuel across the at least one fueldraulic actuator during cruise conditions is at least 2400 kPa” is a statement of intended use and the structure of the device as taught by Foster can perform the function by operating the fuel pump (62) to pump fuel at a pressure of at least 2400 kPa during cruise conditions. It has been held that “While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function”, In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), MPEP 2114 (I). “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established, In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 9, Foster, in view of Sabnis, Jones, and Suggs, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Foster further teaches (Fig. 1) the core shaft (along axis X-X) outputs drive to the fan (12) directly, so as to drive the fan (12) at the same rotational speed as core shaft, such that the engine is a direct drive turbine engine (Fig. 1 shows a direct drive from turbines 18 to fan 12).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crowley (US 2017/0321608 A1), in view of Jones (US 2025/0172097 A1) and Suggs (US 3,398,692), and in further view of Razak (US 2020/0369400).
Regarding claim 5, Crowley, in view of Jones and Suggs, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, except for (*NOTE 2 on page 10 would also apply in this case) the fuel supply system is arranged such that the peak differential pressure of the fuel across the at least one fueldraulic actuator during take-off is at least 6900 kPa.
Razak teaches (Fig. 2) a similar gas turbine engine (101) for an aircraft (per ¶ [0032], 101 is a turbojet engine) comprising a fuel supply system (bottom portion of Fig. 1 comprising fuel pump 201 and fuel tank 202), wherein a peak pressure of the fuel is at least 6900 kPa (via fuel pump 201 – see ¶ [0040], ll. 1-2: “the fuel is pumped at a pressure of 200 bar during a Mach 5 cruise”. Note that 200 bar is equivalent to 20000 kPa).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Crowley, in view of Jones and Suggs, by providing a pump capable of operating at 200 bar, because it has been held that combining prior art elements (in this case, Crowley’s fuel supply system with Razak’s pump that is capable of operating at 200 bar) according to known methods (fuel supply systems are known to include fuel pumps, as shown by Crowley and Razak) to yield predictable results (in this case, to provide a pump capable of operating at up to 200 bar) was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007), MPEP 2143 (I) (A).therefore providing:
the fuel supply system (Crowley, 60) is arranged such that a peak differential pressure of the fuel across the at least one fueldraulic actuator (Crowley, 62F) during take-off (intended use) is at least 6900 kPa (per Razak’s teaching of operating the fuel pump at 200 bar).
Regarding claim 6, Crowley, in view of Jones and Suggs, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, except for (*NOTE 2 on page 10 would also apply in this case) the fuel supply system is arranged such that the peak differential pressure of the fuel across the at least one fueldraulic actuator during take-off is at least 7000 kPa.
Razak teaches (Fig. 2) a similar gas turbine engine (101) for an aircraft (per ¶ [0032], 101 is a turbojet engine) comprising a fuel supply system (bottom portion of Fig. 1 comprising fuel pump 201 and fuel tank 202), wherein a peak pressure of the fuel is at least 7000 kPa (via fuel pump 201 – see ¶ [0040], ll. 1-2: “the fuel is pumped at a pressure of 200 bar during a Mach 5 cruise”. Note that 200 bar is equivalent to 20000 kPa).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Crowley, in view of Jones and Suggs, by providing a pump capable of operating at 200 bar, because it has been held that combining prior art elements (in this case, Crowley’s fuel supply system with Razak’s pump that is capable of operating at 200 bar) according to known methods (fuel supply systems are known to include fuel pumps, as shown by Crowley and Razak) to yield predictable results (in this case, to provide a pump capable of operating at up to 200 bar) was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007), MPEP 2143 (I) (A).therefore providing:
the fuel supply system (Crowley, 60) is arranged such that a peak differential pressure of the fuel across the at least one fueldraulic actuator (Crowley, 62F) during take-off (intended use) is at least 7000 kPa (per Razak’s teaching of operating the fuel pump at 200 bar).
Regarding claim 7, Crowley, in view of Jones and Suggs, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, except for (*NOTE 2 on page 10 would also apply in this case) the fuel supply system is arranged such that the peak differential pressure of the fuel across the at least one fueldraulic actuator during take-off is at least 8000 kPa.
Razak teaches (Fig. 2) a similar gas turbine engine (101) for an aircraft (per ¶ [0032], 101 is a turbojet engine) comprising a fuel supply system (bottom portion of Fig. 1 comprising fuel pump 201 and fuel tank 202), wherein a peak pressure of the fuel is at least 8000 kPa (via fuel pump 201 – see ¶ [0040], ll. 1-2: “the fuel is pumped at a pressure of 200 bar during a Mach 5 cruise”. Note that 200 bar is equivalent to 20000 kPa).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Crowley, in view of Jones and Suggs, by providing a pump capable of operating at 200 bar, because it has been held that combining prior art elements (in this case, Crowley’s fuel supply system with Razak’s pump that is capable of operating at 200 bar) according to known methods (fuel supply systems are known to include fuel pumps, as shown by Crowley and Razak) to yield predictable results (in this case, to provide a pump capable of operating at up to 200 bar) was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007), MPEP 2143 (I) (A).therefore providing:
the fuel supply system (Crowley, 60) is arranged such that a peak differential pressure of the fuel across the at least one fueldraulic actuator (Crowley, 62F) during take-off (intended use) is at least 8000 kPa (per Razak’s teaching of operating the fuel pump at 200 bar).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20 are allowed, provided they are rewritten to overcome the claim objections listed above.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding independent claim 18, the prior art of record does not teach, in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim, a method comprising: “supplying, using the fuel supply system, fuel comprising at least 25% SAF by volume to fueldraulically drive at least one actuator of the plurality of actuators such that a peak differential pressure of the fuel across the at least one fueldraulic actuator during cruise conditions is at least 2400 kPa”.
The closest prior art references that could be found for the limitations of independent claim 18 are Crowley (US 2017/0321608 A1) and Foster (US 2012/0324859 A1).
Crowley (Fig. 2) and Foster (Fig. 2) each teach a fuel supply system and using fuel from the fuel supply system to fueldraulically drive at least one actuator (Crowley, 62F; Foster, 68). However, Crowley and Foster do not teach fueldraulically driving the at least one actuator using fuel comprising at least 25% SAF by volume. Additionally, Crowley and Foster do not teach fueldraulically driving the at least one actuator at a peak differential pressure of at least 2400 kPa during cruise conditions.
While other prior art references may teach using SAF, they do not teach using SAF to fueldraulically drive an actuator. While other prior art references may teach a fuel pump capable of operating at a pressure of at least 2400 kPa, they do not teach using this fuel pump to pump SAF fuel to fueldraulically drive an actuator at a pressure of at least 2400 kPa during cruise conditions.
Claims 19-20 are allowed by virtue of dependence upon allowable claim 18.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: see attached form PTO-892 “Notice of References Cited”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY NG whose telephone number is (571)272-2318. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM.
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.
/HENRY NG/ /GERALD L SUNG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741 Examiner, Art Unit 3741