DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the application filed on 08/06/2025. Claims 1, 3-13, 15-18 are pending.
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection on 03/30/2026. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/26/2026 has been entered.
Prior Art Relied Upon
This action references the following issued US Patents and/or Patent Application Publications:
US PATENT or PUBLICATION NUMBER
HEREINAFTER
US-3900274-A
“JOHNSTON”
US-20230399983-A1
“GANIGER”
US-20190165708-A1
“SMITH”
US-20220049648-A1
“HUGHES”
US-20190002115-A1
“MILLER”
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 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 1, 3, 5-13, 15, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JOHNSTON in view of GANIGER and/or SMITH. Hereafter JOHNSTON in view of GANIGER/SMITH is referred to as “JOHNSTON as modified”).
PNG
media_image1.png
493
1087
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
825
1003
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re Claims 1 and 13, JOHNSTON teaches a turbine engine 10 and airframe comprising the engine which is a first gas turbine engine (3:1-12), the gas turbine engine comprising:
a core section [gas generator section including inter alia 14, 18, 22, 24] receiving a core fluid flow, the core section comprising one or more compressors 18 and at least one turbine 14 that both rotate about a longitudinal axis of the turbine engine;
a core vane assembly [assembly at compressor inlet including inter alia at least inlet vanes with one annotated “core vane” in Image 1 and fairing 38; additional elements which may be included in the assembly discussed in relevant claims below] coupled to the core section, wherein the core vane assembly comprises a vane [one annotated “core vane” in Image 1] configured to modify the core fluid flow (Figure 1; see further discussion below);
a fan 34 connected to the core section and configured to be rotated by the at least one turbine, rotation of the fan providing thrust to a vehicle [aircraft] that includes the turbine engine;
a splitter ring [annotated in Image 1] that bifurcates a flow from the fan into the core fluid flow and a bypass airflow that passes into a bypass duct 44;
an electrical generator [including inter alia 62, 64; 88, 90; 86] integrated into the core vane assembly and positioned in the core section aft of the fan and fore of a most upstream stage of all the one or more compressors (Figure 1, 4:42-49),
the electrical generator being connected to a first shaft [LP shaft 56] (Figure 2; via “linkage” in Image 2); and
wherein the electrical generator further comprises:
a rotor [88, 90] including an armature [92, 94] mechanically rotated via a linkage [annotated in Image 2], the linkage having:
a first end fixed to the armature of the electrical generator (Image 2), a second end fixed to the first shaft (see Image 2), such that the fan rotates at a first rate relative to the first shaft and the rotor of the electrical generator rotates at a same rate as the first shaft (3:13-50),
wherein the rotor rotates about the longitudinal axis (Figs. 1-3, 3:37-50); and
a stator [62, 64] (3:13-20).
However, JOHNSTON fails to expressly teach the core vane is a plurality of core vanes.
One of ordinary skill would have understood from the partial cross-section of Figure 1 of JOHNSTON that the core vane annotated in Image 1, is one of a set of multiple vanes which guide flow through the inlet to gas generator which are spaced about the inlet, as this is a conventional feature of a turbofan engine. "[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). Furthermore, providing the engine such that the core vane at the inlet to the gas turbine engine is one of a core vane [annotated “core vane” in Image 1] is a plurality of such core vanes configured to modify the core fluid flow would be a predictable use of the same and would not produce unexpected result, according to their established functions (guiding inlet flow). It has been held that the duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP § 2144.04 VI (B). However, JOHNSTON fails to teach a gearbox connected to the first shaft and the fan such that the fan rotates at a different rate than the first shaft and such that the rotor of the electrical generator rotates at a different rate from the fan.
GANIGER teaches a gearbox 46 and a linkage between a first end (rotor end) and a second end (shaft end) such that a rotor 53 of an electrical generator 48 (connected to a ring gear, ¶¶0024-0026) rotates at a different rate from a fan (¶0023). See also Figure 1, ¶¶0029—0032 and abstract. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the engine/airframe of JOHNSTON such that it includes a gearbox connected to the first shaft and the fan such that the fan rotates at a different rate than the first shaft and such that the rotor of the electrical generator rotates at a different rate from the fan and at t same rate as the first shaft, in order to utilize AC power generated to supplement and vary speed and torques of the engine spools for optimal operations (GANIGER ¶¶0023-0026; JOHNSTON 5:51-62).
Additionally, and/or alternatively to GANIGER, SMITH also teaches providing a gearbox connected to a first shaft (LP shaft) and a fan such that the fan rotates at a different rate than the first shaft (¶0035, 0063) and such that a rotor of an electrical generator 100 rotates at a different rate from the fan (generator attached to LP spool, fan driven at lower rate; 0035, ¶¶0038-0042). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the engine/airframe of JOHNSTON (or JOHNSTON in view of GANIGER) such that it includes a gearbox connected to the first shaft and the fan such that the fan rotates at a different rate than the first shaft and such that the rotor of the electrical generator rotates at a different rate from the fan and at t same rate as the first shaft, in order to optimize respective spool/component speeds to increase power plant efficiency (SMITH ¶0063).
Further, based on the combined teachings of GANIGER/SMITH one of ordinary skill would have appreciated that use of a gearbox between respective components is predictable and facilitates optimization of individual component speeds yielding increased overall efficiency. As such, same amounts to use of a known technique (in the instant case, gearbox) to improve a similar device (fan, turbine, generator), in the same way (providing desired speed ratio), to yield predictable results to a person skilled in the art (increased efficiencies) would have been 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). See MPEP § 2143 (I) C.
Re Claims 3 and 15, JOHNSTON as modified teaches the turbine engine of claim 1 and airframe of claim 13. JOHNSTON further teaches wherein the stator of the electrical generator is fixed to an inner hub [annotated “AA” in Image 2] of the core vane assembly (See Image 2). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the prior art making the stator integral with the inner hub to perform equally well as if the stator and hub were in two separate pieces, both would perform the same function. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the engine wherein the stator of the electrical generator is integral to the inner hub of the core vane assembly since it has been held that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). See MPEP § 2144.04 IV (B).
Re Claims 5 and 17, JOHNSTON as modified teaches the turbine engine of claim 1 and airframe of claim 13. JOHNSTON further teaches wherein the stator of the electrical generator comprises one or more windings [62, 64] that are mechanically supported by a frame [frame with components annotated “AA” & “BB” in Image 2], and wherein the frame is integrated into an inner hub 29 of the core vane assembly.
Re Claim 6, JOHNSTON as modified teaches the turbine engine of claim 5. JOHNSTON further teaches wherein the inner hub of the core vane assembly is profiled to form the frame (See Figure 2, Image 2).
Re Claim 7, JOHNSTON as modified teaches the turbine engine of claim 5. JOHNSTON further teaches wherein the frame is a discrete component that is directly attached to the inner hub (at “CC” in Image 2).
Re Claim 8, JOHNSTON as modified teaches the turbine engine of claim 1. JOHNSTON further teaches wherein the core vane assembly (where core vane assembly consists only of: vanes annotated “vane” in Image 1, fairing 38 and generator integrated therein but does not include frame 29 and bearing 58) is non-structural (when formed by the above elements, the core vane assembly is not used to transfer mechanical loads to the core section of turbine engine). See Figures 1-2.
Re Claim 9, JOHNSTON as modified teaches the turbine engine of claim 1. JOHNSTON further teaches wherein the core vane assembly is structural (where core vane assembly consists of: vanes annotated “vane” in Image 1, fairing 38, frame 29 & bearing 58 and generator integrated therein,) it is structural (when formed by the above elements, the core vane assembly is used to transfer mechanical loads to the core section of turbine engine via the frame 29 and bearing 58). See Figures 1-2.
Re Claim 10, JOHNSTON as modified teaches the turbine engine of claim 1. JOHNSTON further teaches wherein the core vane assembly includes conductors 96 configured to carry electrical power generated by the electrical generator (JOHNSTON 3:47-50).
Re Claim 11, JOHNSTON as modified teaches turbine engine of claim 1, wherein the electrical generator is concentrically located with the longitudinal axis, but fails to expressly teach the plurality of core vanes are also concentric with the longitudinal axis (though implicit).
GANIGER further teaches a generator 48 and plurality of core vanes 25 concentric with one another and a longitudinal axis 12 (Fig. 1, ¶¶0029-0031). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the engine wherein the generator is concentrically located with the plurality of core vanes, in order to control flow into the compressor inlet extending concentrically about the engine centerline, using inlet guide vanes arranged about the inlet (GANIGER ¶¶0025, 0029).
Re Claim 12 JOHNSTON as modified teaches the turbine engine of claim 1. JOHNSTON further teaches wherein the electrical generator is not axially overlapping with any of the one or more compressors (JOHNSTON Figs. 1-2).
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JOHNSTON in view GANIGER and/or SMITH as applied above, further in view of HUGHES.
Re Claims 4 and 16, JOHNSTON as modified teaches the turbine engine of claim 3 and airframe of claim 15, but as discussed so far fails to expressly teach wherein the core vane assembly radiates heat emitted by the electrical generator into the core fluid flow. The recited limitation “radiates heat emitted by the electrical generator into the core fluid flow” is a functional recitation and is accorded little patentable weight because it does not distinguish the claimed invention in terms of structure. See MPEP § 2114.
HUGHES teaches a core vane assembly having struts that radiates heat emitted by an electrical generator into a core fluid flow (¶0044, by positioning radial electrical conductors 173 of the generator 250 within the core vane assembly permitting conductive cooling of the conductors by air passed over the core vane assembly). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the core vane assembly radiates heat emitted by the electrical generator into the core fluid flow, to provide a safe path for electricity generated by the generator (HUGUES, ¶0044). Further, it is noted that in JOHNSTON given the proximity of the core vane assembly, the electrical generator and core fluid flow, the core vane assembly is configured such that it would radiate at least some heat emitted by the electrical generator into the core fluid flow (see Figs. 1-3).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JOHNSTON in view GANIGER and/or SMITH as applied above, further in view MILLER.
Re Claim 18, JOHNSTON as modified teaches the airframe of claim 13 including a load 98 that receives electrical energy (JOHNSTON 5:51-62), but fails to teach the airframe further comprising: a second turbine engine of the or more turbine engines and the load receives electrical energy produced by electrical generators of the one or more turbine engines.
MILLER teaches an airframe 300 (Figs. 9) having a second turbine engine 362 of one or more turbine engines (Fig. 10, ¶¶0093-0094); and a load that receives electrical energy produced by electrical generators of the one or more turbine engines (¶¶0104-0107). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the engine of JOHNSTON such that includes a second turbine engine of the or more turbine engines; and a load that receives electrical energy produced by electrical generators of the one or more turbine engines, to power an aircraft with two engines with supply electrical a load with generators of the engines (JOHNSTON 5:51-62, MILLER ¶¶0093-0094, 0104-0107).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 02/26/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s amendment overcame drawing objections and the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112.
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new prior art rejections set forth above.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON H DUGER whose telephone number is (313) 446-6536. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30a to 4:30p EST Monday & Tuesday and 8:00a to 2:00p Wednesday, and is OFF Thursday and Friday.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian, 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.
JASON H DUGER
PRIMARY EXAMINER, ART UNIT 3741
PHONE (313) 446 6536
FAX (571) 270 9083
DATE
May 02, 2026
/JASON H DUGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights