DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the Patent Application filed 11/18/2025 wherein claims 3-5, 12-14 are canceled, and claims 1-2, 6-11, and 15-26 are presented for examination.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-2, 6-11, 15-17, and 24-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/9/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention II (Claims 18-23) in the reply filed on 6/9/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that no search burden exits and the search of the two groups largely overlap. This is not found persuasive because the divergent classification between the two groups discussed in the previous office action includes over thirty thousand patent documents that do not overlap (see the number below of hits for prior art documents classified in F01D15/10 which are not found in F05D2230/60).
PNG
media_image1.png
168
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 18-23 are examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “mating causes protrusions on the ring to mate with the first section to secure the ring to the first section against rotation” (Claim 23) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 18 and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“nose cone” (Claim 18, line 4) is believed to be in error for - - nosecone - -;
“wherein: ring” (Claim 22, lines 1-2) is believed to be in error for - - wherein: the ring - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the engine" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "said struts" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 is rejected for the same reasons discussed above due to its dependency to claim 20.
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.
Claims 18, 19, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Little (US 2016/0195015) in view of Millier et al. (US 2022/0403751) and Benevent et al. (FR 3120906 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 18, Little teaches (Figures 1-10) a method for assembling a centerbody (see Figures 2-6), the method comprising:
providing a first section (7) of the centerbody (7, 12, 10);
mating a ring (12) to a forward end (at 38; see Figure 4) of the first section (7);
attaching a nose cone (10) to the first section (7) to axially retain the ring (12) to the first section (7); and
installing a threaded fastener (44; see Figures 5-6 and Paragraph 0022) to secure a strut (8) to the ring (12) and lock the nosecone (10) against rotation (see Figures 3-6).
Little does not teach inserting a generator into a first section of the centerbody, that attaching the nose cone to the first section includes threading the nose cone to the first section, or locking the nosecone against unthreading rotation.
Millier teaches (Figures 1-7) a generator (70a, 70b) that is inserted into a first section (within 76) of a centerbody (see Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Little to have a generator inserted into a first section of the centerbody, as taught by Millier, in order to produce electrical energy from mechanical energy (Paragraphs 0006-0007 of Millier). Little in view of Millier does not teach that attaching the nose cone to the first section includes threading the nose cone to the first section, or locking the nosecone against unthreading rotation.
Benevent teaches (Figures 1-12) attaching a nose cone (32) to a first section (41,42) by threading (at 34 and 42b; see Figure 5 and claim 6) the nose cone (32) to the first section (41, 42). Benevent also teaches (Figures 1-12) locking the nose cone (32) against unthreading rotation (via 62; see Figure 5 and claims 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Little in view of Millier to attach the nose cone to the first section by threading the nose cone to the first section and locking the nosecone against unthreading rotation, as taught by Benevent, in order to lock the upstream cone to a support shroud (Paragraph 0035 of Benevent). It is further noted that a simple substitution of one known element (in this case, two pieces joined together by bolts) for another (in this case, two pieces threaded together) to obtain predictable results (in this case, connecting two pieces together) was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421, 82 USPQ2d at 1396, MPEP 2141 III B.
Regarding Claim 19, Little in view of Millier and Benevent teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Little in view of Millier and Benevent does not teach, as discussed so far, coupling a rotor of the generator to a fan hub for driving the rotor.
Millier teaches (Figures 1-7) coupling a rotor (70a) of the generator (70a, 70b) to a fan hub (via 72; see Figure 3) for driving the rotor (70a)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Little in view of Millier and Benevent to couple a rotor of the generator to a fan hub for driving the rotor, as taught by Millier, in order to produce electrical energy from mechanical energy (Paragraphs 0006-0007 of Millier).
Regarding Claim 22, Little in view of Millier and Benevent teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Little further teaches (Figures 1-10) wherein: ring (12) has a circumferential array of holes (34; see Figures 4-7); and the installing causes the threaded fastener (44) to be received in one of the holes (34; see Figures 4-7).
Regarding Claim 23, Little in view of Millier and Benevent teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Little further teaches (Figures 1-10) wherein: the mating causes protrusions (30, 28) on the ring (12) to mate with the first section (7) to secure the ring (12) to the first section (7) against rotation (see Figures 4-7).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Little (US 2016/0195015) in view of Millier et al. (US 2022/0403751) and Benevent et al. (FR 3120906 A1) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Yao (US 2018/0045205).
Regarding Claim 20, Little in view of Millier and Benevent teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Little further teaches (Figures 1-10) wherein the engine (2) has a strut (8) and the installing is of a respective threaded fastener (44; see Figures 5-6 and Paragraph 0022) to secure the strut (8) to the ring (12) and lock the nosecone (10) against unthreading rotation (see Figures 4-7). Little in view of Millier and Benevent does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein: the engine has at least three said struts.
Yao teaches (Figures 1-10) an engine (20) having at least three struts (308; see Paragraphs 0044-0045).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Little in view of Millier and Benevent to have at least three said struts, as taught by Yao, in order to reduce the swirl distortion of the engine (Paragraphs 0006, 0044, and 0045 of Yao).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Little (US 2016/0195015) in view of Millier et al. (US 2022/0403751), Benevent et al. (FR 3120906 A1), and Yao (US 2018/0045205) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Banham et al. (US 2021/0017879).
Regarding Claim 21, Little in view of Millier, Benevent, and Yao teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Little in view of Millier, Benevent, and Yao does not teach, as discussed so far, for at least one of the struts, radially inserting the strut through a case so as to receive wiring from the generator.
Banham teaches (Figures 1-4) for at least one strut (42), radially inserting the strut (42) through a case (54) so as to receive wiring (44) from a generator (32).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Little in view of Millier, Benevent, and Yao to radially insert at least one of the struts through a case so as to receive wiring from the generator, as taught by Banham, in order to communicate the entire amount of electrical power required for communication with the motor-generator in all modes and/or electrical loadings and to reduce disturbances to the aerodynamic path while providing ease of access for electrical cabling (Paragraph 0025 of Banham).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS P BURKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5407. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at (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 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.
/THOMAS P BURKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights