DETAILED ACTION
Status
Claims 1, 3, and 6-20 are pending. Claims 1, 3 and 6-10 are amended. Claims 2 and 4-5 are cancelled. Claims 11-20 remain withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Uskert ‘157 in view of Freeman and Hearon fails to teach “wherein the cooling passage in the fibrous core are located in a radial direction from a root of the airfoil and terminate at a leading edge of the airfoil or at a trailing edge of the airfoil”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Uskert teaches wherein the cooling passages in the fibrous core (110) are located in a radial direction from a root (130,144; Fig 7) of the airfoil (fig 6-7, air enters at 120 flow radially and exits at 122) and terminate at a leading edge of the airfoil or at a trailing edge of the airfoil (visually apparent from Fig 2, 4, 5, 6 at least some of the exits 122 are located at the trailing and leading edges). Some of the limitations added to claim 1 were previously
addressed in the rejection of record for original claims 3-4.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uskert et al. (US 9739157) in view of Freeman et al. (US 20180171806) and in further view of Hearon et al. (US 20210276077), hereinafter: “Uskert ‘157”, “Freeman” and “Hearon”, respectively.
In Reference to Claim 1
Uskert ‘157 teaches:
An airfoil(100; Col 3, ll. 30-42) having a fibrous core(102, 110; Col 3, ll. 30-42; Col 2, ll. 55-64) and a ceramic matrix composite shell(112; Col 3, ll. 49-67) surrounding at least a portion of the fibrous core(Fig 2), wherein the ceramic matrix composite shell includes at least one material selected from the group comprising glass, carbon, aramid, ceramic oxide, ceramic nitride, and ceramic carbide(Col 7, ln. 10-17).
wherein the fibrous core has a three dimensional braided structure(“three-dimensional fabrics”; Col 2, ll. 55-64) having ceramic fibers(“ceramic fibers”; Col 2, ll. 55-64) and cooling passages(110) within the three dimension braided structure of the fibrous core(110 is interpreted to be part of the core and is “a cooling fluid network…”to provide cooling fluid to cool the airfoil 100”; Col 3, ll. 37-38), the cooling passages three dimensionally positioned proximal to the ceramic fibers of the three dimension braided structure(the cooling passages 110 are three-dimensional and exist in three-dimensional space and as such are three dimensionally positioned proximal to the ceramic fibers of the core); and
wherein the fibrous core has a porosity greater than the porosity of the ceramic matrix composite shell(at least a portion of the core has a porosity of >75%; Col 3, ll. 9-30, which is greater than at least a portion of the ceramic matrix composite shell which is impervious to airflow(Col 7, ll. 10-11), hence the shell has a porosity of 0%);
wherein the cooling passages in the fibrous core (110) are located in a radial direction from a root (130,144; Fig 7) of the airfoil (fig 6-7, air enters at 120 flow radially and exits at 122) and terminate at a leading edge of the airfoil or at a trailing edge of the airfoil (visually apparent from Fig 2, 4, 5, 6 at least some of the exits 122 are located at the trailing and leading edges).
Uskert ‘157 fails to teach:
the ceramic matrix composite shell includes zinc oxide (ZnO2), molybdenum disulfide (MoS2), or combinations thereof and
the cooling passages three dimensionally positioned and interwoven with the ceramic fibers of the three dimensional braided structure
Freeman teaches:
A ceramic matrix composite turbine blade(10) having a preform(18) and ceramic matrix material(19), the preform having a three dimension braided structure made from ceramic fibers(P[0022]) and cooling passages(50) that are three dimensionally positioned and interwoven with the ceramic fibers of the three dimensional braided structure(the cooling cavities are formed during the three-dimensional preforming process by selectively arranging the fibers to form cooling cavities in such a way that some of the fibers are arranged to extend into the cooling cavity to cause the cooling air to swirl and induce turbulence such that the resulting structure is a cooling passage interwoven with the ceramic fibers of the preform; P[0034], P[0035])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Uskert ‘157 to incorporate the teachings of Freeman to interweave the cooling passages among the ceramic fibers to induce turbulence, thereby maximizing heat transfer(P[0035]).
Uskert ‘157 in view of Freeman fails to teach:
the ceramic matrix composite shell includes zinc oxide (ZnO2), molybdenum disulfide (MoS2), or combinations thereof
Hearon teaches:
A ceramic matrix composite for a turbine blade(P[0403]) having a composite body made from molybdenum(P[0414]), also having an injection molding assembly filled with molybdenum disulfide(P[0199]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Uskert ‘157 in view of Freeman to use molybdenum disulfide, a known material used in the manufacture of turbine blades, to construct the ceramic composite shell to be able to tune the modulus, strength and/or dielectric constant of the blade(P[0199]).
Furthermore, as Hearon teaches that the use of molybdenum disulfide is a known material suitable for use in the construction of ceramic composite blades in gas turbine engines, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected boron molybdenum disulfide because it is merely the selection of an art known material suitable for use in the construction of ceramic composite shells for blades in gas turbine engines.
In further support of this position, the selection of a known material to construct a ceramic matrix composite shell before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was held to be obvious. See In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)
Examiner’s Note
Unless otherwise noted below, all citations are to the Uskert ‘157 reference.
In Reference to Claim 3
Uskert ‘157 in view of Freeman in further view of Hearon teaches:
The airfoil of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the airfoil has a root(130,144; Fig 7) and the core has cooling passages in the root(110a provides cooling passages in portion 130 of the root).
In Reference to Claim 6
Uskert ‘157 in view of Freeman in further view of Hearon teaches:
The airfoil of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the ceramic fibers of the three dimensional braided structure provide torsional and radial stiffness to the ceramic matrix component(since Uskert teaches ceramic fibers that are part of a three dimension braided structure, the ceramic fibers merely as a result of their presence in the three dimensional braided structure, must provide at least some torsional and radial stiffness, no matter their arrangement and/or configuration. Furthermore, Freeman explicitly teaches modifying the number of axial, circumferential, and/or radial fibers to affect stiffness, see P[0029]-[0033] of Freeman), and the cooling passages within the three dimensional braided structure of the fibrous core also provide for cooling of the ceramic matrix component(Col 3, ll. 37-38; P[0034], [0035] of Freeman).
In Reference to Claim 7
Uskert ‘157 in view of Freeman in further view of Hearon teaches:
The airfoil of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the cooling passages within the three dimensional braided structure of the fibrous core connect to passages(122) in the ceramic matrix composite shell(clearly shown in Fig 6-7).
Freeman additionally teaches it is known to formed cooling passage by machining(P[0056]).
Furthermore, the limitation “machined passages” is a product-by-process limitation.
Regarding the limitation "machined passages” above, in accordance with MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product (in this case the passages), does not depend on its method of production (i.e. machining), In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985). Further, where a product by process claim is rejected over a prior art product that appears to be identical, although produced by a different process, the burden is upon the applicants to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the two. See In re Maoris, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
Additionally, it has been held in re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972). “[I]t is the patentability of the product claimed (in this case the passages) and not of the recited process steps (in this case obtained by machining) which must be established. We are therefore of the opinion that when the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith.” (see MPEP 2113).
In Reference to Claim 8
Uskert ‘157 in view of Freeman in further view of Hearon teaches:
The airfoil of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the fibrous core further comprises a ceramic foam(Col 3, ll. 9-48).
In Reference to Claim 9
Uskert ‘157 in view of Freeman in further view of Hearon teaches:
The airfoil of claim 8(see rejection of claim 8 above), wherein the ceramic foam is present at a leading edge, a trailing edge or both(both as shown in Fig 6).
In Reference to Claim 10
Uskert ‘157 in view of Freeman in further view of Hearon teaches:
The airfoil of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the component is a vane, blade, or vanes(Col 4, ll. 41-43).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN P WOLCOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-9837. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached on (571) 270-1775. 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.
/BRIAN P WOLCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights