DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed 2/6/2026 wherein claims 1-9, 14-16, and 21 are canceled and claims 10-13 and 17-21 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 .
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.
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. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/6/2026 has been entered.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: ASSEMBLY FOR A TURBINE ENGINE INCLUDING SURFACE IRREGULARITIES ARRANGED IN THE ANNULAR SPACE BETWEEN A DISTRIBUTOR AND A COMBUSTION CHAMBER.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because it is a dependent claim that does not refer to a preceding claim.
A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim.
A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“reference plane (P2) each pair” (Claim 11, line 22) is believed to be in error for - - reference plane (P2), each pair - -;
“each protruding surface irregularities” (Claim 11, line 24) is believed to be in error for - - each protruding pair of surface irregularities - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claim limitations “means of sealing” in claim 1 use the word “means.” In the instant application, the word “means” has been treated as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Regarding claims 11 and 13, the limitation “means for sealing” has been interpreted as being “sealing strips 17 extending radially and circumferentially along each distributor sector2. Each strip 17 is able to come to bear, in a sealed manner, on a radial face of the corresponding flange 14 of the distributor 2 and on the free end of the axial part 7b of the corresponding flange 6 of the combustion chamber 1. The strips 17 are held in place on the said parts 7b, 14 by means of elastic return means. These elastic means are, for example, helical springs or spring blades 18, attached by means of screws 19 which are screwed into lugs 20 extending radially from the corresponding shroud 11, 12 of the distributor 2” as described on Pages 1-2 of Applicant’s specification.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gautier et al. (FR 2887588 – see IDS filed 7/20/2022) in view of Horiuchi et al. (US 2018/0058234) and Bergholz et al. (US 2017/0335716).
Regarding Independent Claim 13, Gautier teaches (Figures 1-6) an assembly for a turbomachine (see abstract) extending about an axis (annotated below) and comprising:
a combustion chamber (9) comprising, at a downstream end (see Figure 1), a downstream flange (32 or 36) having a radially extending part (shown at 36 in Figures 2-6); and
a distributor (at 40) disposed downstream of (see Figure 1) the combustion chamber (9) and having a platform (see annotation below) from which at least one vane (annotated below) extends radially (see annotation below), each of the at least one vane defining a corresponding median radial plane (see the dashed line extending through the vane in the annotation below) which is parallel to or intersects the axis (annotated below), the platform (annotated below) comprising an upstream rim (at 56) extending radially and delimiting (see Figures 1-6), with the radially extending part (shown schematically at 36, the part extending radially outward from a central axis through the combustion chamber; see Figures 1-6) of the downstream flange (32 or 36), an annular space (at 42) configured for the circulation of cooling air (at 64) opening into the combustion chamber (9) at a radially internal end (the inner end of flange 32 or 36 with respect to an axis through combustion chamber 9; see Figures 1-6) and having, at the radially external end (the outer end of flange 32 or 36 with respect to an axis through combustion chamber 9; see Figures 1-6), means for sealing (50, 60) attached to (via the bolt at 52) the distributor (at 40), the means of sealing (50, 60) extending, firstly, against (at 56; see Figures 1-6) the distributor (at 40) and, secondly, against the downstream flange (32 or 36), wherein the means for sealing (50, 60) close a radially external end (the outer interface between 50 and 36; see Figures 1-2) of the annular space (at 42), wherein the upstream rim (at 56) includes an upstream radially extending face (the wall of 56 facing toward 36; see Figure 2) and the radially extending part of the flange (32 or 36) of the combustion chamber (chamber 9, formed by walls 10 and 12) includes a downstream face (a face of 32 or 36 facing toward 56), wherein each flange (at 36) has at least one orifice (62) for the passage of cooling air (see Figures 4-6), wherein for each orifice (62), a median plane (a plane through a center of 62; see Figures 4-5) passes through said orifice (62). Gautier further teaches that the flow of from the orifice (62) can flow radially internally with respect to an axis of rotation of the turbomachine in Figure 3 and or the flow from the orifice (62) can flow radially externally with respect to an axis of rotation of the turbomachine in Figure 5.
Although Gautier teaches a platform (annotated below) comprising an upstream rim (at 56) and a combustion chamber (9) having a downstream flange (32 or 36) and a seal member (at 50, 60) between the rim (at 56) and the flange (32 or 36) and that the surface of the rim (56) that the compressed air impinges on in an axial direction (see Figures 5-6) from an upstream radially extending face (the surface of 56 facing 36; see Figures 5-6) of an upstream rim (56) of the distributor (40), and orifice (62) is arranged radially internal (see Figure 5) to the surface of the rim (56) that the compressed air is being impinged on (see Figure 5), Gautier does not teach wherein the upstream rim of the distributor or the radially extending part of the flange of the combustion chamber has at least one surface irregularity facing a side of the annular space for the circulation of cooling air, the at least one surface irregularity being formed on the surface of the flange that the compressed air impinges on, wherein each recessed surface irregularity is traversed by a radial reference plane, wherein, for each orifice, a respective recessed surface irregularity situated in the radial reference plane which coincides with the median plane, each orifice being upstream of the respective recessed surface irregularity.
Horiuchi teaches (Figures 1-10) a flange (at 32) in contact with (see Figures 2-10) the seal member (6) includes at least one surface irregularity (the grooves between rib members 24; see Figures 3-4) facing the side of an annular space (the space between 32 and 8, where compressed air is being impinged; see Figure 3) for the circulation of cooling air (see flow arrows L in Figure 3), the at least one surface irregularity (the grooves between rib members 24; see Figures 3-4) being formed by: a recessed surface irregularity (the recess between 24; see Figures 3-4) recessing in a direction from an opening (23) for the flow of compressed air (see Figure 3), wherein each recessed surface irregularity (a groove between protruding members 24, adjacent to the surface irregularity; see Figures 3-4) is traversed by a radial reference plane (annotated below), said radial reference plane (annotated below) being angularly offset, or not (the radial reference plane will necessarily be either angularly offset with the radial plane of the blade or not angularly offset with the radial plane of the blade) with respect to a median radial plane (annotated below) passing through a blade (18) of the distributor (55; see Figure 2) extending from the corresponding platform (17) of the distributor (55), wherein, for each orifice (23), a respective recessed surface irregularity (a groove between protruding members 24) aligned in a radial direction (the groove and orifice being aligned radially and circumferentially such that the air flowing through orifice 23 impinges on groove 21; see Figures 3-4) with the orifice (23) and in the radial reference plane (annotated below, the plane which extends through orifice 23) which coincides with a median plane (a plane extending through orifice 23; see Figures 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gautier to include the at least one surface irregularity facing the side of the annular space for the circulation of air, the said surface irregularity being formed by a recess located proximate to one of the at least one vane and creating a negative pressure zone proximate to the one of the at least one vane, each flange having at least one recessed surface irregularity traversed by a radial reference plane, the said radial reference plane being angularly offset, or not, with respect to a median radial plane passing through a blade of the distributor extending from the corresponding platform of the distributor, wherein, for each orifice, a respective recessed surface irregularity aligned in a radial direction with the orifice and in the radial reference plane which coincides with the median plane, as taught by Horiuchi, in order to improve a heat transfer coefficient of the low-temperature fluid (see Paragraph 0033 of Horiuchi). It is further noted that a patent examiner may rely on "common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference") and In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1383, 1385, 59 USPQ2d 1693 at 1695, 1697 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (clarifying that a factual foundation is needed in order for an examiner to invoke "good common sense" in a case in which "basic knowledge and common sense was not based on any evidence in the record"). The Federal Circuit implicitly acknowledged in Perfect Web that the kind of strict evidence-based teaching, suggestion, or motivation required in In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002), is not an absolute requirement for an obviousness rejection in light of the teachings of KSR. The Federal Circuit explained that "[a]t the time [of the Lee decision], we required the PTO to identify record evidence of a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine references." However, Perfect Web went on to state that even under Lee, common sense could properly be applied when analyzing evidence relevant to obviousness. Citing DyStar Textilfarben GmbH v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 80 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 2006), and In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 78 USPQ2d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2006), two cases decided shortly before the Supreme Court’s decision in KSR, the Federal Circuit noted that although "a reasoned explanation that avoids conclusory generalizations" is required to use common sense, identification of a "specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference" is not. See also B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C&D Zodiac, Inc., 962 F.3d 1373, 1380-81, 2020 USPQ2d 10706 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (stating that "the Board’s invocation of common sense was properly accompanied by reasoned analysis and evidentiary support" to show why it would be obvious to incorporate a second recess to receive an airplane seat support). But see Arendi v. Apple, 832 F.3d 1355, 119 USPQ2d 1822 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding that the Board had not provided a reasoned analysis, supported by the evidence of record, for why "common sense" taught the missing process step). In this case, it would have been common sense to include the recess of Horiuchi in the upstream rim of Gautier located opposite an orifice for the circulation of cooling air to improve heat transfer.
Gautier in view of Horiuchi does not teach that the at least one recessed surface irregularity is formed by a localized recessed zone and has a general shape of a part of a sphere or a shape of a part of a spheroid or ellipsoid of revolution. As discussed above, although Gautier teaches that the flow of from the orifice (62) can flow radially internally with respect to an axis of rotation of the turbomachine in Figure 3 and or the flow from the orifice (62) can flow radially externally with respect to an axis of rotation of the turbomachine in Figure 5, Gautier in view of Horiuchi does not teach wherein a respective recessed surface irregularity is situated downstream of the orifice.
Bergholz teaches (Figures 1-15) recessed surface irregularities (106) that are formed by a localized recessed zone (see Figure 3) and has a general shape of a part of a sphere or a shape of a part of a spheroid or ellipsoid of revolution (see Figures 3, 4, 14 and Paragraph 0064), wherein a respective recessed surface irregularity (106) can be situated either upstream of downstream (see Figure 3) to the orifice (102).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gautier in view of Horiuchi to have at least one recessed surface irregularity is formed by a localized recessed zone and has a general shape of a part of a sphere or a shape of a part of a spheroid or ellipsoid of revolution and to have the recessed surface irregularity is situated downstream of the orifice, as taught by Bergholz, in order to increase the surface area of the cooling surface, thereby allowing more heat to be removed from the engine component and also increase the turbulence to minimize stagnation of the cooling air flow and to lessen the ballistic impact of particles on the cooling surface to lower the probability of particles collecting on the cooling surface (Paragraph 0043 of Bergholz).
It is further noted that the term “proximate” has been interpreted as “very near: close” as provided by Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary.
PNG
media_image1.png
727
898
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
543
765
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
658
894
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 20, Gautier in view of Horiuchi and Bergholz teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Gautier in view of Horiuchi and Bergholz does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein each surface irregularity has a round or oblong shape when viewed along the axis.
Horiuchi teaches (Figures 1-10) wherein each surface irregularity (protrusions 24 and the recesses between protrusions 24) has an oblong shape when viewed along an axis (see Figures 2-4)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gautier in view of Horiuchi and Bergholz to have each surface irregularity have an oblong shape when viewed along the axis, as taught by Horiuchi, for the same reasons discussed above in claim 13.
It is noted that the term “oblong” is interpreted using the dictionary definition “longer than broad; elongated” as provided by Collins English Dictionary.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gautier et al. (FR 2887588 – see IDS filed 7/20/2022) in view of Horiuchi et al. (US 2018/0058234) and Bergholz et al. (US 2017/0335716) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Chila et al. (US 2010/0223931).
Regarding Claim 19, Gautier in view of Horiuchi and Bergholz teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Gautier teaches (Figures 1-6) that a surface (see Figures 3 and 5-6) of the flange (32) and rim (56) that is opposite the orifice for cooling air (at 50, 62) are aligned with a median radial plane of the vane (see Figure 1). Gautier in view of Horiuchi and Bergholz does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the radial reference plane is angularly offset with respect to the median radial plane.
Chila teaches (Figures 1-9B) protruding surface irregularities (72A or 72B; see Figures 6 and 8E), wherein a radial reference plane (a radial plane extending through 72A or a radial plane extending through 72B) is angularly offset (at least one of 72A or 72B would necessarily be angularly offset with a radial plane of the vane due to the radial planes of 72A and 72B being offset with each other; see Figure 8E) with respect to a radial plane corresponding to a vane (a radial plane extending through 60; see Figures 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 Gautier in view of Horiuchi to have the angularly offset radial reference planes, as taught by Chila, in order to force convective heat transfer resulting from the contact between the cooling air and the surface features (Paragraph 0035 of Chila). It is additionally noted that a simple substitution of one known element (in this case, the protrusion shape of Horiuchi) for another (in this case, the protrusion shape of Chila) to obtain predictable results (in this case, to improve heat transfer) was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421, 82 USPQ2d at 1396, MPEP 2141 III B.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 and 17-18 are allowed.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record does not teach, in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim: each pair of protruding surface irregularities being associated with a corresponding vane, wherein the axis of extension of each protruding surface irregularities is at an angle to the radial direction or radial reference plane (P2) so that the two protruding surface irregularities of a pair of protruding surface irregularities situated on either side of the radial reference plane (P2) and the median radial plane (P1) are inclined to each other and to the radial reference plane (P2) and approach each other in the direction of the median radial plane (P1) such that radially external ends of the two protruding surface irregularities approach each other” (Claim 11, lines .
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.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that it would not be common sense to combine the recess of Horiuchi in the upstream rim of Gautier. In response and as discussed in the body of the rejection above, it is noted that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gautier to include the at least one surface irregularity facing the side of the annular space for the circulation of air, the said surface irregularity being formed by a recess located proximate to one of the at least one vane and creating a negative pressure zone proximate to the one of the at least one vane, each flange having at least one recessed surface irregularity traversed by a radial reference plane, the said radial reference plane being angularly offset, or not, with respect to a median radial plane passing through a blade of the distributor extending from the corresponding platform of the distributor, wherein, for each orifice, a respective recessed surface irregularity aligned in a radial direction with the orifice and in the radial reference plane which coincides with the median plane, as taught by Horiuchi, in order to improve a heat transfer coefficient of the low-temperature fluid (see Paragraph 0033 of Horiuchi). It is further noted that a patent examiner may rely on "common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference") and In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1383, 1385, 59 USPQ2d 1693 at 1695, 1697 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (clarifying that a factual foundation is needed in order for an examiner to invoke "good common sense" in a case in which "basic knowledge and common sense was not based on any evidence in the record"). The Federal Circuit implicitly acknowledged in Perfect Web that the kind of strict evidence-based teaching, suggestion, or motivation required in In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002), is not an absolute requirement for an obviousness rejection in light of the teachings of KSR. The Federal Circuit explained that "[a]t the time [of the Lee decision], we required the PTO to identify record evidence of a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine references." However, Perfect Web went on to state that even under Lee, common sense could properly be applied when analyzing evidence relevant to obviousness. Citing DyStar Textilfarben GmbH v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 80 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 2006), and In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 78 USPQ2d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2006), two cases decided shortly before the Supreme Court’s decision in KSR, the Federal Circuit noted that although "a reasoned explanation that avoids conclusory generalizations" is required to use common sense, identification of a "specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference" is not. See also B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C&D Zodiac, Inc., 962 F.3d 1373, 1380-81, 2020 USPQ2d 10706 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (stating that "the Board’s invocation of common sense was properly accompanied by reasoned analysis and evidentiary support" to show why it would be obvious to incorporate a second recess to receive an airplane seat support). But see Arendi v. Apple, 832 F.3d 1355, 119 USPQ2d 1822 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding that the Board had not provided a reasoned analysis, supported by the evidence of record, for why "common sense" taught the missing process step). In this case, it would have been common sense to include the recess of Horiuchi in the upstream rim of Gautier located opposite an orifice for the circulation of cooling air to improve heat transfer.
Applicant additionally argues that the prior art does not teach that the opening is arranged opposite and radially inside a respective recess. In response, it is noted that the proposed combination of Gautier and Horiuchi would necessitate the recess being placed on the opposite surface of the impingement holes where the cooling air is being directed. Gautier teaches that the cooling orifices (62) may be arranged opposite and radially inside the surface that is being impinged with cooling air (see Figure 5 of Gautier). Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are refuted by the prior art.
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 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 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