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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 13 August 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 12-16, and 20 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 30 October 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 20180023398 to Jones et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lee et al. (US 20220127963).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of Claims above have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (hereafter Jones – US 20180023398) in view of Lee et al. (hereafter Lee – US 20220127963).
Claim 1 recites “a turbine nozzle or blade.” Jones teaches such a turbine nozzle or blade, as will be shown.
Jones teaches (Figs. 4A-8) a turbine nozzle or blade, comprising:
an airfoil body 202 defined by a concave pressure side outer wall 204 and a convex suction side outer wall 206 that connect along leading 208 and trailing edges 210 and, therebetween, form a radially extending chamber 212, the airfoil body having an inner surface 222 facing the radially extending chamber; and
an impingement cooling structure 260 within the radially extending chamber, the impingement cooling structure including:
a wall 266 spaced from the inner surface of the airfoil body;
a plurality of holes 262 defined through the wall; and
a plurality of elongated thermal flex elements (the corrugated surfaces of wall 266, see Fig. 6A, 6B, para. 0039) defined in the wall,
wherein the airfoil body and the impingement cooling structure include a plurality of integral material layers (para. 0042).
However, Jones does not teach wherein each elongated thermal flex element includes a curved portion that protrudes towards the radially extending chamber relative to the wall.
Lee teaches (Figs. 3-9) a turbine nozzle or blade (para. 0032, 0089) having a plurality of elongated thermal flex elements (protrusions of wall 310) wherein each elongated thermal flex element includes a curved portion (see Figs. 5-9) that protrudes towards the radially extending chamber relative to the wall 320.
Lee further teaches such a curved portion that protrudes towards the radially extending chamber relative to the wall results in reducing the disturbance of the impingement jets and providing a uniform heat transfer distribution in the flow channel (para. 0077).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Lee to the turbine nozzle or blade of Jones to have each elongated thermal flex element includes a curved portion that protrudes towards the radially extending chamber relative to the wall, as both references and Applicant’s invention are directed to turbine nozzles or blades. Doing so would result in improved heat transfer, as recognized by Lee.
Regarding Claim 2, Jones, as modified with Lee above, teaches (Jones Figs. 4A-8) the turbine nozzle or blade of claim 1, wherein each elongated thermal flex element of the the plurality of elongated thermal flex elements extend in a direction perpendicular to a radial length of the impingement cooling structure (Fig. 6A).
Regarding Claim 3, Jones, as modified with Lee above, teaches (Jones Figs. 4A-8) the turbine nozzle or blade of claim 1, wherein each elongated thermal flex element of the plurality of elongated thermal flex elements extend in a direction at an angle in a range of 30° to 60° to a radial length of the impingement cooling structure (see Fig. 6A, 6B some portion of thermal flex elements, or corrugated surfaces of 266, extends at an angle in a range of 30° to 60° to a radial length of the impingement cooling structure).
Regarding Claim 4, Jones, as modified with Lee above, teaches (Jones Figs. 4A-8) the turbine nozzle or blade of claim 3, wherein each elongated thermal flex element of the plurality of elongated thermal flex elements extend in a direction at an angle of about 45° to the radial length of the impingement cooling structure (see Fig. 6A, 6B some portion of thermal flex elements, or corrugated surfaces of 266, extends at an angle of about 45° to the radial length of the impingement cooling structure to a radial length of the impingement cooling structure).
Regarding Claim 5, Jones, as modified with Lee above, teaches (Jones Figs. 4A-8) the turbine nozzle or blade of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of support members 272 spacing the wall from the inner surface of the airfoil body, wherein the plurality of support members is located between the plurality of elongated thermal flex elements.
Regarding Claim 6, Jones, as modified with Lee above, teaches (Jones Figs. 4A-8) the turbine nozzle or blade of claim 5, wherein the plurality of elongated thermal flex elements includes more than one elongated thermal flex element between adjacent rows of the plurality of support members (see Fig. 6B).
Regarding Claim 7, Jones, as modified with Lee above, teaches (Jones Figs. 4A-8) the turbine nozzle or blade of claim 1, wherein the plurality of elongated thermal flex elements each have a C-shape cross-section (see Fig. 6B).
Regarding Claim 8, Jones, as modified with Lee above, teaches (Jones Figs. 4A-8) the turbine nozzle or blade of claim 1, wherein the plurality of elongated thermal flex elements each have one of: a symmetrical V-shaped cross-section, an asymmetrical V-shaped cross-section, a rounded corner U-shape cross-section and a squared corner U-shape cross-section (see Fig. 6B).
Regarding Claim 9, Jones teaches (Figs. 4A-8, 10) the turbine nozzle or blade of claim 1, wherein the plurality of elongated thermal flex elements each have a double cupped cross-section (see Fig. 10 and para. 0036).
Regarding Claim 10, Jones, as modified with Lee above, teaches (Jones Figs. 4A-8) the turbine nozzle or blade of claim 1, wherein the impingement cooling structure is integral with the airfoil body at respective first ends thereof (by supports 272, see Figs. 6A-8).
Regarding Claim 11, Jones, as modified with Lee above, teaches (Jones Figs. 4A-8) the turbine nozzle or blade of claim 10, further comprising a curved thermal flex connector (272) coupling the respective first ends of the impingement cooling structure and the airfoil body (see Fig. 8).
Claim 12 recites a gas turbine having the same features of Claim 1 which are rejected for the same reasons over Jones.
However, Jones does not teach wherein each elongated thermal flex element includes a portion that is non-parallel to a corresponding portion of the inner surface of the airfoil body.
Lee teaches (Figs. 3-9) a turbine nozzle or blade (para. 0032, 0089) having each elongated thermal flex element (protrusions of wall 310) includes a portion that is non-parallel to a corresponding portion of the inner surface of the airfoil body (see Figs. 5-9).
Lee further teaches such a portion that is non-parallel to a corresponding portion of the inner surface of the airfoil body results in reducing the disturbance of the impingement jets and providing a uniform heat transfer distribution in the flow channel (para. 0077).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Lee to the turbine nozzle or blade of Jones to have each elongated thermal flex element includes a portion that is non-parallel to a corresponding portion of the inner surface of the airfoil body, as both references and Applicant’s invention are directed to turbine nozzles or blades. Doing so would result in improved heat transfer, as recognized by Lee.
Claim 13 recites the same features of Claim 2 which are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 14 recites the same features of Claim 3 which are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 15 recites the same features of Claim 4 which are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 16 recites the same features of Claim 5 which are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 17 recites the same features of Claim 6 which are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 18 recites the same features of Claim 8 which are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 19 recites the same features of Claims 10 and 11 which are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 20 recites a method having the same features of Claim 12 which are rejected for the same reasons.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW BUI whose telephone number is (571) 272-0685. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Courtney Heinle can be reached on (571) 270-3508. 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).
/ANDREW THANH BUI/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745