FINAL ACTION
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 .
This is the fourth office action on the merits. This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 03/02/2026. Applicant has amended claim 1 and cancelled claim 12. Claims 9 and 16-20 remain withdrawn from further consideration. Claims 1-7, 10, 14-15, and 21-22 are pending and examined.
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 1-7, 10, 14-15, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nasr (US 2017/0107834 A1), in view of Barberger (US 2021/0047965 A1) and Tibbott (US 2014/0140860 A1), and as evidenced by Yeager (US 10,047,630 B2: IDS reference).
Regarding claim 1, Nasr teaches (Figs. 4 and 6) an assembly for a turbine engine (10 – Fig. 1), comprising:
a vane array structure including an inner platform (96), an outer platform (98) and a plurality of vanes (72), the inner platform (96) forming an inner peripheral boundary of a flowpath (arrow H – Fig. 2) through the vane array structure, the outer platform (98) forming an outer peripheral boundary of the flowpath (arrow H) through the vane array structure, the plurality of vanes (72) arranged circumferentially about an axis (12 – Fig. 1), each of the plurality of vanes (72) extending radially across the flowpath (arrow H) from the inner platform (96) to the outer platform (98), and the plurality of vanes (72) comprising a first vane (72 as shown in Figs. 4 and 6); and
an air particle separator (120, which comprises 126 and 130) arranged within the first vane (72), an outlet (gap between 126 and 130) of the air particle separator (120) is configured to direct waste air (Fig. 6: 174 and 178 – note that ¶ [0035], ll. 26-29 states that flows 174 and 178 “can still contain an amount of particles that are not carried into the particle collector 130”) to a passage (82) of the first vane (72), a second outlet (112) of the air particle separator (120) and a bearing compartment radially inboard of the vane array structure (inherent in gas turbine engines, as evidenced by Yeager – see Fig. 3A, which shows bearing assembly 60 being radially inboard of vane 46, and col. 1, ll. 50-51: “a bearing compartment disposed radially inward of the inner ring”), the passage (82) of the first vane (72) located between the air particle separator (120) and the flowpath (outside of vane 72), the passage (82) circumscribing the air particle separator (120) from the inner platform (96) to the outer platform (98) – (as shown in Figs. 4 and 6, passage 82 surrounds air particle separator 120 from inner platform 96 to outer platform 98), and a span line (Fig. 4: vertical line in center of internal body 84) of the first vane (72);
the first vane (72) including an interior wall (84) and an exterior wall (wall comprising 104 and 106), the interior wall (84) extending circumferentially around the air particle separator (120) – (as shown in Fig. 4), the exterior wall (104 and 106) extending circumferentially around the air particle separator (120) and the passage (82) – (as shown in Fig. 4, the wall comprising 104 and 106 extends around passage 82, which extends around wall 84, which extends around air particle separator 120), and the exterior wall (104 and 106) forming a lateral peripheral boundary (see Fig. 3: the exterior wall of vane 72, which comprises 104 and 106, forms a lateral peripheral boundary of the flowpath contained between two adjacent vanes 72).
However, Nasr, as evidenced by Yeager, does not teach the second outlet of the air particle separator fluidly coupled with and configured to direct cleaned air to the bearing compartment radially inboard of the vane array structure.
In regards to Nasr’s second outlet 112, it is noted that Nasr further teaches “As the dirty flow 180 moves through the scavenge conduit 132, the 10% cooling fluid is removed through the outlet 106 as a scavenge fluid stream 182 which can be provided for other uses within the engine or the vehicle” (¶ [0035], ll. 22-26).
Barberger teaches “a secondary air system (SAS) for various engine functions and aircraft cabin pressure”, wherein “Main functions of SAS are to provide cooling flow to hot engine components, to seal bearing chambers and to control bearing axial loads” (¶ [0018], ll. 3-7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nasr, as evidenced by Yeager, by fluidly coupling the second outlet of the air particle separator with and configuring it to direct cleaned air to the bearing compartment radially inboard of the vane array structure, in order to provide cooling flow to the hot bearing compartment, to seal the bearing compartment, and to control bearing axial loads, as taught by Barberger (¶ [0018], ll. 4-7).
However, Nasr, in view of Barberger, and as evidenced by Yeager, does not teach the passage of the first vane spirals around the span line of the first vane.
Tibbott teaches (Figures 11 and 12(b)) a similar vane assembly comprising a first vane (31 – Figure 2), wherein a passage (52a) spirals (as evident by helical passages 52a) around a span line (axis A – Figure 11) of the first vane (31). Note that helical passages 52a spiral about pillar 61, which is coaxial with the span line. It is further noted that pillar 61 may act as a “particle separator” by enabling the air flow within the spiral passage 52a to swirl, thereby separating air particles within said spiral passage 52a from one another.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nasr, in view of Barberger, and as evidenced by Yeager, by forming the passage of the first vane to spiral around the span line of the first vane, in order to generate a centrifugal force for driving the coolant outwards and thereby encouraging the flow to remain attached to the walls defining the outer parts of the passage, thus promoting high levels of heat transfer, increasing the velocity in the flow, which can improve metal to coolant heat transfer, and increasing the gas-washed surface area of the passage, as taught by Tibbott (¶ [0021]).
Regarding claim 2, Nasr, in view of Barberger and Tibbott, and as evidenced by Yeager, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Nasr further teaches (Figs. 4 and 6) the air particle separator comprises a vortex air particle separator (see below).
Notice that affixing a name “vortex air particle separator” to the claimed limitation does not impose any structural limitations upon the claimed apparatus or serve to distinguish the invention from the prior art apparatus (in this case, from a prior art air particle separator that achieves the same recited function). Therefore, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than simply affixing a name.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the airflow orifices and pathways of Nasr’s air particle separator 120 would inherently induce vortices.
Regarding claim 3, Nasr, in view of Barberger and Tibbott, and as evidenced by Yeager, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Nasr further teaches (Figs. 2 and 6) an air source (94b – Fig. 2);
the air particle separator (120 – Fig. 6) fluidly coupled with and configured to receive air (170 – Fig. 6) from the air source (94b).
Regarding claim 4, Nasr, in view of Barberger and Tibbott, and as evidenced by Yeager, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 3, and Nasr further teaches (Fig. 2) the air source (94b) comprises a bleed orifice (opening into second bypass channel 90b); and
the bleed orifice is configured to bleed air (94b) from the flowpath (arrow H) upstream of the vane array structure (72).
Regarding claim 5, Nasr, in view of Barberger and Tibbott, and as evidenced by Yeager, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 4, and Nasr further teaches (Figs. 1-2) an engine core (44 – Fig. 1) including a compressor section (22 – Fig. 1), a combustor section (28 – Fig. 1) and a turbine section (32);
the flowpath (arrow H – Fig. 2) extending through the compressor section (22), the combustor section (28) and the turbine section (32) from an inlet into the flowpath (inlet of 22) to an exhaust from the flowpath (at 38 – Fig. 1); and
the bleed orifice (opening into second bypass channel 90b – Fig. 2) arranged along the flowpath upstream of a combustor (30 – Fig. 2) within the combustor section (28) – (since the flowpath splits upstream of combustor 30, the opening into second bypass channel 90b is also upstream combustor 30).
Regarding claim 6, Nasr, in view of Barberger and Tibbott, and as evidenced by Yeager, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 5, and Nasr further teaches (Fig. 2) the vane array structure (72) is arranged along the flowpath downstream of the combustor (30).
Regarding claim 7, Nasr, in view of Barberger and Tibbott, and as evidenced by Yeager, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 3, and Nasr further teaches (Figs. 1-2) an engine core (44 – Fig. 1) including a compressor section (22 – Fig. 1), a combustor section (28 – Fig. 1) and a turbine section (32), the flowpath (arrow H – Fig. 2) comprising a core flowpath which extends through the compressor section (22), the combustor section (28) and the turbine section (32) from an inlet into the core flowpath (inlet of 22) to an exhaust from the core flowpath (at 38 – Fig. 1); and
a bypass flowpath (94b – Fig. 2) bypassing the engine core (44); the air source (94b) comprising a bleed orifice (92 – Fig. 2), and the bleed orifice (92) configured to bleed air from the bypass flowpath (94b).
Regarding claim 10, Nasr, in view of Barberger and Tibbott, and as evidenced by Yeager, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Nasr further teaches (Figs. 1-2 and 6) an engine core (44 – Fig. 1) including a compressor section (22 – Fig. 1), a combustor section (28 – Fig. 1) and a turbine section (32 – Figs. 1-2), the flowpath (arrow H – Fig. 2) comprising a core flowpath which extends through the compressor section (22), the combustor section (28) and the turbine section (32) from an inlet into the core flowpath (inlet of 22) to an exhaust from the core flowpath (at 38 – Fig. 1); and
a bypass flowpath (94a – Fig. 2) bypassing the engine core (44);
the outlet (112 – Fig. 6) of the air particle separator (120 – Fig. 6) fluidly coupled with and configured to direct waste air (94 in Fig. 2 and 182 in Fig. 6) to the bypass flowpath (94a).
Regarding claim 14, Nasr, in view of Barberger and Tibbott, and as evidenced by Yeager, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Nasr further teaches (Figs. 1-2) an engine core (44 – Fig. 1) including a compressor section (22 – Fig. 1), a combustor section (28 – Fig. 1) and a turbine section (34 – Fig. 1);
the flowpath extending through the compressor section (22), the combustor section (28) and the turbine section (34) from an inlet into the flowpath (inlet of 22) to an exhaust from the flowpath (at 38 – Fig. 1); and
the vane array structure (72) disposed along the flowpath downstream of the turbine section (¶ [0024], ll. 3-6 teaches “The cooling circuit including the particle separator 86 can be implemented in a vane in the LP compressor 24, the HP compressor 26, the HP turbine 34, and the LP turbine 36.” In the case of vane 72 being in LP turbine 36, this would result in vane 72 being disposed downstream of turbine section 34).
Regarding claim 15, Nasr, in view of Barberger and Tibbott, and as evidenced by Yeager, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Nasr further teaches (Fig. 1) a propulsor rotor (20); and
an engine core (44) configured to drive rotation (via LP spool 50) of the propulsor rotor (20), the engine core (44) including a compressor section (22), a combustor section (28) and a turbine section (32);
the flowpath extending through the compressor section (22), the combustor section (28) and the turbine section (32) from an inlet into the flowpath (inlet of 22) to an exhaust from the flowpath (at 38).
Regarding claim 21, Nasr, in view of Barberger and Tibbott, and as evidenced by Yeager, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Nasr further teaches (Fig. 4) the first vane (72) further includes an internal channel (space within internal body 84) extending within the span line (vertical line in center of internal body 84) between a channel inner end (at 96) and a channel outer end (at 98), and the air particle separator (120) is disposed within the internal channel (within 84);
the interior wall (84) extends longitudinally (up/down) along the internal channel (within 84) from the channel outer end (at 98) to the channel inner end (at 96), the interior wall (84) extending circumferentially around the internal channel (as shown by the two vertical lines surrounding 120);
the exterior wall (wall comprising 104 and 106) extends circumferentially around the internal channel and the interior wall (84).
Regarding claim 22, Nasr, in view of Barberger and Tibbott, and as evidenced by Yeager, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Nasr further teaches (Fig. 4) the interior wall (84) fluidly decouples the air particle separator (120) from the passage (82) – (as shown in Fig. 4, wall 84 blocks off particle separator 120 from passage 82).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (page 9, 1st para. of REMARKS) that “a skilled practitioner in the art would not seek to modify the alleged passage of Nasr with the alleged passage of Tibbott, as the resulting combination would change the principles of operation of Tibbott’s airfoil”, as stated in the above rejection, Tibbott’s pillar 61 may act as a “particle separator” by enabling the air flow within the spiral passage 52a to swirl, thereby separating air particles within said spiral passage 52a from one another. Examiner notes that claim 1 merely recites “an air particle separator” without any additional defining features of said air particle separator. Therefore, the limitation may be interpreted as any device that separates air particles, which includes Tibbott’s pillar 61.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (page 9, 2nd para.) that “a prior art reference must be considered in its entirety…Thus, the Office Action’s ‘picking and choosing’ of teachings from Tibbott only so much as to support a Section 103 rejection is in contrast to the express guidance of the MPEP”, in this case, the Tibbott reference is being considered in its entirety. As stated above, Tibbott’s pillar 61 acts as an air particle separator. Therefore, applying Tibbott’s teaching of a spiral passage circumscribing a pillar/air particle separator to a similar arrangement within the vane of Nasr would be an appropriate application to support a section 103 rejection.
Examiner Note:
Applicant’s invention (elected species of Fig. 4) differs from the combined prior art references of Nasr and Tibbott in that Applicant’s spiral passage 90 comprises an inlet 130 at the interior wall 140 near the inner platform 92, and an outlet 146 at the outer platform 94, whereas the combined prior art references does not. Claim limitations directed to these features may overcome the currently applied prior art in a future, potential office action.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HENRY NG whose telephone number is (571)272-2318. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:30 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, Devon Kramer can be reached at 571-272-7118. 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.
/HENRY NG/Examiner, Art Unit 3741 /DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741