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 .
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: cooling elements in claim 19, 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 12-13, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binek et al (US 20200362724 as referenced in OA dated 11/21/2025), hereafter Binek, in view of Shekleton et al (US 5174108 as referenced in OA dated 11/21/2025), hereafter Shekleton ‘108.
PNG
media_image1.png
872
734
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3C of Binek
Regarding claim 1, Binek discloses an assembly for a turbine engine (Figure 2; 10), comprising:
a nozzle structure (Figure 3C; 44 and 65, 46) including a first platform (Annotated Figure 3C; labeled first platform), a second platform (Annotated Figure 3C; labeled second platform) and a plurality of nozzle vanes (Figure 3C; 44) arranged circumferentially about an axis (Figure 3C; X), the first platform forming a first peripheral boundary (The peripheral boundary formed by the first platform) of a flowpath (The flowpath shown in Figure 2 through at least Figure 2; 18, 81, 50 into 47, and 30) extending axially through the nozzle structure, the second platform forming a second peripheral boundary (The peripheral boundary formed by the second platform) of the flowpath extending axially through the nozzle structure, and the plurality of nozzle vanes extending radially across the flowpath from the first platform to the second platform;
wherein the first platform comprises an inner platform (The first platform is an inner platform), and the second platform comprises an outer platform (The second platform is an outer platform) radially outboard of and circumscribing the inner platform;
wherein the inner platform is radially outboard of and circumscribes a radial inner combustor wall (Annotated Figure 3C; labeled radial inner combustor wall); and
wherein the radial inner combustor wall is radially outboard of and circumscribes a turbine case (Annotated Figure 3C; labeled turbine case) defining a diffuser plenum (The plenum between the radial inner combustor wall and turbine case) between the radial inner combustor wall and the turbine case.
Binek does not disclose a plurality of cooling vanes arranged circumferentially about the axis, each of the plurality of cooling vanes projecting radially inward from the first platform, wherein the first platform is radially between the plurality of cooling vanes and the plurality of nozzle vanes.
However, Shekleton ‘108 teaches a plurality of cooling vanes (Figure 1; 68) arranged circumferentially about an axis (Figure 1; 12), each of the plurality of cooling vanes projecting out away from a first platform (Figure 1; 32) toward a combustor wall (The wall having Figure 1; 110; 114) and in an opposite extension direction (The right direction in Figure 1) of a plurality of nozzle vanes (Figure 1; 40)., wherein the first platform is between the plurality of cooling vanes and a plurality of nozzle vanes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Binek to include a plurality of cooling vanes arranged circumferentially about an axis, each of the plurality of cooling vanes projecting out away from a first platform toward a combustor wall and in an opposite extension direction (In the combined invention of Binek in view of Shekleton, the cooling vanes extend in at least a radially inward direction) of a plurality of nozzle vanes, wherein the first platform is between the plurality of cooling vanes and a plurality of nozzle vanes as taught by and suggested by Shekleton ‘108 in order to provide swirled air (Column 4, lines 20-23, The modification adds swirl vanes to the first platform).
Regarding claim 2, Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108 teaches the invention as claimed.
Binek further discloses a compressor section (The section with Figure 2; 18);
a combustor section (The section with Figure 2; 40) comprising a combustor (Figure 2; 40); and
a turbine section (The section with Figure 2; 30) comprising a bladed turbine rotor (Paragraph 0039);
the flowpath extending through the compressor section, the combustor section and the turbine section with the nozzle structure arranged between the combustor and the bladed turbine rotor along the flowpath.
Regarding claim 4, Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108 teaches the invention as claimed.
Binek does not disclose wherein each of the plurality of cooling vanes has a common longitudinal length.
However, Shekleton ‘108 teaches wherein each of the plurality of cooling vanes has a common longitudinal length (The cooling vanes have a common longitudinal length).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Binek wherein each of the plurality of cooling vanes has a common longitudinal length as taught by and suggested by Shekleton ‘108 in order to provide swirled air (Column 4, lines 20-23, This is the same modification as claim 1).
Regarding claim 12, Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108 teaches the invention as claimed.
Binek does not disclose wherein the plurality of cooling vanes comprise a first cooling vane; and the first cooling vane projects radially inward from the first platform to an unsupported distal end of the first cooling vane.
However, Shekleton ‘108 teaches wherein the plurality of cooling vanes comprise a first cooling vane (A first instance of Figure 1; 48); and
the first cooling vane projects out from the first platform toward the combustor wall and in the opposite extension direction of the plurality of nozzle vanes to an unsupported distal end (The distal end of the first cooling vane) of the first cooling vane.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Binek wherein the first cooling vane projects out from the first platform toward the combustor wall and in the opposite extension direction (In the combined invention of Binek in view of Shekleton, the cooling vanes extend in at least a radially inward direction) of the plurality of nozzle vanes to an unsupported distal end of the first cooling vane as taught by and suggested by Shekleton in order to provide swirled air (Column 4, lines 20-23, This is the same modification as claim 1).
Regarding claim 13, Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108 teaches the invention as claimed.
Binek further discloses a combustor (Figure 2; 40) comprising a combustor wall (Figure 3C; 46), the combustor wall comprising the radial inner combustor wall;
the first platform axially overlapping a downstream end portion (The downstream of portion of Figure 3C; 46 which is overlapped by 65) of the radial inner combustor wall.
Binek does not disclose wherein the plurality of cooling vanes comprising a first cooling vane radially spaced from the radially inner combustor wall by a gap.
However, Shekleton ‘108 teaches wherein the plurality of cooling vanes comprising a first cooling vane (A first instance of Figure 1; 48) spaced (In the context of Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108, the cooling vanes project radially from the first platform, so that the gap between the first cooling vane and combustor wall of Shekleton ‘108, in Binek, is radially spaced) from a radially inner combustor wall (The lower portion of the combustor wall that extends from 48 to 94) by a gap (The gap between the first cooling vane and the combustor wall).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Binek wherein the plurality of cooling vanes comprising a first cooling vane spaced (In the context of Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108, the cooling vanes project radially inward from the first platform, so that the gap between the first cooling vane and combustor wall of Shekleton ‘108, in Binek, is radially spaced) from the radially inner combustor wall by a gap as taught by and suggested by Shekleton in order to provide swirled air (Column 4, lines 20-23, This is the same modification as claim 1).
Regarding claim 19, Binek discloses an assembly for a turbine engine (Figure 2; 10), comprising:
a first platform (Annotated Figure 3C; labeled first platform), extending circumferentially about an axis (Figure 3C; X), the first platform forming a first peripheral boundary (The peripheral boundary formed by the first platform) of a flowpath (The flowpath shown in Figure 2 through at least Figure 2; 18, 81, 50 into 47, and 30);
a second platform (Annotated Figure 3C; labeled second platform) extending circumferentially about the axis, the second platform forming a second peripheral boundary (The peripheral boundary formed by the second platform) of the flowpath radially opposite the first peripheral boundary of the flowpath;
a plurality of vanes (Figure 3C; 44) arranged circumferentially about the axis and connected to the first platform and the second platform, each of the plurality of vanes extending radially across the flowpath from the first platform to the second platform;
wherein the first platform comprises an inner platform (The first platform is an inner platform), the second platform comprises an outer platform (The second platform is an outer platform)radially outboard of and circumscribing the inner platform;
wherein the inner platform is radially outboard of and circumscribes a combustor wall (Annotated Figure 3C; labeled radial inner combustor wall); and
wherein the combustor wall is radially outboard of and circumscribes a turbine case (Annotated Figure 3C; labeled turbine case) defining a diffuser plenum between the combustor wall and the turbine case.
Binek does not disclose a plurality of cooling elements connected to the first platform radially opposite the plurality of vanes, the plurality of cooling elements configured as a heat sink for the plurality of vanes, and each of the plurality of cooling elements projecting radially inward from the first platform to an unsupported distal end.
However, Shekleton ‘108 teaches a plurality of cooling elements (Figure 1; 68) connected to a first platform (Figure 1; 32) opposite a plurality of vanes (Figure 1; 40), the plurality of cooling elements configured as a heat sink (Functional Language, the cooling elements are a heat sink. Hot combustion gases flow past 40 which heat 40. 40 is attached to 68 through 32, so that the heat is transferred to 32. Cooling air flowing past 32 dissipates this heat) for the plurality of vanes, and each of the plurality of cooling elements projecting out form the first platform toward a combustor wall (The wall having Figure 1; 110; 114), in an opposite extension direction (The right direction in Figure 1) of the plurality of vanes, and to an unsupported distal end (The unsupported distal end of each cooling element).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Binek to include a plurality of cooling elements connected to the first platform radially opposite the plurality of vanes, the plurality of cooling elements configured as a heat sink for the plurality of vanes, and each of the plurality of cooling elements projecting out form the first platform toward a combustor wall, in an opposite extension direction (In the combined invention of Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108, the cooling vanes extend in at least a radially inward direction) of a plurality of nozzle vanes, and to an unsupported distal end as taught by and suggested by Shekleton ‘108 in order to provide swirled air (Column 4, lines 20-23, The modification adds swirl vanes to the first platform).
Regarding claim 20, Binek discloses an assembly for a turbine engine (Figure 2; 10), comprising:
a combustor (Figure 2; 40) comprising a combustor wall (Figure 3C; 46 which includes Annotated Figure 3; labeled radial inner combustor wall);
a vane array structure including an inner platform (Annotated Figure 3C; labeled first platform), an outer platform (Annotated Figure 3C; labeled second platform) and a plurality of vanes (Figure 3C; 44) arranged circumferentially about an axis (Figure 3C; X), the inner platform axially overlapping and circumscribing a downstream portion (The downstream portion of the combustor wall overlapping the inner platform) of the combustor wall, the outer platform axially overlapping and circumscribing the inner platform, and the plurality of vanes radially between and connected to the inner platform and the outer platform;
wherein the downstream portion of the combustor wall axially overlaps and circumscribes a turbine case (Annotated Figure 3C; labeled turbine case) with a diffuser plenum (The plenum between the radial inner combustor wall and turbine case) formed by and extending between the downstream portion of the combustor wall and the turbine case.
Binek does not disclose a plurality of cooling elements located radially between the vane array structure and the downstream portion of the combustor wall, each of the plurality of cooling elements projecting radially inward from the inner platform.
However, Shekleton ‘108 teaches a plurality of cooling elements (Figure 1; 68) located between a vane array structure (Figure 1; 36, 40, 32) and a downstream portion of a combustor wall (The downstream portion of the wall having Figure 1; 110; 114), each of the plurality of cooling elements projecting out from an inner platform (Figure 1; 32) toward a combustor wall (The wall having Figure 1; 110; 114) and in an opposite extension direction (The right direction in Figure 1) of a plurality of nozzle vanes (Figure 1; 40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Binek to include a plurality of cooling elements located between a vane array structure and a downstream portion of a combustor wall, each of the plurality of cooling elements projecting out from an inner platform toward a combustor wall and in an opposite extension direction (In the combined invention of Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108, the cooling vanes extend in at least a radially inward direction) of a plurality of nozzle vanes as taught by and suggested by Shekleton in order to provide swirled air (Column 4, lines 20-23, The modification makes adds swirl vanes to the inner platform).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Peters et al (US 20180306041 as referenced in OA dated 11/21/2025).
Regarding claim 5, Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108 teaches the invention as claimed.
Binek does not disclose wherein the plurality of cooling vanes include a first cooling vane and a second cooling vane;
the first cooling vane has a first longitudinal length extending longitudinally between a leading edge of the first cooling vane and a trailing edge of the first cooling vane; and
the second cooling vane has a second longitudinal length extending longitudinally between a leading edge of the second cooling vane and a trailing edge of the second cooling vane, and the second longitudinal length is different than the first longitudinal length.
However, Shekleton ‘108 teaches wherein the plurality of cooling vanes include a first cooling vane (A first instance of Figure 1; 48) and a second cooling vane (A second instance of Figure 1; 48);
the first cooling vane has a first longitudinal length (The longitudinal length of the first cooling vane) extending longitudinally between a leading edge of the first cooling vane and a trailing edge of the first cooling vane (The leading and trailing edge of the first cooling vane); and
the second cooling vane has a second longitudinal length (The longitudinal length of the second cooling vane) extending longitudinally between a leading edge of the second cooling vane and a trailing edge of the second cooling vane (The leading and trailing edge of the second cooling vane).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Binek wherein the plurality of cooling vanes include a first cooling vane and a second cooling vane; the first cooling vane has a first longitudinal length extending longitudinally between a leading edge of the first cooling vane and a trailing edge of the first cooling vane; and the second cooling vane has a second longitudinal length extending longitudinally between a leading edge of the second cooling vane and a trailing edge of the second cooling vane as taught by and suggested by Shekleton ‘108 in order to provide swirled air (Column 4, lines 20-23, This is the same modification as claim 1).
Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108 does not teach the second longitudinal length is different than the first longitudinal length.
However, Peters teaches a second longitudinal length (Figure 4; C2) is different than a first longitudinal length (Figure 4; C1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108 wherein the second longitudinal length is different than the first longitudinal length as taught by and suggested by Peters in order to achieve desired flow turning while minimizing flow blockage and friction loss (Paragraph 0047, the modification has at least the first and second cooling vanes have different lengths).
Claim(s) 6, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binek in view of Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kroger et al (US 20180363675 as referenced in OA dated 11/21/2025)
Regarding claim 6, Binek in view of Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108 teaches the invention as claimed.
Binek does not disclose wherein the plurality of cooling vanes comprise a first cooling vane; and
the first cooling vane laterally tapers as the first cooling vane projects radially away from the first platform.
However, Shekleton ‘108 teaches wherein the plurality of cooling vanes comprise a first cooling vane (A first instance of Figure 1; 48)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Binek wherein the plurality of cooling vanes comprise a first cooling vane as taught by and suggested by Shekleton ‘108 in order to provide swirled air (Column 4, lines 20-23, This is the same modification as claim 1).
Binek in view of Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108 does not teach the first cooling vane laterally tapers as the first cooling vane projects radially away from the first platform.
However, Kroger teaches a first vane (A first instance of Figure 8; 172. 172 having an airfoil shape, as seen in Figure 13 is a vane) laterally tapers as the first vane projects radially away from a first platform (Figure 8; 50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108 wherein the first vane (In the combined invention, the vane of Kroger is the first cooling vane) laterally tapers as first vane (In the combined invention, the vane of Kroger is the first cooling vane) laterally projects radially away from the first platform as taught by and suggested by Kroger because it has been held that applying a known technique, in this case Kroger’s vane shape according to the steps described immediately above, to a known device, in this case, Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108’s assembly, ready for improvement to yield predictable results, in this case swirling a fluid, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(D) (The modification uses the tapered shape of the vanes of Kroger).
Regarding claim 7, Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108 teaches the invention as claimed.
Binek does not disclose wherein the plurality of cooling vanes comprise a first cooling vane; and
at least a spanwise portion of the first cooling vane has a uniform lateral width.
However, Shekleton ‘108 teaches wherein the plurality of cooling vanes comprise a first cooling vane (A first instance of Figure 1; 48), and a spanwise portion (Any spanwise portion of the first cooling vane) of the first cooling vane.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Binek wherein the plurality of cooling vanes comprise a first cooling vane, and a spanwise portion of the first cooling vane as taught by and suggested by Shekleton ‘108 in order to provide swirled air (Column 4, lines 20-23, This is the same modification as claim 1).
Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108 does not teach at least a spanwise portion of the first cooling vane has a uniform lateral width.
However, Kroger teaches at least a spanwise portion (Any spanwise portion of the first vane) of a first vane (A first instance of Figure 3; 100) has a uniform lateral width (The uniform lateral width of Figure 3; 100).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108 wherein at least a spanwise portion of the first vane (In the combined invention, the vane of Kroger is the first cooling vane) has a uniform lateral width as taught by and suggested by Kroger because it has been held that applying a known technique, in this case Kroger’s vane shape according to the steps described immediately above, to a known device, in this case, Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108’s assembly, ready for improvement to yield predictable results, in this case swirling a fluid, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(D) (The modification uses the uniform lateral width shape of the vanes of Kroger)
Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sibbach et al (US 20230265862 as referenced in OA dated 11/21/2025)
Regarding claim 8, Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108 teaches the invention as claimed.
Binek does not disclose wherein the plurality of cooling vanes comprise a first cooling vane; and
the first cooling vane comprises a cambered vane.
However, Shekleton ‘108 teaches wherein the plurality of cooling vanes comprise a first cooling vane (A first instance of Figure 1; 48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Binek wherein the plurality of cooling vanes comprise a first cooling vane as taught by and suggested by Shekleton ‘108 in order to provide swirled air (Column 4, lines 20-23, This is the same modification as claim 1).
Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108 does not teach the first cooling vane comprises a cambered vane.
However, Sibbach teaches a first vane (A first instance of Figure 11; 100) comprises a cambered vane (The first cooling vane is a cambered vane).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108 wherein the first vane (In the combined invention, the vane of Sibbach is the first cooling vane) comprises a cambered vane as taught by and suggested by Sibbach because it has been held that applying a known technique, in this case Sibbach’s vane shape according to the steps described immediately above, to a known device, in this case, Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108’s assembly, ready for improvement to yield predictable results, in this case swirling a fluid, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(D) (The modification uses the cambered vanes of Sibbach).
Regarding claim 9, Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108 teaches the invention as claimed.
Binek does not disclose wherein the plurality of cooling vanes comprise a first cooling vane; and
the first cooling vane comprises a symmetrical vane.
However, Shekleton teaches wherein the plurality of cooling vanes comprise a first cooling vane (A first instance of Figure 1; 48), and a spanwise portion (Any spanwise portion of the first cooling vane) of the first cooling vane.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Binek wherein the plurality of cooling vanes comprise a first cooling vane, and a spanwise portion of the first cooling vane as taught by and suggested by Shekleton in order to provide swirled air (Column 4, lines 20-23, This is the same modification as claim 1).
Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108 does not teach the first cooling vane comprises a symmetrical vane.
However, Sibbach teaches a first vane (A first instance of Figure 3; 100) comprises a symmetrical vane (The first vane is a symmetrical vane).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108 wherein the first vane (In the combined invention, the vane of Sibbach is the first cooling vane) comprises a symmetrical vane as taught by and suggested by Sibbach because it has been held that applying a known technique, in this case Sibbach’s vane shape according to the steps described immediately above, to a known device, in this case, Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108’s assembly, ready for improvement to yield predictable results, in this case swirling a fluid, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(D) (The modification uses the symmetrical vanes of Sibbach).
Regarding claim 10, Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108 teaches the invention as claimed.
Binek does not disclose wherein the plurality of cooling vanes comprise a first cooling vane;
the first cooling vane projects out from the first platform along a span line of the first cooling vane to an end of the first cooling vane; and
at least a portion of the span line is straight.
However, Shekleton ‘108 teaches wherein the plurality of cooling vanes comprise a first cooling vane (A first instance of Figure 1; 48);
the first cooling vane projects out from the first platform along a span line (The span line of the first cooling vane) of the first cooling vane to an end (The distal end of the first cooling vane) of the first cooling vane.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Binek wherein the plurality of cooling vanes comprise a first cooling vane as taught by and suggested by Shekleton ‘108 in order to provide swirled air (Column 4, lines 20-23, This is the same modification as claim 1).
Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108 does not teach at least a portion of the span line is straight.
However, Sibbach teaches a first vane (A first instance of Figure 3; 100) projects out from a first platform (Figure 3; 50) along a span line (The span line of the first vane) of the first vane to an end (The distal end of the first vane) of the first vane; and
at least a portion of the span line is straight (At least a portion of the span line is straight).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108 wherein at least a portion of the span line is straight as taught by and suggested by Sibbach because it has been held that applying a known technique, in this case Sibbach’s vane shape according to the steps described immediately above, to a known device, in this case, Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108’s assembly, ready for improvement to yield predictable results, in this case swirling a fluid, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(D) (The modification uses the straight span line vanes of Sibbach)
Regarding claim 11, Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108 teaches the invention as claimed.
Binek does not disclose wherein the plurality of cooling vanes comprise a first cooling vane;
the first cooling vane projects out from the first platform along a span line of the first cooling vane to an end of the first cooling vane; and
at least a portion of the span line is curved.
However, Shekleton ‘108 teaches wherein the plurality of cooling vanes comprise a first cooling vane (A first instance of Figure 1; 48);
the first cooling vane projects out from the first platform along a span line (The span line of the first cooling vane) of the first cooling vane to an end (The distal end of the first cooling vane) of the first cooling vane.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Binek wherein the plurality of cooling vanes comprise a first cooling vane as taught by and suggested by Shekleton ‘108 in order to provide swirled air (Column 4, lines 20-23, This is the same modification as claim 1).
Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108 does not teach at least a portion of the span line is curved.
However, Sibbach teaches a first vane (A first instance of Figure 11; 100) projects out from a first platform (Figure 11; 50) along a span line (The span line of the first vane) of the first vane to an end (The distal end of the first vane) of the first cooling vane; and
at least a portion of the span line is curved (At least a portion of the span line is straight).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108 wherein at least a portion of the span line is curved as taught by and suggested by Sibbach because it has been held that applying a known technique, in this case Sibbach’s vane shape according to the steps described immediately above, to a known device, in this case, Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108’s assembly, ready for improvement to yield predictable results, in this case swirling a fluid, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(D) (The modification uses the curved span line vanes of Sibbach)
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Joshi et al (US 5251447 as referenced in OA dated 11/21/2025)
Regarding claim 14, Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108 teaches the invention as claimed.
Binek does not disclose wherein the plurality of cooling vanes comprise a first cooling vane and a second cooling vane; and
the plurality of nozzle vanes comprise a first nozzle vane that circumferentially overlaps the first cooling vane and the second cooling vane.
However, Shekleton ‘108 teaches wherein the plurality of cooling vanes comprise a first cooling vane (A first instance of Figure 1; 48) and a second cooling vane (A second instance of Figure 1; 48 adjacent the first instance); and
the plurality of nozzle vanes comprise a first nozzle vane (A first instance of Figure 1; 40 that overlaps the first cooling vane) that circumferentially overlaps the first cooling vane.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Binek wherein the plurality of cooling vanes comprise a first cooling vane and a second cooling vane; and the plurality of nozzle vanes comprise a first nozzle vane that circumferentially overlaps the first cooling vane as taught by and suggested by Shekleton ‘108 in order to provide swirled air (Column 4, lines 20-23, This is the same modification as claim 1).
Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108 does not teach the first nozzle vane circumferentially overlaps the first cooling vane and the second cooling vane.
However, Joshi teaches a first nozzle vane (An instance of Figure 6; 34 that overlaps a first and second instance of Figure 6; 32) circumferentially overlaps a first vane (A first instance of Figure 6; 32) and a second vane (A second instance of Figure 6; 32 adjacent the first instance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108 wherein the first nozzle vane circumferentially overlaps the first vane and the second vane (In the combined invention, the first and second vanes of Joshi are the first and second cooling vanes) as taught by and suggested by Joshi because it has been held that applying a known technique, in this case Joshi’s overlapping arrangement according to the steps described immediately above, to a known device, in this case, Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108’s assembly, ready for improvement to yield predictable results, in this case swirling two fluids, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(D) (The modification has a nozzle vane overlapping a first and second cooling vane)
Regarding claim 15, Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108 teaches the invention as claimed.
Binek does not disclose wherein the plurality of cooling vanes comprise a first cooling vane;
the plurality of nozzle vanes comprise a first nozzle vane that circumferentially overlaps the first cooling vane; and
a chord line of the first cooling vane is angularly offset from a chord line of the first nozzle vane by an angle between sixty degrees and ninety degrees.
However, Shekleton ‘108 teaches wherein the plurality of cooling vanes comprise a first cooling vane (A first instance of Figure 1; 48 overlapped by an instance of 40);
the plurality of nozzle vanes comprise a first nozzle vane (The instance of Figure 1; 40 that overlaps the first instance of 48) that circumferentially overlaps the first cooling vane; and
a chord line (The chord line of the first cooling vane) of the first cooling vane and a chord line (The chord line of the first nozzle vane) of the first nozzle vane.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Binek wherein the plurality of cooling vanes comprise a first cooling vane; the plurality of nozzle vanes comprise a first nozzle vane that circumferentially overlaps the first cooling vane; and a chord line of the first cooling vane and a chord line of the first nozzle vane as taught by and suggested by Shekleton ‘108 in order to provide swirled air (Column 4, lines 20-23, This is the same modification as claim 1).
Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108 does not teach a chord line of the first cooling vane is angularly offset from a chord line of the first nozzle vane by an angle between sixty degrees and ninety degrees.
However, Joshi teaches a chord line of a first vane (The chord line of a first instance of Figure 6; 32) is angularly offset from a chord line of a first nozzle vane (The chord line of an instance of Figure 6; 34 that overlaps the first instance of Figure 6; 32) by an angle between sixty degrees and ninety degrees (Column 3, lines 64-66, the swirlers are counter-rotating with one swirler having a -40º and the other swirler having 40º, so that the angle between the two is 80º).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108 wherein chord line of the first vane (In the combined invention, the first vane of Joshi is the first cooling vane) is angularly offset from a chord line of the first nozzle vane by an angle between sixty degrees and ninety degrees as taught by and suggested by Joshi because it has been held that applying a known technique, in this case Joshi’s arrangement of outer and inner vanes according to the steps described immediately above, to a known device, in this case, Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108’s assembly, ready for improvement to yield predictable results, in this case swirling a fluid, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(D) (The modification has the angle between chord lines between the first cooling vane and the first nozzle vane being 80º).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kodukulla et al (US 20140090385 as referenced in OA dated 11/21/2025)
Regarding claim 16, Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108 teaches the invention as claimed.
Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108 does not teach wherein a circumferentially neighboring pair of the plurality of cooling vanes are axially aligned along the axis.
However, Kodukulla teaches a circumferentially neighboring pair (A circumferentially pair of Figure 4; 52) of a plurality of vanes are axially aligned along an axis (Figure 4; 92, Paragraph 0015).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108 wherein a circumferentially neighboring pair of the plurality of vanes (In the combined invention, the vanes of Kodukulla are the cooling vanes) are axially aligned along the axis as taught by and suggested by Kodukulla in order to provide desired flow properties (Paragraph 0015, the modification has the vane axially aligned).
Regarding claim 17, Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108 teaches the invention as claimed.
Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108 does not teach wherein a circumferentially neighboring pair of the plurality of cooling vanes are axially offset along the axis.
However, Kodukulla teaches a circumferentially neighboring pair (A circumferentially pair of Figure 4; 52) of the plurality of vanes are axially offset along an axis (Figure 4; 92, Paragraph 0015).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108 wherein a circumferentially neighboring pair of the plurality of vanes (In the combined invention, the vanes of Kodukulla are the cooling vanes) are axially offset along the axis as taught by and suggested by Kodukulla in order to provide desired flow properties (Paragraph 0015, the modification has the vane axially staggered).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Binek (US 20210254832 as referenced in OA dated 11/21/2025), hereafter Binek ‘832.
Regarding claim 18, Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108 teaches the invention as claimed.
Binek discloses a monolithic body (The combustor, Paragraph 0036) including the nozzle structure.
Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108 does not teach a monolithic body including the plurality of cooling vanes.
However, Binek ‘832 teaches a monolithic body (Figure 5; 118. Paragraph 0006) including a nozzle structure (Figure 5; 129) and a plurality of vanes (Figure 5; 127).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Binek in view of Shekleton ‘108 wherein a monolithic body including the plurality of vanes (In the combined invention, the vanes of Binek ‘832 are the cooling vanes) as taught by and suggested by Binek ‘832 in order to permit integration of complex performance enhancing features (The modification adds the plurality of vanes to the monolithic body of Binek).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that using Shekleton ‘108 in Binek requires moving the vanes of Shekleton ‘108 from a plenum wall to the first platform. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Shekleton ‘108 teaches that the cooling vanes are on an opposite side of nozzle vanes. In the context of Binek, the first platform has the nozzle vanes, so that the cooling vanes of Shekleton ‘108 would go on the opposite side of the first platform with respect to the nozzle vanes.
Applicant asserts that changing axially extending vanes to radially extending vanes are not trivial design choices. Examiner respectfully disagrees. One of ordinary skill in the art would know how to apply the cooling vanes of Shekleton ‘108 to the first platform of Binek, so that the cooling vanes extend radially inward, see pertinent, but not relied upon art, Sturgess et al (US 3703259) and Shekleton et al (US 5140808).
Applicant asserts that the vanes of Shekleton ‘108 are not cooling vanes. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The vanes are used to swirl cooling air and as such can be considered cooling vanes, see Column 4, lines 3-23 of Shekleton ‘108.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sturgess et al (US 3703259) teaches that axially and radially extending vanes are interchangeable.
Shekleton et al (US 5140808) teaches that vanes extending radially inward are known.
Angel (US 6141967 as referenced in OA dated 11/21/2025) shows in Figure 9 an outer vane overlapping two inner vanes
Cerutti (US 11149953 as referenced in OA dated 11/21/2025) shows in Figure 5 an outer vane overlapping two inner vanes
Joshi (US 5511375 as referenced in OA dated 11/21/2025) shows in Figure 2 an outer vane overlapping two inner vanes
Strugess (US 3703259 as referenced in OA dated 11/21/2025) teaches that axial and radial swirlers are interchangeable
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 EDWIN G KANG whose telephone number is (571)272-9814. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 PM EST.
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.
/EDWIN KANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741