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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites “forming an intermediate insert to form a final insert”. The specification does not support forming the intermediate insert and the final insert in the same step. Rather, the specification discloses several steps are required for the intermediate insert to be formed into the final insert.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “forming an insert from a plurality of fabric layers of ceramic matrix composite”. Are the “plurality of fabric layers of ceramic matrix composite” the same or different than the previously recited CMC layers. Additionally, the term “composites” appears inconsistent with the specification as the spec does not disclose more than one composite in the insert.
Claim 1 recites “forming an intermediate insert to form a final insert”. It’s entirely unclear how the final insert is formed in the same step as the intermediate insert. This limitation is inconsistent with specification, as the specification discloses multiple steps between the formation of the intermediate insert and the final insert. See new matter rejection above.
In claim 1, the limitation “inserting a final insert between radially outward ones”. It’s not clear “a final insert” refers to the previously recited final insert and radially inner layers on the outer surface” is indefinite.
In claim 1, the limitation “the radially inner layers that form the outer platform” is entirely unclear. It’s unclear how the inner layers form the outer platform.
In claim 2, the limitation “the step of cutting ends” and “to form at least two of the final inserts” lack proper antecedent basis.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a plurality of cup shaped stacks”. Do these “stacks” contain the fabric layers previously recited?.
Claim 4 recites “a plurality of the fabric layers compressed together”. Are these the same or different than the fabric layers previously recited?
Claim 7 recites “a plurality of the fabric layers”. Are these the same or different than fabric layers previously recited?
Claim 13 recites " the cup-shaped in the intermediate insert”. This limitation lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 13 recites “an arch-shape”. Is the “arch-shape” different from the cup shape? If so, the specification shows no such difference. The shapes appear to the be the same, and it is suggested the applicant amendment the claim to reflect such.
As to claim 15, the limitation “a directional component” is unclear because it’s entirely unclear what “a directional component” represents.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Loftus et al. (US 2015/0044054).
As to claim 1, Loftus discloses a method of forming a gas turbine engine component comprising the steps of: forming a vane (para 30-31) component shape (fig 2, 4, 5) from a plurality of fabric layers 56/256 of ceramic matrix composite (para 9-10, 35, 37-46, fig 5-7),, the vane component shape having an airfoil 40 (fig 2-4, para 32), a radially outer platform and a radially inner platform (see below), the radially outer platform formed of radially outward ones of the plurality of fabric layers and the radially inner layers also formed from some of the plurality of fabric layers (see below); forming an insert 244 from a plurality of fabric layers of ceramic matrix composite into the intermediate insert to form a final insert (para 9-10, 35, 44-45, fig 7); densifying the intermediate insert member (para 42); then, inserting a final insert between the radially outward ones of the plurality of fabric layers and the radially inner layers that form the outer platform to form a combined vane component (fig 4, 6-7, para 33, 42-45); and densifying the combined vane component (para 41, also see para 9-10, 33-46, figs 4-7).
PNG
media_image1.png
383
426
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Note: the radial inner layers are the at least two layers closest to 246 on the right side as labeled above. The radial outer layers are at least two of the layers on the left which are non-adjacent to 246
As to claim 2, Loftus discloses the method including the step of cutting ends of the intermediate insert away to form at least two of the final inserts (para 42)
As to claim 3, Loftus discloses the method the intermediate insert is formed from a plurality of cup-shaped stacks and then assembling the plurality of stacks to form the intermediate insert (para 10, 38, 42-45).
As to claim 9, Loftus discloses the method wherein the radially outer layers capture the insert (fig 7).
As to claim 11, Loftus discloses the method wherein the plurality of ceramic matrix composite layers forming the intermediate insert are cut at the same time (para 42).
As to claim 12, Loftus discloses the method wherein the final insert has an endface to provide a reaction surface against a mount member (fig 7)
As to claim 13, Loftus discloses the method wherein the plurality of layers of ceramic matrix composite forming the intermediate insert are initially planar, but when formed into the cup-shaped intermediate insert, the originally planar layers have ends which are bent relative to a central portion to form the cup-shaped intermediate insert (para 10, 44-45, fig 7, 14)
As to claim 14, Loftus discloses the method wherein the final insert is mounted onto a planar inner surface in the component (see fig 7, bottom portion of 246 is planar, also see fig 10, recess 477).
As to claim 15, Loftus discloses the method wherein the ends of the final insert have fibers extending in a direction which has at least a directional component normal to a planar surface of the inner surface (para 38)
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loftus, as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Steibel et al. (US 6024898).
As to claim 4, while Loftus discloses the plurality of cup-shaped stacks are each formed of a plurality of the fabric layers (para 9-10, 33-46, figs 4-7), Loftus stops short of expressly disclosing the fabric layers are compressed together. Steibel discloses a method of forming stacks of composite ceramic layers, wherein the stacks of said ceramic composite layers are compressed layer together (col 8, L49 – col 9, L60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Loftus such that the plurality of cup-shaped stacks formed of the plurality of fabric layers are compressed together as taught by Steibel above as such forms tough, strong components (col m3, L 40-51).
As to claim 6, Steibel discloses the method wherein at least two sub-assemblies of the cup-shaped stacks are compressed together, and then the at least two sub-assemblies of the cup-shaped stacks are then brought together to be compressed together in another compression step (col 8, L49 – col 9, L60).
As to claim 7, Loftus discloses the method wherein the cup-shaped stacks are each formed of a plurality of layers (fig 7)
,As to claim 8, Loftus discloses the method wherein the radially outer layers capture the insert (fig 7).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/16/26 have been fully considered but they are either not persuasive or moot in light of the new grounds of rejection. With respect to the indefiniteness rejection of claim 2, the claims do not previously recite more than one final insert. Nor do the claims previously recite a step of cutting ends. As to claim 3, it’s not clear if the stacks contain the previously recited fabric layers. Applicant argues that the members 44/244 are not “on” the vane of Lotus. This argument is not persuasive because the gas turbine engine component identified by the examiner in the rejection above contains more structure than items 44/244. Para 31 clearly discloses the component is a combined vane component. The remainder of the applicant’s arguments are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection detailed above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER T SCHATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6038. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9-6.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER T SCHATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746