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
The amendment submitted 12/26/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 7-14, 16-21 remain pending. Claims 4-6 and 15 have been cancelled.
The amendments to the claims have overcome each and every rejection under 35 USC 112 made in Non-Final Rejection mailed 09/25/2025 and those rejections are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues a “person of ordinary skill in the art would not turn to Yang to modify Evans” since “the Yang nozzle has nothing to do with either pre-swirl nozzles or even teaching other cooling of the disc 2”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Both Yang and Evans are in the field of turbine engines, more particularly nozzles in turbine engines, and there is no teaching in the prior art that Evans would not benefit from the teachings of Yang.
The Applicant further argues the prior art does not teach all limitations of the claims since “Yang teaches an opening angle of 16⁰ (both sides) or 8⁰ (one side). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The 16 degree angle disclosed by Yang is the angle between the center axis of the borehole-shaped chamfered nozzle flow channel and the tangent line of the edge of the shell, i.e. angle α in Figure 2, and not the expansion angle γ which is 8 degrees (both sides) (Yang: Pg 3 Lns 4-8).
The Applicant further argues one of ordinary skill would not modify the nozzles of Evans with the nozzle shape of Yang since “the Yang nozzle achieves the opposite of the claimed nozzle”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by Applicant, see MPEP 2144(IV).
For the reasons above the rejections are hereby maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-14, 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4456427 to Evans in view of CN 113775416 to Yang.
(a) Regarding claim 1:
(i) Evans discloses a pre-swirl nozzle system in a turbine stage of a gas turbine (see abstract), comprising:
a stationary stator (structure comprising air injector nozzles 64, Fig 2);
a rotatable rotor (rotating disk 43, Fig 2) positioned adjacent the stator (Fig 2) and configured for rotation about a main axis of the gas turbine (axis of rotation of hollow shaft 30, Fig 2);
at least one pre-swirl nozzle (injector nozzles 64, Fig 2), directly formed in the stator (Fig 2), through which cooling air is directed in a flow direction toward the rotor (Col 4 Lns 59-61, Fig 2),
the at least one pre-swirl nozzle being inclined away from the main axis in the flow direction (angle α, Fig 3, Col 5 Ln 47; Col 6 Lns 10-14).
(ii) Evans does not disclose:
wherein the at least one pre-swirl nozzle has an upstream first region positioned away from the rotor and having a first cross section converging in the flow direction and
a downstream second region positioned toward the rotor and flow connected to the first region to receive the cooling air from the first region,
the second region having a second cross section expanding in the flow direction to form a diffuser configured to reduce an exit velocity of the cooling air through the at least one pre-swirl nozzle;
wherein the expanding of the second cross section to form the diffuser takes place partially or entirely in a linear manner in the flow direction to form a conical diffuser wall region;
wherein the conical diffuser wall region of the at least one pre-swirl nozzle has an angle of between 1 and 6° to a center line of the second region.
(iii) Yang is also in the field of turbine engines and teaches:
a nozzle (converging/diverging nozzle, Fig 2),
wherein the nozzle has an upstream first region (see annotated Figure 2 below) positioned away from a rotor (wheel disk 2 and turbine blade grid 3, Fig 1) and having a first cross section converging in the flow direction (converges just before reaching throat, Fig 2) and
a downstream second region (see annotated Figure 2 below) positioned toward the rotor (Fig 1) and flow connected to the first region to receive the cooling air from the first region (via the throat),
the second region having a second cross section expanding in the flow direction (Fig 2) to form a diffuser configured to reduce an exit velocity of the cooling air through the nozzle (Pg 5 Lns 39-42);
wherein the expanding of the second cross section to form the diffuser takes place partially or entirely in a linear manner in the flow direction (reasonably disclosed in Fig 2) to form a conical diffuser wall region (second region formed by drilling i.e. having a circular cross section and linearly expanding as shown in Fig 2);
wherein the conical diffuser wall region of the nozzle has an angle of between 1 and 6° to a center line of the second region (claimed angle analogous to half of angle γ, Fig 2; 5 degrees, Pg 5 Ln 4; 4 degrees, Pg 3 Ln 8 and Pg 5 Ln 45).
PNG
media_image1.png
206
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the at least one pre-swirl nozzle as disclosed by Evans with the above aforementioned first and second cross sections as taught by Yang for the purpose of forming a throat to achieve a desired mass flow rate (Pg 5 Lns 10-16) and diffusing the cooling flow from the throat to achieve a desired outlet speed (Pg 5 Lns 39-45).
(b) Regarding claim 2:
(i) Evans as modified by Yang teaches the pre-swirl nozzle system according to claim 1.
(ii) Yang further teaches wherein the first cross section and/or the second cross section have/has a circular shape (both sections formed by drilling i.e. circular cross section perpendicular to centerline, Fig 2; first region of nozzle reasonably disclosed as being circular at the throat, Fig 2), a polygonal shape (second cross section of second region, Fig 2) or an elliptical shape (circular cross section of first region and conical cross section of second region will form elliptical holes where they meet a flat surface such as at the inlet and outlet of the nozzle, Fig 2).
(c) Regarding claim 3:
(i) Evans as modified by Yang teaches the pre-swirl nozzle system according to claim 1.
(ii) Yang further teaches wherein a center line of the first cross section and a center line of the second cross section are in alignment in the flow direction (Fig 2).
(d) Regarding claim 7:
(i) Evans as modified by Yang teaches the pre-swirl nozzle system according to claim 1.
(ii) Yang further teaches wherein the expanding of the second cross section to form the diffuser takes place partially or entirely in a non-linear manner in the flow direction (throat section is rounded thus the surfaces of the expanding region must be at least partially arcuate in order to meet the rounded surface at the throat, Pg 2 Ln 23 and Pg 4 Lns 35-36, Fig 2).
(e) Regarding claim 8:
(i) Evans as modified by Yang teaches the pre-swirl nozzle system according to claim 7.
(ii) Yang further teaches wherein the non-linear widening of the second cross section forms a diffusor wall region (rounded portion of surfaces of the expanding region adjacent the throat; see rejection of claim 7 above) which expands exponentially in the flow direction (due to rounded transition from linear portion to rounded throat; see rejection of claim 7 above).
(f) Regarding claim 9:
(i) Evans as modified by Yang teaches the pre-swirl nozzle system according to claim 1.
(ii) Yang further teaches wherein the expanding of the second cross section takes place partially in a linear manner (reasonably disclosed in Fig 2) and partially in a non-linear manner (throat section is rounded thus the surfaces of the expanding region must be at least partially arcuate in order to meet the rounded surface at the throat, Pg 2 Ln 23 and Pg 4 Lns 35-36, Fig 2).
(g) Regarding claim 10:
(i) Evans as modified by Yang teaches the pre-swirl nozzle system according to claim 1.
(ii) Yang further teaches wherein a transition between the first region and the second region has a sharp edge or a rounding (throat section is rounded thus the surfaces of the expanding region must be at least partially arcuate in order to meet the rounded surface at the throat, Pg 2 Ln 23 and Pg 4 Lns 35-36, Fig 2).
(h) Regarding claims 11 and 18:
(i) Evans as modified by Yang teaches the pre-swirl nozzle system according to claim 1 and 11.
(ii) Evans as modified by Yang do not teach:
wherein a maximum diameter of the first cross section of the at least one pre-swirl nozzle is between 1 and 12 mm; nor
wherein the maximum diameter of the first cross section of the at least one pre-swirl nozzle is 5 mm.
(iii) Evans further teaches:
an upstream region with a first cross section (restrictor channel 100, Fig 6),
a downstream region with a second cross section (channel 102, Fig 6) larger than the first cross section (Fig 6),
wherein the sizes of the first and second cross section may be adjusted to provide a proper flow rate and air velocity (Col 6 Lns 45-48).
Therefore, Evans teaches that the maximum diameter of the first cross section is a result effective variable. Routine optimization of a result effective variable requires only ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.05(II).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the maximum diameter of the first cross section of the pre-swirl nozzle as taught by Evans as modified by Yang to be within the range as claimed through routine optimization of a result effective variable, see MPEP 2144.05(II).
(i) Regarding claim 12:
(i) Evans as modified by Yang teaches the pre-swirl nozzle system according to claim 1.
(ii) Yang further teaches wherein a maximum diameter of the second cross section of the at least one pre-swirl nozzle is greater than the first cross section (reasonably disclosed in Figure 2) and is between 2 and 13 mm (Pg 5 Lns 3-4).
(j) Regarding claims 13 and 20:
(i) Evans as modified by Yang teaches the pre-swirl nozzle system according to claim 1.
(ii) Evans as modified by Yang do not teach:
wherein a ratio of a length of the first region to a length of the second region is between 0.1 and 0.5; nor
wherein the ratio of the length of the first region to the length of the second region is 0.3
(iii) Evans further teaches:
a first region (restrictor channel 100, Fig 6),
a second region (channel 102, Fig 6),
wherein the lengths of the first and second cross regions may be adjusted to provide a proper flow rate and air velocity (Col 6 Lns 45-48).
Therefore, Evans teaches that both of the lengths of the first and second regions and therefore ratio between them is a result effective variable. Routine optimization of a result effective variable requires only ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.05(II).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lengths of the first and second regions as taught by Evans as modified by Yang such that a ratio of the length of the region of the first cross section to the length of the region with the second cross section is within the range as claimed through routine optimization of a result effective variable, see MPEP 2144.05(II).
(k) Regarding claim 14:
(i) Evans as modified by Yang teaches the pre-swirl nozzle system according to claim 1.
(ii) Evans further wherein a direction of an outlet opening of the at least one pre-swirl nozzle is aligned with a direction of an inlet opening of the rotor (see abstract; “a predetermined angle from said nozzles … angular misalignment represented by the difference between said predetermined angle and said angle of said channel is substantially zero in magnitude”, Claim 1).
(l) Regarding claim 16:
(i) Evans as modified by Yang teaches the pre-swirl nozzle system according to claim 1.
(ii) Evans suggests (engine is a turbofan engine to provide “thrust beyond that available from core engine 12 alone”, Col 3 Lns 18-24) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the gas turbine is an aircraft engine.
(iii) The Examiner is taking official notice that the use of gas turbine engines in aircraft is well known in the art.
(m) Regarding claim 17:
(i) Evans as modified by Yang teaches the pre-swirl nozzle system according to claim 1.
(ii) Evans as modified by Yang do not teach wherein the angle is 2.5⁰, to the center line.
(iii) Yang further teaches wherein the expansion angle affects airflow velocity at the nozzle exit and limits the length of the nozzle, thereby establishing it as a result effective variable. Routine optimization of a result effective variable requires only ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.05(II).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the angle of the conical diffuser wall region as taught by Evans as modified by Yang to the value as claimed through routine optimization of a result effective variable, see MPEP 2144.05(II).
(n) Regarding claim 19:
(i) Evans as modified by Yang teaches the pre-swirl nozzle system according to claim 12.
(ii) Evans as modified by Yang do not teach wherein the maximum diameter of the second cross section of the at least one pre-swirl nozzle is 6 mm.
(iii) Evans further teaches:
a region with a first cross section (restrictor channel 100, Fig 6),
a downstream region with a second cross section (channel 102, Fig 6) larger than the first cross section (Fig 6),
wherein the sizes of the first and second cross section may be adjusted to provide a proper flow rate and air velocity (Col 6 Lns 45-48).
Therefore, Evans teaches that the maximum diameter of the second cross section is a result effective variable. Routine optimization of a result effective variable requires only ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.05(II).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the maximum diameter of the second cross section of the pre-swirl nozzle as taught by Evans as modified by Yang to be the value as claimed through routine optimization of a result effective variable, see MPEP 2144.05(II).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4456427 to Evans in view of CN 113775416 to Yang as evidenced by US 5800125 to Largillier.
(a) Regarding claim 21:
(i) Evans discloses a pre-swirl nozzle system in a turbine stage of a gas turbine (see abstract), comprising:
a stationary stator (structure comprising air injector nozzles 64, Fig 2);
a rotatable rotor (rotating disk 43, Fig 2) positioned adjacent the stator (Fig 2) and configured for rotation about a main axis of the gas turbine (axis of rotation of hollow shaft 30, Fig 2);
at least one pre-swirl nozzle (injector nozzles 64, Fig 2), directly formed in the stator (Fig 2), through which cooling air is directed in a flow direction toward the rotor (Col 4 Lns 59-61, Fig 2),
the at least one pre-swirl nozzle being inclined away from the main axis in the flow direction (angle α, Fig 3, Col 5 Ln 47);
wherein the at least one pre-swirl nozzle has an upstream first region positioned away from the rotor (upstream region of injector nozzles 64, Fig 2) and having a first cross section (must exist) and
a downstream second region (downstream region of injector nozzles 64, Fig 2) positioned toward the rotor and flow connected to the first region to receive the cooling air from the first region (Fig 2),
the second region having a second cross section (must exist).
(ii) Evans does not disclose:
the second cross section expanding in the flow direction to form a diffuser configured to reduce an exit velocity of the cooling air through the at least one pre-swirl nozzle;
wherein the expanding of the second cross section to form the diffuser takes place partially or entirely in a linear manner in the flow direction;
wherein the conical diffuser wall region of the at least one pre-swirl nozzle has an angle of between 1 and 6° to a center line of the second region;
wherein a center line of the first cross section and a center line of the second cross section are angled with respect to one another in the flow direction to form a conical diffuser wall region.(iii) Yang is also in the field of turbine engines and teaches:
a nozzle (converging/diverging nozzle, Fig 2),
wherein the nozzle has an upstream first region (see annotated Figure 2 below) positioned away from a rotor (wheel disk 2 and turbine blade grid 3, Fig 1) and having a first cross section (must exist) and
a downstream second region (see annotated Figure 2 below) positioned toward the rotor (Fig 1) and flow connected to the first region to receive the cooling air from the first region (via the throat),
the second region having a second cross section expanding in the flow direction (Fig 2) to form a diffuser configured to reduce an exit velocity of the cooling air through the nozzle (Pg 5 Lns 39-42);
wherein the expanding of the second cross section to form the diffuser takes place partially or entirely in a linear manner in the flow direction (reasonably disclosed in Fig 2) to form a conical diffuser wall region (second region formed by drilling i.e. having a circular cross section and linearly expanding as shown in Fig 2);
wherein the conical diffuser wall region of the nozzle has an angle of between 1 and 6° to a center line of the second region (claimed angle analogous to half of angle γ, Fig 2; 5 degrees, Pg 5 Ln 4; 4 degrees, Pg 3 Ln 8 and Pg 5 Ln 45).
PNG
media_image1.png
206
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second cross section disclosed by Evans with the above aforementioned second cross section as taught by Yang for the purpose of diffusing the cooling flow to achieve a desired outlet speed (Pg 5 Lns 39-45).
(v) Evans as modified by Yang do not teach wherein a center line of the first cross section and a center line of the second cross section are angled with respect to one another in the flow direction.
(vi) The Examiner is taking official notice that it is well known in the art for a pre-swirl nozzle to have a center line of a converging first cross section and a center line of a diverging second cross section be angled with respect to one another in the flow direction as evidenced by Largillier (pre-swirl nozzles comprising ducts 32 and injectors 36, Figs 2-3).
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 Justin A Pruitt whose telephone number is (571)272-8383. The examiner can normally be reached T-F 8:30am - 6:30pm.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JUSTIN A PRUITT/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745