DETAILED 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 17, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 17, 2025 have been fully considered.
The applicant argues that claim 20 has been amended with regard to the claim objection. It appears as though this claim has not been amended and is still in its “Original” presentation.
The 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections are withdrawn based on the amendments.
The applicant argues that Coutandin does not teach the amended claim 12. The examiner interprets Coutandin in another way as shown by Annotated Figure 3 in the rejection below.
The applicant argues that Haile and Dawes do not teach the amended claim 1. The examiner interprets Dawes in another manner as shown by Annotated Figure 2 in the rejection below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites, “bounded by the outer surface of the casing an interior surface of the u-shape”. It is believed to mean “bounded by the outer surface of the casing and an interior surface of the u-shape”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-5 and 7 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, “each of the plurality of parts having a u-shape with an open top and arranged on the casing with the open top facing the outer surface of the casing”. It is unclear what “top” requires in the context of annularly arranged elements. In Figure 5, the radially inner ends of (102) face the outer surface of the casing (13). In Figure 5, these radially inner end appear to be at the “bottom”, while in a position 180 degrees offset the radially inner end would be at the “top”. It is unclear if the open “top” refers to the “u-shape” itself (the top of the letter “u” is open) and if this requires a particular orientation of the parts or not. Claims dependent from claim 1 are also rejected.
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 (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 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.
Claims 12, 13, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Coutandin et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20150152745) hereinafter Coutandin.
PNG
media_image1.png
590
839
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Coutandin discloses:
An aeroderivative gas turbine {[0001]}, comprising:
a casing with an outer surface {Figure 1 (7) with (20) may be considered the casing; the outer surface is therefore the radially outer surface of (20)}; and
pieces contacting the casing {Figure 4, (11) and (29) form pieces, these contact the casing via (29); [0027]},
the pieces having an interior surface and an outer surface {Annotated Figure 1, (Ia) and/or (Ib) may be considered an interior surface; the outer surface is the outer surface of (11)},
wherein, for each of the pieces, the interior surface of the pieces and the outer surface of the casing form a plurality of air passages {Annotated Figure 1, (Ia) and/or (Ib) along with the outer surface of (20) form a plurality of air passages (IIa). Also see arrows (30a) and arrows near (12) and (22); [0025]/[0029]},
wherein, for each of the pieces, the outer surfaces of adjacent pieces are in contact with one another along the outer surface of the casing {Figures 2 and 4, instances of (11) extend circumferentially and are made in one piece; [0034]. These instances of (11) may be considered to be multiple pieces distributed circumferentially that have adjacent pieces that are in contact with one another including their outer surfaces. This is shown by Annotated 3 (IVa) and (IVb) which may be considered first and second pieces}
Regarding claim 13, Coutandin further discloses:
an insulating layer disposed on the pieces {Figure 4 (27) is disposed on (11); (27) is described as a thermally insulating material in [0026]}.
Regarding claim 15, Coutandin further discloses:
wherein the pieces reside adjacent to one another on the outer surface of the casing {Annotated Figure 3 (IVa) and (IVb) are adjacent on the outer surface of the casing}.
Regarding claim 20, Coutandin further discloses:
an air manifold in position to supply cooling air to the air passage {Figure 2 (10) supplies cooling air to (11) and the air passage; [0019]}.
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 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coutandin et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20150152745) hereinafter Coutandin.
PNG
media_image2.png
743
686
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Coutandin discloses:
wherein the pieces comprise bent sheets that reside adjacent to one another on the outer surface of the casing {Figures 1 and 4, Annotated Figure 3 (IVa) and (IVb) reside adjacent to one another on the outer surface of the casing. It is noted that the claim is an apparatus claim and is not limited to manufacturing steps of starting with a planar sheet and subsequently bending the sheet, see MPEP 2113 I. The tubular shape of (11) may be formed using sheets that are bent}.
Coutandin does not disclose:
wherein the sheet is made of metal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a metal as the material of the sheet / tube of Coutandin. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for the following reasons. While Coutandin suggests using lighter materials than metals {[0034]/[0041]}, Coutandin does effectively acknowledge considering metals as the material for the first part / sheet to be potentially made from especially since metal is what is used in the prior art and other materials are compared to metal {[0006]/[0041]}. Haile therefore effectively acknowledges that using a metal means the structure will have increased weight, but these results are entirely predictable, see MPEP 2143 I. B.
Additionally, Coutandin focuses the material selection of the tube on using a material that is lightweight {[0041]}. There are other design considerations that are universally almost always present such as manufacturability and cost that may favor metal as a selection. Metals are a large category of materials and a lighter weight metal may be used.
Claims 17 and 18 require the sheet to be made of metal. For the purpose of brevity and clarity, the obviousness finding of this aspect made in claim 16 is referenced rather than being shown in full; please see the rejection of claim 16 above.
Regarding claim 17, Coutandin further discloses:
wherein the pieces comprise sheets, each bent to form ends that contact the casing {Figure 4, (11) is not straight including ends (29) which contact the casing. It is noted that the claim is an apparatus claim and is not limited to manufacturing steps of starting with a planar sheet and subsequently bending the sheet, see MPEP 2113 I. The tubular shape of (11) may be formed using sheets that are bent}
For the sheet being formed of metal, please see the obviousness rejection of claim 16 above.
Regarding claim 18, Coutandin further discloses:
wherein the pieces comprise sheets, each bent to form ends that contact the casing {see the rejection of claim 17 above} and
reside adjacent to one another on the outer surface of the casing {Figures 1 and 4, instances of (11) are considered adjacent as they are relatively close in proximity and nothing is separating them}.
For the sheet being formed of metal, please see the obviousness rejection of claim 16 above.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coutandin in view of Schweikert (U.S Patent 2,705,208) hereinafter Schweikert.
Regarding claim 14, Coutandin further discloses:
an insulating layer disposed on the pieces {Figure 4 (27) is disposed on (11)}.
Coutandin is silent regarding the composition of the insulating layer. Coutandin is therefore silent regarding:
the insulating layer comprising quilted panels encased in woven glass cloth.
Schweikert pertains to gas turbine engine insulating. Schweikert teaches:
the insulating layer comprising quilted panels encased in woven glass cloth {Column 2 line 79 – Column 3 line 13}.
Since Coutandin is silent regarding the composition of the insulating layer one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have use quilted panels encased in woven glass cloth as taught by Schweikert for the thermal insulation of Coutandin. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as this is a known construction for thermal insulation in gas turbine casings that has sufficient thermal properties, flexibility, and elasticity {Schweikert Colum 3 line 14-27}.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haile et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20190086082).
Regarding claim 21, Haile discloses:
An aeroderivative gas turbine {Figure 1 shows a turbojet engine which is a type of gas turbine; [0001]/[0047]. The turbine is not shown in Figure 1 but is implicitly there, see MPEP 2112/2144.01}, comprising:
a power turbine {Figure 1 shows a turbojet engine which is a type of gas turbine; [0001]/[0047]. The turbine is not shown in Figure 1 but is implicitly there, see MPEP 2112/2144.01};
a casing surrounding the power turbine {Figure 1, the power turbine is downstream of the combustor, this is implicit to one of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP 2112/2144.01. The casing (54) is a part of (22) which surrounds the turbine which resides where the leader of 12 points in Figure 1},
the casing having an outer surface {Figures 3/4, (54) has a radially outer surface which faces (32)}; and
an insulation assembly disposed on the outer surface of the casing {Figure 4, the assembly on top of (54)}
the insulation assembly comprising:
a single sheet forming pillars disposed circumferentially around the casing {Figure 4 (32) forms pillars (50)/(52) and is disposed circumferentially around the casing (54)},
the pillars spaced apart from another so as to form a passage that is bounded by a surface of the single sheet, adjacent pillars, and the outer surface of the casing {Figure 4 instances of (50)/(52) are spaced apart to form passage (56) that is bounded by (32)/(50)/(52) and the outer surface of the casing (54)}, and
an insulating panel disposed on the single sheet {Figure 4, insulating materials form (58) which is made from a fire barrier-type material as described in [0037]; (58) is on (32).
Haile does not disclose that the single sheet is metal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a metal as the material of the sheet of Haile. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for the following reasons. While Haile suggests using materials thermally insulative as possible and discourages metals, Haile does effectively acknowledge considering metals as the material for the first part / sheet to be potentially made from {[0032]}. Haile therefore effectively acknowledges that using a metal has a less desirable thermal conductivity with which means the thermal panel is less effective, but these results are entirely predictable, see MPEP 2143 I. B.
Additionally, Haile focuses the material selection on using a material that is thermally insulative as possible while at the same time being structurally strong {0032]. There are other design considerations that are universally almost always present such as manufacturability and cost that favor metal as a selection. Furthermore, thermal insulation properties of the panel may be largely achieved by other portions, while the corrugated sheet structure may provide the desired structural strength. Metals are a large category of materials and a less thermally conductive metal may be used.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haile et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20190086082) in view of Dawes (U.S Patent 5,729,947) hereinafter Dawes.
Regarding claim 1, Haile discloses:
An aeroderivative gas turbine {[0001], Figure 1 (10)}, comprising:
a power turbine {Figure 1 (10); [0016]/[0023]; the depicted turbojet is a simplified figure and does not show the combustor and turbine within (22), but is implicitly present; see MPEP 2112};
a casing surrounding the power turbine {Figure 2 (54) is a part of (22) which surrounds the power turbine described above which is inside of (22)},
the casing having an outer surface {Figure 3, (54) has a radially outer surface which faces (32)}; and
an insulation assembly disposed on the outer surface of the casing {Figures 2/4, the structure radially outward of (54) which includes (32), (58), and (56)/(60) is disposed on the outer surface of the casing},
the insulation assembly comprising:
a plurality of parts disposed in contact with the outer surface of the casing {Figure 4 (32) is in contact with the casing (54) at (42)/(38)/(44)},
each of the plurality of parts having a u-shape with an open top and arranged on the casing with the open top facing the outer surface of the casing so as to form a plurality of individuals channels {Figure 4 (32) has a u-shape with an open top of the u-shape arranged on the casing (54), with the open top facing the outer surface of the casing so as to form a plurality of individual channels (56)},
each of the plurality of individual channels bounded by the outer surface of the casing and an interior surface of the u-shape {Figure 4, (32) forms channels (56) where each has the open side bounded by the outer surface of the casing (54); [0031]}, and
an insulating panel disposed on the first part {Figure 4, insulating materials form (58) which is made from a fire barrier-type material as described in [0037]; (58) is on (32)}.
Haile does not disclose:
a plurality of parts disposed next to one another
Haile does not disclose the above due to the channels (56) being separated by channels (60) which do not have an open side bounded by the outer surface of the casing due to the corrugated pattern of (32).
PNG
media_image3.png
728
1012
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Dawes is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of making a spacing structure that has an air gap {Dawes Column 3 lines 59-65 and Column 5 lines 1-12 and 38-43}. Dawes teaches:
a plurality of parts disposed next to one another {Annotated Figure 2 (IIIa) and (IIIb) are both parts that are disposed next to one another and in contact as they are part of the larger structure (40)}
each of the plurality of parts having a u-shape with an open top and arranged on the casing with the open top facing the outer surface of the casing so as to form a plurality of individuals channels {Annotated Figure 2 (IIIa) and (IIIb) each have a u-shape with an open top and are arranged with the open top facing the outer surface of the casing (30) to form a plurality of individual channels}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used plurality of parts with protrusions all on the inner side as taught by Dawes rather than the corrugated shape of Haile. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as corrugated structures and structures with protrusions all on an inner side are known spacer structures that are substitutes that are known to form air passages / insulation cavities {Dawes Figure 2 compared to Figure 4; Column 3 lines 59-65 and Column 5 lines 1-12 and 38-43}.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Haile and Dawes further teaches:
wherein the plurality of u-shaped parts have ribs that contact the casing {Dawes Figure 2 the first part (40) has ribs (42) that contact the casing (30). This structure of the first part is applied to Haile Figure 4 analogous to the radially inner portion of the first part (32) contacts casing (54)}.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Haile and Dawes teaches the aeroderivative gas turbine engine of claim 1, but does not disclose:
wherein the plurality of u-shaped parts comprise a metal sheet.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a metal as the material of the sheet of the first part of the combination of Haile and Dawes. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for the following reasons. While Haile suggests using materials thermally insulative as possible and discourages metals, Haile does effectively acknowledge considering metals as the material for the first part / sheet to be potentially made from {[0032]}. Haile therefore effectively acknowledges that using a metal has a less desirable thermal conductivity with which means the thermal panel is less effective, but these results are entirely predictable, see MPEP 2143 I. B.
Additionally, Haile focuses the material selection on using a material that is thermally insulative as possible while at the same time being structurally strong {0032]. There are other design considerations that are universally almost always present such as manufacturability and cost that favor metal as a selection. Furthermore, thermal insulation properties of the panel may be largely achieved by other portions, while the corrugated sheet structure may provide the desired structural strength. Metals are a large category of materials and a less thermally conductive metal may be used.
Claims 4-5 and 7 require the sheet to be made of metal. For the purpose of brevity and clarity, the obviousness finding of this aspect made in claim 3 is referenced rather than being shown in full; please see the rejection of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Haile and Dawes further teaches:
wherein the plurality of u-shaped parts comprise a sheet that is bent to form ends that contact the casing {Dawes (40) may be formed form a sheet that is bent to form the ends that contact the casing and then attached to other similar sheets to form (40). It is noted that the claim is an apparatus claim and is not limited to the manufacturing steps of starting with a planar sheet and subsequently bending the sheet, see MPEP 2113 I}.
For the sheet being formed of metal, please see the obviousness rejection of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Haile and Dawes further teaches:
wherein the plurality of u-shaped parts comprise a sheet that is bent to form pillars that contact the casing {Dawes Figure 2, (42) are considered pillars by the examiner and are angled relative to the top portion (46) of (40); instances of (42) contact the casing (30). It is noted that the claim is an apparatus claim and is not limited to the manufacturing steps of starting with a planar sheet and subsequently bending the sheet, see MPEP 2113 I}.
For the sheet being formed of metal, please see the obviousness rejection of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Haile and Dawes further teaches:
wherein adjacent ones of u-shaped parts contact one another at the ends {Dawes Figure 2, the interpretation where each instance of (40) has a plurality of sheet is used. This plurality of sheets contact one another as it forms a larger structure as shown in Figure 2}.
For the sheet being formed of metal, please see the obviousness rejection of claim 3 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Genilier et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20200182089) teaches a circumferentially segmented insulation assembly.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL K. REITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1387. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 a.m. -5:30 p.m.
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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at 5712703508. 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.
/MICHAEL K. REITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3745