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 .
Status of Claims and Application
This non-final action on the merits is in response to the application for patent received by the office on 16 February 2024. Claims 1-15 are pending.
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 9 and 10 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 9 recites the limitation "the plurality of fiber layers" in line 1 spanning to line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the plurality of fiber plies" in line 1 and line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purposes of examination, these claims will be interpreted as requiring fiber plies in the fiber preform.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5, 11, & 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 7,600,979 to Steibel et al. (‘979 hereafter) and made of record per applicant disclosure in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0212292 to JinQuan Xu (‘296 hereafter).
Regarding claim 1, ‘979 teaches a method for providing contouring in the manufacture of a ceramic matrix composite airfoil for a gas turbine engine, the method comprising: forming a ceramic insert having a contoured surface defining a desired contouring (Fig. 6 items 650 and 680); draping a first fiber ply over the contoured surface of the ceramic insert, the first fiber ply conforming to a shape of the contoured surface (C7L12-C7L43); and densifying the assembled ceramic insert and first fiber ply (C7L54-C8L2). ‘979 does not teach that the method is applied to a turbine engine endwall.
In the same field of endeavor, manufacture of turbine engine components out of ceramic matrix composite materials, ‘296 teaches that it is known to make turbine endwall contours using CMC materials and techniques (ABSTRACT) for the benefit of making a lighter,, more durable component. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘967 with those of ‘296 for the benefit of forming a turbine enwall contour with desirable lightness and durability.
Regarding claim 2, ‘979 teaches the method wherein the contoured surface comprises a protrusion and/or a depression (Fig 6 item 610, 658 and 654).
Regarding claim 3 ‘979 teaches the method wherein forming the ceramic insert comprises: forming a fiber preform; and at least partially densifying the fiber preform with a ceramic matrix (C5L26-C5L52).
Regarding claim 4 , ‘979 teaches the method wherein forming the ceramic insert comprises forming a fiber preform having an outer surface having a protrusion and/or a depression (Fig 6 items 650 and 680).
Regarding claim 5, ‘979 teaches the method wherein forming the ceramic insert comprises at least partially densifying the fiber preform (C5L26-C5L52).
Regarding claim 11, ‘979 teaches the method wherein the ceramic insert is monolithic ceramic body (C3L37).
Regarding claim 12, ‘979 teaches the method further comprising positioning the ceramic insert between the first fiber ply and a second fiber ply, wherein the second fiber ply is densified with the first fiber ply (Fig. 6 items 650, 680, 654 and 658 and C7L54-C8L2) .
Claim(s) 6-8, 10 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘979 I view of ‘296 as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0255345 to Clark et al. (‘345 hereafter).
Regarding claim 6 ‘979 in view of ‘296 does not teach an insert formed of fiber plies. In the same field of endeavor, the manufacture of turbine engine components using CMC materials and techniques, ‘345 teaches the method wherein the fiber preform comprises a plurality of fiber layers assembled in a stacked arrangement, the plurality of fiber layers having differing shapes and/or sizes (paragraph 0028) for the benefit of forming complex, interior shapes in a turbine engine component. It would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘979 in view of ‘296 with those of ‘345 for the benefit of forming a turbine endwall component with a complex interior shape.
Regarding claim 7, ‘979 teaches the method wherein the plurality of fiber layers have differing thicknesses (C7L30-C7L40).
Regarding claim 8, ‘345 teaches the method wherein each fiber layer of the plurality of fiber layers comprises one or more fiber plies (paragraph 0028) for the benefit of forming complex, interior shapes in a turbine engine component. It would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘979 in view of ‘296 with those of ‘345 for the benefit of forming a turbine endwall component with a complex interior shape.
Regarding claim 10, ‘979 teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the plurality of fiber plies are stacked to form a protrusion on the outer surface of the preform, wherein a shape of the plurality of fiber plies in the stacked arrangement decreases in size from an innermost fiber layer to an outermost fiber layer to form tapered walls of the protrusion (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 13, ‘345 teaches the method comprising: forming at least one additional ceramic insert having a contoured surface defining a desired endwall contouring (Fig. 3 items 36 and 38); and joining the ceramic insert and the at least one additional ceramic insert(Fig. 3 items 36 and 38); wherein the first fiber ply is draped over each of the ceramic insert and the at least one additional ceramic insert (Fig. 3 items 36, 38 and 40) for the benefit of forming complex, interior shapes in a turbine engine component. It would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘979 in view of ‘296 with those of ‘345 for the benefit of forming a turbine endwall component with a complex interior shape.
Regarding claim 14 ‘345 teaches the method wherein joining the ceramic insert and the at least one additional ceramic insert comprises aligning mating edges of the respective ceramic inserts insert (Fig. 3 items 36, 38) for the benefit of forming complex, interior shapes in a turbine engine component. It would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘979 in view of ‘296 with those of ‘345 for the benefit of forming a turbine endwall component with a complex interior shape.
Regarding claim 15, ‘979 teaches the method wherein each ceramic insert comprises a fiber-reinforced ceramic matrix composite (C3L55-C4L8).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘979 in view of ‘296 as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0063571 to Freeman et al. (‘571).
Regarding claim 9 ‘979 in view of ‘296 does not teach cut out plies. In the same field of endeavor, the formation of turbine engine components using CMC materials and techniques, ‘571 teaches the method wherein at least one fiber layer of the plurality of fiber layers comprises a cutout, the cutout forming at least a portion of a depression of the fiber preform (Fig 3. item 28) for the benefit of forming voids in the finished article. It would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘979 in view of ‘296 with those of ‘571 for the benefit of forming an endwall contour part with one or more voids.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John P Robitaille whose telephone number is (571)270-7006. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571) 270-5516. 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.
/JPR/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights