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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/20/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment submitted 10/20/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 6-18, and 20-23 remain pending. Claims 2, 4-5, 19, and 24 have been cancelled. New claim 25 has been added.
The amendments to the claims have overcome each and every rejection under 35 USC 112 made in Final Rejection mailed 08/19/2025 and those rejections are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 10/20/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3, 6-18, and 20-23 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 10961862 to Lutjen which teaches a reinforcing pad having an ellipsoidal cross sectional shape.
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, 6-13, 16-18, and 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6000908 to Bunker in view of US 9394798 to Crites and US 10961862 to Lutjen.
(a) Regarding claim 1:
(i) Bunker discloses an aerofoil (airfoil 200, Fig 6) for a gas turbine engine (10, Fig 1) comprising:
a first conduit formed in the aerofoil (cavity internal of issuing wall 112, Fig 6);
a second conduit formed in the aerofoil (cavity between issuing wall 112 and target wall 114, Fig 6); and
a dividing wall (issuing wall 112, Fig 6) separating the first and second conduits (Fig 6),
the dividing wall comprising a plurality of transfer ports (impingement ports 122, Fig 6) configured to permit fluid flow between the first and second conduits (“coolant flow, typically comprising steam or air”, Col 5 Lns 12-13; flow arrows through impingement ports 122, Fig 6);
wherein the dividing wall further comprises a reinforcing pad (impingement rail 118 proximate exit area 125) as a reinforcing boss encircling two or more of the plurality of transfer ports (impingement rail 118 may be an impingement “island” having two impingement ports 122, Col 4 Lns 17-19), and
wherein the reinforcing boss protrudes from the dividing wall into the second conduit (Fig 6).
(ii) Bunker does not disclose wherein the reinforcing boss protrudes from the dividing wall into the first conduit.
(iii) Crites is also in the field of airfoils (see title) and teaches an airfoil comprising:
a first conduit (chamber 424, Fig 4) and a second conduit (chamber 422),
a dividing wall (interior wall 402, Fig 4) separating the first and second conduits (Fig 4),
a reinforcing boss (extended portions 918/938/940, Fig 9),
wherein the reinforcing boss protrudes from the dividing wall into the first conduit (hole 912/932, Fig 9).
(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 reinforcing boss as disclosed by Bunker to also extend into the first conduit as taught by Crites for the purpose of preventing and/or mitigating inlet cross flow (Col 7 Lns 30-32).
(v) Bunker as modified by Crites does not teach:
wherein the reinforcing pad is an ellipsoidal reinforcing pad,
wherein the ellipsoidal reinforcing pad defines a major axis and a minor axis, and
wherein the major axis and the minor axis are oriented substantially perpendicular to a vector defining a direction of fluid flow through the plurality of transfer ports.
(vi) Lutjen is also in the field of gas turbine engines (Col 1 Ln 10) and teaches a plurality of transfer ports (orifice 170, Fig 4), each transfer port comprising:
an ellipsoidal (Col 8 Lns 21-25) reinforcing pad (stress relief boss 162, Fig 4B),
wherein the ellipsoidal reinforcing pad defines a major axis and a minor axis (must exist to define an ellipse), and
wherein the major axis and the minor axis are oriented substantially perpendicular to a vector defining a direction of fluid flow through the plurality of transfer ports (“cross section of the stress-relief boss 162 … taken along a plane generally parallel to the surface 164”, Col 8 Lns 21-22/24-25; surface 164 reasonably disclosed in Fig 4B as being perpendicular to fluid flow direction through orifice 170).
(vii) Bunker provides reinforcing ‘island’ but does not describe their specific shape. And Lutjen, much like applicant, is providing stress relief bosses that can be in the shape of ellipsoids. Since Applicant and Lutjen are addressing the same issue, reduction of stress concentrations around cooling orifices, 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 reinforcing pad as taught by Bunker as modified by Crites to be ellipsoidal as taught by Lutjen as an obvious matter of design choice, see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
(b) Regarding claim 3:
(i) Bunker as modified by Crites as further modified by Lutjen teaches the aerofoil of claim 1.
(ii) Bunker further discloses wherein at least one of the plurality of transfer ports is non-cylindrical in shape (entry area of impingement ports 122 may be bell shaped, see abstract, Fig 3).
(c) Regarding claim 6:
(i) Bunker as modified by Crites as further modified by Lutjen teaches the aerofoil of claim 1.
(ii) Bunker further discloses wherein the reinforcing boss is at least 10% greater in thickness than a surrounding area of the dividing wall (reasonably disclosed in Figs 3/6).
(d) Regarding claim 7:
(i) Bunker as modified by Crites as further modified by Lutjen teaches the aerofoil of claim 1.
(ii) Bunker further discloses wherein the reinforcing boss extends across the dividing wall away from the perimeter of the transfer port by a distance of at least 50% of a diameter of the transfer port (reasonably disclosed in Figs 3/6).
(e) Regarding claim 8:
(i) Bunker as modified by Crites as further modified by Lutjen teaches the aerofoil of claim 1.
(ii) Bunker further discloses wherein the first and second conduits are configured to transport a cooling fluid for cooling the aerofoil (“coolant flow, typically comprising steam or air”, Col 5 Lns 12-13; flow arrows through impingement ports 122, Fig 6).
(f) Regarding claim 9:
(i) Bunker as modified by Crites as further modified by Lutjen teaches the aerofoil of claim 1.
(ii) Bunker further discloses wherein the aerofoil is selected from the group consisting of a turbine guide vane, a nozzle guide vane, and a turbine blade (“hot section … vanes, blades”, Col 4 Lns 48-49).
(g) Regarding claim 10:
(i) Bunker as modified by Crites as further modified by Lutjen teaches the aerofoil of claim 1.
(ii) Bunker further discloses wherein the first and second conduits are configured to extend in a substantially radial direction with respect to the gas turbine engine when installed in a gas turbine engine (blades and vanes of gas turbine engine 10 shown to extend in radial direction relative to axis 11, Fig 1; conduits shown to extend in longitudinal, i.e. radial, direction in Fig 6).
(h) Regarding claim 11:
(i) Bunker as modified by Crites as further modified by Lutjen teaches the aerofoil of claim 1.
(ii) Bunker further discloses wherein the reinforcing boss is shaped to alleviate stress concentrations in the aerofoil around the transfer port (all structures are “shaped to alleviate stress concentrations” in at least some way).
(i) Regarding claim 12:
(i) Bunker as modified by Crites as further modified by Lutjen teaches the aerofoil of claim 1.
(ii) Crites further teaches one or more cooling holes (film cooling holes 380, Fig 3) extending from the first and/or second conduits to an exterior surface of the aerofoil (Col 4 Lns 52-57).
(iii) 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 airfoil as disclosed by Bunker to comprise cooling holes as taught by Crites for the purpose of providing a cooling film of fluid onto the surface of the airfoil (Col 4 Lns 49-52).
(j) Regarding claim 13:
(i) Bunker as modified by Crites as further modified by Lutjen teaches the aerofoil of claim 1.
(ii) Bunker further discloses a turbine engine (10, Fig 1), the gas turbine engine comprising the aerofoil of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
(iii) The Examiner notes that the term “for an aircraft” in the preamble merely states an intended use of the claimed invention. As the prior art teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention, “for an aircraft” of the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to the claim, see MPEP 2111.02(II).
(k) Regarding claim 16:
(i) Bunker as modified by Crites as further modified by Lutjen teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 13.
(ii) Crites further teaches an aircraft (“an aircraft”, Col 3 Ln 18) comprising the gas turbine engine according to claim 13 (gas turbine engine 100, Col 3 Ln 18; see also rejection of claim 13 above).
(iii) 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 gas turbine engine as disclosed by Bunker to be used in an aircraft as taught by Crites for the purpose of propelling the aircraft (Col 3 Ln 18).
(l) Regarding claim 17:
(i) Bunker as modified by Crites as further modified by Lutjen teaches the aerofoil of claim 1.
(ii) Bunker further discloses wherein the reinforcing pad is a first reinforcing pad (any one of impingement ports 122, Fig 6), and the aerofoil further comprises a second reinforcing pad (any other one of impingement ports 122, Fig 6)
(m) Regarding claim 18:
(i) Bunker as modified by Crites as further modified by Lutjen teaches the aerofoil of claim 17.
(ii) Bunker further discloses wherein the first reinforcing pad and the second reinforcing pad are displaced from each other (Fig 6).
(n) Regarding claim 20:
(i) Bunker as modified by Crites as further modified by Lutjen teaches the aerofoil of claim 1.
(ii) Bunker further discloses wherein the dividing wall defines a non-uniform thickness (issuing wall 112 defines airfoil shape having a larger thickness in a leading edge portion, Fig 6; also, issuing wall 112 is reasonably disclosed as having a thinner wall thickness near a trailing edge portion, Fig 6) and a curvature (Fig 6).
(o) Regarding claim 21:
(i) Bunker as modified by Crites as further modified by Lutjen teaches the aerofoil of claim 1.
(ii) Bunker further discloses wherein the reinforcing boss comprises a tapering portion (Fig 4) over which the thickness of the dividing wall increases at a gradient of at least 0.5:1 (reasonably disclosed in Fig 4 where slope of curved portion at outer edge of raised portion increasing at approximately 45-60 degrees, with claimed gradient approximating an angle of 26.6 degrees).
(p) Regarding claim 22:
(i) Bunker as modified by Crites as further modified by Lutjen teaches the aerofoil of claim 1.
(ii) Bunker as modified by Crites as further modified by Lutjen do not teach where a largest diameter of the reinforcing boss is arranged substantially tangent to peak stress field in the dividing wall.
(iii) Crites further teaches wherein the location of the transfer ports affect inlet and exit field conditions as well as regional cooling and wherein the location and orientation of the transfer ports are optimized using computational fluid dynamic (CFD) analysis, thereby establishing the location and orientation of the transfer ports, and thereby the location and orientation of the reinforcing boss, a result effective variable. Routine optimization 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 location of the transfer ports, and thereby the reinforcing boss, through routine optimization of a result effective variable, see MPEP 2144.05(II).
(q) Regarding claim 23:
(i) Bunker as modified by Crites as further modified by Lutjen teaches the aerofoil of claim 1.
(ii) Bunker further discloses wherein the dividing wall provides structural support to the aerofoil (via tying elements 111; Col 3 Lns 38-42).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6000908 to Bunker in view of US 9394798 to Crites in further view of US 10961862 to Lutjen as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of US 11754094 to Topol.
(a) Regarding claim 14:
(i) Bunker as modified by Crites as further modified by Lutjen teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 13.
(ii) Bunker further discloses:
an engine core comprising a turbine (high and low pressure turbines 20/22, Fig 1), a compressor (high pressure compressor 16, Fig 1), and a core shaft (unlabeled shafts connecting turbines 20/22 to compressor 16 and fan section 12, Fig 1) connecting the turbine to the compressor (Fig 1); and
a fan (fan section 12, Fig 1) located upstream of the engine core (Fig 1), the fan comprising a plurality of fan blades (Fig 1).
(iii) Bunker does not disclose a gearbox that receives an input from the core shaft and outputs drive to the fan so as to drive the fan at a lower rotational speed than the core shaft.
(iv) Topol is also in the field of gas turbine engines (see title) and teaches:
a gearbox (gear system 48, Fig 1) that receives an input from a core shaft (inner shaft 40, Fig 1) and outputs drive to a fan (fan 42, Fig 1) at a lower rotational speed than the core shaft (Col 4 Lns 28-29).
(v) 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 gas turbine engine as disclosed by Bunker with the above aforementioned gearbox as taught by Topol for the purpose of driving the fan at a lower rotation speed than the core shaft (Col 4 Lns 28-29).
(b) Regarding claim 15:
(i) Bunker as modified by Crites as further modified by Lutjen as even further modified by Topol teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 14.
(ii) Bunker as modified by Crites as further modified by Lutjen as even further modified by Topol further teaches wherein:
the turbine is a first turbine (Bunker: low pressure turbine 22, Fig 1),
the compressor is a first compressor (Topol: first or low pressure compressor 44, Fig 1), and
the core shaft is a first core shaft (Bunker: unlabeled shaft connecting low pressure turbine 20 to fan section 12, Fig 1);
the engine core further comprises a second turbine (Bunker: high pressure turbine 20, Fig 1),
a second compressor (Bunker: high pressure compressor 16, Fig 1), and
a second core shaft (Bunker: unlabeled shaft connecting high pressure turbine 20 to high pressure compressor 16, Fig 1) connecting the second turbine to the second compressor (Bunker: Fig 1); and
the second turbine, second compressor, and second core shaft are arranged to rotate at a higher rotational speed than the first core shaft (Topol: “high speed” spool 32 corelating to the second turbine, second compressor, and second core shaft of Bunker and “low speed” spool 30 corelating to the first core shaft of Bunker).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6000908 to Bunker in view of US 10961862 to Lutjen and US 9394798 to Crites.
(a) Regarding claim 25:
(i) Bunker discloses an aerofoil (airfoil 200, Fig 6) for a gas turbine engine (10, Fig 1) comprising:
a first conduit formed in the aerofoil (cavity internal of issuing wall 112, Fig 6);
a second conduit formed in the aerofoil (cavity between issuing wall 112 and target wall 114, Fig 6); and
a dividing wall (issuing wall 112, Fig 6) separating the first and second conduits (Fig 6),
the dividing wall comprising a plurality of transfer ports (impingement ports 122, Fig 6) configured to permit fluid flow between the first and second conduits (“coolant flow, typically comprising steam or air”, Col 5 Lns 12-13; flow arrows through impingement ports 122, Fig 6);
wherein the dividing wall further comprises a reinforcing pad (impingement rail 118 proximate area 125 which is rounded into an ellipsoid shape reasonably disclosed in Fig 4; “rounded”, see abstract) as a reinforcing boss encircling at least one of the plurality of transfer ports (impingement rail may be an impingement “island” having two impingement ports 122, Col 4 Lns 17-19),
(ii) Bunker does not disclose wherein reinforcing pad is an ellipsoidal reinforcing pad, wherein the ellipsoidal reinforcing pad defines a major axis and the major axis is oriented substantially parallel to a peak stress field in the dividing wall.
(iii) Lutjen is also in the field of gas turbine engines (Col 1 Ln 10) and teaches a plurality of transfer ports (orifice 170, Fig 4), each transfer port comprising:
an ellipsoidal (Col 8 Lns 21-25) reinforcing pad (stress relief boss 162, Fig 4B),
wherein the ellipsoidal reinforcing pad defines a major axis (must exist to define an ellipse).
(iv) Bunker provides reinforcing ‘island’ but does not describe their specific shape. And Lutjen, much like applicant, is providing stress relief bosses that can be in the shape of ellipsoids. Since Applicant and Lutjen are addressing the same issue, reduction of stress concentrations around cooling orifices, 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 reinforcing pad as disclosed by Bunker to be ellipsoidal as taught by Lutjen as an obvious matter of design choice, see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
(v) Bunker as modified by Lutjen does not teach wherein the major axis is oriented substantially parallel to a peak stress field in the dividing wall.
(vi) Crites teaches wherein the orientation of transfer ports are optimized using computational fluid dynamic (CFD) analysis (Col 8 Lns 1-2), thereby establishing the location and orientation of the transfer ports, and thereby the location and orientation of the reinforcing boss, a result effective variable. Routine optimization requires only ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.05(II).
(vii) 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 major axis as taught by Bunker as modified by Lutjen to be oriented substantially parallel to a peak stress field in the dividing wall as claimed through routine optimization of a result effective variable requires only ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.04(II).
Conclusion
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