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 05/12/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4, 6-18, 20, 22-23, and 25 remain pending. Claims 2, 4-5, 19, 21, and 24 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive. The amendments to the claims have changed the scope of the claims necessitating modified grounds of rejection. Please see modified grounds of rejection below.
Regarding claim 1, the Applicant argues it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Bunker with the teachings of Lutjen since “Lutjen is specifically designed to be ‘concentric to the inlet orifice 170’ such that the stress relief boss and the inlet share ‘the same axis B” and therefore one of ordinary skill “would have modified the impingement rail to encircle a single impingement port, not ‘two or more of the plurality of transfer ports’ as claimed”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Bunker discloses providing a reinforcing boss comprising a reinforcing “island” having two transfer ports (“island” having two impingement ports 122, Col 4 Lns 17-19) and therefore does not rely on Lutjen in any way to teach “a reinforcing boss encircling two … of the plurality of transfer ports” as claimed. Rather, it is merely the shape of the reinforcing boss already disclosed by Bunker to have an ellipsoidal shape as taught by Lutjen as an obvious matter of design choice, see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 1, the Applicant further argues “Bunker’s angle of 45-60 degrees does not correspond to Applicant’s claimed taper angle” and therefore “does not disclose a gradient of at least 0.5:1” as claimed. The Examine respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s claimed gradient corresponds to an angle of about 26.6 degrees and Bunker reasonably discloses a tapering portion increasing at a gradient of about 45-60 degrees as shown in Figure 4, with said angles corresponding to a gradient of 1:1 to about 1.73:1, both of which are clearly larger than applicant’s claimed gradient of 0.5:1.
Regarding claim 25, the Examiner has found Applicant’s arguments persuasive and the rejection of claim 25 of Non-Final Rejection 01/09/2026 is hereby withdrawn. However, claim 25 remains rejected below under new grounds of rejection. Please see new grounds of rejection below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the largest diameter of the reinforcing boss arranged substantially tangent to peak stress field in the dividing wall (claim 22) and the major axis that is oriented substantially parallel to a peak stress field in the dividing wall (claim 25) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 25 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 25, added in amendment filed 10/20/2025, recites “wherein the ellipsoidal reinforcing pad defines a major axis that is oriented substantially parallel to a peak stress field in the dividing wall” however this limitation does not appear to have support in Applicant’s disclosure as originally filed. The Applicant has provided no guidance on where support for the subject limitation may be found (see Remarks filed 10/20/2025). Applicant specification describes wherein a largest diameter of the reinforcing boss (i.e. the major axis of the ellipsoid shape) may be substantially tangent to peak stress fields in the dividing wall (Page 3 Lns 19-20) but makes no description of the major axis being parallel to a peak stress field in the dividing wall. The subject limitation is also not disclosed in any of the Figures of the present application. For the reasons above, Applicants disclosure does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that the Applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
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, 20, and 22-23 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);
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),
the reinforcing boss protrudes from the dividing wall into the second conduit (Fig 6),
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).
(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. 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 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) The Applicant has disclosed no criticality, nor any new or unexpected results, from having a largest diameter of the reinforcing boss being arranged substantially tangent to a peak stress field in the dividing wall and the prior art would perform the same having a largest diameter of the reinforcing boss being arranged substantially tangent to a peak stress field in the dividing wall. 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, merely orienting said ellipsoid shape to reduce stress concentrations would be an obvious matter of design choice.
(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 a largest diameter of the reinforcing boss as taught by Bunker as modified by Crites as further modified by Lutjen to be to be arranged substantially tangent to peak stress field in the dividing wall as claimed as an obvious matter of design choice, see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
(p) 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.
(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 exit area 125) as a reinforcing boss encircling at least one of the plurality of transfer ports (impingement rail 118 may be an impingement “island”, Col 4 Lns 17-19).
(ii) Bunker does not disclose wherein the reinforcing pad is ellipsoidal, wherein the ellipsoidal reinforcing pad defines a major axis.
(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. 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 explicitly teach wherein the major axis is oriented substantially parallel to a peak stress field in the dividing wall.
(vi) The Applicant has disclosed no criticality, nor any new or unexpected results, from having the major axis be substantially parallel to a peak stress field in the dividing wall and the prior art would perform the same having the major axis be substantially parallel to a peak stress field in the dividing wall. 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, merely orienting said ellipsoid shape to reduce stress concentrations would be an obvious matter of design choice.
(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 to be arranged substantially parallel to a peak stress field in the dividing wall as claimed as an obvious matter of design choice, see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
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
Prosecution Insights