DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 4720 (see fig. 4). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Examiner Note Regarding two claim 12’s
Applicant will have to cancel the 2nd Claim 12 and add the limitations of the canceled Claim 12 as NEW claim 14 should applicant desire to keep the limitations of the second claim 12. 37 C.F.R. 1.126 stated “The original numbering of the claims must be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When claims are added, they must be numbered by the applicant consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claim previously presented (whether entered or not).”
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 4, 11 and 12 (first version) is 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.
Claims 4 and 12 (first version) each recite the limitation "the turbine rotor components" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear because there is no discussion of what components are being coupled together in either the claims or applicant specification pars. 9 and 25. Therefore the public would not know how to avoid infringing the instant claims.
Claim 11 depends upon claim 11 and the full scope of the claim cannot be determined. Therefore the claim is incomplete and therefore indefinite. This is analogous to the scenario of a claim dependent upon a claim that has been canceled (MPEP 608.01(n)(V)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 3,175,804 (Bunger), as evidenced by US Patent 4,221,540 (Savonuzzi), in view of Pub. No. US 2010/0150725 A1 (Krautheim).
Regarding claim 1, Bunger discloses (see figs. 1 and 4-6) a radial turbine rotor (the structure shown in fig. 1 that is a turbine wheel; see col. 1, ll. 25-30 and 35-40), the rotor comprising: a hub 13 (that includes surface 21) shaped to have a generally diminishing diameter from a forward end to an aft end (the diameter end points is at about locations 57 in fig. 1 the diameter decreases in the aft direction to the aft end at about location 19 in fig. 1; see notation of forward and aft directions in annotated figure below; for example the entrance to the turbine is near location 57 thus location 57 is at the forward end; the exit of the turbine is radially inward aft of the location 57; for example see Savonuzzi, also in the claim 5 analysis below, showing in fig. 1 a forward portion of gas turbine engine, see col. 2, ll. 15-20, at inlet duct 24 to turbine having turbine blades 17 wherein exhaust duct 25 is shown such that the entrance to a radial turbine is more radially outward than the exit; see also the “forward” and “aft” annotations in the annotated figure below), the hub 13 formed to include a forward channel 23 that extends primarily in an axially (along central axis in annotated figure below) forward direction (see annotated figure below) into the hub 13, and a plurality of turbine blades 31, each of the plurality of turbine blades 31 shaped to include an airfoil (at 31 and 39 in fig. 4; gasses driving the turbine travel radially inward from location 57 in fig. 1 while interacting at the shaped surfaces for example at 39, see figs. 3-4; this is similar to applicant airfoil 28 shape in fig. 1) that shaped to interact with hot gasses that flow over the radial turbine rotor during use (for example, see Krautheim below points out that the airfoils 24 of turbine blades are subject to aerodynamic loading of high temperature gasses regarding a gas turbine engine; see par. 2, 4, 11 and par. 14, middle) and a root (see shading in annotated figure 4 below) with a catch lug 43 that extends into the forward channel 23 to block radial outward movement of the turbine blade (the blades 31 are kept place in part by lug 43 engagement in channel 23; see col. 2, ll. 5-15) relative to the hub 13 (surface 45 of lug 43 seats against surface 57 of channel 23; see col. 2, ll. 10-15; this prevents the blade from moving radially outward especially when the blade fails, see col. 2, ll. 20-25). Bunger does not explicitly disclose the hub comprising metallic materials and the blades comprising ceramic matrix composite materials.
PNG
media_image1.png
463
328
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (aft)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (central axis)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (forward)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (aft channel in shading)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
256
174
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (aft channel formed in conjunction with portion 19 of hub 13 extends into portion of root)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (portion of root)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (root shown in shading)][AltContent: arrow]
Krautheim teaches (see figs. 1-2) (radial turbine rotors, see pars. 20 and 35, can include:) a hub 12 comprising metallic materials (see par. 20, top wherein hub 12 can comprise a nickel alloy or a titanium alloy); and turbine (see par. 3 pointing out that the blades discussed in par. 20 can be turbine blades) blades comprising ceramic matrix composite materials (blade ring 14 comprising blades 24 can comprise CMC, see par. 20, bottom).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Bunger with the hub comprising metallic materials; and the turbine blades comprising ceramic matrix composite materials as taught by Krautheim in order to facilitate reduced likelihood of high cycle fatigue and failure (see Krautheim par. 4).
Regarding claim 6, Bunger discloses (see figs. 1 and 4-6) a radial turbine rotor (the structure shown in fig. 1 that is a turbine wheel; see col. 1, ll. 25-30 and 35-40), the rotor comprising: a hub 13 (that includes surface 21) that extends around a central axis (see annotated figure above), the hub 13 shaped to have a generally diminishing diameter from a forward end to an aft end (the diameter end points is at about locations 57 in fig. 1 the diameter decreases in the aft direction to the aft end at about location 19 in fig. 1; see notation of forward and aft directions in annotated figure above; for example the entrance to the turbine is near location 57 thus location 57 is at the forward end; the exit of the turbine is radially inward aft of the location 57; for example see Savonuzzi cited in the claim 5 analysis above showing in fig. 1 a forward portion of gas turbine engine, see col. 2, ll. 15-20, at inlet duct 24 to turbine having turbine blades 17 wherein exhaust duct 25 is shown such that the entrance to a radial turbine is more radially outward than the exit; see also the “forward” and “aft” annotations in the annotated figure above), and a plurality of turbine blades 31, each of the plurality of turbine blades 31 shaped to include an airfoil (at 31 and 39 in fig. 4; combusted gasses travel radially inward from location 57 in fig. 1 while interacting at the shaped surfaces for example at 39, see figs. 3-4; this is similar to applicant airfoil 28 shape in fig. 1) that shaped to interact with gasses passing over the rotor and a root (see shading in annotated figure 4 above) that extends radially inward (see annotated figure above) from the airfoil (at 31 and 39 in fig. 4; combusted gasses travel radially inward from location 57 in fig. 1 while interacting at the shaped surfaces for example at 39, see figs. 3-4; this is similar to applicant airfoil 28 shape in fig. 1), wherein the root of each of the plurality of turbine blades 31 is coupled to the hub 13 by a catch lug 43 that extends in a primarily axial direction (along annotated central axis above) into a corresponding forward (see annotated figure above) channel 23 to block movement (the blades 31 are kept place by lug 43 engagement in channel 23 in conjunction with other features of Bunger such as ring lug 59 in aft channel; see col. 2, ll. 5-15 and annotated figures below) of the turbine blades 31 in a radially outward direction away from the hub 13 (surface 45 of lug 43 seats against surface 57 of channel 23; see col. 2, ll. 10-15; this prevents the blade from moving radially outward especially when the blade fails, see col. 2, ll. 20-25). Bunger does not explicitly disclose the hub comprising metallic materials and the blades comprising ceramic matrix composite materials.
Krautheim teaches (see figs. 1-2) (radial turbine rotors, see pars. 20 and 35, can include:) a hub 12 comprising metallic materials (see par. 20, top wherein hub 12 can comprise a nickel alloy or a titanium alloy); and turbine (see par. 3 pointing out that the blades discussed in par. 20 can be turbine blades) blades comprising ceramic matrix composite materials (blade ring 14 comprising blades 24 can comprise CMC, see par. 20, bottom).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Bunger with the hub comprising metallic materials; and the turbine blades comprising ceramic matrix composite materials as taught by Krautheim in order to facilitate reduced likelihood of high cycle fatigue and failure (see Krautheim par. 4).
Regarding claims 2 and 7, Bunger in view of Krautheim teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Bunger further discloses (see fig. 1) (claims 2 and 7) a retainer 15,17 mounted along an aft face (see retainer portion 17 is mounted such that is extends in the radial direction along end portion or face of structure 19 of hub 13) of the hub 13 (claim 7) and the plurality of blades 31 (claims 2 and 7) to block axially aft (see annotated figure above) movement of the plurality of turbine blades 31 relative to the hub 13 (the blades are locked in place by retainer 15,17, see col. 2, ll. 15-20).
Regarding claim 3, Bunger in view of Krautheim teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Bunger further discloses (see figs. 1, 5 and 7) the retainer 15,17 includes a retention ring 17 having a hub portion (at 17 in fig. 5) arranged adjacent to an aft face of the hub and a ring lug portion 59 that extends from the hub portion (at 17 in fig. 5) into an aft channel (see annotated figure below) extending primarily in an axially forward (see annotated figure above) direction into root (at 53,55,33 in fig. 4; see annotated figure below) of each of the plurality of turbine blades 31.
Regarding claim 8, Bunger in view of Krautheim teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Bunger further discloses (see figs. 1, 5 and 7) the retainer 15,17 includes a retention ring 17 having a hub portion (at 17 in fig. 5; see annotated figure below) arranged adjacent to an aft face (see annotated figure below) of the hub 13 and a ring lug portion 59 (see figs. 1 and 5) that is coupled to the hub 13 by a ring lug 59 that extends in a primarily axial direction (along central axis, see annotated figure below) into a corresponding aft channel (see annotated figures above and below) to block movement of the turbine blades in a radially outward direction away from the hub 13 (the blades 31 are kept place by lug 43 engagement in channel 23 in conjunction with other features of Bunger such as ring lug 59 in aft channel; see annotated figures above and below and see col. 2, ll. 5-25: “[ring lug] 59 … provide restraint to radially-outward movement … [of] the blades 31”).
PNG
media_image5.png
222
413
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (aft)][AltContent: textbox (central axis)][AltContent: textbox (forward)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (aft face of hub 13 (i.e. aft face of portion 19 of hub 13))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (hub portion of retention ring 17)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (ring lug 59)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (aft channel in shading)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect]
Regarding claim 9, Bunger in view of Krautheim teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Bunger further discloses (see figs. 1, 5 and 7) the aft channel (see annotated figures above) extends primarily in an axially (along annotated central axis) forward direction (see annotated figures above) into the root (see annotated figures above) of each of the plurality of turbine blades 31.
Regarding claim 10, Bunger in view of Krautheim teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Bunger further discloses (see annotated figures above) the forward channel 23 extends primarily in an axially forward direction into the hub 13.
Regarding claim 13, Bunger in view of Krautheim teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Bunger further discloses (see annotated figures above) the forward channel 23 extends primarily in an axially forward direction into the hub 13 at a location radially outward (see annotated figures above) of the aft channel (see annotated figures above).
Claim(s) 5 and 12 (i.e., second version of claim 12) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bunger in view of Krautheim as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Savonuzzi.
Regarding claims 5 and 12 (i.e. second version of claim 12), Bunger in view of Krautheim teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Bunger does not explicitly disclose (claims 5 and 12) each of the plurality of turbine blades is further formed to include a platform that extends circumferentially between airfoils of adjacent turbine blades to shield at least a portion of the hub radially inward of the platform.
Savonuzzi teaches (see figs. 1-3) a radial turbine rotor (see col. 1, ll. 35-40) and further teaches (claims 5 and 12) each of plurality of turbine blades 17 (comprising ceramic materials; see col. 1, ll. 10-15) is further formed to include a platform (see annotated figure below) that extends circumferentially (see fig. 8) between airfoils (19 in fig. 2 and 10 in fig. 3, wherein fig. 3 is a variant of fig. 2; see col. 2, ll. 20-25; see col. 3, ll. 1-5 pointing out part 19 is an airfoil) of adjacent turbine blades (see adjacent blades in fig. 3) to shield at least a portion of a hub 3 radially inward of the platform (see annotated figure below; see fig. 1 showing hub 3 radially inward of root 18 shown in figs. 1-2 wherein the platform is the outer surface of root 18 wherein this is consistent with root 26 and platform 30 in applicant figs. 1-2).
PNG
media_image7.png
378
500
media_image7.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (platform)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (platform)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Bunger in view of Krautheim with (claims 5 and 12) each of the plurality of turbine blades is further formed to include a platform that extends circumferentially between airfoils of adjacent turbine blades to shield at least a portion of the hub radially inward of the platform as taught by Savonuzzi in order to facilitate providing a pathway for combusted gasses to travel between airfoil portions of adjacent blades.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
aft channel and ring lug and forward channel: US 10036254 (fig. 4); and
forward channel with lug: US 2,441,432;
example of blade root 8 with attachment points at leading and trailing edge of turbine blade 9 (fig. 5): US 2,654,565; and
retainer ring engaged with shaft: US 4353685 (col. 2, ll. 60-65; col. 7, ll. 10-15).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC J AMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-9948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571) 272-7118. 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.
/MARC AMAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/LORNE E MEADE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741