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 .
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-9, 12-16, 19-20 are 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. The original disclosure fails to teach the vane outer shroud comprising a single groove. The amendment introduces an exclusionary limitation, "a single groove", which excludes other grooves in the vane outer shroud. However, “any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure” and "the mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion" (MPEP 2173.05(i)). For example, the specification and drawings fail to disclose whether there are multiple grooves spaced around the circumference of the outer shroud.
Furthermore, Applicant’s drawings show other grooves formed in the vane outer shroud (annotated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
446
655
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim 1-2, 5-9, 12-16, 19-20 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. “the vane” is indefinite because “a plurality of vanes” was previously defined; it is unclear which vane is being referred to.
Claim 8-9, 12-16, 19-20 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. “a respective rotor blade of a plurality of rotor blades” is indefinite because it is unclear how “a plurality of rotor blades” relates to the previously defined “plurality of rotor blades”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-9, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 2083149 (Bosse).
Regarding claim 1-2, 6-9, 13-14, Bosse teaches a gas turbine engine (para 5; Fig 1, 2) comprising: a vane outer shroud (Fig 1-2) for a gas turbine engine, the vane outer shroud comprising: a plurality of vanes coupled to the vane outer shroud (vanes 31 coupled to vane outer shroud 32, 42, 41); an area downstream of each vane of the plurality of vanes through which a respective rotor blade of a plurality of rotor blades rotate about an axis relative to the vane (rotor blades 2); and a single groove (53), wherein the single groove is formed in the vane outer shroud upstream, forward, and adjacent to a leading edge of a blade shroud of each rotor blade and wherein the single groove is configured to recirculate air and/or gas radially inward toward the rotor blade (Fig 1, 2; the single groove is partially forward and upstream of the leading edge of blade shroud 22 of rotor blades 2), wherein the single groove is formed radially outward into the vane outer shroud (Fig 1, 2), a depth of the single groove is greater than half of a width of the single groove (Fig 2), the single groove is configured to have a shape and wherein the shape is at least one of a semicircular shape, a V shape, or a spiral, hook-shape (V-shape in the top left and top right corners in Fig 2).
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.
Claim(s) 5, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2083149 (Bosse) in view of US 2014/0154061 (Kuwamura).
Regarding claims 5, 12, Bosse fails to teach a depth of the single groove is half of a width of the single groove. However, Kuwamura teaches a groove upstream, forward and adjacent to a leading edge of a blade shroud, wherein a depth of the groove is half of a width of the single groove (Fig 2, para 60-62, Formula 1; “height” is the depth; D/W may be 0.5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the depth of the single groove is half of a width of the single groove, as taught by Kuwamura. It has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, making the depth of the single groove is half of a width of the single groove yields predictable results (sealing, recirculation).
Claim(s) 15-16, 19-20, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11680542 (Davis) in view of EP 2083149 (Bosse).
Regarding claim 15-16, 19-20, Davis teaches an aircraft comprising a gas turbine engine (Fig 1, col 1 ll. 14-30), the gas turbine engine comprising a plurality of vanes and a plurality of rotor blades (depicted alternating vanes and blades of the low pressure turbine 40).
Davis fails to teach the vane outer shroud and groove. However, Bosse teaches a gas turbine engine (para 5 or pages 3-5 of the translation, Fig 1-2) comprising: a vane outer shroud (Fig 1-2) for a gas turbine engine, the vane outer shroud comprising: a plurality of vanes coupled to the vane outer shroud (vanes 31 coupled to vane outer shroud 32, 42, 41); an area downstream of each vane of the plurality of vanes through which a respective rotor blade of a plurality of rotor blades rotate about an axis relative to the vane (rotor blades 2); and a single groove (53), wherein the single groove is formed in the vane outer shroud upstream, forward, and adjacent to a leading edge of a blade shroud of each rotor blade and wherein the single groove is configured to recirculate air and/or gas radially inward toward the rotor blade (Fig 1, 2; the single groove is partially forward and upstream of the leading edge of blade shroud 22 of rotor blades 2), wherein the single groove is formed radially outward into the vane outer shroud (Fig 1, 2), a depth of the single groove is greater than half of a width of the single groove (Fig 2), the single groove is configured to have a shape and wherein the shape is at least one of a semicircular shape, a V shape, or a spiral, hook-shape (V-shape in the top left and top right corners in Fig 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a vane outer shroud for a gas turbine engine, the vane outer shroud comprising: a plurality of vanes coupled to the vane outer shroud; an area downstream of each vane of the plurality of vanes through which a respective rotor blade of a plurality of rotor blades rotate about an axis relative to the vane; and a single groove, wherein the single groove is formed in the vane outer shroud upstream, forward, and adjacent to a leading edge of a blade shroud of each rotor blade and wherein the single groove is configured to recirculate air and/or gas radially inward toward the rotor blade, wherein the single groove is formed radially outward into the vane outer shroud, a depth of the single groove is greater than half of a width of the single groove, the single groove is configured to have a shape and wherein the shape is at least one of a semicircular shape, a V shape, or a spiral, hook-shape in order to provide sealing and prevent dirt buildup, as taught by Bosse (para 3, 5 or pages 3-5 of the translation).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5063. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 4 pm, Monday-Friday.
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, Phutthiwat (Pat) Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. 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.
/ANDREW H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights