DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the Amendment filed 2/20/2026 wherein claims 3-4, 6-7, and 20-21 are canceled, and claims 1-2, 5, 8-19, and 22-24 are presented for examination.
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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8-19, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2007/0134088) in view of Gersbach et al. (US 2010/0278644), Shirley et al. (US 2019/0003323), and Grover et al. (US 2010/0254797).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Lee teaches (Figures 1-6) a gas turbine engine (10), comprising:
a compressor section (12, 14);
a combustion section (16), the combustion section (16) comprising:
an inner liner (256); and
an outer liner (258) spaced from the inner liner (256), the inner liner (256) and outer liner (258) at least partially defining a combustion chamber (240); and
a turbine section (18, 20) comprising:
an inner band (56) extending between an upstream side (70, 72) and a downstream side (74, 76) opposite the upstream side (72),
an outer band (54) spaced from the inner band (56) and extending between the upstream side (70, 72) and the downstream side (74, 76), the inner band (56) and outer band (54) at least partially defining a working gas flow path (between 54 and 56; see Figures 3 and 5); and
a plurality of airfoils (52) extending into the working gas flow path (between 54 and 56; see Figures 3 and 5) from the inner band (56), the outer band (54), or both the inner band (56) and the outer band (54);
wherein the compressor section (12, 14), the combustion section (16), and the turbine section (18, 20) are in serial flow order (see Figure 1) and define at least a portion of the working gas flow path (between 54 and 56; see Figures 1, 3, 5).
Lee does not teach wherein the inner band includes a step portion adjacent the upstream side and a body portion extending from the step portion to the downstream side, and wherein the step portion extends in a circumferential direction about the upstream side of the inner band and extends in a radial direction past the body portion, wherein the step portion comprises a first curve extending from a leading edge the inner band and a second curve extending from the first curve, the first curve comprising a convex shape and the second curve comprising a concave shape, or wherein a peak of the first curve is between the leading edge of the inner band and an upstream end of the plurality of airfoils.
Gersbach teaches (Figures 1-6) a gas turbine engine (1) including a turbine section (5, 6) having an inner band (8, 26) and an outer band (9), wherein the inner band (8, 26) includes a step portion (annotated below) adjacent an upstream side (annotated below) and a body portion (annotated below) extending from the step portion (annotated below) to a downstream side (annotated below), wherein the step portion (annotated below) extends in a circumferential direction (see annotation below and Figures 1-2) about the upstream side of the inner band (8, 26) and extends in a radial direction (see Figure 1) past the body portion (annotated below), wherein the step portion (annotated below) comprises a first curve (one of the concave portion or convex portion, see annotation below) extending from an upstream portion of the inner band (8, 26) and a second curve (the other of the concave portion or convex portion, see annotation below) extending from the first curve (see Figure 4 and annotation below).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to have the inner band includes a step portion adjacent the upstream side and a body portion extending from the step portion to the downstream side, and wherein the step portion extends in a circumferential direction about the upstream side of the inner band and extends in a radial direction past the body portion, wherein the step portion comprises a first curve extending from an upstream portion of the inner band and a second curve extending from the first curve, as taught by Gersbach, in order to locally increase the static pressure of a fluid flow passing through said stator airfoil row to increase the uniformity of the static pressure (see abstract and Paragraph 0041 of Gersbach). Lee in view of Gersbach does not teach that the first curve extends from the leading edge of the inner band and comprises a convex shape and the second curve comprises a concave shape, or wherein a peak of the first curve is between the leading edge of the inner band and an upstream end of the plurality of airfoils.
Shirley teaches (Figures 1-8) positioning bulges (formed by 130, 228, 328; see Figures 2-5A and 6-8) having a convex shape (see Figures 2-5A and 7-8) to extend from a leading edge (122, 222, 322; see Figures 2-8) of an inner band (120, 220, 320; see Figures 2-8), and a second curve (formed by 132, 232, 332; see Figures 2-5A and 6-8) comprising a concave shape (see Figures 2-5A and 7-8) extending from the first curve (see Figures 2-5A, 7-8, and annotation below). Shirley also appears to schematically show that the peak of the first curve (annotated below) is between the leading edge (222) of the inner band (220) and an upstream end (212) of the plurality of airfoils (202). It is additionally noted that Shirley also teaches that the step portion (annotated below) extends in a circumferential direction (see annotation below and Figures 1-2) about the upstream side of the inner band (8, 26)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Gersbach to have the convex and concave curves extend from the leading edge of the inner band, wherein a peak of the first curve is between the leading edge of the inner band and an upstream end of the plurality of airfoils, as taught by Shirley, in order to strategically position the bulges and troughs along the flow surface to control local air pressures in the stages to tailor local airflows around the airfoils, increase work done by the airfoils, reduce secondary flow vortices between airfoils, improve engine efficiency, and reduce fuel consumption (Paragraph 0048 of Shirley).
Even if Shirley was not interpreted as teaching that the peak of the first curve is located between the leading edge of the inner band and an upstream end of the plurality of airfoils, Grover teaches (Figures 1-6 and Paragraph 0020) a radial peak (82) of a hump (74) can be located either: at an interface (86) of the hump (74) and the airfoil (54), axially forward the interface (86) of the hump (74) and the airfoil (54), or axially rearward of the interface (86) of the hump (74) and the airfoil (54).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Gersbach and Shirley to have the peak of the first curve is between the leading edge of the inner band and an upstream end of the plurality of airfoils, as taught by Grover, in order to enable the hump to influence the air flow prior to entering the flow passage between the airfoils (Paragraphs 0019-0020 of Grover). In addition, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
PNG
media_image1.png
1025
1250
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
746
808
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
445
872
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
821
1250
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
644
729
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Lee in view of Gersbach, Shirley, and Grover teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Lee in view of Gersbach, Shirley, and Grover does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the inner band includes the step portion; and the step portion at least partially extends into the working gas flow path.
Gersbach teaches (Figures 1-6) wherein the inner band (see Figure 1) includes the step portion (annotated above), and the step portion (annotated above) at least partially extends into the working gas flow path (between 3,4 and 8,9; see Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Gersbach, Shirley, and Grover to have the inner band include the step portion, and the step portion at least partially extends into the working gas flow path, as taught by Gersbach, for the same reasons discussed above in claim 1.
It is noted that Shirley also teaches a step portion on the inner band, the step portion at least partially extending into the working gas flow path (see Figures 2-8).
Regarding Claim 5, Lee in view of Gersbach, Shirley, and Grover teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Lee in view of Gersbach, Shirley, and Grover does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein at least a portion of the second curve is between the first curve and the plurality of airfoils.
Gersbach teaches (Figures 1-6) wherein at least a portion (the peak of the bump 26; see Figure 2) of the second curve (a convex portion, annotated above) is between (see Figure 2) the first curve (a concave portion near the upstream side; see annotation above) and the plurality of airfoils (10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Gersbach, Shirley, and Grover to have at least a portion of the second curve be between the first curve and the plurality of airfoils, as taught by Gersbach, for the same reasons discussed above in claim 1.
Shirley also teaches at least a portion of the second curve is located between the first curve and the plurality of airfoils (see Figures 2-8).
Regarding Claim 8, Lee in view of Gersbach, Shirley, and Grover teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Lee in view of Gersbach, Shirley, and Grover does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein: the first curve comprises a negative concavity; and the second curve comprises a positive concavity.
Shirley teaches (Figures 1-8) wherein the first curve (annotated above) comprises a negative concavity (see Figure 5A and annotation above) and the second curve (annotated above) comprises a positive concavity (see Figure 5A and annotation above).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Gersbach, Shirley, and Grover to have the first curve comprise a negative concavity, and the second curve comprises a positive concavity, as taught by Shirley, for the same reasons discussed above in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9, Lee in view of Gersbach, Shirley, and Grover teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Lee in view of Gersbach, Shirley, and Grover does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein: the inner band comprises a peak distance between the upstream side of the inner band and a peak of the first curve; the inner band comprises a first curve length between the upstream side of the inner band and an end of the first curve adjacent the second curve; and a ratio of the peak distance over the first curve length is greater than or equal to 0.1 and less than or equal to 1.
Shirley teaches (Figures 1-8) the inner band (220) comprises a peak distance between the upstream side (at 222) of the inner band (220) and the end of the first curve (annotated above), the inner band (220) comprises a first curve length (see annotation above) between the upstream side of the inner band (220) and an end of the first curve (annotated above) adjacent the second curve (annotated above). Shirley appears to schematically show that a ratio of the peak distance over the first curve length is greater than or equal to 0.1 and less than or equal to 1 (see annotation above and Figure 5A).
Shirley does teach that the strategic positioning of the bulges and troughs along the flow surface allows for control of local air pressures in the stages to tailor local airflows around the airfoils, increase work done by the airfoils, reduce secondary flow vortices between airfoils, improve engine efficiency, and reduce fuel consumption (Paragraph 0048). Therefore, the location of the bulges and troughs are recognized as result-effective variables, i.e. variables which achieve a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that strategically positioning the bulges and troughs leads to control of local air pressures, an increase in the work done by the airfoils, a reduction in secondary flow vortices between airfoils, improves engine efficiency, and a reduction of fuel consumption.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the bulges and troughs can be strategically positioned, were disclosed in the prior art by Shirley, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the position of the bulges and troughs as taught by Shirley in order to control local air pressures, increase the work done by the airfoils, reduce secondary flow vortices between airfoils, improve engine efficiency, and reduce fuel consumption. It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding Claim 10, Lee in view of Gersbach, Shirley, and Grover teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Lee further teaches (Figures 1-6) wherein the inner liner (256) and the inner band (56) define a cavity (between 280 and 291) between (see Figure 5) the combustion section (16) and the turbine section (18, 20).
It is noted that Gersbach also teaches (Figures 1-6) wherein the inner liner (3) and the inner band (at 8, 26; see Figure 1) define a cavity (15; see Figure 1) between the combustion section (at 2) and the turbine section (at 5, 6).
Regarding Claim 11, Lee in view of Gersbach, Shirley, and Grover teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Lee further teaches (Figures 1-6) wherein the combustion section (16) further comprises a seal (291) disposed between (see Figure 5) the inner liner (256) and the inner band (56), the seal (291) defining at least a portion (see Figure 5) of the cavity (between 280 and 291).
Regarding Claim 12, Lee in view of Gersbach, Shirley, and Grover teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Lee in view of Gersbach, Shirley, and Grover does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein a first portion of fluid flowing through the working gas flow path creates a stagnation region adjacent the upstream side of the inner band.
Gersbach teaches (Figures 1-6) wherein a first portion of fluid (fluid flowing toward 26; see Figure 1) flowing through the working gas flow path (the path between 3,4 and 8,9; see Figure 1) creates a stagnation region (see Figure 1 and Paragraph 0008) adjacent the upstream side (annotated above) of the inner band (8, 26).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Gersbach, Shirley, and Grover to have the first portion of fluid flowing through the working gas flow path create a stagnation region adjacent the upstream side of the inner band, as taught by Gersbach, for the same reasons discussed above in claim 1.
It is noted that the actions of the fluid are intended use recitations – “inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims” (MPEP 2115 [R-2]). In this case, the fluid flowing through the working gas flow path is considered the material or article worked upon and does not impart patentability to the claims.
Regarding Claim 13, Lee in view of Gersbach, Shirley, and Grover teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Lee in view of Gersbach, Shirley, and Grover does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the stagnation region pressurizes the cavity such that the cavity defines a high pressure zone.
Gersbach teaches (Figures 1-6) wherein the stagnation region (see Figure 1 and Paragraph 0008) pressurizes the cavity (at 15) such that the cavity (15) defines a high pressure zone (at B; see Figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Gersbach, Shirley, and Grover to have the stagnation region pressurize the cavity such that the cavity defines a high pressure zone, as taught by Gersbach, for the same reasons discussed above in claim 1.
It is noted that the actions of the fluid are intended use recitations – “inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims” (MPEP 2115 [R-2]). In this case, the fluid flowing through the working gas flow path is considered the material or article worked upon and does not impart patentability to the claims.
Regarding Claim 14, Lee in view of Gersbach, Shirley, and Grover teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Lee in view of Gersbach, Shirley, and Grover does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the stagnation region and the high pressure zone prevent a second portion of fluid flowing through the working gas flow path from entering the cavity.
Gersbach teaches (Figures 1-6) wherein the stagnation region (see Figure 1 and Paragraph 0008) and the high pressure zone (at B) prevent a second portion of fluid (a second portion of fluid flowing towards the stagnation region; see Figure 1) flowing through the working gas flow path (the path between 3,4 and 8,9; see Figure 1, Figure 6, and Paragraph 0049) from entering the cavity (15).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Gersbach, Shirley, and Grover to have the stagnation region and the high pressure zone prevent a second portion of fluid flowing through the working gas flow path from entering the cavity, as taught by Gersbach, for the same reasons discussed above in claim 1.
It is noted that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding Claim 15, Lee in view of Gersbach, Shirley, and Grover teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Lee in view of Gersbach, Shirley, and Grover does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the stagnation region and the high pressure zone direct the second portion of fluid away from the cavity and along the working gas flow path.
Gersbach teaches (Figures 1-6) wherein the stagnation region (see Figure 1 and Paragraph 0008) and the high pressure zone (at B; see Figures 1 and 6) direct the second portion of fluid (a second portion of fluid flowing towards the stagnation region; see Figure 1) away from the cavity (15) and along the working gas flow path (the path between 3,4 and 8,9; see Figure 1, Figure 6, and Paragraph 0049).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Gersbach, Shirley, and Grover to have the stagnation region and the high pressure zone direct the second portion of fluid away from the cavity and along the working gas flow path, as taught by Gersbach, for the same reasons discussed above in claim 1.
It is noted that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding Claim 16, Lee in view of Gersbach, Shirley, and Grover teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Lee in view of Gersbach, Shirley, and Grover does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein: the step portion includes a step length; the plurality of airfoils includes an upstream end and a downstream end opposite the upstream end; the plurality of airfoils includes a tangency point between the upstream end and the downstream end; the tangency point is spaced from the upstream end of the inner band a tangency distance; and a ratio of the step length over the tangency distance is greater than or equal to 0.05 and less than or equal to 1.
Gersbach teaches (Figures 1-6) wherein the step portion (26) includes a step length (annotated below), the plurality of airfoils (10) includes an upstream end (at the leading edge of the airfoil, annotated above) and a downstream end (at the trailing edge of the airfoil, annotated above) opposite the upstream end (see annotation above), the plurality of airfoils (10) includes a tangency point (annotated below) between the upstream end (annotated above) and the downstream end (annotated above), the tangency point (annotated below) is spaced from the upstream end (annotated above) of the inner band (8) a tangency distance (annotated below).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Gersbach, Shirley, and Grover to have the step portion include a step length; the plurality of airfoils include an upstream end and a downstream end opposite the upstream end; the plurality of airfoils include a tangency point between the upstream end and the downstream end; the tangency point is spaced from the upstream end of the inner band a tangency distance, as taught by Gersbach, for the same reasons discussed above in claim 1. Gersbach does not explicitly state, but appears to schematically show the ratio of the step length (annotated below) over the tangency distance (annotated below) is greater than or equal to 0.05 and less than or equal to 1 (see annotation below). It is noted, in cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
PNG
media_image6.png
1166
1250
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 17, Lee in view of Gersbach, Shirley, and Grover teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Lee in view of Gersbach, Shirley, and Grover does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein a concavity of the body portion is 0.
Gersbach teaches (Figures 1-6) wherein a concavity of the body portion (annotated above) is 0 (see Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Gersbach, Shirley, and Grover to have the concavity of the body portion be 0, as taught by Gersbach, for the same reasons discussed above in claim 1.
It is noted that Shirley also teaches a body portion (shown schematically at 226 in Figure 5A) having no concavity (see Figure 5A).
Regarding Claim 22, Lee in view of Gersbach, Shirley, and Grover teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Lee in view of Gersbach, Shirley, and Grover does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the step portion comprises a substantially vertical face at the leading edge and the upstream side of one or both of the inner band and the outer band.
Shirley teaches (Figures 1-8) wherein the step portion (the first and second curves annotated above) comprises a substantially vertical face (at 136 and 236; see Figures 2 and 5A) at the leading edge (122 and 222; see Figures 2 and 5A) and the upstream side of the inner band (120, 220; see Figures 2 and 5A).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Gersbach, Shirley, and Grover to have the step portion comprise a substantially vertical face at the leading edge and the upstream side of the inner band, as taught by Shirley, for the same reasons discussed above in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 23, Lee in view of Gersbach, Shirley, and Grover teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Lee in view of Gersbach, Shirley, and Grover does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein: the inner band comprises a peak distance between the upstream side of the inner band and a peak of the first curve; each of the plurality of airfoils include an upstream end, a downstream end opposite the upstream end, and an airfoil length defined between the upstream end and the downstream end; and the peak distance is greater than or equal to 0.01 times the airfoil length and less than or equal to 0.4 times the airfoil length.
Shirley teaches (Figures 1-8) wherein the inner band (120, 220, 320) comprises a peak distance between the upstream side (at 136, 236) of the inner band (120, 220, 320) and a peak of the first curve (see annotation above), each of the plurality of airfoils (72, 172, 272) include an upstream end (112, 212), a downstream end (114, 214) opposite the upstream end (112, 212), and an airfoil length (the distance between 112, 212 and 114, 214; see Figures 2-8) defined between the upstream end (112, 212) and the downstream end (114, 214).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Gersbach, Shirley, and Grover to have the inner band comprises a peak distance between the upstream side of the inner band and a peak of the first curve, each of the plurality of airfoils include an upstream end, a downstream end opposite the upstream end, and an airfoil length defined between the upstream end and the downstream end, as taught by Shirley, for the same reasons discussed above in claim 1.
Although Shirley does not teach that the peak distance is greater than or equal to 0.01 times the airfoil length and less than or equal to 0.4 times the airfoil length, Shirley does teach that the strategic positioning of the bulges and troughs along the flow surface allows for control of local air pressures in the stages to tailor local airflows around the airfoils, increase work done by the airfoils, reduce secondary flow vortices between airfoils, improve engine efficiency, and reduce fuel consumption (Paragraph 0048). Therefore, the location of the bulges and troughs are recognized as result-effective variables, i.e. variables which achieve a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that strategically positioning the bulges and troughs leads to control of local air pressures, an increase in the work done by the airfoils, a reduction in secondary flow vortices between airfoils, improves engine efficiency, and a reduction of fuel consumption.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the bulges and troughs can be strategically positioned, were disclosed in the prior art by Shirley, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the position of the bulges and troughs as taught by Shirley in order to control local air pressures, increase the work done by the airfoils, reduce secondary flow vortices between airfoils, improve engine efficiency, and reduce fuel consumption. It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding Claim 24, Lee in view of Gersbach, Shirley, and Grover teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Lee in view of Gersbach, Shirley, and Grover does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the step portion defines an inflection point between the first curve and the second curve, the inflection point is downstream of a peak of the first curve and upstream of the plurality of airfoils.
Shirley teaches (Figures 1-8) wherein the step portion (the first and second curves annotated below) defines an inflection point (annotated below) between the first curve (annotated below) and the second curve (annotated below). Shirley appears to schematically show that the inflection point (annotated below) is located downstream of a peak of the first curve (annotated below) and upstream of the plurality of airfoils (72, 172, 272).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Gersbach, Shirley, and Grover to have the step portion define an inflection point between the first curve and the second curve, the inflection point is downstream of a peak of the first curve and upstream of the plurality of airfoils, as taught by Shirley, for the same reasons discussed above in claim 1. Even if Shirley was not interpreted as teaching that the inflection point is located downstream of a peak of the first curve and upstream of the plurality of airfoils, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to position the inflection point as such, since applicant has not disclosed that location of the inflection point relative to the peak of the first curve and the airfoils solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the contour as taught by Shirley. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
PNG
media_image7.png
821
1250
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2007/0134088) in view of Gersbach et al. (US 2010/0278644), Shirley et al. (US 2019/0003323), and Grover et al. (US 2010/0254797) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rose (US 5,466,123).
Regarding Claim 18, Lee in view of Gersbach, Shirley, and Grover teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Lee in view of Gersbach, Shirley, and Grover does not teach wherein a concavity of at least a portion of the body portion is greater than 0.
Rose teaches (Figures 1-11) that a concavity of the body portion (the downstream end of 27) is greater than 0 (see Figure 3, Figure 7, Figure 10, and Column 4, lines 3-23).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Gersbach, Shirley, and Grover to have the concavity of at least a portion of the body portion is greater than 0, as taught by Rose, in order to have the gas flow over the platform be constrained to accelerate in a radially outward direction (see Column 4, lines 3-23 of Rose).
Regarding Claim 19, Lee in view of Gersbach, Shirley, and Grover teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Lee in view of Gersbach and Shirley does not teach wherein a concavity of at least a portion of the body portion is less than 0.
Rose teaches (Figures 1-11) that a concavity of the body portion (the downstream end of 27) is less than 0 (see Figure 5, Figure 8, Figure 9, and Column 4, lines 3-23).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Gersbach, Shirley, and Grover to have the concavity of at least a portion of the body portion is greater than 0, as taught by Rose, in order to have the gas flow over the platform be constrained to accelerate in a radially inward direction (see Column 4, lines 3-23 of Rose).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach that the step portion extends in a circumferential direction about the upstream side of the inner band. In response, it is noted that although the step portions of Gersbach and Shirley do not include a constant cross-sectional profile throughout the circumferential direction, the claims do not require the cross-sectional profile to be constant. As such, even though Shirley teaches the leading edge of the upstream side of the platform having a scalloped geometry, this scalloped geometry extends in a circumferential direction about the upstream side of the inner band (see annotation below). Similarly, although Gersbach teaches a repeating pattern of bulges at the upstream side of the platform, the repeating pattern of bulges extends in a circumferential direction about the upstream side of the inner band (see annotation below).
PNG
media_image2.png
746
808
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
644
729
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Seo (US 2019/9196995; see PTO-892 mailed 2/24/2026) teaches a cross-sectional geometry of a bulge (2132-1) that is constant extends throughout the circumferential direction of the upstream side of the inner band (see Figures 7-8).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS P BURKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5407. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 PM.
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 Wongwian can be reached on (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.
/THOMAS P BURKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741