FINAL REJECTION
This is in response to Applicant amendments filed on 08/25/2025 amending Claim 1. Claims 1, 3, and 5-22 are examined.
Claim objections
Claims 1, 3, 5-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 L. 2 “in axial flow” should be --in an axial flow--, L. 8 “a resonator cavity as a chamber” should be – a resonator cavity forming a chamber--; and
Claims 3 and 5-22 20 are also objected based on their dependence on above objected claims.
Appropriate correction is required and Claims are interpreted as indicated in the above objections.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reba (US 2021/0317753) as evidenced by Clark (US 8,739,508).
Regarding Claim 1: Reba discloses a turbine engine (20; Fig. 1), comprising: an engine core (see annotated figure ‘753) comprising a compressor (24; Fig. 1), a combustor (26; Fig. 1), and a turbine (28; Fig. 1) in axial flow arrangement (see annotated figure ‘753); a flow path (see arrow Fig. 1) extending through the engine core from the compressor to the turbine to define a flow direction (see annotated figure ‘753) for a working airflow (see annotated figure ‘753) through the engine core; a first airfoil (800 Figs. 8A-8D) provided in the engine core (see annotated figure ‘753 and [0048, 50]) comprising an outer wall (806, 804; Fig. 8A) with an exterior surface (804; Fig. 8A) confronting the flow path (see annotated figure ‘753); at least one attenuation structure (see annotation figure ‘753) including a resonator cavity (814; Figs. 8A-8C) as a chamber (see annotated figure ‘753) positioned within the outer wall (see annotated figure ‘753), and with a single neck (820; Fig. 8B) extending between the resonator cavity and the exterior surface (see annotated figure ‘753); and a set of rotatable airfoils (see annotated figure ‘753) in one of the compressor or the turbine, wherein rotation of the set of airfoils forms the working airflow having a shockwave propagating onto the outer wall of the first airfoil (the pressure waves generated by the high pressure turbine in the gas turbine corresponds to shock wave as evidenced by Clark, see Abstract) and at least partially attenuated by the at least one attenuation structure (shock waves are pressure waves i.e. noise and noise is attenuated by the resonator).
PNG
media_image1.png
1104
816
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3: Reba discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and further discloses wherein the neck includes an opening at the outer wall (818; Fig. 8B).
Regarding Claim 5: Reba discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and further discloses wherein the chamber is rectangular (Fig. 8B wherein the cross section of the chamber is a rectangle).
Regarding Claim 6: Reba discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and further discloses wherein the neck is rectangular (see Fig. 8B wherein the neck has a rectangular cross section).
Regarding Claim 7: Reba discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and further discloses wherein the chamber is asymmetrical (see annotated figure ‘753, wherein the chambers near 808 and 810 are asymmetrical).
Regarding Claim 8: Reba discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and further discloses wherein a neck volume of the neck is less than a chamber volume of the chamber (see Fig. 8B and [077] reciting that “backing chamber having a greater volume than the neck”).
Regarding Claim 13: Reba discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and further discloses wherein the resonator cavity defines a Helmholtz resonator (Col. 3 L. 40).
Regarding Claim 14: Reba discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and the neck includes an opening (818; Fig. 8B) at the outer wall and the opening is circular ([0074]).
Regarding Claim 15: Reba discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and further discloses further comprising a second airfoil (the acoustic insert is applied to all airfoils and therefore a second airfoil) circumferentially spaced (the airfoils are circumferential spaced) from the first airfoil and comprising a second attenuation structure (see annotated figure ‘753), the second attenuation structure comprising a second resonator cavity (see annotated figure ‘753).
Regarding Claim 16: Reba discloses all the limitations of Claim 15, as stated above, and further discloses wherein the resonator cavity for the first airfoil is a first resonator cavity (see annotated figure ‘753); and wherein the second resonator cavity has a different configuration than the first resonator cavity (see annotated figure ‘753 see how the second cavity can be the cavity in the middle of the airfoil and the first cavity of is a cavity on the corner and thus the two cavities have different shapes, and thus configuration).
Regarding Claim 17: Reba discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and further discloses wherein the first resonator cavity is tuned to a first frequency (see annotated figure ‘753 wherein the first cavity is the cavity in the middle of the 1st airfoil with a “short” neck and thus a first frequency since the frequency depends on the neck volume) and the second resonator cavity is tuned to a second frequency (see annotated figure ‘753 wherein the second cavity is the cavity adjacent to 810 in the 2nd airfoil with a “long” neck and thus a second frequency since the frequency depends on the neck volume) that is different from the first frequency (since the volume of the neck is different between 1st and 2nd cavities their frequency is also different).
Regarding Claim 18: Reba discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and further discloses wherein the outer wall defines a pressure side (804; Fig. 8A) and a suction side (806; Fig. 8A) and extends between a leading edge (808; Fig. 8A) and a trailing edge (810; Fig. 8A).
Regarding Claim 19: Reba discloses all the limitations of Claim 18, as stated above, and further discloses wherein the at least one attenuation structure is located on the pressure side of the first airfoil (804; Fig. 8A).
Regarding Claim 20: Reba discloses all the limitations of Claim 18, as stated above, and further discloses wherein the turbine includes a high pressure turbine (40; Fig. 1), a low pressure turbine (39; Fig. 1) downstream of the high pressure turbine, and a transition duct (see annotated figure ‘753) provided between the high pressure turbine and the low pressure turbine; and wherein the transition duct includes a turbine center frame (see annotated figure ‘753) that includes the first airfoil (see [0048] wherein the mid turbine frame include an airfoil and [0055] wherein the attenuation structure is applied to airfoils of the gas turbine).
Regarding Claim 21: Reba discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and further discloses wherein the exterior surface includes a pressure side (804; Fig. 8A) and a suction side (806; Fig. 8A), wherein the neck extends between the pressure side and the chamber (see annotated figure ‘753), and wherein the neck spaces the chamber from the exterior surface at the pressure side (see annotated figure ‘753).
Regarding Claim 22: Reba discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and further discloses wherein the neck has a length (see annotated figure ‘753) and wherein the chamber is spaced from the exterior surface by the length of the neck (annotated figure ‘753).
Regarding Claim 9: Reba discloses all the limitations of Claim 20, as stated above, and further discloses wherein the neck defines a neck volume (see annotated figure ‘735), and wherein the neck volume is less than a chamber volume (see annotated figure ‘735) of the chamber (see Fig. 8B and [077] reciting that “backing chamber having a greater volume than the neck”); and wherein the attenuation structure includes one or more additional resonator cavities with additional necks (see annotated figure ‘753) having additional openings (see annotated figure ‘753) at the outer wall and with additional chambers fluidly coupled with the additional necks (see annotated figure ‘753, fluid communication is due to passage through necks).
Regarding Claim 10: Reba discloses all the limitations of Claim 9, as stated above, and further discloses wherein the additional necks include additional neck volumes (see annotated figure ‘753) that are different than the neck volume (see annotated figure ‘753 wherein the additional necks can be the neck next to 810 or 808 which have different cross section areas, and thus different volumes, than a cross section area of a neck in the middle of the airfoil).
Regarding Claim 11: Reba discloses all the limitations of Claim 9, as stated above, and further discloses wherein the additional chambers include additional chamber volumes (see annotated figure ‘753) that are different than the chamber volume (see annotated figure ‘753 wherein the additional chambers can be the chamber next to 810 or 808 which have different cross section areas, and thus volumes, than a cross section area of a chamber in the middle of the airfoil).
Regarding Claim 12: Reba discloses all the limitations of Claim 9, as stated above, and further discloses wherein the one or more additional resonator cavities include a plurality of additional resonator cavities (see annotated figure ‘753) having additional neck volumes that are different from each other (see annotated figure ‘753, wherein the additional necks can be the two first neck next to 810 which have different cross section areas, and thus different volumes).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/remarks filed 08/25/2025 have been considered but are moot because they do not apply to the prior art used, the present rejection uses different embodiment, i.e. embodiment of Figs. 8A-8D, that the one relied upon in Applicant’s remarks, i.e. embodiment of Fig. 5 and Reba287 (US 7,607,287) that is incorporated by reference in Reba (US 2021/0317753).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see notice of references cited.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODOLPHE ANDRE CHABREYRIE whose telephone number is (571)272-3482. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-18:30.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system.
Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RODOLPHE ANDRE CHABREYRIE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3741