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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/24/2025 has been entered.
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 fastener coupling the second exterior wall to the first exterior wall and retaining the exhaust device within the bifurcation (Claim 21) 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 § 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) 1, 3-5, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osgood et al (US 20200190996 as referenced in OA dated 2/14/2025) in view of Mazzola et al (US 20080203236 as referenced in OA dated 7/28/2025)
PNG
media_image1.png
342
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 12 of Osgood
Regarding claim 1, Osgood discloses an apparatus (Figure 2; 95 as applied to Figure 1; 82. Paragraph 0038) for a gas turbine engine (Figure 1; 10), the apparatus comprising:
an exhaust device (The portion of Figure 12; 495 axially at and downstream of 585. This portion extends along the entire span of Figure 12; 500) coupled to a bifurcation (The portion of Figure 12; upstream of 585) of the gas turbine engine, the exhaust device including an outer wall (The portions of Figure 12; 506 and 508 defining 585 which include 512), the bifurcation disposed in a bypass airflow passage (The passage between Figure 1; 40 and 44) of the gas turbine engine, the bifurcation including:
a first exterior wall (The portion of Figure 12; 506, upstream of 585 and contacting the outer wall) adjacent to and different from the outer wall; and
a second exterior wall (The portion of Figure 12; 508, upstream of 585 and contacting the outer wall) different than the outer wall; and
a bleed flow conduit (Paragraph 0022, 0035. The conduit connecting Figure 12; 495 to a compressor bleed) including:
a first end (Paragraph 0022, 0035. The end of the conduit connected to the compressor bleed) coupled to a compressor bleed (Paragraph 0022, 0035) of the gas turbine engine; and
a second end (The end of the conduit connected to Figure 12; 581) coupled to the exhaust device.
Osgood does not disclose a first exterior wall, non-continuous with the outer wall and a second exterior wall, non-continuous with the outer wall.
However, Mazzola teaches a first exterior wall (The portions of Figure 2; 12 and 40 below 26) non-continuous with an outer wall (The outer wall of Figure 2; 18);
a second exterior wall (The portions of Figure 2; 12 and 40 above 26) non-continuous with the outer wall.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Osgood wherein a first exterior wall is non-continuous with the outer wall and a second exterior wall is non-continuous with the outer wall as taught by and suggested by Mazzola in order to provide a thin trailing edge which allows optimizing aerodynamic performance (Paragraph 0016, the modification forms the trailing edge of Osgood like Mazzola).
Regarding claim 3, Osgood in view of Mazzola teaches the invention as claimed.
Osgood further discloses wherein the exhaust device is disposed adjacent to a trailing edge (Annotated Figure 12; labeled trailing edge) of the bifurcation.
Regarding claim 4, Osgood in view of Mazzola teaches the invention as claimed.
Osgood further discloses wherein the exhaust device includes a device trailing edge (Figure 12; 512), and the device trailing edge is downstream of the trailing edge of the bifurcation.
Regarding claim 5, Osgood in view of Mazzola teaches the invention as claimed.
Osgood further discloses wherein the first exterior wall and the outer wall are flush.
Regarding claim 21, Osgood in view of Mazzola teaches the invention as claimed.
Osgood does not disclose wherein the second exterior wall is coupled to the first exterior wall via a fastener, the coupling of the first exterior wall to the second exterior wall retaining the exhaust device within the bifurcation.
However, Mazzola teaches the second exterior wall is coupled to the first exterior wall via a fastener (Figure 2; 26), the fastener coupling the first exterior wall to the second exterior wall and retaining a device (Figure 2; 18 and 26. In the context of Osgood, this is an exhaust device) within a structure (Figure 2; 12. In the context of Osgood this is a bifurcation)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Osgood wherein the second exterior wall is coupled to the first exterior wall via a fastener, the coupling of the first exterior wall to the second exterior wall retaining the exhaust device within the bifurcation as taught by and suggested by Mazzola in order to provide a thin trailing edge (Paragraph 0016, the modification forms the trailing edge of Osgood like Mazzola).
Claim(s) 2, 6, 8, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osgood in view of Mazzola as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Potokar (US 20130277142 as referenced in OA dated 2/14/2025)
Regarding claim 2, Osgood in view of Mazzola teaches the invention as claimed.
Osgood in view of Mazzola does not teach a valve coupled to the bleed flow conduit, the valve to regulate a flow of bleed air through the bleed flow conduit.
However, Potokar teaches a valve (Figure 2; 45) coupled to a bleed flow conduit (Figure 2; 44), the valve to regulate a flow of bleed air through the bleed flow conduit (Paragraph 0022).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Osgood in view of Mazzola to include a valve coupled to the bleed flow conduit, the valve to regulate a flow of bleed air through the bleed flow conduit as taught by and suggested by Potokar in order to control flow through the bleed flow conduit (Paragraph 0022, The modification adds a valve to the bleed flow conduit).
Regarding claim 6, Osgood in view of Mazzola teaches the invention as claimed.
Osgood further discloses an outlet hole (Figure 2; 126 as applied to Figure 12 on the exhaust device. Paragraph 0043) fluidly coupling a second chamber (Figure 12; 585) the bypass airflow passage.
Osgood in view of Mazzola does not teach wherein the exhaust device includes:
a first chamber coupled to the second end;
a second chamber coupled to the first chamber via a plurality of holes.
However, Potokar teaches a bleed flow conduit (Figure 2; 44) including:
a first end (The end of Figure 2; 44 connected to 14) coupled to a compressor bleed (The compressor bleed from Figure 2; 14 feeding 44) of the gas turbine engine; and
a second end (The end of Figure 2; 44 connected to 50) coupled to an exhaust device (Figure 2; 50),
wherein the exhaust device includes:
a first chamber (The chamber formed by Figure 4; 110) coupled to the second end;
a second chamber (The chamber formed by Figure 4; 102) coupled to the first chamber via a plurality of holes (Figure 3, 120, 122); and
an outlet hole (Figure 3; 106) fluidly coupling the second chamber and an bypass airflow passage (Figure 2; 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Osgood in view of Mazzola to include wherein the exhaust device includes: a first chamber coupled to the second end; and a second chamber coupled to the first chamber via a plurality of holes as taught by and suggested by Potokar in order to condition the flow (Paragraph 0026, The modification adds a first chamber that feeds the second chamber).
Regarding claim 8, Osgood in view of Mazzola and Potokar teaches the invention as claimed.
Osgood further discloses wherein the outlet hole defines an outlet flow vector (At least one outlet vector of Figure 3A; 126A or 126B as applied to Figure 12 on the exhaust device forms an acute angle with Figure 1; 12. Paragraph 0043. Figure 1 shows the span of the airfoil being in the radial direction with respect to Figure 1; 12, so that axis Figure 3A; C is parallel to 12), the outlet flow vector forming an acute angle (At least one outlet vector of Figure 3A; 126A or 126B as applied to Figure 12 on the exhaust device forms an acute angle with Figure 1; 12. Paragraph 0043. Figure 1 shows the span of the airfoil being in the radial direction with respect to Figure 1; 12, so that axis Figure 3A; C is parallel to 12) with a centerline of the gas turbine engine.
Claim(s) 11-13, 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osgood in view of Potokar and Mazzola.
Regarding claim 11, Osgood discloses an apparatus (Figure 12; 495 as applied to Figure 1; 82. Paragraph 0038) to be coupled to a bifurcation (The portion of Figure 12; 492 upstream of 585) disposed in a bypass airflow passage (The passage between Figure 1; 40 and 44) of a gas turbine engine (Figure 1; 10), the apparatus comprising:
an inlet (Figure 12; 581);
a first outer wall (The portion of Figure 12; 506 defining Figure 12; 585) including a hole (Figure 2; 126 on the pressure side, Paragraph 0042, 0100), the first outer wall adjacent to and different from a first exterior wall (The portion of Figure 12; 506 upstream of Figure 12; 585) of the bifurcation, the first outer wall different from a second exterior wall (The portion of Figure 12; 508 upstream of Figure 12; 585) of the bifurcation; and
a second outer wall (The portion of Figure 12; 508 defining Figure 12; 585), the first outer wall and the second outer wall defining a chamber (Figure 12; 585) therebetween, the chamber fluidly coupled to the bypass airflow passage via the hole
Osgood does not disclose the apparatus comprising: an inlet manifold fluidly coupled to the inlet; a first exterior wall, non-continuous with a first exterior wall; a second exterior wall, non-continuous with a second exterior wall; the chamber fluidly coupled to the inlet manifold.
However, Potokar teaches an apparatus (Figure 1; 40) in a bypass airflow passage (Figure 1; 4) of a gas turbine engine (Figure 1; 10), the apparatus comprising:
an inlet (Figure 4; 44 feeding 110);
an inlet manifold (The interior volume Figure 4; 110) fluidly coupled to the inlet;
a first wall (The top wall of Figure 4; 102) including a hole (Figure 3; 106); and
a second wall (Figure 3; 126), the first wall and the second wall defining a chamber (The chamber between the first and second walls) therebetween, the chamber fluidly coupled to the inlet manifold.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Osgood to include to include an inlet manifold fluidly coupled to the inlet; and the chamber fluidly coupled to the inlet manifold as taught by and suggested by Potokar in order to condition the flow (Paragraph 0026, The modification adds an inlet manifold centered on the inlet).
Osgood in view of Potokar does not teach a first exterior wall, non-continuous with a first exterior wall and a second exterior wall, non-continuous with a second exterior wall.
However, Mazzola teaches a first exterior wall (The portions of Figure 2; 12 and 40 below 26) non-continuous with a first exterior wall (The lower half portion of Figure 2; 18)
a second exterior wall (The portions of Figure 2; 12 and 40 above 26) non-continuous with a second exterior wall (The upper half portion of Figure 2; 18)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Osgood wherein a first exterior wall is non-continuous with a first exterior wall and a second exterior wall is non-continuous with a second exterior wall as taught by and suggested by Mazzola in order to provide a thin trailing edge which allows optimizing aerodynamic performance (Paragraph 0016, the modification forms the trailing edge of Osgood like Mazzola).
Regarding claim 12, Osgood in view of Potokar and Mazzola teaches the invention as claimed.
Osgood further discloses wherein the hole is a first hole, the second outer wall includes a second hole (Figure 2; 126 on the suction side, Paragraph 0042, 0100), the chamber fluidly coupled to the bypass airflow passage via the second hole.
Regarding claim 13, Osgood in view of Potokar and Mazzola teaches the invention as claimed.
Osgood further discloses wherein the first outer wall and the second outer wall converge to a first trailing edge (Annotated Figure 12; labeled trailing edge) and the first trailing edge is aligned with a second trailing edge (Annotated Figure 12; labeled second trailing edge) of the bifurcation.
Regarding claim 15, Osgood in view of Potokar and Mazzola teaches the invention as claimed.
Osgood further discloses wherein the first outer wall is to be flush with the first exterior wall of the bifurcation.
Regarding claim 16, Osgood in view of Potokar and Mazzola teaches the invention as claimed.
Osgood does not disclose wherein the inlet is disposed at a center of the inlet manifold.
However, Potokar teaches wherein the inlet is disposed at a center (The center of the inlet manifold) of the inlet manifold.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Osgood wherein the inlet is disposed at a center of the inlet manifold as taught by and suggested by Potokar in order to condition the flow (Paragraph 0026, This is the same modification as claim 11.)
Regarding claim 17, Osgood in view of Potokar and Mazzola teaches the invention as claimed.
Osgood further discloses wherein the hole is a first hole.
Osgood does not disclose an interior wall disposed between the inlet manifold and the chamber, the interior wall includes a second hole that fluidly couples the inlet manifold and the chamber.
However, Potokar teaches an interior wall (The wall of Figure 4; 110) disposed between the inlet manifold and the chamber, the interior wall includes a second hole (Figure 3; 122) that fluidly couples the inlet manifold and the chamber.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Osgood to include an interior wall disposed between the inlet manifold and the chamber, the interior wall includes a second hole that fluidly couples the inlet manifold and the chamber as taught by and suggested by Potokar in order to condition the flow (Paragraph 0026, This is the same modification as claim 11.)
Regarding claim 18, Osgood in view of Potokar and Mazzola teaches the invention as claimed.
Osgood further discloses wherein the inlet has an axial centerline (The axial centerline of Figure 12; 581) and the hole is configured to expel air at an acute angle (The hole forms an acute angle with at least the axial centerline through the slanted portion of Figure 12; 581) relative to the axial centerline.
Claim(s) 9, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osgood in view of Mazzola as applied to claim 5, 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al (US 5660524 as referenced in OA dated 2/14/2025)
Regarding claim 9, Osgood in view of Mazzola teaches the invention as claimed.
Osgood in view of Mazzola does not teach a flange extending from the outer wall, the flange coupled to the outer wall.
However, Lee teaches a bifurcation (Figure 3; 14 excluding 68, 70) includes a bifurcation wall (Figure 3; 20 or 22 of the bifurcation), an exhaust device (Figure 3; 68 or 70, respectively) including an outer wall (Figure 3; 68 or 70) and the bifurcation wall and the outer wall are flush;
a flange (The portion of Figure 6; 68 or 70, respectively, that contacts the bifurcation wall) extending from the outer wall, the flange coupled to the outer wall.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Osgood in view of Mazzola to include a flange extending from the outer wall, the flange coupled to the outer wall as taught by and suggested by Lee in order to provide an advanced nickel-based alloy (Column 4, lines 3-8, The modification adds a flange to the outer wall and makes the outer wall from an advanced nickel-based alloy).
Regarding claim 10, Osgood in view of Mazzola teaches the invention as claimed.
Osgood further discloses wherein the bifurcation includes a bifurcation wall (The portion of Figure 12; 503 upstream of 585),
Osgood in view of Mazzola does not teach wherein the apparatus further includes a shroud substantially flush with the bifurcation wall, the shroud defining a channel between the shroud and the outer wall, and the shroud including an opening fluidly coupling the bypass airflow passage and the channel.
However, Lee teaches an apparatus (Figure 3) includes a shroud (Figure 3; 70) substantially flush with a wall (The portion of Figure 3; 22 upstream of 70. In the context of Osgood, this is a bifurcation wall), the shroud defining a channel (Figure 3; 60) between the shroud and an outer wall (Figure 3; 52 and the portion of 22 downstream of 70), and the shroud including an opening (Figure 3; 64) fluidly coupling an airflow passage (The passage that Figure 3; 64 outlets to) and the channel
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Osgood in view of Mazzola wherein the apparatus further includes a shroud substantially flush with the bifurcation wall, the shroud defining a channel between the shroud and the outer wall, and the shroud including an opening fluidly coupling the bypass airflow passage and the channel as taught by and suggested by Lee in order to impingement cool walls (Column 1, lines 27-32, The modification adds at least one impingement chamber like Lee in Osgood).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osgood in view of Potokar and Mazzola as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Brandl et al (US 20140234088 as referenced in OA dated 2/14/2025)
Regarding claim 20, Osgood in view of Potokar and Mazzola teaches the invention as claimed.
Osgood in view of Potokar and Mazzola does not teach a shroud coupled to the first outer wall, the coupling of the first outer wall and the shroud defining a channel therebetween, the channel to direct bypass air over the first outer wall; and
a seal disposed between the shroud and the first outer wall.
However, Brandl teaches a shroud (Figure 6b; 34) coupled to a first outer wall (Figure 6b; 33), the coupling of the first outer wall and the shroud defining a channel (Figure 6b; 48) therebetween, the channel to direct bypass air (Figure 3; 49) over the first outer wall; and
a seal (Figure 6b; 68, Paragraph 0063) disposed between the shroud and the first outer wall.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Osgood in view of Potokar and Mazzola to include a shroud coupled to the first outer wall, the coupling of the first outer wall and the shroud defining a channel therebetween, the channel to direct bypass air over the first outer wall; and a seal disposed between the shroud and the first outer wall as taught by and suggested by Brandl in order to provide a different material and prevent fluid penetration (Paragraph 0048, 0063, The modification adds a shroud, channel, and seal).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/24/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that Mazzola does not teach a first exterior wall and second exterior wall, each non-continuous with the outer wall. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown above in this OA, Mazzola teaches a first exterior wall and second exterior wall, each non-continuous with the outer wall.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11 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 EDWIN G KANG whose telephone number is (571)272-9814. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 PM EST.
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.
/EDWIN KANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741