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 .
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 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 § 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, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (hereafter Lee – US 20060153681).
Claim 1 recites “a turbine blade.” Lee teaches such a turbine blade, as will be shown.
Lee teaches (Figs. 1-4) a turbine blade comprising:
a platform 16;
an airfoil 14 extending radially outward from the platform, wherein the airfoil includes a fillet 38 at an interface between the airfoil and the platform;
an internal cooling channel 28 that extends radially through the platform and into the airfoil,
wherein the platform comprises a plurality of first apertures 40, wherein each of the plurality of first apertures respectively extends from the internal cooling channel to a first outlet that flares (see Fig. 4) outward through an exterior surface of the platform at a position that is radially inward from a leading edge of the fillet (see Figs. 1, 4), and wherein each first outlet is shaped to match an outer profile of the platform (see Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 2, Lee teaches (Figs. 1-4) the turbine blade of Claim 1, wherein the first outlets of at least a subset of the plurality of first apertures are through a pressure side 20 of the platform (see Figs. 1, 4).
Regarding Claim 3, Lee teaches (Figs. 1-4) the turbine blade of Claim 2, wherein the plurality of first apertures comprises at least three first apertures (see Figs. 1, 4).
Regarding Claim 16, Lee teaches (Figs. 1-4) a rotor assembly comprising a plurality of the turbine blade of Claim 1, arranged annularly around a longitudinal axis (Fig. 1, para. 0045).
Regarding Claim 17, Lee teaches (Figs. 1-4) the gas turbine engine comprising: a compressor; a combustor downstream from the compressor; and a turbine downstream from the combustor, wherein the turbine comprises one or more of the rotor assembly of Claim 16 (para. 0002-0005).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Liang (hereafter Liang ‘725 – US 8727725).
Regarding Claim 4, Lee teaches (Figs. 1-4) the turbine blade of Claim 1.
However, Lee does not teach the fillet comprises a plurality of second apertures, wherein each of the plurality of second apertures respectively extends from the internal cooling channel to a second outlet that flares outward through the leading edge of the fillet, and wherein each second outlet is shaped to match an outer profile of the leading edge of the fillet.
Liang ‘725 teaches (Figs. 6-9) a turbine blade comprising an airfoil 22, a platform 21, a fillet 25 between the airfoil and platform, wherein the fillet comprises a plurality of second apertures 26, wherein each of the plurality of second apertures respectively extends from the internal cooling channel to a second outlet that flares outward through the leading edge of the fillet (see Fig. 6), and wherein each second outlet is shaped to match an outer profile of the leading edge 23 of the fillet (see Fig. 6).
Liang ‘725 further teaches such a cooling arrangement minimizes the cooling loss or degradation of the film and therefore provides a more effective film cooling for the film development and maintenance. The film cooling hole extends the cooling air continuously along the interface of the airfoil leading edge versus endwall location and thus minimizes thermally induced stress by eliminating the discrete cooling hole which caused the film to become separated in the non-cooled area (col. 5, ln. 27-43).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Liang ‘725 to the turbine blade of Lee to have the fillet comprises a plurality of second apertures, wherein each of the plurality of second apertures respectively extends from the internal cooling channel to a second outlet that flares outward through the leading edge of the fillet, and wherein each second outlet is shaped to match an outer profile of the leading edge of the fillet, as both references and Applicant’s invention are directed to turbine blades. Doing so would result in therefore provides a more effective film cooling for the film development and maintenance, as recognized by Liang ‘725.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Greene et al. (hereafter Greene – US 12497897).
Regarding Claim 5, Lee teaches (Figs. 1-4) the turbine blade of Claim 1.
However, Lee does not teach at least one third aperture that extends from an inlet through a radially inward facing surface of the platform, through an interior of the platform, to a third outlet through a trailing edge of the fillet.
Greene teaches a turbine blade (Figs. 1-3) comprising a fillet 160 between an airfoil 142 and a platform 130, comprising at least one third aperture 220 that extends from an inlet (Fig. 5) through a radially inward facing surface of the platform, through an interior of the platform, to a third outlet through a trailing edge of the fillet (see Figs. 5, 7).
Greene further teaches such a cooling arrangement provides more precise airfoil mount cooling and allows cooling of a platform in an area where a connection, such as fillet connection or braze material, would normally block cooling passages in the platform, e.g., between a trailing edge of the airfoil body and a sidewall of the platform, and improving overall performance (col. 6, ln. 47-61).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Greene to the turbine blade of Lee to have at least one third aperture that extends from an inlet through a radially inward facing surface of the platform, through an interior of the platform, to a third outlet through a trailing edge of the fillet, as both references and Applicant’s invention are directed to turbine blades. Doing so would result in more precise airfoil mount cooling and allows cooling of a platform in an area where a connection, such as fillet connection or braze material, would normally block cooling passages in the platform, to improve overall performance, as recognized by Greene.
Regarding Claim 6, Lee, as modified with Greene in Claim 5 above, teaches (Greene Figs. 1-3) the turbine blade of Claim 5, wherein the third outlet is through a pressure side of the fillet (see Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 7, Lee, as modified with Greene in Claim 5 above, teaches (Greene Figs. 1-3) the turbine blade of Claim 5, wherein the at least one third aperture consists of a single third aperture (one of the apertures may be a single aperture).
Claims 8-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Bondarevsky et al. (hereafter Bondarevsky – US 20240410283).
Regarding Claim 8, Lee teaches (Figs. 1-4) the turbine blade of Claim 1.
airfoil further includes a tip flag that comprises: a radial channel 28 that is oriented radially within an interior of the airfoil (see Fig. 2);
However, Lee does not teach the tip flag comprises an axial channel that is oriented axially within the interior of the airfoil, wherein the axial channel includes one or more outlets through a trailing edge of the airfoil; and a curved channel that fluidly connects a radially outward end of the radial channel to a forward end of the axial channel.
Bondarevsky teaches (Figs. 1-4) a turbine blade comprising an airfoil 78 comprising a includes a tip flag having trip strips (Fig. 4) that comprises: a radial channel 122 that is oriented radially within an interior of the airfoil; an axial channel 124 that is oriented axially within the interior of the airfoil, wherein the axial channel includes one or more outlets through a trailing edge of the airfoil (see Fig. 4); and a curved channel (see Fig. 4) that fluidly connects a radially outward end of the radial channel to a forward end of the axial channel (see Fig. 4).
Bondarevsky further teaches such additional cooling provided by extending leading edge partition wall 112 to tip wall 110 can reduce a local thermal mechanical strain in this region. Additionally, mechanical stresses associated with dead-ended internal walls (walls that are discontinued with an end separated from an adjacent channel wall) are reduced (para. 0040).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Bondarevsky to the turbine blade of Lee to have the tip flag comprises trip strips, an axial channel that is oriented axially within the interior of the airfoil, wherein the axial channel includes one or more outlets through a trailing edge of the airfoil; and a curved channel that fluidly connects a radially outward end of the radial channel to a forward end of the axial channel, as both references and Applicant’s invention are directed to turbine blades. Doing so would result in reducing a local thermal mechanical strain in this region, as recognized by Bondarevsky.
Regarding Claim 9, Lee, as modified with Bondarevsky in Claim 8 above, teaches (Bondarevsky Figs. 1-4) the turbine blade of Claim 8, wherein the radial channel of the tip flag is oriented parallel to the internal cooling channel and is positioned aft of the internal cooling channel within the interior of the airfoil (Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 10, Lee, as modified with Bondarevsky in Claim 8 above, teaches (Bondarevsky Figs. 1-4) the turbine blade of Claim 8, wherein the tip flag further comprises a plurality of fourth apertures, wherein each of the plurality of fourth apertures respectively extends from the axial channel to a fourth outlet through an exterior surface of the airfoil (para. 0041, film cooling holes not shown).
Regarding Claim 11, Lee, as modified with Bondarevsky in Claim 8 above, teaches (Bondarevsky Figs. 1-4) the turbine blade of Claim 10, wherein the fourth outlets of at least a subset of the plurality of fourth apertures are through a pressure side of the exterior surface of the airfoil (para. 0041, not shown).
Regarding Claim 12, Lee, as modified with Bondarevsky in Claim 8 above, teaches (Bondarevsky Figs. 1-4) the turbine blade of Claim 10, wherein the fourth outlets of at least a subset of the plurality of fourth apertures are through a radially outward end of a pressure side of the exterior surface of the airfoil (para. 0041, not shown).
Regarding Claim 13, Lee, as modified with Bondarevsky in Claim 8 above, teaches (Bondarevsky Figs. 1-4) the turbine blade of Claim 8, wherein each of the radial channel and the axial channel comprises a plurality of trip strips (Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 14, Lee, as modified with Bondarevsky in Claim 8 above, teaches (Bondarevsky Figs. 1-4) the turbine blade of Claim 8, wherein each of the radial channel and the axial channel comprises a plurality of trip strips on both a pressure side and a suction side of the respective channel (Fig. 4).
Claim 20 recites “a turbine blade.” Lee teaches such a turbine blade, as will be shown.
Lee teaches (Figs. 1-4) a turbine blade comprising:
a platform 16; and
an airfoil 14 extending radially outward from the platform, wherein the airfoil includes a radial channel 28 that is oriented radially within an interior of the airfoil.
However, Lee does not teach an axial channel that is oriented axially within the interior of the airfoil, wherein the axial channel comprises one or more outlets through a trailing edge on a pressure side of an exterior surface of the airfoil, a transitional channel that fluidly connects a radially outward end of the radial channel to a forward end of the axial channel, and a plurality of apertures, wherein each of the plurality of apertures respectively extends from the axial channel to an outlet through a radially outward end of the pressure side of the exterior surface of the airfoil.
Bondarevsky teaches (Figs. 1-4) a turbine blade comprising an airfoil 78 comprising a includes a tip flag having trip strips (Fig. 4) that comprises: a radial channel 122 that is oriented radially within an interior of the airfoil; an axial channel 124 that is oriented axially within the interior of the airfoil, wherein the axial channel includes one or more outlets through a trailing edge of the airfoil (see Fig. 4); and a curved channel (see Fig. 4) that fluidly connects a radially outward end of the radial channel to a forward end of the axial channel (see Fig. 4) wherein each of the plurality of apertures respectively extends from the axial channel to an outlet through a radially outward end of the pressure side of the exterior surface of the airfoil (para. 0041, film holes not shown).
Bondarevsky further teaches such additional cooling provided by extending leading edge partition wall 112 to tip wall 110 can reduce a local thermal mechanical strain in this region. Additionally, mechanical stresses associated with dead-ended internal walls (walls that are discontinued with an end separated from an adjacent channel wall) are reduced (para. 0040).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Bondarevsky to the turbine blade of Lee to have an axial channel that is oriented axially within the interior of the airfoil, wherein the axial channel comprises one or more outlets through a trailing edge on a pressure side of an exterior surface of the airfoil, a transitional channel that fluidly connects a radially outward end of the radial channel to a forward end of the axial channel, and a plurality of apertures, wherein each of the plurality of apertures respectively extends from the axial channel to an outlet through a radially outward end of the pressure side of the exterior surface of the airfoil, as both references and Applicant’s invention are directed to turbine blades. Doing so would result in reducing a local thermal mechanical strain in this region, as recognized by Bondarevsky.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Liang (hereafter Liang ‘424 – US 8382424).
Regarding Claim 15, Lee teaches (Figs. 1-4) the turbine blade of Claim 1.
However, Lee does not teach the platform comprises a pin seal slot on each of a pressure side and a suction side of the platform, and wherein an aft axial end of each pin seal slot extends axially beyond the trailing edge of the fillet, in an aft direction, by a non-zero distance.
Liang ‘424 teaches (Figs. 4-7) a turbine blade comprising an airfoil 21 and a platform 22, a fillet between the airfoil and platform (see Fig. 4) wherein the platform comprises a pin seal slot 23 on each of a pressure side and a suction side of the platform, and wherein an aft axial end of each pin seal slot extends axially beyond the trailing edge of the fillet (see Fig. 4), in an aft direction, by a non-zero distance (see Fig. 4).
Liang ‘424 further teaches such a pin seal slot arrangement provides convection and impingement cooling for the mate faces to prevent high metal temperature that results in erosion and shortened part life (col. 4, ln. 11-24).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Liang ‘424 to the turbine blade of Lee to have a pin seal slot on each of a pressure side and a suction side of the platform, and wherein an aft axial end of each pin seal slot extends axially beyond the trailing edge of the fillet, in an aft direction, by a non-zero distance, as both references and Applicant’s invention are directed to turbine blades. Doing so would result in convection and impingement cooling for the mate faces to prevent high metal temperature that results in erosion and shortened part life, as recognized by Liang ‘424.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Liang ‘725, and further in view of Greene.
Claim 18 recites “a turbine blade.” Lee teaches such a turbine blade, as will be shown.
Lee teaches (Figs. 1-4) a turbine blade comprising:
a platform 16;
an airfoil 14 extending radially outward from the platform, wherein the airfoil includes a fillet 38 at an interface between the airfoil and the platform; an internal cooling channel 28 that extends radially through the platform and into the airfoil, wherein the platform comprises a plurality of first apertures (40), wherein each of the plurality of first apertures respectively extends from the internal cooling channel to a first outlet that flares outward through an exterior surface of the platform at a position that is radially inward from a leading edge of the fillet, and wherein each first outlet is shaped to match an outer profile of the exterior surface of the platform (see Fig. 1, 4),
However, Lee does not teach wherein the fillet comprises a plurality of second apertures, wherein each of the plurality of second apertures respectively extends from the internal cooling channel to a second outlet that flares outward through the leading edge of the fillet, and wherein each second outlet is shaped to match an outer profile of the leading edge of the fillet, and wherein the turbine blade further comprises at least one third aperture that extends from an inlet through a radially inward facing surface of the platform, through an interior of the platform, to a third outlet through a trailing edge of the fillet.
Liang ‘725 teaches (Figs. 6-9) a turbine blade comprising an airfoil 22, a platform 21, a fillet 25 between the airfoil and platform, wherein the fillet comprises a plurality of second apertures 26, wherein each of the plurality of second apertures respectively extends from the internal cooling channel to a second outlet that flares outward through the leading edge of the fillet (see Fig. 6), and wherein each second outlet is shaped to match an outer profile of the leading edge 23 of the fillet (see Fig. 6).
Liang ‘725 further teaches such a cooling arrangement minimizes the cooling loss or degradation of the film and therefore provides a more effective film cooling for the film development and maintenance. The film cooling hole extends the cooling air continuously along the interface of the airfoil leading edge versus endwall location and thus minimizes thermally induced stress by eliminating the discrete cooling hole which caused the film to become separated in the non-cooled area (col. 5, ln. 27-43).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Liang ‘725 to the turbine blade of Lee to have the fillet comprises a plurality of second apertures, wherein each of the plurality of second apertures respectively extends from the internal cooling channel to a second outlet that flares outward through the leading edge of the fillet, and wherein each second outlet is shaped to match an outer profile of the leading edge of the fillet, as both references and Applicant’s invention are directed to turbine blades. Doing so would result in therefore provides a more effective film cooling for the film development and maintenance, as recognized by Liang ‘725.
Greene teaches a turbine blade (Figs. 1-3) comprising a fillet 160 between an airfoil 142 and a platform 130, comprising at least one third aperture 220 that extends from an inlet (Fig. 5) through a radially inward facing surface of the platform, through an interior of the platform, to a third outlet through a trailing edge of the fillet (see Figs. 5, 7).
Greene further teaches such a cooling arrangement provides more precise airfoil mount cooling and allows cooling of a platform in an area where a connection, such as fillet connection or braze material, would normally block cooling passages in the platform, e.g., between a trailing edge of the airfoil body and a sidewall of the platform, and improving overall performance (col. 6, ln. 47-61).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Greene to the turbine blade of Lee to have at least one third aperture that extends from an inlet through a radially inward facing surface of the platform, through an interior of the platform, to a third outlet through a trailing edge of the fillet, as both references and Applicant’s invention are directed to turbine blades. Doing so would result in more precise airfoil mount cooling and allows cooling of a platform in an area where a connection, such as fillet connection or braze material, would normally block cooling passages in the platform, to improve overall performance, as recognized by Greene.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Liang ‘725, and further in view of Greene, and further in view of Bondarevsky.
Regarding Claim 19, Lee, as modified with Liang ‘725 and Greene in Claim 18 above, teaches (Greene Figs. 1-3) the turbine blade of Claim 18, wherein the airfoil further includes a tip flag that comprises: a radial channel (Lee 28) that is oriented radially within an interior of the airfoil.
However, modified Lee does not teach wherein the radial channel comprises a first plurality of trip strips; an axial channel that is oriented axially within the interior of the airfoil, wherein the axial channel includes one or more outlets through a trailing edge on a pressure side of an exterior surface of the airfoil, and wherein the axial channel comprises a second plurality of trip strips; a curved channel that fluidly connects a radially outward end of the radial channel to a forward end of the axial channel; and a plurality of apertures, wherein each of the plurality of apertures respectively extends from the axial channel to an outlet through a radially outward end of the pressure side of the exterior surface of the airfoil.
Bondarevsky teaches (Figs. 1-4) a turbine blade comprising an airfoil 78 comprising a includes a tip flag having trip strips (Fig. 4) that comprises: a radial channel 122 that is oriented radially within an interior of the airfoil; an axial channel 124 that is oriented axially within the interior of the airfoil, wherein the axial channel includes one or more outlets through a trailing edge of the airfoil (see Fig. 4); and a curved channel (see Fig. 4) that fluidly connects a radially outward end of the radial channel to a forward end of the axial channel (see Fig. 4), trip strips (Fig. 4), a plurality of apertures through pressure side of the exterior surface of the airfoil (film holes, not shown, see para. 0041).
Bondarevsky further teaches such additional cooling provided by extending leading edge partition wall 112 to tip wall 110 can reduce a local thermal mechanical strain in this region. Additionally, mechanical stresses associated with dead-ended internal walls (walls that are discontinued with an end separated from an adjacent channel wall) are reduced (para. 0040).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Bondarevsky to the turbine blade of modified Lee to the radial channel comprises a first plurality of trip strips; an axial channel that is oriented axially within the interior of the airfoil, wherein the axial channel includes one or more outlets through a trailing edge on a pressure side of an exterior surface of the airfoil, and wherein the axial channel comprises a second plurality of trip strips; a curved channel that fluidly connects a radially outward end of the radial channel to a forward end of the axial channel; and a plurality of apertures, wherein each of the plurality of apertures respectively extends from the axial channel to an outlet through a radially outward end of the pressure side of the exterior surface of the airfoil. Doing so would result in reducing a local thermal mechanical strain in this region, as recognized by Bondarevsky.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See cited references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW BUI whose telephone number is (571) 272-0685. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Courtney Heinle can be reached on (571) 270-3508. 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).
/ANDREW THANH BUI/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights