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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 4/23/2026 has been entered. Claims 5, 9, 11-19 were canceled and claims 1-4, 6-8, 10 and 20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(a) rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 4 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sloop (U.S. Patent No. 5,375,973) in view of Blake (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0377029).
As per claim 1, Sloop discloses a component (11) for a gas turbine engine, comprising: at least one internal cavity (43, 44; figures 4a, 4b) defined by an outer wall (40) and an inner wall (37), the at least one internal cavity extending circumferentially across the component (as shown; figures 1-3) from a blade arrival edge (forward edge shown; figure 1) to a blade departure edge (rear edge shown; figure 1), the at least one internal cavity having at least one inlet opening (41, 42; figure 3) and at least one outlet opening (outlets formed at arrows 51; figures 4a, 4b) each being in fluid communication with the at least one internal cavity (as shown; figures 4a, 4b); wherein: the component is a blade outer air seal (as shown; figure 1), the outer wall defines the at least one inlet opening proximate to the blade arrival edge whereby cooling air flows into the at least one internal cavity radially inwardly, and the at least one outlet opening is formed at the blade departure edge whereby the cooling air flows out of the at least one internal cavity circumferentially (as shown; figures 3, 4a, 4b).
PNG
media_image1.png
562
1037
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While Sloop does explicitly teach the internal surface of each of the cooling passages has trip strips (column 4, lines 63-66), Sloop does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of cooling features form the claimed features of a first plurality of cooling features extending from a surface of the outer wall, each of the first plurality of cooling features having a serpentine shape extending in a first direction; and a second plurality of cooling features extending from a surface of the inner wall, each of the second plurality of cooling features having a serpentine shape extending in the first direction, and the first plurality of cooling features being in a facing spaced relationship with respect to the second plurality of cooling features. However, Sloops specifically teaches that the geometry and number of trip-strips are dictated by the particular gas turbine engine application (column 5, lines 37-40).
Blake (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0377029) is an analogous prior art in that it teaches turbulators (trip strips) for a blade outer air seal. Blake teaches a component (50) for a gas turbine engine, comprising: at least one internal cavity (72; figure 2) defined by an outer wall and an inner wall (58, 60; figure 3), the at least one internal cavity extending circumferentially across the component from a blade arrival edge to a blade departure edge (component 50 is a blade outer air seal, i.e., the cavity extending in the circumferential direction from one edge to another edge; paragraph [0050]), the at least one internal cavity having at least one inlet opening and at least one outlet opening each being in fluid communication with the at least one internal cavity (cooling airflow 68 is supplied to cavities 72, i.e., inherently having an inlet and an outlet; paragraph [0047]); a first plurality of cooling features extending from a surface of the outer wall, each of the first plurality of cooling features having a serpentine shape extending in a first direction (serpentine shaped curved turbulators 80 (first plurality of cooling features) on first wall 58; figures 2-4); and a second plurality of cooling features extending from a surface of the inner wall, each of the second plurality of cooling features having a serpentine shape extending in the first direction (serpentine shaped curved turbulators 80 (first plurality of cooling features) on second wall 60; figures 2-4), and the first plurality of cooling features being in a facing spaced relationship with respect to the second plurality of cooling features (curved turbulators 80 on first wall 58 and second wall 60 face each other in a spaced relationship; figure 3).
Blake teaches the curved turbulators having the serpentine shapes incorporated in the walls of the internal cooling cavities of the gas turbine engine provides reduced stress concentration (paragraphs [0043], [0057]) and also increases the cooling effectiveness of the internal cooling circuit of the component by disrupting thermal boundary layer (paragraph [0050]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Sloop’s cooling cavity to incorporate Blake’s cooling cavity having curved turbulators in serpentine shape arranged on opposite internal wall surfaces of the cooling cavity because as Blake teaches this arrangement allows to increase the cooling effectiveness of the internal cooling passage of the component while reducing stress concentration.
As per claim 3, Sloop in view of Blake discloses the component as claim 1. Sloop further discloses wherein the first plurality of cooling features are axially offset from each other (trip-strips 46 shown to be axially offset from each other in the direction of the flow; figure 3).
As per claim 4, Sloop in view of Blake discloses the component as claim 1. Sloop does not explicitly teach wherein the first plurality of cooling features and the second plurality of cooling features define a serpentine channel. However, Blake teaches wherein the first plurality of cooling features and the second plurality of cooling features define a serpentine channel (as shown, two adjacent turbulators 80 form a serpentine channel; figure 3). By the modification of claim 1 above, incorporate Blake’s serpentine shaped turbulators, the modified structure would have all claimed features of claim 4.
As per claim 20, Sloop discloses a gas turbine engine, comprising; at least one component (11) configured to receive a cooling air flow; at least one internal cavity (43, 44; figures 4a, 4b) defined by an outer wall (40) and an inner wall (37), the at least one internal cavity extending circumferentially across the component (as shown; figures 1-3) from a blade arrival edge (forward edge shown; figure 1) to a blade departure edge (rear edge shown; figure 1), the at least one internal cavity having at least one inlet opening (41, 42; figure 3) and at least one outlet opening (outlets formed at arrows 51; figures 4a, 4b) each being in fluid communication with the at least one internal cavity (as shown; figures 4a, 4b); wherein: the component is a blade outer air seal (as shown; figure 1), the outer wall defines the at least one inlet opening proximate to the blade arrival edge whereby cooling air flows into the at least one internal cavity radially inwardly, and the at least one outlet opening is formed at the blade departure edge whereby the cooling air flows out of the at least one internal cavity circumferentially (as shown; figures 3, 4a, 4b).
PNG
media_image1.png
562
1037
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While Sloop does explicitly teach the internal surface of each of the cooling passages has trip strips (column 4, lines 63-66), Sloop does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of cooling features form the claimed features of a first plurality of cooling features extending from a surface of the outer wall, each of the first plurality of cooling features having a serpentine shape extending in a first direction; and a second plurality of cooling features extending from a surface of the inner wall, each of the second plurality of cooling features having a serpentine shape extending in the first direction, and the first plurality of cooling features being in a facing spaced relationship with respect to the second plurality of cooling features. However, Sloops specifically teaches that the geometry and number of trip-strips are dictated by the particular gas turbine engine application (column 5, lines 37-40).
Blake (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0377029) is an analogous prior art in that it teaches turbulators (trip strips) for a blade outer air seal. Blake teaches a component (50) for a gas turbine engine, comprising: at least one internal cavity (72; figure 2) defined by an outer wall and an inner wall (58, 60; figure 3), the at least one internal cavity extending circumferentially across the component from a blade arrival edge to a blade departure edge (component 50 is a blade outer air seal, i.e., the cavity extending in the circumferential direction from one edge to another edge; paragraph [0050]), the at least one internal cavity having at least one inlet opening and at least one outlet opening each being in fluid communication with the at least one internal cavity (cooling airflow 68 is supplied to cavities 72, i.e., inherently having an inlet and an outlet; paragraph [0047]); a first plurality of cooling features extending from a surface of the outer wall, each of the first plurality of cooling features having a serpentine shape extending in a first direction (serpentine shaped curved turbulators 80 (first plurality of cooling features) on first wall 58; figures 2-4); and a second plurality of cooling features extending from a surface of the inner wall, each of the second plurality of cooling features having a serpentine shape extending in the first direction (serpentine shaped curved turbulators 80 (first plurality of cooling features) on second wall 60; figures 2-4), and the first plurality of cooling features being in a facing spaced relationship with respect to the second plurality of cooling features (curved turbulators 80 on first wall 58 and second wall 60 face each other in a spaced relationship; figure 3).
Blake teaches the curved turbulators having the serpentine shapes incorporated in the walls of the internal cooling cavities of the gas turbine engine provides reduced stress concentration (paragraphs [0043], [0057]) and also increases the cooling effectiveness of the internal cooling circuit of the component by disrupting thermal boundary layer (paragraph [0050]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Sloop’s cooling cavity to incorporate Blake’s cooling cavity having curved turbulators in serpentine shape arranged on opposite internal wall surfaces of the cooling cavity because as Blake teaches this arrangement allows to increase the cooling effectiveness of the internal cooling passage of the component while reducing stress concentration.
Claim(s) 2 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sloops, in view of Blake and Davis (European Patent Document EP 3,460,190).
As per claim 2, Sloop in view of Blake, discloses the component as claim 1. Sloop does not explicitly teach wherein the first plurality of cooling features and/or the second plurality of cooling features have a triangular configuration.
Davis (European Patent Document EP 3,460,190) is related prior art in that it deals with heat transfer enhancement structure for a gas turbine component. Davis teaches cooling ribs or strips having a variety of different cross-sectional shapes including triangular shape (figure 12). It should be noted that Applicant’s disclosure fails to teach a criticality related to the triangular shape. Furthermore, the court held that the change in shape was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant (see MPEP 2144.04 IV. Changes in size, shape, or sequence of adding ingredients). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Sloop’s cooling features to incorporate Davis’ triangular cross-sectional shape since change in shape is only a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.
As per claim 7, Sloop, in view of Blake and Davis, disclose the component as claim 2. Sloop further discloses wherein the first plurality of cooling features are axially offset from each other (trip-strips 46 shown to be axially offset from each other in the direction of the flow; figure 3).
As per claim 8, Sloop, in view of Blake and Davis, disclose the component as claim 7. Sloop does not explicitly teach wherein the first plurality of cooling features and the second plurality of cooling features define a serpentine channel. However, Blake teaches wherein the first plurality of cooling features and the second plurality of cooling features define a serpentine channel (as shown, two adjacent turbulators 80 form a serpentine channel; figure 3). By the modification of claim 1 above, incorporate Blake’s serpentine shaped turbulators, the modified structure would have all claimed features of claim 8.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sloop in view of Blake and Slavens (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0041059).
As per claim 6, Sloop in view of Blake, discloses the component as claim 1. Sloop does not explicitly teach wherein at least some of the second plurality of cooling features have a cooling hole extending from a surface of the at least some of the second plurality cooling features in the at least one internal cavity and through the inner wall.
Slavens (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0041059) is a related prior art in that it deals with cooling of a gas turbine component. Slavens teaches serpentine shaped cooling features having a cooling hole extending from a surface through the inner wall (figure 15). Slavens teaches these cooling holes on the surface of the serpentine shaped cooling features allow cooling air to pass from the cavities to a hot side and thereby facilitate formation of a thin, relatively cool, film of cooling air along the hot side and augment the convective cooling (paragraphs [0056], [0068]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Sloop’s cooling feature modified by Blake to have second plurality of cooling features to incorporate Slaves’ cooling holes because as Slavens teach, the cooling holes on the heat transfer ribs (cooling features) augment convective cooling (paragraph [0068]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sloop in view of Blake, Davis and Slavens.
As per claim 10, Sloop, in view of Blake in view of Davis, disclose the component as claim 8. Blake does not explicitly teach wherein at least some of the second plurality of cooling features have a cooling hole extending from a surface of the at least some of the second plurality cooling features in the at least one internal cavity and through the inner wall.
Slavens (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0041059) is a related prior art in that it deals with cooling of a gas turbine component. Slavens teaches serpentine shaped cooling features having a cooling hole extending from a surface through the inner wall (figure 15). Slavens teaches these cooling holes on the surface of the serpentine shaped cooling features allow cooling air to pass from the cavities to a hot side and thereby facilitate formation of a thin, relatively cool, film of cooling air along the hot side and augment the convective cooling (paragraphs [0056], [0068]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Sloop’s cooling feature modified by Blake to have second plurality of cooling features to incorporate Slaves’ cooling holes because as Slavens teach, the cooling holes on the heat transfer ribs (cooling features) augment convective cooling (paragraph [0068]).
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG K KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at (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 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.
/SANG K KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights