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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 1/16/2026 has been entered. Claims 5 and 9 were canceled. Claims 1-4, 6-8 and 10-20 remain pending in the application. Claims 11-19 were withdrawn from consideration as non-elected claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks filed on 1/16/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 10 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Examiner acknowledges Richardson (U.S. Patent No. 4,497,610) does not sufficiently teach an outlet opening at the blade departure edge whereby the cooling air flows out of the at least one internal cavity axially rearwardly. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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. Claims 1 and 20 recite “the inner wall and the outer wall cooperatively define the at least one outlet opening at the blade departure edge whereby the cooling air flows out of the at least one internal cavity axially rearwardly” that lacks written description support (see 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection below) and not shown in the drawings. Therefore, the abovementioned claimed feature 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 20 recite “the inner wall and the outer wall cooperatively define the at least one outlet opening at the blade departure edge whereby the cooling air flows out of the at least one internal cavity axially rearwardly”. This limitation lacks written description support for two reasons:
The original disclosure fails to teach the inner wall and the outer wall cooperatively define the at least one outlet opening at the departure edge. This limitation is not explicitly taught in the originally filed specification. In Applicant’s Remarks filed on 1/16/2026, Applicant relies on Fig. 4 of the drawings for the support of this limitation. However, careful observation of Fig. 4 below reveals that outlet opening 88 is formed by a small but non-negligible circumferential end wall portion. Therefore, there is no written description support that the inner wall contributes in forming of the outlet opening at the departure edge.
PNG
media_image1.png
884
1122
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The original disclosure fails to teach an outlet opening formed at the departure edge whereby the cooling air flows out of the at least one internal cavity axially rearwardly. This limitation is not explicitly taught in the originally filed specification. Paragraph [0054] describes the departure edge to be a circumferential end of the BOAS. Therefore, an opening formed at the departure edge will flow out in a direction tangent to the circumferential direction if it was formed in the way depicted in Fig. 4. Paragraph [0054] does teach alternative embodiments where the channels or cavities 82 and the cooling flow extend axially across the blade outer seal from a leading edge to a trailing edge. However, even in this embodiment, there is no teaching that the outlet opening will still be formed at the departure edge and even if the outlet opening was formed at the departure edge, it will redirect the outlet flow in a circumferential direction and not in an axially rearward direction.
Claims 2-4, 6-8, 10 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sloop (U.S. Patent No. 5,375,973) teaches a BOAS that has a cooling cavity having an outlet formed at the circumferential end edge (blade departure edge). However, Sloop also fails to teach the outlet allows the cooling air to flow out in the axially rearward direction.
Romanov (U.S. Patent No. 10,309,255) also teaches a BOAS having a cooling cavity having an outlet formed at the circumferential end edge (blade departure edge).
Lutjen (U.S. Patent No. 9,103,225) teaches a BOAS having a serpentine shaped passage having trip strips. Lutjen teaches an outlet that directs the cooling air to flow out in the axially rearward direction but not located at the blade departure edge at the circumferential end of the BOAS.
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