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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 21, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 21, 2026 have been fully considered.
The 35 U.S.C 103 rejections based on DBDC in view of Boyer are withdrawn for the reasons discussed in the applicant’s arguments. New grounds of rejection are presented below.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 14 and 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Digard Brou De Cuissart et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20070212228) hereinafter DBDC in view of Wardle et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20120163995) hereinafter Wardle, Sreekanth et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20020172590 hereinafter Sreekanth, and Byrd et al. (U.S Patent 4,864,467) hereinafter Byrd.
PNG
media_image1.png
647
743
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, DBDC discloses:
A turbine rotor blade {Figure 3A (10’); [0001]} comprising:
a rotor blade root {Figure 2B (12)}:
in which a first internal passage that extends in a rotor blade height direction is formed {Figures 2B and 3A, first passage is the second instance of (22) from the left} and
a first opening on one end side of the first internal passage is formed at a bottom portion of the rotor blade root {Figures 2B and 3A, the first opening is at the radially most inner portion of the first internal passage}; and
an adjustment member {Figures 2B and 3A (30)} which is:
attached to the bottom portion {Figures 2B and 3A (30) is brazed/welded to the base of the root which forms the bottom portion; [0030]} and
in which a first through-hole is formed such that the first through-hole overlaps with the first opening when viewed from the rotor blade height direction {Figures 2B and 3A, the second from the left instance of (32) overlaps with the first opening; see Annotated Figure 1 for an examiner produced approximation when viewed in the rotor blade height direction},
wherein, when viewed from the rotor blade height direction, the first through-hole intersects with the first opening, and has a first overlapping region that overlaps with the first opening {Figures 2B and 3A, the second from the left instance of (32) intersects with the first opening and a first overlapping region is formed that overlaps with the first opening; Annotated Figure 1 ,the overlapping region is between (III) and (IV) and within (32)}, and
first and second non-overlapping regions that do not overlap with the first opening {Figures 2B and 3A, the first through-hole is an elliptical shape that extends axially further than the square shape of the first opening as can be seen by the lengths shown in Figure 3A; Annotated Figure 1, the first non-overlapping region is between (I) and (III) and the second non-overlapping region between (II) and (IV)}, and
when viewed from the rotor blade height direction, the first through-hole is:
larger than the first opening in a first direction {Figures 2B and 3A, the first through-hole is an elliptical shape that extends axially further than the square shape of the first opening as can be seen by the lengths shown in Figure 3A}, and
the first and second non-overlapping regions are arranged on opposite sides of the first opening in the first direction {Figures 2B and 3A, the non-overlapping regions are formed where the elliptical shape of the first through-hole extends axially further than first opening, this occurs on the axially forward and axially aft sides of the overlapping region}
DBDC appears to teach the first opening has roughly equal dimensions in the first and second dimension {see MPEP 2125}. DBDC is silent regarding the exact and relative dimensions of the first opening and therefore does not disclose:
wherein when viewed from the rotor blade height direction, a dimension of the first opening in the first direction is shorter than a dimension of the first opening in a second direction that intersects with the first direction.
DBDC does not disclose:
The first direction is a circumferential direction of a rotor
The second direction is an axial direction of the rotor
Wardle pertains to gas turbine cooling passages and metering plates. Wardle teaches:
wherein when viewed from the rotor blade height direction, a dimension of the first opening in the circumferential direction is shorter than a dimension of the first opening in the axial direction that intersects with the first direction {Figure 2 (5) is shorter in the circumferential direction (up/down) than in the axial direction (left/right)}.
Sreekanth pertains to metering airflow in gas turbine engine airfoils. Sreekanth teaches:
A cover plate has strict manufacturing tolerances to accurately control the delivery of air through the airfoil passage {[0021]-[0022] and [0036]; Figure 1 (19)}.
Byrd is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of aligning holes for the desired overlap to occur for something to pass through. Byrd teaches:
Adjacent flanges with holes a first and second set of holes (52) and (54) for an object (56) to pass through has the first set of holes oriented vertically while the second set of holes are oriented horizontally {Figure 6 (52) and (54) define an overlapping region for (56) to pass through; Column 4 lines 10-22}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the blade of DBDC have openings that are shorter in the circumferential direction than in the axial direction based on the teachings of Wardle. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as substituting the roughly square openings of DBDC for openings that are shorter in the circumferential direction than in the axial direction is a simple substitution, see MPEP 2143 I, B. Both openings designs could be substituted for each other with the results being predictable.
With the above modification to DBDC based on the teachings of Wardle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to maintain the property of DBDC of the second instance of (32) extending further than (22) in one direction while extending less than (22) in the orthogonal direction in the plane of the hole/opening. Based on the modification to DBDC having the openings elongated in the axial direction, maintaining the above property would be most easily achieved by having through hole of (32) elongated in the circumferential direction. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as cover plates need to accurately control the delivery of air through the airfoil passage which are affected by manufacturing tolerances {Sreekanth [0021]-[0022] and [0036]} and holes that overlap with the holes being elongated in orthogonal directions are a known configuration to keep the desired opening regardless of offsets in either direction {Byrd Column 4 lines 10-22}.
PNG
media_image2.png
692
1003
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The combination of DBDC, Wardle, Sreekanth, and Byrd therefore teaches:
The first direction is a circumferential direction of a rotor {see Annotated Figure 2}
The second direction is an axial direction of the rotor {See Annotated Figure 2}
Regarding claim 19, DBDC further discloses:
in the rotor blade root, a second internal passage that extends in the rotor blade height direction is formed {Figures 2B and 3A, any other the remaining three passages (22) that extend in the engine radial direction may be considered a second internal passage} and
a second opening on one end side of the second internal passage is formed at the bottom portion of the rotor blade root {Figures 2B and 3A, the second internal passage has an opening at the radially inner portion},
in the adjustment member, a second through-hole that overlaps with the second opening when viewed from the rotor blade height direction is formed {Figures 2B and 3A, (30) has a second through-hole which is the instance of (32) corresponding to the second internal passage that overlaps the second opening}, and
when viewed from the rotor blade height direction, the second through-hole has a second overlapping region that overlaps with the second opening {Figures 2B and 3A, the second through-hole overlaps the second opening for flow to pass through}.
Regarding claim 20, DBDC further discloses:
wherein the first opening and the first through-hole are positioned closer to a rear edge side of a rotor blade body than the second opening and the second through-hole are positioned relative to the rear edge side of the rotor blade body {Figures 2B and 3A; as discussed in the rejection of claim 19 above, the second opening and second through-hole can be any of the other instances of (22) and (32) that are not the first opening and through-hole. For purposes of claim 20, the most axially upstream opening and through-hole instance of (22) and (32) are considered the second opening and second through-hole. The first opening and first through-hole are therefore positioned closer to a rear edge side of the rotor blade body (trailing edge side 18) than the most axially upstream (left) instance which is considered the second opening / through-hole}.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of DBDC, Wardle, Sreekanth, and Byrd further teaches:
wherein approximately a value (Sla/Slb) obtained by dividing an area (Sla) of the first overlapping region when viewed from the rotor blade height direction by an area (Slb) of the first opening when viewed from the rotor blade height direction is larger than a value (S2a/S2b) obtained by dividing an area (S2a) of the second overlapping region when viewed from the rotor blade height direction by an area (S2b) of the second opening when viewed from the rotor blade height direction
{DBDC: Figure 2B shows instances of the openings (22) that appear to be implicitly at least approximately the same cross-sectional area and shape. In the terms of the claims, this is also the same as saying S1b and S2b are approximately equal. Based on the depictions in Figures 2B and 3A, the left most instance of (32) is smaller than the associated instance of (22). This means that the area of the second overlapping region is the same as the area of the second through hole (32). The exact area of the first overlapping region is unknown. The circumferential width of the first and second through-holes is however very similar. However as shown in Figure 3, the overlap in the axial direction for the first through-hole and the first opening is covers the entire opening width. This means that S1a is larger than S2a (this is maintained in the modification in the rejection of claim 14). Based on the above, the examiner finds the claimed value of (Sla/Slb) is approximately larger than (S2a/S2b). No precise proportions or measurements from the drawings are relied upon. The sizes of the through-holes are discussed in [0030] as controlling the flow rate of the air fed to the respective cavities. The claim is a general relationship of a quantity being larger than another quantity and is not directed towards specific values, see MPEP 2125}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the combination of DBDC and Boyer to have the value of (S1a/S1b) be larger than (S2a/S2b). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as the disclosure of DBDC implicitly conveys a range of values that overlaps the claimed relationship, see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 22, DBDC further discloses:
wherein, in the rotor blade root, a third internal passage that extends in the rotor blade height direction is formed and a third opening on one end of the third internal passage is formed at the bottom portion of the rotor blade root {Figures 2B and 3A, any other the remaining two passages (22) that is not the first or second passages that extends in the engine radial direction may be considered a third internal passage},
in the adjustment member, a third through-hole that overlaps with the third opening when viewed from the rotor blade height direction is formed {Figures 2B and 3A, (30) has a third through-hole which is the instance of (32) corresponding to the third internal passage that overlaps the third opening}, and
when viewed from the rotor blade height direction, the third through-hole has a third overlapping region that overlaps with the third opening {Figures 2B and 3A, the third through-hole overlaps the second opening for flow to pass through}.
Regarding claim 23, DBDC further discloses:
wherein the first opening and the first through-hole are positioned closer to a rear edge side of a rotor blade body than the second opening and the second through-hole
{Figures 2B and 3A; as discussed in the rejection of claim 19 above, the second opening and second through-hole can be any of the other instances of (22) and (32) that are not the first opening and through-hole. For purposes of claim 20, the most axially upstream opening and through-hole instance of (22) and (32) are considered the second opening and second through-hole. The first opening and first through-hole are therefore positioned closer to a rear edge side of the rotor blade body (trailing edge side 18) than the most axially upstream (left) instance which is considered the second opening / through-hole}.
DBDC does not disclose wherein the first opening and the first through-hole are positioned closer to a rear edge side of a rotor blade body than the third opening, and the third through-hole are positioned relative to the rear edge side of the rotor blade body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the “first through-hole” that is elliptical shaped be in the third position from the upstream axial location rather than the second. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as this is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, see MPEP 2143 I B.
As noted above, DBDC’s configuration only differs from the claimed invention in that the “first through-hole” that is elliptical is in the second axially upstream position rather than the third position. The third axially upstream positioned through-hole that is circular may be substituted for an elliptical through-hole. Both circular and elliptical through-holes are known in the art as shown in Figure 2B as well as function of admitting air at a desired flow rate as discussed in [0030] of DBDC. If the third axially upstream positioned through-hole is changed to an elliptical through-hole, the results are predictable because the flow in (26) is relatively uniform as discussed in [0031] so the amount of air admitted by an elliptical through-hole in a different axially position would be substantially identical. One of ordinary skill in the art could have done this substitution as choosing appropriate sizes and shapes for the cooling air cavities is part of the design process for a standard turbine blade, [0030].
DBDC modified as discussed above therefore teaches:
wherein the first opening and the first through-hole are positioned closer to a rear edge side of a rotor blade body than the third opening, and the third through-hole are positioned relative to the rear edge side of the rotor blade body {Figure 2B, the third axially upstream through-hole instance of (32) is modified to be elliptical. This allows for this instance to be interpreted as the “first through-hole”. The first opening is the opening that corresponds to this axial position. The second are third through-holes and openings are then interpreted as the through-holes and openings that are in the first and second axial upstream positions}.
Regarding claim 24, the combination of DBDC, Wardle, Sreekanth, and Byrd further teaches:
wherein approximately a value (Sla/Slb) obtained by dividing an area (Sla) of the first overlapping region when viewed from the rotor blade height direction by an area (Slb) of the first opening when viewed from the rotor blade height direction is larger than a value (S2a/S2b) obtained by dividing an area (S2a) of the second overlapping region when viewed from the rotor blade height direction by an area (S2b) of the second opening when viewed from the rotor blade height direction and a value (S3a/S3b) obtained by dividing an area (S3a) of the third overlapping region when viewed from the rotor blade height direction by an area (S3b) of the third opening when viewed from the rotor blade height direction
{DBDC: The same discussion from claim 21 is applicable in the same manner to S1a, S1b, S2a, and S2b. Additionally, the examiner finds the discussion with regard to S2a and S2b applies to S3a and S3b if the 3rd from the left instance of (22)/(35) is interpreted as the third opening / through-hole as it appears equal in size/shape to the “second through-hole” and “second opening”. Based on the above, the examiner finds the claimed value of (Sla/Slb) approximately is larger than both (S2a/S2b) and (S3a/S3b)}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the value of (S1a/S1b) be larger than (S2a/S2b) and (S3a/S3b). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as the disclosure of DBDC implicitly conveys a range of values that overlaps the claimed relationship, see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 25, the combination of DBDC, Wardle, Sreekanth, and Byrd further teaches:
wherein the first through-hole has a first edge portion defining the first non-overlapping region positioned on one side of the first opening in the first direction {Annotated Figure 2 (I) is a first edge portion; (I) is on the upper side. It is noted that the first non-overlapping region is between (I) and (III) and (II) and (IV)}, and
a second edge portion defining the second non-overlapping region positioned on the opposite side of the first opening in the first direction {Annotated Figure 2 (II) is a second edge portion; (II) is on the lower side},
the first opening has a third edge portion defining the first non-overlapping region positioned on the one side of the first opening in the first direction {Annotated Figure 2 (III) is a third edge portion; (I) is on the upper side with respect to the center of the first opening}, and
a fourth edge portion defining the second non- overlapping region positioned on the opposite side of the first opening in the first direction {Annotated Figure 2 (IV) is a fourth edge portion; (IV) is on the lower side with respect to the center of the first opening}
DBDC is silent regarding the exact distances D1 and D2. DBDC discloses that the cavities may be between 4 and 30 mm2 {[0027]}. DBDC does not explicitly teach:
a sum of a distance between the first edge portion and the third edge portion along the first direction and a distance between the second edge portion and the fourth edge portion along the first direction is 2.0 mm or more.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the combination of DBDC, Wardle, Sreekanth, and Byrd to have the distance between the first and third edge portions plus the second and fourth edge portions be 2.0mm or more. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as the size of the cavities and size of the through holes are calibrated to deliver the desired amount of air through the cooling circuit of the blade, [0030]. Therefore, these variables of size of the openings of the cavities and through holes are result effective variables, see MPEP 2144.05 II B. These variables determine the claimed distances. One of ordinary skill in the art when routinely optimizing the size of the cavity opening and through-hole would result in the claimed distance being greater than 2mm.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DBDC in view of Wardle, Sreekanth, and Byrd as applied to claim 14 above, and in further view of Lee et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20200116031) hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 15, DBDC discloses a first through-hole that is elliptical, therefore the first and second side are not parallel. DBDC therefore does not disclose:
when viewed from the rotor blade height direction, the first through-hole is defined by a first side that extends along the first direction and a second side that is separated from the first side in the second direction and that is parallel to the first side.
Lee pertains to turbine blade cooling metering plates. Lee teaches:
The metering plate uses rectangular holes {Figures 6A-6C (156)/(152)}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the used through-holes that are rectangular instead of elliptical shaped as taught by Lee for the elliptical hole of the combination of DBDC, Wardle, Sreekanth, and Byrd. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as elliptical and rectangular holes are known substitutes {Lee Figures 6A-C (152)/(153) and (156)/(155); [0094]-[0102]}.
The combination of DBDC, Wardle, Sreekanth, and Byrd, and Lee therefore teaches:
when viewed from the rotor blade height direction, the first through-hole is defined by a first side that extends along the first direction and a second side that is separated from the first side in the second direction and that is parallel to the first side {DBDC Figures 2B and 3A when modified to have a rectangular instead of elliptical through hole has a first side that extends along the axial direction and a second side that is separated in the circumferential direction that is parallel to the first side; left/right opposite sides of a rectangle}.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of DBDC, Wardle, Sreekanth, and Byrd, and Lee further teaches:
when viewed from the rotor blade height direction, the first opening is defined by a third side that extends along the second direction and a fourth side that is separated from the third side in the first direction and that is parallel to the third side {DBDC Figures 2B and 3A when modified to have a rectangular instead of elliptical through hole has a third side that extends along the axial direction and a fourth side that is separated in the circumferential direction that is parallel to the third side; top/bottom opposite sides of a rectangle}.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL K. REITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1387. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 a.m. -5:30 p.m.
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 5712703508. 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.
/MICHAEL K. REITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights