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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 12-14, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Whittle et al. (US 11,255,200 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Whittle et al. discloses a test apparatus (fig. 6) for a ceramic matrix composite (CMC) component (26; c. 15, ll. 46-48), the test apparatus comprising: a first support member (32) configured to mechanically support a CMC component (26) from a first side (left mounting support 32 mechanically supports blade track 26 from at least a left side; fig. 6), the CMC component (26) comprising a T-joint (mount post 76 forms a T-joint with wall 74) and a pinhole (hole through which pin 35 extends; figs. 6 and 9); and a second support member (32) configured to mechanically support the CMC component from a second side opposite the first side (right mounting support 32 mechanically supports blade track 26 from at least a right side opposite the left side; fig. 6), wherein the first support member (32) and the second support member (32) are configured to be forced toward each other (mounting supports 32 must be moved toward each other to couple pin 35 to blade track 26; c. 9, ll. 1-7) to cause the CMC component (26) to fail at the pinhole (at pin 35) and not at the T-joint (at least a load exerted by load fixture 33 at pin 35 to the hole in mount post 76, would cause blade track 26 to fail at the hole and not at the T-joint; c. 9, ll. 1-7).
Regarding claim 2, Whittle et al. discloses wherein the first support member (32; fig. 6) includes a slip-fit pin (35) configured to pass through the pinhole; c. 9, ll. 1-7).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Whittle et al. discloses wherein the second support member (32; fig. 6) comprises a plurality of point contacts (61) configured to contact the CMC component (mounting support 32 comprises points 61 to contact blade track 26; c. 8, ll. 54-55); wherein at least one of the plurality of point contacts (61) is position-adjustable (load points 61 may be applied to other areas of blade track 26; c. 9, ll. 10-14).
Regarding claims 12-14 and 16, Whittle et al. discloses further comprising the CMC component (26), wherein the CMC component is a gas turbine engine component or a portion of a gas turbine engine component (c. 5, ll. 51-54); wherein the CMC component (26) is a high pressure seal segment or a portion of a high pressure seal segment (shroud 26 is a portion of a high-pressure turbine segment that seals gases from passing over turbine blades 23; c. 5, ll. 32-38 and ll. 51-54); wherein the T-joint (mount post 76 forms a T-joint with wall 74) and the pinhole (at pin 35) are located near each other (hole through which pin 35 extends and a T-joint between mount post 76 and wall 74 area located near each other; fig. 6); wherein the CMC component (26) is formed from a plurality of two-dimensional plies (2D layers of ceramic matrix composite material; c. 14, ll. 52-54).
Regarding claim 20, Whittle et al. discloses a method for testing a ceramic matrix composite (CMC) component (26; c. 15, ll. 46-48), the method comprising: forcing a first support member (32) mechanically supporting a CMC component (26) from a first side (left side) toward a second support member (32) supporting the CMC component (26) from a second, opposite side (mounting supports 32 must be moved toward each other from left and right sides to couple pin 35 to blade track 26; c. 9, ll. 1-7), wherein the CMC component (26) comprising a T-joint (mount post 76 forms a T-joint with wall 74) and a pinhole (hole through which pin 35 extends; figs. 6 and 9); and causing the CMC component (26) to fail at the pinhole and not at the T-joint (at least a load exerted by load fixture 33 at pin 35 to the hole in mount post 76, would cause blade track 26 to fail at the hole at pin 35 and not at the T-joint; c. 9, ll. 1-7).
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) 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whittle et al. (US 11,255,200 B2).
Regarding claim 7, Whittle et al. discloses the invention set forth above with regard to claims 1 and 5.
Although Whittle et al. discloses a plurality of point contacts (61; fig. 6), Whittle et al. is silent on exactly three point contacts.
However, Whittle et al. teaches that the mechanical load may also be applied along a line contact (c. 8, ll. 55-58) or to other suitable areas of the component (c. 9, ll. 10-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Whittle et al. to provide exactly three point contacts as this merely involves choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 15, Whittle et al. discloses the invention set forth above with regard to claims 1 and 12.
Although Whittle et al. discloses the T-joint (mount post 76 forms a T-joint with wall 74) and the pinhole (at pin 35) are located near each other, Whittle et al. is silent on the precise distance.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that the distance between the T-joint and pinhole is dependent on the particular component to be tested.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Whittle et al. to provide the T-joint and pinhole within about 5 centimeters, as this merely involves choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, for a particular component to be tested, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whittle et al. (US 11,255,200 B2) in view of Iwamoto et al. (US 10,859,478 B2).
Regarding claims 17-19, Whittle et al. discloses the invention set forth above with regard to claims 1, 17, and 18.
Although Whittle et al. discloses a test apparatus to apply a load, Whittle et al. is silent on utilizing a load cell.
Iwamoto et al. teaches a test component (10; fig. 1) with a T-joint (joint connecting arms 12) and a pinhole (14), and a test apparatus (100; fig. 5) with a load cell (loading unit 20 includes load cell 22) configured to force a first support member (23A) and a second support member (23A) toward each other (loading unit 20 provides a compressive or tensile load via rods 23A and 23B; c. 7, l. 66 – c. 8, l. 6 and c. 9, ll. 56-61); further comprising a computing device configured to control the force applied to the first support member (23A) and the second support member (some computing device is needed to allow loading unit 20 to provide a force along an axial direction; c. 7, l. 66 – c. 8, l. 6); wherein the computing device is configured to capture the force at which the pinhole fails (some computing device captures the measured force of load cell 22 and would therefore capture the force at which through-hole 14 fails).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Whittle et al. with the load cell measurement of Iwamoto et al. to more accurately provide a load in a load testing apparatus by measuring the load.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3, 4, and 8-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest “wherein the slip-fit pin is the only part of the first support member configured to contact the CMC component” in combination with the remaining claim elements as recited in claims 3 and 4.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest “wherein the first point contact and the second point contact are displaced from the third point contact in a plane orthogonal to a force vector applied to the first support member” in combination with the remaining claim elements as recited in claim 8.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest “wherein the second support member comprises a first arm and a second arm, wherein: the first point contact and the second point contact are disposed on the first arm, and the third point contact is disposed on the second arm” in combination with the remaining claim elements as recited in claim 9.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest “wherein at least one of the first point contact, the second point, or the third point contact comprise a dome shape configured to increase a surface area of contact between the CMC component and the point contact when increasing force is applied to cause the CMC component to fail at the pinhole” in combination with the remaining claim elements as recited in claims 10 and 11.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erika J. Villaluna whose telephone number is (571)272-8348. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at (571) 272-3555. 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.
/ERIKA J. VILLALUNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights