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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 1 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The instant Office Action discloses a new interpretation of the first and second stiffening ring of Jones et al. (US 20100074745, hereinafter: “Jones”); thus, a new ground of rejection is presented necessitated by the Applicant’s claim amendments.
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, 7-12, 14-17 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jones et al. (US 20100074745, hereinafter: “Jones”).
In reference to Claim 1
Jones discloses:
A core gas path boundary structure, comprising:
an annular housing panel (56) having a first end segment (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Jones) and a second end segment (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Jones), the first end segment of the housing panel (HPFES) having an HPFES outer radial surface, and a HPFES support rail (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Jones) extending radially outward from the HPFES outer radial surface;
a baffle (54) having a body (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Jones) and a first stiffening ring (first stiffening ring includes hook 60 and radially outward structure of hook 60 as shown in annotated Figure 4 of Jones), the body having a baffle first end segment (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Jones) and a baffle second end segment (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Jones), wherein the first stiffening ring is attached to an inner radial surface (inner radial surface of 70) of the baffle first end segment, and the first stiffening ring has an edge surface;
wherein the baffle is engaged with the annular housing panel such that the baffle first end segment is in contact with the HPFES support rail (“The shroud segment hooks 70 face axially aft to engage the corresponding axially forward facing inner hooks 60-64 of the hanger,” [0048]) (Fig. 3); and
wherein the edge surface of the first stiffening ring is radially aligned with the HPFES support rail.[0027-0091] (Fig. 1-5).
the first stiffening ring (60) is axially adjacent to the HPFES support rail, and the first stiffening ring is disposed axially between the HPFES support rail and the second end segment (Fig 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
766
1117
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Annotated Figure 3 of Jones.
PNG
media_image2.png
656
1324
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2: Annotated Figure 4 of Jones.
In reference to Claim 2
Jones discloses:
The core gas path boundary structure of claim 1, wherein the first end segment of the housing panel (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Jones) is disposed at a forward end of the housing panel (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Jones).
In reference to Claim 3
Jones discloses:
The core gas path boundary structure of claim 2, wherein the baffle first end segment (BFES) has a BFES inner radial surface, and the BFES inner radial surface (inner radial surface of “1st stiffening ring” 60 in contact with rail 70, see annotated Figure 3 of Jones) is in contact with the HPFES support rail (Fig. 3).
In reference to Claim 7
Jones discloses:
The core gas path boundary structure of claim 2, wherein the second end segment of the housing panel is disposed at an aft end (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Jones) of the housing panel; and wherein the second end segment of the housing panel (HPSES) has an HPSES outer radial surface (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Jones), and a HPSES support rail (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Jones) extending radially outward from the HPSES outer radial surface, and wherein the baffle is engaged with the annular housing panel such that the baffle second end segment is in contact with the HPSES support rail (“2nd stiffening ring” in contact with “HPSES support rail” as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Jones) (Fig. 3).
In reference to Claim 8
Jones discloses:
The core gas path boundary structure of claim 7, wherein the baffle second end segment (BSES) has a BSES inner radial surface, and the BSES inner radial surface (inner surface of “2nd stiffening ring” as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Jones) is in contact with the HPSES support rail (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Jones).
In reference to Claim 9
Jones discloses:
The core gas path boundary structure of claim 8, wherein the second end segment of the housing panel includes a HPSES bumper (flange 70 at the HPSES as shown in annotated Fig. 3); and wherein the baffle second end segment includes a BSES edge surface (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Jones); and wherein the BSES edge surface is radially aligned with the HPSES bumper.
In reference to Claim 10
Regarding Claim 10, the first end segment of the housing panel has been interpreted as the housing panel at “2nd end segment” as shown in annotated Fig. 3. and the second end segment of the housing panel has been interpreted as the housing panel at “1st end segment” as shown in annotated Fig. 3.
Jones discloses:
The core gas path boundary structure of claim 1, wherein the first end segment of the housing panel (“2nd end segment” as shown in annotated Fig. 3) is disposed at an aft end of the housing panel.
In reference to Claim 11
Jones discloses:
The core gas path boundary structure of claim 10, wherein the baffle first end segment (BFES) (“Baffle 2nd end segment” as shown in annotated Fig. 3) has a BFES inner radial surface (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Jones), and the BFES inner radial surface is in contact with the HPFES support rail (“HPSES support rail” as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Jones).
In reference to Claim 14
Jones discloses:
The core gas path boundary structure of claim 1, wherein the second end segment of the housing panel (HPSES) has an HPSES outer radial surface (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Jones) and a HPSES support rail (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Jones) extending radially outward from the HPSES outer radial surface; and wherein the baffle is engaged with the housing panel such that the baffle second end segment is in contact with the HPSES support rail (“2nd stiffening ring” in contact with “HPSES support rail” as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Jones) (Fig. 3). (“The shroud segment hooks 70 face axially aft to engage the corresponding axially forward facing inner hooks 60-64 of the hanger,” [0048]) (Fig. 3).
In reference to Claim 15
Jones discloses:
The core gas path boundary structure of claim 14, wherein the baffle second end segment (BSES) includes a BSES inner radial surface (“inner radial surface of baffle” at the 2nd end segment as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Jones); and wherein the baffle further comprises a second stiffening ring (second stiffening ring includes hook 62 and portions aft of hook 62 as shown in annotated Figure 4 of Jones) attached to the BSES inner radial surface (Fig. 3).
In reference to Claim 16
Jones discloses:
The core gas path boundary structure of claim 15, wherein the second stiffening ring includes a second edge surface (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Jones) and the second edge surface is radially aligned with the HPSES support rail (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Jones).
In reference to Claim 17
Jones discloses:
The core gas path boundary structure of claim 16, wherein the first stiffening ring (as shown in annotated Fig. 3-4 of Jones) is disposed to limit axial travel of the baffle relative to the housing panel in a first axial direction, and the second stiffening ring (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Jones) is disposed to limit axial travel of the baffle relative to the housing panel in a second axial direction, wherein the first axial travel direction is opposite the second axial travel direction. (Fig. 3).
In reference to Claim 20
Jones discloses:
A core gas path boundary structure, comprising:
an annular housing panel (56) having a first end segment (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Jones) and a second end segment (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Jones), the first end segment of the housing panel (HPFES) having an HPFES outer radial surface (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Jones) and a HPFES support rail (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Jones) extending radially outward from the HPFES outer radial surface, and the second end segment of the housing panel (HPSES) having an HPSES outer radial surface (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Jones) and a HPSES support rail (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Jones) extending radially outward from the HPSES outer radial surface;
a baffle (54) having a body (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Jones), a first stiffening ring (first stiffening ring includes hook 60 and radially outward structure of hook 60 as shown in annotated Figure 4 of Jones), and a second stiffening ring (second stiffening ring includes hook 62 and portions aft of hook 62 as shown in annotated Figure 4 of Jones), wherein the body has a baffle first end segment (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Jones) and a baffle second end segment (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Jones), wherein the first stiffening ring is attached to an inner radial surface (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Jones) of the baffle first end segment, and wherein the second stiffening ring is attached to an inner radial surface (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Jones) of the baffle second end segment;
wherein the baffle is engaged with the annular housing panel such that the baffle first end segment is in contact with the HPFES support rail, and the baffle second end segment is in contact with the HPSES support rail; and wherein the first stiffening ring is radially aligned with the HPFES support rail and the second stiffening ring is radially aligned with the HPSES support rail (Fig. 3).
the first stiffening ring is axially aft of the HPFES support rail, and the first stiffening ring is disposed axially between the HPFES support rail and the HPSES support rail. [0027-0091] (Fig. 1-5).
The core gas boundary structure of claim 20, wherein the second stiffening ring is axially forward to the HPSES support rail and disposed axially between the HPSES support rail and the first stiffening ring.
In reference to Claim 21
Jones discloses:
The core gas boundary structure of claim 20, wherein the second stiffening ring (second stiffening ring includes hook 62 and portions aft of hook 62 as shown in annotated Figure 4 of Jones) is axially forward to the HPSES support rail and disposed axially between the HPSES support rail and the first stiffening ring. (Fig. 3-4).
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 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 4-6, 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (US 20100074745, hereinafter: “Jones”).
In reference to Claim 4
Jones discloses:
The core gas path boundary structure of claim 3. Although it appears Jones discloses the baffle first end segment has a BFES thickness, and the first stiffening ring has a thickness, and the thickness of the first stiffening ring is equal to the BFES thickness (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Jones), Jones is silent on the dimensions of the structures.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the thickness of the first stiffening ring to be equal to the BFES thickness, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
In reference to Claims 5 and 13
Jones discloses:
The core gas path boundary structure of claims 1 and 3.
Jones discloses the baffle first end segment has a BFES thickness, and the first stiffening ring has a thickness (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Jones).
Jones is silent on the thickness of the first stiffening ring is greater than the BFES thickness.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the thickness of the first stiffening ring to be greater than the BFES thickness, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
In reference to Claim 6
Jones discloses:
The core gas path boundary structure of claim 5, wherein the first end segment of the housing panel includes a HPFES bumper (flange 70 on the HPFES as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Jones); and wherein the baffle first end segment includes a BFES edge surface (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Jones); and wherein the BFES edge surface is radially aligned with the HPFES bumper (Fig. 3).
In reference to Claim 18
Jones discloses:
The core gas path boundary structure of claim 17, wherein the baffle second end segment has a BSES thickness (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Jones), and the second stiffening ring has a thickness (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Jones).
Jones is silent on the thickness of the second stiffening ring is greater than the BSES thickness.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the thickness of the second stiffening ring to be greater than the BSES thickness, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
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 AYE SU MON HTAY whose telephone number is (571)270-5958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-3:00pm PST.
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, Nathan Wiehe can be reached at 571-272-8648. 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.
/AYE S HTAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745