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 10/01/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-10 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) rejections.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blanchard (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2011/0250061).
As per claim 1, Blanchard discloses an assembly for a turbomachine comprising: an outer casing (9; figure 1B) made of half-shells, the outer casing comprising a first and a second semi-annular outer shroud (the guide vane assembly 8 is made of at least two angular sectors 8.1, i.e., in case of two angular sectors 8.1 would have two semi-annular half-shells and two outer rings 9; paragraph [0041]), an inner casing (11) located radially inside the outer casing (as shown; figure 1B) comprising a first and a second semi-annular inner shroud (the guide vane assembly 8 is made of at least two angular sectors 8.1, i.e., in case of two angular sectors 8.1 would have two semi-annular half-shells and two inner rings 9; paragraph [0041]); a plurality of guide vanes (12) mounted between the outer casing and the inner casing (as shown; figure 1B); a structural casing (18) comprising a generally cylindrical flange (annular rib 29) located radially inside the inner casing and having a symmetry of revolution with respect to an axis (as shown; figure 2); and a system for locking the inner casing on the structural casing, the locking system comprising a annular tab fixed on one among the inner casing and the structural casing and a complementary chute fixed on the other among the inner casing and the structural casing, the chute being configured to receive the tab and lock it along the axis relative to the structural casing (tab 22 of platform 20 which is part of inner ring 11 (inner casing) is received within received in annular groove 24 (chute) of inner casing 18 (structural casing) and lock it via pin 30; figures 2, 5).
It should be noted that regarding the limitations of half shells forming two semi-annular shrouds, Blanchard does not explicitly use words such as “semi-annular” or “half-shells”. Applicant’s remarks filed on 10/01/2025 also asserts Blanchard does not disclose this feature. However, in the gas turbine art, a guide vane assembly is made of a plurality of circumferentially arranged blades. Therefore, the teaching of Blanchard in paragraph [0041], which states the guide vane assembly 8 is made up of two angular sectors 8.1, sufficiently teaches the guide vane assembly has two semi-annular sectors each extending 180 degrees. Blanchard, in paragraph [0041], also teaches another example where the guide vane assembly 8 comprises 16 angular sectors 8.1 each provided with two blades. In this case, eight angular sectors 8.1 collectively, will form one half-shell and thus having two half-shells. It should also be noted that Blanchard uses the words “outer ring 9” and “inner ring 11” which implies the angular sectors 8.1 are segments of an annular ring.
As per claim 2, Blanchard discloses the assembly for a turbomachine according to claim 1, wherein the tab is monolithic with the inner casing and the chute is monolithic with the structural casing (as shown, tab 22 is monolithic with inner platform 20 (inner ring) and ribs 25, 27 (chute) is monolithic with inner casing 18 (structural casing); figure 2).
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Coign (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2005/0244267).
As per claim 1, Coign (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2005/0244267) discloses an assembly for a turbomachine comprising: an outer casing (18) made of half-shells, the outer casing comprising a first and a second semi-annular outer shroud (annular array of nozzle vanes 22 having outer platform 18, i.e., two semi-annular outer shrouds; figures 1, 3; paragraph [0017]); an inner casing (20) located radially inside the outer casing and comprising a first and a second semi-annular inner shroud (annular array of nozzle vanes 22 having outer platform 20, i.e., two semi-annular inner shrouds; figures 1, 3; paragraph [0017]); a plurality of guide vanes (22) mounted between the outer casing and the inner casing (as shown; figure 1); a structural casing comprising a cylindrical flange located radially inside the inner casing and having a symmetry of revolution with respect to an axis (inner support rail 30 shown to have cylindrical flange and is annularly formed; figures 1, 3); and a system for blocking the inner casing on the structural casing, the locking system comprising a annular tab (28; figure 1) fixed on one among the inner casing and the structural casing and a complementary chute (pressure chamber 88, formed by elements 30, 36, 38) fixed on the other among the inner casing and the structural casing (as shown; figures 1, 2), the chute being configured to receive the tab and block it along the axis relative to the structural casing (as shown; figures 1, 2).
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) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coign.
As per claim 3, Coign discloses the assembly for a turbomachine according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein: the chute (30, 36, 38, collectively; figure 1) has an upstream section (36) and a downstream section (30) separated by a bottom (38), the upstream section (36) being inclined relative to a plane normal to the axis (as shown; figure 2); and the tab (28) has an inclined upstream face configured to bear against the upstream section of the chute (as shown, the upstream face of rails 28 engages the inclined seal 46; figure 2).
It should be noted that the only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is arrangement of the inclined surfaces in that the claimed invention has the inclined surfaces arranged at the downstream section and the downstream face of the tab.
However rearrangement of parts would be an obvious matter of design choice unless the rearrangement would modify the operation of the device (see MPEP 2144.04 VI. C. Rearrangement of Parts). It should be noted that Coign teaches the inclined surface formed by the seal of the retainer segments (upstream section) are biased against the rails (tabs) (paragraph [0022]). Reversing the orientation of Coign’s rail (tab) and inner retainer segment (upstream section) and inner support ring (downstream section) would provide reasonable expectation of success of providing the proper seal and therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to rearrange Coign’s tab and the upstream and downstream sections in reverse such that the inclined surfaces would be located at the downstream surface of the tab and the downstream section since rearrangement of parts only requires routine skill in the art.
As per claim 4, Coign discloses the assembly for a turbomachine according to claim 1, and further discloses 4. The assembly for a turbomachine according to claim 1, wherein the tab has a downstream face configured to bear against an downstream section of the chute, the downstream section and the downstream face each being parallel to a plane normal to the axis (rails 28 has a radially extending land seals 32 (downstream face) engaging with inner support ring 30 (downstream section of the chute); figure 2).
Similar to claim 3 above, the only difference between Coign’s device and the claimed invention is the arrangement of the surfaces and the modification as described in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 3 above will have all of the claimed features of claim 4.
As per claim 5, Coign discloses the assembly for a turbomachine according to claim 4, and further discloses wherein the downstream face has an outer radial portion configured to bear against the downstream section of the chute and an inner radial portion forming an annular clearance extending at a distance from the outer radial portion (rail 28 has arcuate projecting land 32 (outer radial portion of downstream face) and a clearance below land 32, i.e., at the inner radial portion of the downstream face; figure 2).
Similar to claim 3 above, the only difference between Coign’s device and the claimed invention is the arrangement of the surfaces and the modification as described in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 3 above will have all of the claimed features of claim 5.
As per claim 6, Coign discloses the assembly for a turbomachine according to claim 5, and further discloses wherein the chute further comprises a bottom (38; figure 2) connected to the upstream section (36) and/or to the downstream section (30) by a curved surface (inner retainer spacers has an arcuate outer surface that forms a bottom surface of the chute; figure 5).
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanchard in view of Seki (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2007/0177973).
As per claim 7, Blanchard discloses the assembly for a turbomachine according to claim 1. Blanchard does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 7.
Seki (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2007/0177973) is a related prior art in that it deals with stationary guide vane ring. Seki teaches wherein the inner casing (3; figure 2) further comprises a first and a second semi-annular downstream inner shroud (four seal holders 9 forming two semi-annular inner shrouds; figure 1; seal holders 10 (downstream inner shroud) are fixed downstream of seal holder 9; figures 2, 4) extending immediately downstream of the first and second inner shrouds (as shown; figure 4), a base of the guide vanes (3) being mounted between the first and second inner shrouds and the first and second downstream inner shrouds (as shown; figure 4).
Seki teaches the stationary blade ring assembly made by fastening two annular seal holders (first and second semi-annular inner shroud and first and second semi-annular downstream inner shrouds) and the base of the stationary blade eliminates welding and the built-up structure enhances fatigue strength and provide frictional damping to reduce vibrations of the blade (paragraphs [0037], [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Blanchard’s vane assembly to incorporate Seki’s construction having the base of the blade fixed to two seal holders (inner shrouds) because, as Seki teaches, this construction eliminates welding and the built-up structure enhances fatigue strength and provide frictional damping to reduce vibrations of the blade (paragraphs [0037], [0041]).
As per claim 8, Blanchard, in view of Seki discloses a turbomachine comprising an assembly according to claim 7 (turbine engine; paragraph [0011]).
As per claim 9, Blanchard, in view of Seki discloses the turbomachine according to claim 8. Blanchard further discloses a rotor mounted immediately downstream of the assembly, wherein the rotor is a booster (turbine 10 immediate downstream of guide vane assembly 8 which is used for driving (boosting) the compressor; figure 1A; paragraph [0038]).
As per claim 10, Blanchard, in view of Seki discloses the turbomachine according to claim 8. Blanchard does not explicitly teach a turbine configured to drive a fan via a reduction gear, the turbine further being configured to drive the rotor. However, Blanchard teaches its use as a turbine engine. The Examiner takes an Official Notice that a turbofan engine, i.e., having a turbine section driving its rotors and a fan via a reduction gear, is well known in the art to produce less noise and more fuel-efficient thrust. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Blanchard’s turbine engine to incorporate a turbofan engine having a reduction gear driven by a turbine.
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