DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication(s) filed on 10 December 2025.
Claim 3 is canceled by the Applicant.
Claims 1-2 and 4-9 are currently pending.
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 Remarks
The arguments in response to the claim(s) rejection under 35 U.S.C § 112(b) have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are found persuasive. The Examiner withdraws the 112(b) rejection(s).
The arguments in response to the claims rejection under 35 U.S.C § 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are found persuasive.
A new grounds for rejection is included in this Office Action, necessitated by amendment.
The arguments in response to the claims 1-2 and 4-8 rejection under 35 U.S.C § 103 have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are not found persuasive for the following reasons.
The Applicant’s remarks that Quach does not disclose an opening ratio is not found persuasive. While Quach may not use the term “opening ratio” the term “pitch,” which refers to placing more cooling holes in regions of the blade by reducing the spacing between the cooling holes, is synonymous with the term “opening ratio.” In other words, reducing the pitch, or spacing between the cooling holes is the same as providing a higher opening ratio.
The Applicant’s remarks that the embodiment disclosed in FIG. 6 of Quach does not teach the corresponding opening ratios of amended claim 1 is not found persuasive. The Office did not rely on the explicit embodiment in FIG. 6 to teach the zoned opening ratios of claim 1. Instead, the Office relied on the teaching of Quach that placing cooling holes in a region provides additional cooling in regions that are expected to be hotter (see Col. 7, lines 28-31) is a results effective variable. While the Quach reference discloses the middle section of the blade is expected to be hotter, and thus places additional cooling holes in the middle section, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize the teaching of Quach to place additional cooling holes in those sections of the blade that are expected to be hotter.
A new grounds for rejection is included in this Office Action, necessitated by amendment, commensurate with the Office’s original position.
The arguments in response to the claim 9 rejection under 35 U.S.C § 103 have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are not found persuasive for the following reasons.
The Applicant’s remarks are rendered moot by the amendments to the claims. It is noted the Applicant’s remarks pertaining to dependency are found persuasive and the original inadvertent dependency oversight has been corrected.
A new grounds for rejection is included in this Office Action, necessitated by amendment.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Examiner note: no 112(f) invocations have been identified by the Office.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quach (US 11215059), hereafter referred to as Quach, in view of Joo (US 20200400031), hereafter referred to as Joo.
Regarding Claim 1, Quach discloses the following:
A stator blade (160; FIG. 6) included in a gas turbine, comprising:
a blade body (62; FIG. 6) having a blade shape in a cross section and extending in a blade height direction having a direction component perpendicular to the cross section;
the blade body (62; FIG. 6) having a blade height extending in a blade height direction from a blade height first side to a blade height second side;
an outer shroud (66) on the blade height first side of the blade body (62; FIG. 6), and configured to be attached to a turbine casing (as seen in FIG. 1);
a plurality of blade air passages (68; the cavity may be divided into sub passages; see Col. 5, lines 25-30) extending in the blade height direction inside the blade body (62; FIG. 6); and
a plurality of rear end air passages (176; FIG. 6) aligned along the blade height direction,
wherein the blade body (62; FIG. 6) has a leading edge (62a; FIG. 6) and a trailing edge (62b; FIG. 6) which each extend in the blade height direction,
wherein each of the plurality of rear end air passages (176; FIG. 6) has a trailing edge opening (opening of 176), and extends toward the trailing edge (62b; FIG. 6) from a rear blade air passage closest to the trailing edge (62b; FIG. 6) among the plurality of blade air passages (C31, C32, C33, 34; FIG. 8), the trailing edge opening (opening of 176) being open in the trailing edge (62b; FIG. 6), and
wherein a region of the trailing edge (62b; FIG. 6) including the end of the blade height first side and not including the end of the blade height second side and extending in the blade height direction is defined as a first side region (P2 or P3; FIG. 6), a region of the trailing edge separated from the first side region (P2 or P3; FIG. 6) and extending to the blade height second side and including the end of the blade height second side is defined as a second side region (P1; FIG. 6), and an opening area of the trailing edge openings (openings of 176) of the plurality of rear end air passages per unit length of the trailing edge (62b; FIG. 6) in the blade height direction is defined as an opening ratio,
wherein the opening ratio of the trailing edge openings (opening of 176) of the plurality of rear end air passages (176; FIG. 6) in the first side region (P2 or P3; FIG. 6) is greater than the opening ratio of the trailing edge openings of the plurality of rear end air passages in the second side region (P1; FIG. 6).
Quach does not explicitly disclose the following:
the plurality of blade air passages are aligned from a side of the leading edge toward a side of the trailing edge,
a front blade air passage which is the blade air passage on a side closest to the leading edge in the plurality of blade air passages has an inlet opening into which cooling air is configured to flow, in an end of the blade height first side of the front blade air passage,
in the plurality of blade air passages, the blade air passages adjacent to each other in the plurality of blade air passages communicate with each other in one end out of an end of the blade height first side and an end of the blade height second side such that a passage forms one serpentine passage meandering in the blade height direction,
However Joo teaches the following:
the plurality of blade air passages (C31, C32, C33, 34; FIG. 8) are aligned from a side of the leading edge (4511) toward a side of the trailing edge (4512),
a front blade air passage (C41; FIG. 9) which is the blade air passage on a side closest to the leading edge (4511) in the plurality of blade air passages (C31, C32, C33, 34; FIG. 8) has an inlet opening into which cooling air is configured to flow, in an end of the blade height first side of the front blade air passage (C41; FIG. 9),
in the plurality of blade air passages (C31, C32, C33, 34; FIG. 8), the blade air passages adjacent to each other in the plurality of blade air passages (C31, C32, C33, 34; FIG. 8) communicate with each other in one end out of an end of the blade height first side and an end of the blade height second side such that a passage forms one serpentine passage meandering in the blade height direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the unknown configuration of the generically disclosed plurality of blade passages taught by Quach, with the known serpentine blade passage configuration disclosed by Joo, with the reasonable expectation of successfully providing cooling passages within the blade. The Examiner notes, the simple substitution of the unknown blade passage configuration of Quach, with the known blade passage configuration of Joo yields the predictable result of substituting one generically disclosed means to provide a plurality of blade passages for another specific means to provide to provide a plurality of blade passages, and this rationale further supports a conclusion of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
Quach as modified by Joo does not disclose the following:
the opening ratio of the trailing edge openings of the plurality of rear end air passages in the intermediate region is less than the opening ratio of the trailing edge openings of the plurality of rear end air passages in the first side region.
However Quach teaches the following:
it is well known in the art that placing cooling holes in a region provides additional cooling in regions that are expected to be hotter (see Col. 7, lines 28-31), thus the placement of cooling holes in a region is a results effective variable that results in additional cooling.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the opening ratio of the intermediate region, as taught by Quach, wherein the opening ration of the intermediate region is lower than the opening ratio of the first side region, with the reasonable expectation of successfully providing more or less cooling in specific areas of the blade. Therein it is known that providing additional cooling openings closer together in a blade region is a result effective variable effecting the amount of cooling provided to the blade region. Therein an optimization of the different opening ratios of the different cooling regions could be undertaken following the extension of the same logic, under the same known conditions, and using the same result effective variable (see MPEP 2144.05, II, B).
Regarding Claim 2, Quach as modified by Joo discloses the following:
The stator blade (160; FIG. 6) according to claim 1,
Quach continues to teach the following:
wherein a quantity of the trailing edge (62b; FIG. 6) openings is larger in the first side region (P2 or P3; FIG. 6) than in the second side region (P1; FIG. 6).
Regarding Claim 4, Quach as modified by Joo discloses the following:
The stator blade (160; FIG. 6) according to claim 1,
Quach continues to teach the following:
it is well known in the art that placing cooling holes in a region provides additional cooling in regions that are expected to be hotter (see Col. 7, lines 28-31), thus the placement of cooling holes in a region is a results effective variable that results in additional cooling;
Quach does not teach the following:
wherein the opening ratio of the first side region is at least three times the opening ratio of the intermediate region.
However the Examiner notes the following:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the opening ratio of the intermediate region, as taught by Quach, wherein the opening ratio of the first side region is at least three times the opening ratio of the intermediate region, with the reasonable expectation of successfully providing more or less cooling in specific areas of the blade. Therein it is known that providing additional cooling openings closer together in a blade region is a result effective variable effecting the amount of cooling provided to the blade region. Therein an optimization of the different opening ratios of the different cooling regions could be undertaken following the extension of the same logic, under the same known conditions, and using the same result effective variable (see MPEP 2144.05, II, B).
Regarding Claim 5, Quach as modified by Joo discloses the following:
The stator blade (160; FIG. 6) according to claim 1,
Quach continues to teach the following:
it is well known in the art that placing cooling holes in a region provides additional cooling in regions that are expected to be hotter (see Col. 7, lines 28-31), thus the placement of cooling holes in a region is a results effective variable that results in additional cooling;
Quach does not teach the following:
wherein the opening ratio of the second side region is 0.
However the Examiner notes the following:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the opening ratio of the intermediate region, as taught by Quach, wherein the opening ratio of the second side region is 0, with the reasonable expectation of successfully providing more or less cooling in specific areas of the blade. Therein it is known that providing additional cooling openings closer together in a blade region is a result effective variable effecting the amount of cooling provided to the blade region. Therein an optimization of the different opening ratios of the different cooling regions could be undertaken following the extension of the same logic, under the same known conditions, and using the same result effective variable (see MPEP 2144.05, II, B).
Regarding Claim 6, Quach as modified by Joo discloses the following:
The stator blade (160; FIG. 6) according to claim 1,
Quach continues to teach the following:
wherein the first side region (P2 or P3; FIG. 6) is a region within 25% of a total length in the blade height direction of the trailing edge (62b; FIG. 6) from the end of the blade height first side to the blade height second side in the blade height direction of the trailing edge (62b; FIG. 6), and
wherein the second side region (P1; FIG. 6) is a region within 25% of the total length in the blade height direction of the trailing edge (62b; FIG. 6) from the end of the blade height second side to the blade height first side of the trailing edge (62b; FIG. 6).
Regarding Claim 7, Quach as modified by Joo discloses the following:
The stator blade (160; FIG. 6) according to claim 1,
Quach continues to teach the following:
wherein a quantity of the plurality of blade air passages (C31, C32, C33, 34; FIG. 8) is an even number.
Regarding Claim 8, Quach as modified by Joo discloses the following:
The stator blade (160; FIG. 6) according to claim 1,
Quach continues to teach the following:
wherein a quantity of the plurality of blade air passages is two (for example see claim 13 where only two passages are claimed).
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quach (US 11215059), hereafter referred to as Quach, in view of Joo (US 20200400031), hereafter referred to as Joo, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Snook et al (US 20100000219), hereafter referred to as Snook.
Regarding Claim 9, Quach as modified by Joo discloses the following:
The stator blade according to claim 1,
Quach continues to teach the following:
a gas turbine (FIG. 1) comprising:
a turbine rotor (FIG. 1) rotatable around an axis;
a turbine casing (FIG. 1) covering an outer peripheral side of the turbine rotor (FIG. 1); and
a plurality of stator blade (160; FIG. 6) rows (FIG. 1) aligned along an axial direction in which the axis extends, the plurality of stator blades (160) attached to an inner peripheral side of the turbine casing (FIG. 1),
wherein all of the plurality of stator blade (160; FIG. 6) rows have a plurality of stator blades (160; FIG. 6) aligned in a circumferential direction with respect to the axis,
each of the plurality of stator blades (160; FIG. 6) of the final stage stator blade (160; FIG. 6) row is attached to the turbine casing such that the blade height direction is a radial direction with respect to the axis, the blade height first side being a radial outer side with respect to the axis, the trailing edge (62b; FIG. 6) being located on the axial downstream side in the axial direction.
Quach as modified by Joo does not teach the following:
wherein the plurality of stator blade rows includes a final stage stator blade row located farthest downstream in the axial direction among the plurality of stator blade rows, each of the plurality of stator blades of the final stage stator blade row being configured as the stator blade according to claim 1,
However Snook teaches the following:
it is well known in the art to cool the final stage of stator blades in the furthest downstream axial direction of a gas turbine engine (FIG. 1; [0019]), thus as applied to Quach and Joo resulting in the limitation; wherein the plurality of stator blade rows includes a final stage stator blade row located farthest downstream in the axial direction among the plurality of stator blade rows, each of the plurality of stator blades of the final stage stator blade row being configured as the stator blade according to claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gas turbine engine as disclosed by Quach and modified by Joo, wherein the plurality of stator blade rows (having the stator blade comprising the cooling according to the teachings of Quach and Joo) includes cooling a final stage stator blade row located farthest downstream in the axial direction among the plurality of stator blade rows, as taught by Snook, with the reasonable expectation of successfully providing cooling to maintain the temperature of the turbine section within allowable limits (see for example Snook, ([0004]).
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 BRIAN C DELRUE whose telephone number is (313)446-6567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Eastern).
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, Nathaniel E. 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.
/BRIAN CHRISTOPHER DELRUE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights