Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species II (FIG. 7-8) in the reply filed on 25 August 2026 is acknowledged.
It is noted no claims are withdrawn as a result of the restriction election.
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication(s) filed on 25 August 2026.
Claims 1-9 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted was/were considered by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The claim language, "a cooling air passage that is formed over the blade root, the platform, and the blade body and through which cooling air is allowed to be circulated," (emphasis added) is interpreted such that the term “over” means the passage is formed across, or through (but not above) the blade root, platform and body; commensurate with the plain and ordinary meaning of the term "over," as provided by Merriam-Webster dictionary.
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the middle position of the blade body in the blade height direction introduced in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1:
The claim language, "a platform that is provided at an end of a hub side of the blade body, out of a tip side and the hub side in the blade height direction," (emphasis added) renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear what the language, "out of a tip side and the hub side in the blade height direction," is supposed to mean. For purposes of examination, the language is interpreted to be "the blade body includes a hub side and a tip side, a platform that is provided at [[an end of]] a hub side of the blade body[[, out of a tip side and the hub side]] in the blade height direction."
Regarding claims 2-9:
Claims 2-9 are rejected by virtue of dependence on rejected claims.
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, 4-6, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tagawa et al (JP 2014001633) machine translation, hereafter referred to as Tagawa, in view of Tibbott (US 20100254801), Mugglestone (US 20150266143), and Quach (US 11215059), hereafter referred to as Tibbott, Mugglestone, and Quach, respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, Tagawa discloses the following:
A rotor blade (50) comprising:
a blade body (body of 50) that has a cross section forming an airfoil and that extends in a blade (50) height direction including a direction component perpendicular to the cross section;
a platform (as seen in FIG. 6) that is provided at an end of a hub side of the blade body (body of 50), out of a tip side and the hub side in the blade (50) height direction;
a blade root (portion of blade having 15b, 15c) that is provided on the hub side of the platform (as seen in FIG. 6); and
a cooling air passage (having intake 15b) that is formed over the blade root (portion of blade having 15b, 15c), the platform (as seen in FIG. 6), and the blade body (body of 50) and through which cooling air is allowed to be circulated,
wherein the blade body (body of 50) has a blade surface (surface of 50) facing a direction having a direction component perpendicular to the blade (50) height direction, and a tip surface facing the tip side in the blade (50) height direction,
the blade surface (surface of 50) has a leading edge (51) and a trailing edge (52) extending in the blade (50) height direction, and a positive pressure surface and a negative pressure surface spreading from the leading edge (51) to the trailing edge (52),
the cooling air passage (having intake 15b) includes a main passage (40, FIG. 6) that has an inlet (15b) which is open on a surface of the blade root (portion of blade having 15b, 15c) and into which cooling air is able to flow,
a plurality of leading ejection holes (1b) that include a leading ejection port (opening of 1b) open in a leading edge (51) peripheral portion, which is a portion that includes the leading edge (51) and faces a leading side which is a side of the leading edge (51) with respect to the trailing edge (52), in the blade surface (surface of 50), and through which the cooling air that has been passed through the main passage (40, FIG. 6) is allowed to be ejected from the leading ejection ports (opening of 1b), and
it is well known in the art that providing the suction side of an airfoil with film cooling helps protect the airfoil from the hot gas of the gas turbine engine (see for example [0008-11].
a plurality of film holes (34, see FIG. 2, [0035, 38]) that include a blade surface ejection port (opening of 34) which excludes the leading edge (18) peripheral portion, in the blade surface (surface of 14), and is open in at least one blade surface (surface of 14) of the positive pressure surface and the negative pressure surface (20), and through which the cooling air that has been passed through the main passage (40, FIG. 6) is allowed to be ejected to an outside along the at least one blade surface (surface of 14) from the blade surface ejection port (opening of 34),
the main passage (40, FIG. 6) has an introduction passage portion (portion of 40 above 15b; FIG. 6) that extends from the inlet (15b) to a boundary between the platform (as seen in FIG. 6) and the blade body (body of 50), and a blade body (body of 50) cooling passage portion (40, FIG. 6) that has three or more odd-numbered intra-blade passages (3 passages of 40; FIG. 6) extending in the blade (50) height direction in the blade body (body of 50),
the odd-numbered intra-blade passages (3 passages of 40; FIG. 6) are arranged from the introduction passage portion (portion of 40 above 15b; FIG. 6) to the leading side along a camber line of the blade body (body of 50),
intra-blade passages (3 passages of 40; FIG. 6) adjacent to each other among the odd-numbered intra-blade passages (3 passages of 40; FIG. 6) communicate with each other at one end out of an end on the hub side and an end on the tip side such that the blade body (body of 50) cooling passage portion (40, FIG. 6) configures one serpentine passage (as seen in FIG. 6) in which a passage meanders in the blade (50) height direction,
the plurality of leading ejection holes (1b) communicate with a first intra-blade passage (leading edge passage of 40; FIG. 6) positioned on a most leading side among the odd-numbered intra-blade passages (3 passages of 40; FIG. 6),
Tagawa does not explicitly disclose the following:
a plurality of film holes that include a blade surface ejection port which excludes the leading edge peripheral portion, in the blade surface, and is open in at least one blade surface of the positive pressure surface and the negative pressure surface, and through which the cooling air that has been passed through the main passage is allowed to be ejected to an outside along the at least one blade surface from the blade surface ejection port,
However Mugglestone teaches the following:
a plurality of film holes (34, see FIG. 2, [0035, 38]) that include a blade surface ejection port (opening of 34) which excludes the leading edge (18) peripheral portion, in the blade surface (surface of 14), and is open in at least one blade surface (surface of 14) of the positive pressure surface and the negative pressure surface (20), and through which the cooling air that has been passed through the main passage (40, FIG. 6) is allowed to be ejected to an outside along the at least one blade surface (surface of 14) from the blade surface ejection port (opening of 34).
And Tibbott further teaches the following:
it is well known in the art that providing the suction side of an airfoil with film cooling helps protect the airfoil from the hot gas of the gas turbine engine (see for example [0008-11],
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 blade as taught by Tagawa, wherein the blade comprises a plurality of film cooling holes on the suction side of the blade, as taught by Mugglestone with the reasonable expectation of successfully protecting the airfoil from hot gas (see Tibbott, [0008-11]).
Tagawa as modified by Mugglestone and Tibbott teaches the following:
the plurality of film holes (34, see FIG. 2, [0035, 38]) communicate with at least one intra-blade passage (3 passages of 40; FIG. 6 of Tagawa) of the first intra-blade passage (3 passages of 40; FIG. 6 of Tagawa) and a second intra-blade passage (3 passages of 40; FIG. 6 of Tagawa) adjacent to the first intra-blade passage (3 passages of 40; FIG. 6 of Tagawa) among the odd-numbered intra-blade passages (3 passages of 40; FIG. 6 of Tagawa).
Tagawa as modified by Mugglestone and Tibbott does not teach the following:
an aperture ratio which is an area of the blade surface ejection port per unit area on the hub side is higher than an aperture ratio which is an area of the blade surface ejection port per unit area on the tip side, based on a middle position of the blade body in the blade height direction.
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.
an aperture ratio which is an area of the blade surface ejection port (opening of 34) per unit area on the hub side is higher than an aperture ratio which is an area of the blade surface ejection port (opening of 34) per unit area on the tip side, based on a middle position of the blade body (body of 50) in the blade (50) 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 modify the aperture ratio of the ejection ports along the span of the blade, as taught by Tagawa as modified by Mugglestone and Tibbott, wherein the aperture ratio of the ejection ports along the span of the blade is lower than the aperture 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 from Quach 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 aperture 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, Tagawa as modified by Mugglestone, Tibbott and Quach teaches the following:
The rotor blade (50) according to claim 1,
Quach continues to teach the following:
wherein the number of the blade surface ejection ports (opening of 34) is more on the hub side than on the tip side, based on the middle position of the blade body (body of 50) in the blade (50) height direction.
Regarding Claim 4, Tagawa as modified by Mugglestone, Tibbott and Quach teaches the following:
The rotor blade (50) according to claim 1,
wherein the plurality of film holes (34, see FIG. 2, [0035, 38] of Mugglestone) communicate with only the first intra-blade passage (leading edge passage of 40; FIG. 6) among the odd-numbered intra- blade (50) passages.
Regarding Claim 5, Tagawa as modified by Mugglestone, Tibbott and Quach teaches the following:
The rotor blade (50) according to claim 1,
wherein the blade surface ejection port (opening of 34) is formed in only the negative pressure surface (as seen in FIG. 6).
Regarding Claim 6, Tagawa as modified by Mugglestone, Tibbott and Quach teaches the following:
The rotor blade (50) according to claim 1,
Tagawa as modified by Mugglestone, Tibbott and Quach above does not teach the following:
wherein an aperture ratio which is an area of the leading ejection port per unit area on the tip side is higher than an aperture ratio which is an area of the leading ejection port per unit area on the hub side, based on the middle position of the blade body in the blade height direction.
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 aperture ratio of the ejection ports along the span of the blade, as taught by Tagawa as modified by Mugglestone Tibbott and Quach, wherein an aperture ratio which is an area of the leading ejection port per unit area on the tip side is higher than an aperture ratio which is an area of the leading ejection port per unit area on the hub side, based on the middle position of the blade body in the blade height direction, with the reasonable expectation of successfully providing more or less cooling in specific areas of the blade. Therein it is known from Quach 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 aperture 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 8, Tagawa as modified by Mugglestone, Tibbott and Quach teaches the following:
The rotor blade (50) according to claim 1,
Tagawa continues to teach the following:
further comprising a second cooling air passage (having intake 15c) that is formed over the blade root (portion of blade having 15b, 15c), the platform (as seen in FIG. 6), and the blade body (body of 50), in addition to a first cooling air passage (having intake 15b) that is the cooling air passage (having intake 15b), and through which cooling air is allowed to be circulated,
wherein the second cooling air passage (having intake 15c) is disposed on a trailing side which is a side of the trailing edge (52) with respect to the leading edge (51) based on the first cooling air passage (having intake 15b), and includes a main passage (trailing edge passage adjacent to 40, FIG. 6) having an inlet (15c) which is open on the surface of the blade root (portion of blade having 15b, 15c) and through which cooling air is able to flow, and a plurality of trailing ejection holes (48) having trailing ejection ports (openings of 48)
through which the cooling air that has been passed through the main passage (40, FIG. 6) is allowed to be ejected to the outside from the trailing edge (52),
the main passage (40, FIG. 6) in the second cooling air passage (having intake 15c) includes an introduction passage portion (portion of passage above 15c; FIG. 6) that extends from the inlet (15c) in the second cooling air passage (having intake 15c) to the boundary between the platform (as seen in FIG. 6) and the blade body (body of 50), and a blade body (body of 50) cooling passage portion (portion of trailing passage, FIG. 6) having a plurality of intra-blade passages (3 passages of trailing passage; FIG. 6) extending in the blade (50) height direction in the blade body (body of 50),
the plurality of intra-blade passages (3 passages of trailing passage; FIG. 6) in the second cooling air passage (having intake 15c) are arranged from the introduction passage portion (portion of trailing passage above 15c; FIG. 6) to the trailing side in the second cooling air passage (having intake 15c) along the camber line of the blade body (body of 50),
intra-blade passages (3 passages of trailing passage; FIG. 6) adjacent to each other among the plurality of intra-blade passages (3 passages of trailing passage; FIG. 6) in the second cooling air passage (having intake 15c) communicate with each other at one end out of an end on the hub side and an end on the tip side such that the blade body (body of 50) cooling passage portion (trailing passage, FIG. 6) in the second cooling air passage (having intake 15c) configures one serpentine passage in which a passage meanders in the blade (50) height direction, and
the plurality of trailing ejection holes (48) communicate with a rearmost intra-blade passage (rearmost passage of trailing passage; FIG. 6) on a most trailing side among the plurality of intra-blade passages (3 passages of trailing passage; FIG. 6) in the second cooling air passage (having intake 15c).
Regarding Claim 9, Tagawa as modified by Mugglestone, Tibbott and Quach teaches the following:
The rotor blade (50) according to claim 1,
Tagawa continues to teach the following:
a gas turbine engine,
Tagawa does not teach the following:
Tagawa is silent on the details of the gas turbine engine components.
However Quach teaches the following:
A gas turbine comprising:
a plurality of the rotor blades (FIG. 1; also see Col. 4, 60-65) according to claim 1 (as shown above);
a rotor shaft (40, 50) that is rotatable about an axis and to which the plurality of rotor blades (FIG. 1; also see Col. 4, 60-65) are attached to be arranged in a circumferential direction with respect to the axis; and
a turbine casing (FIG. 1) that covers an outer peripheral side of the plurality of rotor blades (FIG. 1; also see Col. 4, 60-65) and the rotor shaft (40, 50),
wherein the rotor blade (50) is attached to the rotor shaft (40, 50) such that the blade (50) height direction is a radial direction with respect to the axis, the hub side is a radial outer side out of a radial inner side and the radial outer side in the radial direction with respect to the axis, and the leading side is an axial upstream side out of the axial upstream side and an axial downstream side in an axial direction in which the axis extends.
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tagawa, Mugglestone, Tibbott, and Quach, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Takamura et al (US 20180274371), hereafter referred to as Takamura.
Regarding Claim 7, Tagawa as modified by Mugglestone, Tibbott and Quach teaches the following:
The rotor blade (50) according to claim 1,
Tagawa as modified by Mugglestone, Tibbott and Quach does not teach the following:
wherein the cooling air passage communicates with an end of the first intra-blade passage on the tip side and has a tip ejection hole capable of ejecting cooling air that has been passed through the first intra-blade passage from the tip surface.
However Takamura teaches the following:
it is well known in the art to provide the tips of airfoils with cooling holes (72, FIG. 3) with the reasonable expectation of providing film cooling at the tip of the blade (see for example FIG. 3, [0080]).
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 blade, as taught by Tagawa as modified by Mugglestone Tibbott and Quach, wherein the cooling air passage communicates with an end of the first intra-blade passage on the tip side and has a tip ejection hole capable of ejecting cooling air that has been passed through the first intra-blade passage from the tip surface, as taught by Takamura, with the reasonable expectation of successfully providing film cooling at the blade tip (see Takamura [0080]).
Tagawa as modified by Mugglestone, Tibbott, Quach, and Takamura teaches the following:
wherein the cooling air passage (having intake 15b) communicates with an end of the first intra-blade passage (leading edge passage of 40; FIG. 6) on the tip side and has a tip ejection hole (72, FIG. 3) capable of ejecting cooling air that has been passed through the first intra-blade passage (leading edge passage of 40; FIG. 6) from the tip surface.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
In combination with the other structures required by the independent claims, the inclusion of:
wherein the blade surface ejection port is present only on the hub side and is not present on the tip side, based on the middle position of the blade body in the blade height direction;
was not found or fairly taught by prior art and differentiated the claims from the closest prior art to Tagawa Mugglestone, Tibbott, Quach, and Takamura.
The Examiner notes Tagawa is considered the closest prior art and does not teach the limitation(s) as described above. Further, it appears there would be no reason to modify the prior art without the benefit of Applicant's disclosure and impermissible hindsight.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
See form No. 892 for other references pertinent to the application that may not have been cited within the Office Action.
For references which show similar blade cooling arrangements see Pages 1-4.
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