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, filed 06/22/2026, with respect to 112b rejection of Claims 1-11 and 19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112b rejection of Claims 1-11 and 19 has been overcome.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claim 1 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. A new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of VanTassel et al. (US 20170292455, hereinafter: “VanTassel”).
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 2, the claim verbiage “D, B ≥ C x D/N” should be written as “B ≥ C x D/N” and “D ≥ C x D/N” to clarify that B and D satisfies the equation.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5, 9-10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VanTassel et al. (US 20170292455, hereinafter: “VanTassel”).
In reference to Claim 1
VanTassel discloses:
A gas turbine stator vane (102) comprising: a vane-shaped portion (108 airfoil); an outer side shroud (106) connected to an outer side end of the vane-shaped portion in a vane height direction (span direction); an inner side shroud (104) connected to an inner side end of the vane-shaped portion in the vane height direction; a passage (128) passing through an inside of the vane-shaped portion to provide communication between an outer side cavity (outside of outer side shroud 106; Fig. 4; 9-10) formed on an outer side of the outer side shroud in the vane height direction and an inner side cavity (126, 138) formed on an inner side of the inner side shroud in the vane height direction (Fig. 4); a sealed tube (130) that is disposed in the passage and that is configured to guide air in the outer side cavity to the inner side cavity; a fixed plate (132; Fig. 9-10) attached to the sealed tube and fixed to the outer side shroud; and a heat shield plate (134’ ; Fig. 9-10) that is disposed on an outer side of the fixed plate in the vane height direction and that is disposed to cover at least a part of the outer side shroud, wherein a through-hole (192; Fig. 10) is formed in the heat shield plate and the sealed tube passes through the through-hole (Fig. 9-10),
wherein a gap (see gap between 192 and 130 in Fig. 10) is provided between an inner surface (inner surface of 134’ ) of the through-hole formed in the heat shield plate and an outer surface (outer surface of 130) of the sealed tube passing through the through-hole (Fig. 10), and
where A is a projection area in which the outer side shroud (area of 106; Fig. 9) is projected to a plane orthogonal to the vane height direction, and B ( area of 134’ ) is a projection area in which the heat shield plate is projected to a plane orthogonal to the vane height direction.[0027-0056] (Fig. 1-10).
VanTassel is silent on exact dimensions and there for silent on B/A > 0.40.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dimensions of “A” of the outer side shroud and “B” of the heat shield plate to meet the range B/A > 0.40 as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
PNG
media_image1.png
679
1025
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Annotated Figure 9 of VanTassel.
In reference to Claim 2
VanTassel discloses:
The gas turbine stator vane according to Claim 1,
where C (as shown in annotated Fig. 9 of VanTassel) is a dimension of an inlet of the passage (128) in an axial direction of a gas turbine, N is the number of gas turbine stator vanes (plurality of stator vanes shown in Fig. 9) connected to the outer side shroud, and D (as shown in annotated Fig. 9 of VanTassel) is a dimension of the outer side shroud in a circumferential direction of the gas turbine.
VanTassel is silent on exact dimensions and there for silent on D, B ≥ C x D/N.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dimensions of “C” of the inlet and “D” of the outer side shroud and “B” of the heat shield plate, to meet the range B > C x D/N as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In reference to Claim 3
VanTassel discloses:
The gas turbine stator vane according to Claim 1, wherein the outer side shroud includes
a bottom plate portion (bottom portion of 106) connected to the outer side end of the vane-shaped portion (116) in the vane height direction (Fig. 4), and
a peripheral wall portion (peripheral wall of 106) formed along a peripheral edge of the bottom plate portion to protrude outward in the vane height direction from the peripheral edge (Fig. 4, 9), the heat shield plate (134’) being provided to cover at least a part of a part of the bottom plate portion surrounded by the peripheral wall portion, and
where E (area of bottom plate portion 106; Fig. 4, 9) is a projection area in which the part of the bottom plate portion surrounded by the peripheral wall portion is projected to a plane orthogonal to the vane height direction (Fig. 4, 9-10).
VanTassel is silent on exact dimensions and there for silent on B/E > 0.50.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dimensions of “E” of the height of peripheral wall portion and “B” of the heat shield plate, to meet the range B/E> 0.50 as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In reference to Claim 4
VanTassel discloses:
The gas turbine stator vane according to Claim 1, wherein F (projection area of 106 without hook; Fig. 3) is a projection area in which a part of the outer side shroud excluding a hook (hook of 106 as shown in Fig. 3) for fixing the outer side shroud to a turbine casing (36) is projected to a plane orthogonal to the vane height direction (Fig. 2).
In reference to Claim 5
VanTassel discloses:
The gas turbine stator vane according to Claim 1, wherein a dimension (dimension of 134’ along axial direction; Fig. 9) of the heat shield plate (134’) in an axial direction of a gas turbine is larger than a dimension of an inlet of the passage (dimension of passage between the two tubes 130 along axial direction as shown in annotated Fig. 9 of VanTassel) in the axial direction (Fig. 9).
In reference to Claim 9
VanTassel discloses:
The gas turbine stator vane according to Claim 1, wherein the gap (gap between 130 and 192) is provided over an entire periphery of the sealed tube (Fig. 10).
In reference to Claim 10
VanTassel discloses:
The gas turbine stator vane according to Claim 1, wherein an impingement cooling hole (196, cooling air 196) for impingement cooling of the outer side shroud is not formed in the heat shield plate [0055] (Fig. 4, 9-10).
In reference to Claim 19
VanTassel discloses:
A gas turbine comprising:
the gas turbine stator vane according to Claim 1; a turbine rotor (34); and a turbine casing (36) accommodating the turbine rotor [0029] (Fig. 1-2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 and 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
VanTassel is silent on the dimensions as claimed in Claims 6-8 and the welded details of the heat shield plate and the outer shield plate as claimed in Claim 11.
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
