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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1 (Fig. 1-11), Subspecies 1-A (Fig. 10), Claims 1-11 and 19 in the reply filed on 12/19/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species and subspecies, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on Claims 12-18.
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 1-11 and 19 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1-4, the phrase " in a case where " renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 5-11 and 19 are rejected as being dependent on rejected claim(s).
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 1-11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterman et al. (US 20040170498, hereinafter: “Peterman”).
In reference to Claim 1
Peterman discloses:
A gas turbine stator vane comprising:
a vane-shaped portion (10);
an outer side shroud (24) connected to an outer side end (radially outer end of vane) of the vane-shaped portion in a vane height direction (span direction of vane 10);
an inner side shroud (26) connected to an inner side end (radially inner end of vane) of the vane-shaped portion in the vane height direction;
a passage (41) passing through an inside of the vane-shaped portion to provide communication between an outer side cavity (112) formed on an outer side of the outer side shroud in the vane height direction and an inner side cavity (as shown in the annotated Figure 3 of Peterman) formed on an inner side of the inner side shroud in the vane height direction;
a sealed tube (73 fwd baffle wall) 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 (109) attached to the sealed tube and fixed to the outer side shroud; and
a heat shield plate (108, 30) 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, in a case where a projection area in which the outer side shroud is projected to a plane orthogonal to the vane height direction is denoted by A (“Plane A” as shown in the annotated Figure 8 of Peterman), and a projection area in which the heat shield plate is projected to a plane orthogonal to the vane height direction is denoted by B (“Plane B” as shown in the annotated Figure 6 of Peterman).
Although it appears Peterman satisfies B/A > 0.40, Peterman is silent on exact dimensions.
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
1065
1147
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Annotated Figure 3 of Peterman.
PNG
media_image2.png
901
791
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2: Annotated Figure 6 of Peterman.
PNG
media_image3.png
770
1231
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3: Annotated Figure 8 of Peterman.
In reference to Claim 2
Peterman discloses:
The gas turbine stator vane according to Claim 1, wherein, in a case where a dimension of an inlet of the passage in an axial direction of a gas turbine is denoted by C (“inlet C” as shown in the annotated Figure 6 of Peterman), the number of gas turbine stator vanes (number of vanes per outer side shroud as shown in Fig. 8) connected to the outer side shroud is denoted by N, and a dimension of the outer side shroud in a circumferential direction of the gas turbine is denoted by D (“D” as shown in the annotated Figure 8 of Peterman), B > C x D/N is satisfied.
Although it appears Peterman satisfies B > C x D/N, Peterman is silent on exact dimensions.
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
Peterman discloses:
The gas turbine stator vane according to Claim 1,
wherein the outer side shroud includes
a bottom plate portion (as shown in the annotated Figure 3 of Peterman) connected to the outer side end of the vane-shaped portion in the vane height direction, and
a peripheral wall portion (as shown in the annotated Figure 3 of Peterman) formed along a peripheral edge of the bottom plate portion to protrude outward in the vane height direction from the peripheral edge, the heat shield plate is provided to cover at least a part of a part of the bottom plate portion surrounded by the peripheral wall portion, and in a case where 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 is denoted by E (“height E” as shown in the annotated Figure 3 of Peterman).
Although it appears Peterman satisfies B/E> 0.50, Peterman is silent on exact dimensions.
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
Peterman discloses:
The gas turbine stator vane according to Claim 1,
wherein, in a case where a projection area in which a part of the outer side shroud excluding a hook for fixing the outer side shroud to a turbine casing is projected to a plane orthogonal to the vane height direction is denoted by F (“F” as shown in the annotated Figure 8 of Peterman)., B/F >0.45 is satisfied.
Although it appears Peterman satisfies B/F >0.45, Peterman is silent on exact dimensions.
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 “F” of the outer side shroud and “B” of the heat shield plate, to meet the range B/F >0.45 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 5
Peterman discloses:
The gas turbine stator vane according to Claim 1,
wherein a dimension of the heat shield plate (as shown in annotated Figure 6 of Peterman) in an axial direction of a gas turbine is larger than a dimension of an inlet (“Inlet C” dimension as shown in annotated Figure 6 of Peterman) of the passage in the axial direction. (Fig. 6).
In reference to Claim 6
Peterman discloses:
The gas turbine stator vane according to Claim 1,
wherein a dimension (“H” dimension as shown in annotated Figure 7 of Peterman) of the heat shield plate in an axial direction of a gas turbine is larger than a dimension (“P” dimension as shown in annotated Figure 7 of Peterman) of the fixed plate in the axial direction (Fig. 7).
PNG
media_image4.png
911
723
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4: Annotated Figure 7 of Peterman.
In reference to Claim 7
Peterman discloses:
The gas turbine stator vane according to Claim 1,
wherein, in the heat shield plate (108), a distance between the heat shield plate (as measured at the upstream end of the heat shield plate 108) and an upstream end (as shown in the annotated Figure 3 of Peterman) of the outer side shroud in an axial direction of a gas turbine is smaller than a distance between an inlet (80) of the passage and the upstream end of the outer side shroud in the axial direction, and a distance between the heat shield plate (as measured at the downstream end of the heat shield plate 108) and a downstream end (as shown in the annotated Figure 3 of Peterman) of the outer side shroud in the axial direction is smaller than a distance between the inlet (80) and the downstream end of the outer side shroud in the axial direction.
In reference to Claim 8
Peterman discloses:
The gas turbine stator vane according to Claim 1,
wherein, in the heat shield plate (108), a distance (distance measured at the upstream end of the heat shield plate as shown in annotated Figure 3 of Peterman) between the heat shield plate and an upstream end of the outer side shroud in an axial direction of a gas turbine is smaller than a distance between the fixed plate (first distance at the fixed plate as shown in the annotated Figure 3 of Peterman) and the upstream end of the outer side shroud in the axial direction, and a distance between the heat shield plate (distance measured at the downstream end of the heat shield plate as shown in annotated Figure 3 of Peterman) and a downstream end of the outer side shroud in the axial direction is smaller than a distance (2nd distance at the fixed plate as shown in annotated Figure 3 of Peterman) between the fixed plate and the downstream end of the outer side shroud in the axial direction (see annotated Figure 3 of Peterman).
In reference to Claim 9
Peterman discloses:
The gas turbine stator vane according to Claim 1, wherein a gap (see gap within chamber 105, Fig. 3) is provided between the heat shield plate and the sealed tube. [0030] (Fig. 3).
In reference to Claim 10
Peterman discloses:
The gas turbine stator vane according to Claim 1, wherein an impingement cooling hole for impingement cooling of the outer side shroud is not formed in the heat shield plate (108) (see Fig. 6).
In reference to Claim 11
Peterman discloses:
The gas turbine stator vane according to Claim 1, further comprising welding or brazing a method of connecting the vane components. In addition, Peterman discloses “The vanes are brazed together along interfaces of the flange segments, inner band panels, and outer band panels to form the nozzle segment,” [0006]. Peterman further discloses the baffle assembly (30) is welded to the nozzle segment (10) along the collar (116) of the nozzle segment which is a portion of the outer side shroud (Fig. 3) (“The bifurcated impingement baffle 30 is then brazed or welded to the nozzle segment 10 around a collar 116 of the nozzle segment illustrated in FIGS. 2 and 3.). As shown in Figure 3, Peterman discloses the welding is along the outer side shroud and the heat shield plate (108) which are both corresponding along the upstream side, downstream side, suction side (peripheral side in the circumferential direction) and pressure side (another peripheral side in the circumferential direction) of the heat shield plate and the outer side shroud (Fig. 2-3). Thus, Peterman discloses a welded portion in which the heat shield plate and the outer side shroud are welded to each other along an end edge of a peripheral edge of the heat shield plate on an upstream side in an axial direction of a gas turbine; a welded portion in which the heat shield plate and the outer side shroud are welded to each other along an end edge of the peripheral edge of the heat shield plate on a downstream side in the axial direction; a welded portion in which the heat shield plate and the outer side shroud are welded to each other along an end edge of the peripheral edge of the heat shield plate on one side in a circumferential direction of the gas turbine; and a welded portion in which the heat shield plate and the outer side shroud are welded to each other along an end edge of the peripheral edge of the heat shield plate on the other side in the circumferential direction.
In reference to Claim 19
Peterman discloses:
A gas turbine comprising: the gas turbine stator vane (4) according to Claim 1;
a turbine rotor (18, 9); and a turbine casing (14) accommodating the turbine rotor [0024] (Fig. 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Koyabu et al. (US 20220186623), Van Tassel et al. (US 20170292455), and North et al. (US 5145315) disclose a vane assembly comprising a top shield that is relevant to the Applicant’s invention.
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