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 with traverse of Species III in the reply filed on October 10, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that there is no a serious search burden on the examiner. This is not found persuasive because the examiner maintains the rationale for there being a serious search burden as described on page 2 of the election requirement of September 16, 2025.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
No claims are currently withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species I or II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on October 10, 2025.
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.
Claims 1, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20110262277, hereinafter Sjoqvist.
Regarding claim 1, Sjoqvist discloses an exhaust diffuser assembly {Figure 1 (10); [0020]} comprising:
at least two diffuser segments coupled to one another and collectively forming an exhaust diffuser that extends from a forward end to an aft end {Figures 1b and 1c, (14) and (14a) are two diffuser segments of many coupled to one another and collecting form an exhaust diffuser that extends from a forward end to and aft end; Figure 1a has an axial direction along (30)}, the at least two diffuser segments comprising:
a first diffuser segment of at least two diffuser segments having a first sleeve portion that extends to a first circumferential edge {Figures 1b and 1c, (14) extends to a first circumferential edge which is at the circumferential position of (40) and (42) that is shared with (14a)}; and
a second diffuser segment having a second sleeve portion that extends to a second circumferential edge {Figures 1b and 1c; (14a) extends to a second circumferential edge which is at the circumferential position of (40) and (42) that is shared with (14)}, the first circumferential edge joined to the second circumferential edge at a split-line; {Figures 1b and 1c, 14 and 14a are joined at the split-line which includes weld joints (40) and (42)};
wherein a weld joint extends along a portion of the split-line to a weld end {Figure 1c, a weld joint (40) extends along a portion of the split line to a weld end adjacent (46)}, and wherein the first sleeve portion and the second sleeve portion define a stress-relief opening disposed at least partially at the weld end of the weld joint {Figure 1c, (14) and (14a) define a stress-relief opening (46) disposed partially at the weld end of the weld joint (40); [0032]}.
Regarding claim 11, Sjoqvist discloses a gas turbine comprising: {[0001]}
a compressor section {This is implicit as part of a gas turbine engine, see MPEP 2112};
a combustion section downstream of the compressor section {This is implicitly the default configuration of a gas turbine engine, see MPEP 2112};
a turbine section downstream of the combustion section {This is implicitly the default configuration of a gas turbine engine, see MPEP 2112}; and
an exhaust diffuser assembly having an exhaust diffuser downstream of the turbine section {Figure 1 (10); this is implicitly the default configuration of a gas turbine engine, see MPEP 2112}.
The remainder of claim 11 is identical to claim 1. For purposes of brevity and clarity the rejection of these limitations is not repeated. Please see claim 1 above.
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.
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 1-2, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjoqvist in view of US 20170145863, hereinafter Nanda.
Regarding claim 1, Sjoqvist discloses an exhaust diffuser assembly {Figure 1 (10); [0020]} comprising:
at least two diffuser segments coupled to one another and collectively forming an exhaust diffuser that extends from a forward end to an aft end {Figures 1b and 1c, (14) and (14a) are two diffuser segments of many coupled to one another and collecting form an exhaust diffuser that extends from a forward end to and aft end; Figure 1a has an axial direction along (30)}, the at least two diffuser segments comprising:
a first diffuser segment of at least two diffuser segments having a first sleeve portion that extends to a first circumferential edge {Figures 1b and 1c, (14) extends to a first circumferential edge which is at the circumferential position of (40) and (42) that is shared with (14a)}; and
a second diffuser segment having a second sleeve portion that extends to a second circumferential edge {Figures 1b and 1c; (14a) extends to a second circumferential edge which is at the circumferential position of (40) and (42) that is shared with (14)}, the first circumferential edge joined to the second circumferential edge at a split-line; {Figures 1b and 1c, 14 and 14a are joined at the split-line which includes weld joints (40) and (42)}
wherein a weld joint extends along a portion of the split-line to a weld end {Figure 2b (42) extends along a portion of the split line to a weld end at the aft end of (20)}.
Nanda pertains to gas turbine diffusers and welding. Nanda teaches:
wherein the first sleeve portion and the second sleeve portion define a stress-relief opening disposed at least partially at the weld end of the weld joint {Figure 8, openings (154) are defined by adjacent instances of segments (152) which create a weld end at both ends of the opening along the welding seam}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included stress relieving features as taught by Nanda along the weld seam (42) of Sjoqvist. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as these features relieve the stress the area of the welds of the components {[0050] and [0052]}.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Sjoqvist and Nanda further teaches:
wherein at least one of the first sleeve portion and the second sleeve portion includes a tab defined between the stress- relief opening and the weld joint {Nanda Figure 8, the bean-shape of (154) shown and described in [0052] has a tab that corresponds to the indentation of the bean shape}; and
wherein the tab diverges in width as the tab extends axially from an end wall at the weld end of the weld joint to a base of the tab {Nanda Figure 8, the tab diverges in width along the weld. The weld (42) of Sjoqvist is along the axial direction meaning the tab diverges in width axially from an end wall at the weld end to a base of the tab}.
Regarding claim 11, Sjoqvist discloses a gas turbine comprising: {[0001]}
a compressor section {This is implicit as part of a gas turbine engine, see MPEP 2144.01};
a combustion section downstream of the compressor section {This is implicitly the default configuration of a gas turbine engine, see MPEP 2144.01};
a turbine section downstream of the combustion section {This is implicitly the default configuration of a gas turbine engine, see MPEP 2144.01}; and
an exhaust diffuser assembly having an exhaust diffuser downstream of the turbine section {Figure 1 (10); this is implicitly the default configuration of a gas turbine engine, see MPEP 2144.01}.
The remainder of claim 11 is identical to claim 1. For purposes of brevity and clarity the rejection of these limitations is not repeated. Please see claim 1 above.
Claim 12 is identical to claim 2. For purposes of brevity and clarity the rejection of claim 12 is not repeated. Please see claim 2 above.
Claims 3-7, 9-10, 13-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjoqvist in view of Nanda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20180100397, hereinafter Piraccini.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Sjoqvist and Nanda further teaches:
wherein the weld end is a first weld end disposed between the forward end and the aft end of the exhaust diffuser {Nanda Figure 8 (154) is applied to (42) of Sjoqvist in Figures 2b. (42) extends along the axial direction (30) meaning the stress relieving feature (154) of Nanda which is somewhere in the middle of the weld creates a first weld end that is between the forward end and aft end of the diffuser}.
The combination of Sjoqvist and Nanda does not teach:
wherein the stress-relief opening includes a slot portion extending along the split-line from the forward end of the exhaust diffuser to the first weld end.
Piraccini pertains to gas turbine engine component welding and is therefore in the same field of endeavor and reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of welding components together in a desirable manner for operation in a gas turbine engine.
Piraccini teaches:
wherein the stress-relief opening includes a slot portion extending along the split-line {Figure 5 (126) is a slot portion which extends from stress-relief opening (128) along the split-line}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a slot portion along the stress-relief openings of the combination of Sjoqvist and Nanda based on the teachings of Piraccini. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as slots can reduce interference and vibration between the welded components; including a gap/slot or not including a gap/slot are also both recognized as options {Piraccini [0021]}.
The combination of Sjoqvist, Nanda, and Piraccini is silent as the directionality along which the slot portion extends from the stress-relief opening. The combination of Sjoqvist, Nanda, and Piraccini is therefore silent regarding:
the slot portion extending along the split-line from the forward end of the exhaust diffuser to the first weld end.
Since the combination of Sjoqvist, Nanda, and Piraccini is silent as the directionality along which the slot portion extends from the stress-relief opening, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose whether the slot portion extends to the upstream end or downstream end.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the slot portion of the combination of Sjoqvist, Nanda, and Piraccini extend the forward end of the exhaust diffuser to the first weld end. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as the precise positioning of the stress-relief opening, dimensions of the slot, geometry of the exhaust diffuser case and other factors determine which directionality of the slot performs better. These factors are left to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose, therefore, the examiner finds that a person of ordinary skill in the art may choose either of the two potential options of which direction the slot portion extends especially depending on the other factors of the chosen configuration. It is noted that a person of ordinary skill in the art could pursue both directionalities with the results being predictable and having a reasonable expectation of success as thermal / mechanical stress may be modeled and evaluated.
The combination of Sjoqvist, Nanda, and Piraccini therefore teaches:
the slot portion extending along the split-line from the forward end of the exhaust diffuser to the first weld end {See discussion above. A slot which extends from the forward end of the exhaust diffuser to stress-relief opening which defines the first weld end satisfies the claim limitation}.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Sjoqvist, Nanda, and Piraccini further teaches:
wherein the stress-relief opening further comprises a body portion spaced apart from the weld joint and extending axially alongside the first weld end of the weld joint {Nanda Figure 8 (154) can be considered to have a body portion spaced apart from the weld joint. When (154) of Nanda is applied to Sjoqvist (42) this body portion extends axially alongside the first weld end of the weld joint; the first weld end is located to the stress-relief opening}.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Sjoqvist, Nanda, and Piraccini further teaches:
wherein the slot portion includes a first segment having a first width and a second segment having a second width, the second width being larger than the first width {Sjoqvist Figure 5, the slot smoothly transitions into (128) and may be considered to have multiple widths as the width changes in this transition}.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Sjoqvist, Nanda, and Piraccini further teaches:
wherein the first circumferential edge and the second circumferential edge are spaced apart from one another to define the slot portion {Piraccini Figure 5 (126) is applied to (42) of Sjoqvist which includes (154) of Nanda as well. The slot portion is applied at the first and circumferential edges of Sjoqvist which means these edges are spaced apart}.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Sjoqvist, Nanda, and Piraccini further teaches:
further comprising a connection block disposed in the slot portion and coupled to the first sleeve portion and the second sleeve portion {Sjoqvist Figure 4d (60) is a connection block disposed in the slot portion and coupled to the first and second sleeve portion; (62) is coupled to (14a) and (64) is coupled to (14)}.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Sjoqvist, Nanda, and Piraccini further teaches:
wherein the connection block defines a first channel and a second channel {Sjoqvist Figures 4a and 4d, the connection block (60) includes (62) and (64) which define respectively a first and second channel. Channels may be defined by bolts (52) which may be considered part of the connection block structure. It is noted the examiner finds the channels of the instant application are not bounded volumes or even cross-sections; therefore what constitutes a channel is largely open to interpretation},
wherein the first sleeve portion extends into the first channel, and wherein the second sleeve portion extends into the second channel {Sjoqvist Figures 4a and 4d, 14 extends into the first channel of (62) and (14a) extends into the first channel of (64)}.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Sjoqvist, Nanda, and Piraccini further teaches:
exhaust diffuser of claim 7 and wherein the stress-relief opening is a first stress-relief opening {Nanda Figure 8 (154) may be considered a first stress-relief opening};
wherein the weld joint extends to a second weld end at the aft end of the exhaust diffuser {Sjoqvist Figure 2b, the aft end of the weld (42) is the second weld end}
The combination of Sjoqvist, Nanda, and Piraccini is silent regarding:
wherein a second stress-relief opening is disposed at the aft end of the exhaust diffuser proximate to the second weld end.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included additional stress relieving features as taught by Nanda to the combination of Sjoqvist, Nanda, and Piraccini at an aft end of the exhaust diffuser proximate to the second weld end. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to relieve stress along the weld in a predictable manner {Nanda [0050]/[0052]} as well as the duplication of elements/parts being obvious when there is no new or unexpected result produced, see MPEP 2144.0.4 VI B.
Claims 13-17 and 19-20 are identical to claims 3-7 and 9-10. For purposes of brevity and clarity the rejections of these claims are not repeated. Please see the rejection of claims 3-7 and 9-10 above.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjoqvist, in view of Nanda and Piraccini as applied to claims 7 and 17 above, and further in view of US 20070128041, hereinafter Ahmad.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Sjoqvist, Nanda, and Piraccini further teaches:
the connection block comprising a first wall disposed on a first exterior side of the first sleeve portion and a second exterior side of the second sleeve {Figure 4d (60) includes (64) and (62) which are disposed on a first exterior side of the first sleeve portion (14) and a second exterior side of the second sleeve (14a)}.
The combination of Sjoqvist, Nanda, and Piraccini further teaches does not teach:
a cross bar extending through the slot, and
a second wall disposed on a first interior side of the first sleeve portion and a second interior side of the second sleeve portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have to have included additional “blades” (62/64) of Sjoqvist that form a “second wall” to the combination of Sjoqvist, Nanda, and Piraccini on interior side of the first and second sleeve portion. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to block the weld in a predictable manner {Sjoqvist [0033]} as well as the duplication of elements/parts being obvious when there is no new or unexpected result produced, see MPEP 2144.0.4 VI B}
Ahmad pertains to stress relieving features in gas turbine components and is therefore in the same field of endeavor of gas turbine engines and is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of reducing stress in the gas turbine engine components via stress relief slots/holes.
Ahmad teaches:
A cross bar extending through the slot {Figure 3C (33); [0036]. The filler material may be consider a “cross bar”}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a cross bar (filler portion) that passes through the relief slot as taught by Ahmad to the combination of Sjoqvist, Nanda, and Piraccini. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as filler material can help prevent fluid from passing through the slot {Ahmad [0036]} and Sjoqvist recognizes the preventing of undesirable gas flow through the aperture may be accomplished by a variety of different means including seals and other shaped blocking members {[0034]}.
Claim 18 is identical to claim 8 above. For purposes of brevity and clarity the rejection of this claim is not repeated. Please see the rejection of claim 8 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Conete et al. (U.S Patent 8,424,312) discloses a slot and relief cut in the exhaust of a gas
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY D HEINLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3508. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:00am-5:00pm).
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, Alford Kindred can be reached at (571) 272-4037. 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.
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745