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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 19 February 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 9, and 20 are amended. Claim 21 is added. Claims 1-21 are pending.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of Claims 1-7 and 9-19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Clark et al. (US 2020/0255345) have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Schlichting et al. (US 20090169368) which teaches flanges.
With respect to rejections above, Applicant contended that “The rejection refers to Fig. 2 and asserts that fiber overwrap tube 26 is a cover plate. However, no explanation is provided as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would consider a tube structure to be a plate.”
The overwrap 26 forms a flat surface over the channels or cavities, as shown in the figures. One of ordinary skill could consider such a flat structure as a plate for covering the channels or cavity which would constitute a cover plate.
With respect to claim 2, applicant contended that the prior art does not teach the cover plate is flush with the top outer surface of the base. Examiner does not agree. The top outer surface may be selected such that the cover plate is flush.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-7, 9-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al. (hereafter Clark – US 20200255345) in view of Schlichting et al. (hereafter Schlichting – US 20090169368).
Claim 1 recites “a ceramic matrix composite component.” Clark teaches such a ceramic matrix composite component, as will be shown.
Clark teaches (Figs. 1-6) a ceramic matrix composite (CMC) component comprising:
a base 24 having a bottom inner surface (bottom of cavity 28) and a top outer surface 30, the base comprising a plurality of ceramic fiber plies within a matrix (see para. 0027),
a cooling cavity 28 within the base having an opening in the top outer surface of the base (see Fig. 2), and
a cover plate 26 comprising one or more ceramic fiber plies within a matrix (para. 0021) covering the opening of the cooling cavity wherein the cover plate is bonded to the base by simultaneous densification of the base and cooling cavity (see para. 0025, Fig. 1 step 20).
However, Clark does not teach a first flange and a second flange wherein the first flange and the second flange extend radially from the top outer surface, wherein the cooling cavity is positioned between the first flange and the second flange.
Schlichting teaches a ceramic matrix composite component (Fig. 1, 2) comprising a first flange 43 and a second flange 45 wherein the first flange and the second flange extend radially from the top outer surface, wherein the cooling cavity 48 is positioned between the first flange and the second flange, a cover plate 60 covering the opening of the cooling cavity.
MPEP 2143. I. D. teaches Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious if there is (1) a finding that the prior art contained a "base" device (method, or product) upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an "improvement;" (2) a finding that the prior art contained a known technique that is applicable to the base device (method, or product); (3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. In this case, Schlichting teaches a CMC component upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement, as Schlichting. Clark teaches a known technique to form the cover plate 60 of Schlichting in the same way as Applicant’s invention, and it would be obvious to apply the known techniques taught by Clark as both Clark and Schlichting are directed to CMC components in gas turbines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to arrive at “a first flange and a second flange wherein the first flange and the second flange extend radially from the top outer surface, wherein the cooling cavity is positioned between the first flange and the second flange”.
Regarding Claim 2, Clark, as modified with Schlichting in Claim 1 above, teaches (Clark Figs. 1-6) the CMC component according to claim 1, wherein the cover plate is flush with the top outer surface of the base (see Schlichting Fig. 2, the top surface may be selected to be flush with the cover plate 28).
Regarding Claim 3, Clark, as modified with Schlichting in Claim 1 above, teaches (Clark Figs. 1-6) the CMC component according to claim 1, wherein the cover plate is positioned on top of the top outer surface of the base (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 4, Clark, as modified with Schlichting in Claim 1 above, teaches (Clark Figs. 1-6) the CMC component according to claim 1, wherein the base is a ceramic matrix composite containing SiC fiber plies within an SiC matrix (see para. 0016-0017), and the cover plate is a ceramic matrix composite containing SiC fiber plies within an SiC matrix (see para. 0016-0017).
Regarding Claim 5, Clark, as modified with Schlichting in Claim 1 above, teaches (Clark Figs. 1-6) the CMC component according to claim 1, wherein the cooling cavity within the base is provided with guide walls (see Fig. 2, walls between channels 28) to guide a flow of cooling fluid through the cooling cavity.
Regarding Claim 6, Clark, as modified with Schlichting in Claim 1 above, teaches (Clark Figs. 1-6) the CMC component according to claim 1, wherein the cover plate is provided with guide walls that extend into the cooling cavity to guide a flow of cooling fluid through the cooling cavity (see Fig. 4, 64 may be a cover plate, 66 may be the base, cover plate 64 would include guide walls to form the cooling cavity 74).
Regarding Claim 7, Clark, as modified with Schlichting in Claim 1 above, teaches (Clark Figs. 1-6) the CMC component according to claim 1, wherein the component is a blade outer air seal (BOAS), combustion liner, turbine blade, or turbine vane (para. 0015).
Claim 9 recites “a method of preparing a CMC component.” Clark teaches such a method of preparing a CMC component, as will be shown.
Clark teaches (Figs. 1-6) a method of preparing a CMC component comprising:
laying up a plurality of ceramic fiber plies to form a CMC preform having a bottom inner surface and a top outer surface (see para. 0016, 0020, steps 12),
laying up one or more ceramic fiber plies to form a cover plate (see para. 0021),
before or after subjecting the CMC preform to densification, forming a cooling cavity within the CMC preform, the cooling cavity having an opening in the top outer surface of the CMC preform (step 16),
positioning the cover plate on the CMC preform to cover the opening of the cooling cavity (see para. 0021, step 18), and
subjecting the CMC preform and cover plate to densification to form a ceramic matrix composite component wherein the cover plate is bonded to the CMC preform (see para. 0025, step 20).
However, Clark does not teach a first flange and a second flange wherein the first flange and the second flange extend radially from the top outer surface, wherein the cooling cavity is positioned between the first flange and the second flange.
Schlichting teaches a ceramic matrix composite component (Fig. 1, 2) comprising a first flange 43 and a second flange 45 wherein the first flange and the second flange extend radially from the top outer surface, wherein the cooling cavity 48 is positioned between the first flange and the second flange, a cover plate 60 covering the opening of the cooling cavity.
MPEP 2143. I. D. teaches Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious if there is (1) a finding that the prior art contained a "base" device (method, or product) upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an "improvement;" (2) a finding that the prior art contained a known technique that is applicable to the base device (method, or product); (3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. In this case, Schlichting teaches a CMC component upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement, as Schlichting. Clark teaches a known technique to form the cover plate 60 of Schlichting in the same way as Applicant’s invention, and it would be obvious to apply the known techniques taught by Clark as both Clark and Schlichting are directed to CMC components in gas turbines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to arrive at “a first flange and a second flange wherein the first flange and the second flange extend radially from the top outer surface, wherein the cooling cavity is positioned between the first flange and the second flange”.
Regarding Claim 10, Clark, as modified with Schlichting in Claim 9 above, teaches (Clark Figs. 1-6) the method according claim 9, wherein pre-densification is performed by chemical vapor infiltration of SiC (para. 0017).
Regarding Claim 11, Clark, as modified with Schlichting in Claim 9 above, teaches (Clark Figs. 1-6) the method according claim 9, wherein the cooling cavity of the CMC preform is formed during the laying up of the plurality of ceramic fiber plies to form the CMC preform (para. 0025).
Regarding Claim 12, Clark, as modified with Schlichting in Claim 9 above, teaches (Clark Figs. 1-6) the method according claim 9, wherein, before positioning of the cover plate on the CMC preform, the CMC preform is subjected to a pre-densification and the cooling cavity is formed in the pre-densified CMC preform by machining (para. 0017, step 14).
Regarding Claim 13, Clark, as modified with Schlichting in Claim 9 above, teaches (Clark Figs. 1-6) the method according claim 9, wherein, before positioning of the cover plate on the CMC preform, the CMC preform and/or the cover plate are subjected to a pre-densification (para. 0017, step 14).
Regarding Claim 14, Clark, as modified with Schlichting in Claim 9 above, teaches (Clark Figs. 1-6) the method according claim 9, wherein, before positioning of the cover plate on the CMC preform, the CMC preform and the cover plate are both subjected to a pre-densification (see para. 0022 and Fig. 4 where the cover plate is 64).
Regarding Claim 15, Clark, as modified with Schlichting in Claim 9 above, teaches (Clark Figs. 1-6) the method according claim 9, wherein the cooling cavity is provided with guide walls for guiding a flow of cooling fluid through the cooling cavity (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 16, Clark, as modified with Schlichting in Claim 9 above, teaches (Clark Figs. 1-6) the method according claim 9, wherein the cover plate is provided with guide walls that extend into the cooling cavity for guiding a flow of cooling fluid through the cooling cavity (see Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 17, Clark, as modified with Schlichting in Claim 9 above, teaches (Clark Figs. 1-6) the method according claim 9, wherein after positioning of the cover plate on the CMC preform, the cover plate is flush with the top outer surface of the CMC preform (Fig. 2, a portion of the cover plate is flush).
Regarding Claim 18, Clark, as modified with Schlichting in Claim 9 above, teaches (Clark Figs. 1-6) the method according claim 9, wherein after positioning of the cover plate on the CMC preform, the cover plate is on the top outer surface of the CMC preform (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 19, Clark, as modified with Schlichting in Claim 9 above, teaches (Clark Figs. 1-6) the method according claim 9, wherein the shape of the cooling cavity is maintained during the pre-densification using tooling or a fugitive material (para. 0020, maintained using tooling for conventional machining methods, including but not limited to ultrasonic, laser, and electrical discharge machining).
Regarding Claim 21, Clark, as modified with Schlichting in Claim 9 above, teaches (Clark Figs. 1-6) the CMC component according to claim 1, wherein sidewalls of the cooling cavity are provided with a shoulder (Schlichting 62) which is below the top outer surface, the cover plate rests on the shoulder (see Schlichting Fig. 2).
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark, in view of Schlichting, and further in view of Smiddy et al. (hereafter Smiddy – US 11242764).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Clark teaches (Figs. 1-6) the invention may applied to gas turbine engine components including a seal (para. 0015).
However, Clark does not explicitly teach a BOAS assembly comprising a plurality of BOAS segments according claim 7, wherein said BOAS segments are arranged to form an annular shaped structure.
Smiddy teaches (Fig. 1-3) a BOAS assembly 69 comprising a plurality of BOAS segments according claim 7, wherein said BOAS segments are arranged to form an annular shaped structure (col. 5, ln. 42-45).
Clark merely teaches a seal comprising a base and cover plate for use in a gas turbine engine but is silent as to the details of the gas turbine engine BOAS assembly. A person having ordinary skill in the art applying the invention of Clark would look to the prior art for suitable gas turbine arrangements. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Smiddy to the gas turbine engine of Clark to have a BOAS assembly comprising a plurality of BOAS segments according claim 7, wherein said BOAS segments are arranged to form an annular shaped structure, as both references and Applicant’s invention are directed to gas turbine engine seals. Doing so would result in a gas turbine engine which is usable, as recognized by Smiddy.
Claim 20 recites “a gas turbine engine.” Clark teaches such a gas turbine engine, as will be shown.
Clark teaches (Figs. 1-6) a gas turbine engine comprising: wherein a blade outer air seal segment comprises the same features of Claim 1, which are rejected for the same reasons.
However, Clark does not teach a first flange and a second flange wherein the first flange and the second flange extend radially from the top outer surface, wherein the cooling cavity is positioned between the first flange and the second flange.
Schlichting teaches a ceramic matrix composite component (Fig. 1, 2) comprising a first flange 43 and a second flange 45 wherein the first flange and the second flange extend radially from the top outer surface, wherein the cooling cavity 48 is positioned between the first flange and the second flange, a cover plate 60 covering the opening of the cooling cavity.
MPEP 2143. I. D. teaches Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious if there is (1) a finding that the prior art contained a "base" device (method, or product) upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an "improvement;" (2) a finding that the prior art contained a known technique that is applicable to the base device (method, or product); (3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. In this case, Schlichting teaches a CMC component upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement, as Schlichting. Clark teaches a known technique to form the cover plate 60 of Schlichting in the same way as Applicant’s invention, and it would be obvious to apply the known techniques taught by Clark as both Clark and Schlichting are directed to CMC components in gas turbines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to arrive at “a first flange and a second flange wherein the first flange and the second flange extend radially from the top outer surface, wherein the cooling cavity is positioned between the first flange and the second flange”.
However, while Clark teaches the invention may applied to gas turbine engine components including a seal (para. 0015), Clark does not explicitly teach a fan section, a compressor section, a combustion chamber, and a turbine section, said turbine section including at least one rotor and one or more turbine blade(s) extending radially outwardly from said at least one rotor; a blade outer air seal assembly positioned between the one or more turbine blade(s) and an outer casing to the engine; said blade outer air seal is formed of a plurality blade outer air seal segments.
Smiddy teaches (Fig. 1-3) a gas turbine engine comprising a fan section 22, a compressor section 24, a combustion chamber 26, and a turbine section 28, said turbine section including at least one rotor 60 and one or more turbine blade(s) 61 extending radially outwardly from said at least one rotor; a blade outer air seal assembly 69 positioned between the one or more turbine blade(s) and an outer casing 37 to the engine; said blade outer air seal is formed of a plurality blade outer air seal segments (col. 5, ln. 42-45).
Clark merely teaches a seal comprising a base and cover plate for use in a gas turbine engine but is silent as to the details of the gas turbine engine. A person having ordinary skill in the art applying the invention of Clark would look to the prior art for suitable gas turbine arrangements. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Smiddy to the gas turbine engine of Clark to have a fan section, a compressor section, a combustion chamber, and a turbine section, said turbine section including at least one rotor and one or more turbine blade(s) extending radially outwardly from said at least one rotor; a blade outer air seal assembly positioned between the one or more turbine blade(s) and an outer casing to the engine; said blade outer air seal is formed of a plurality blade outer air seal segments, as both references and Applicant’s invention are directed to gas turbine engines. Doing so would result in a gas turbine engine which is usable, as recognized by Smiddy.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See cited references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW BUI whose telephone number is (571) 272-0685. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Courtney Heinle can be reached on (571) 270-3508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/ANDREW THANH BUI/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights