DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in response to the claims filed 12/06/2024.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/06/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miraucourt et al. in FR2597921 (hereinafter “Miraucourt”).
Regarding claim 1, Miraucourt discloses a shroud hanger assembly comprising: a hanger having a first portion 1 and a second portion 11 (Fig. 1); a shroud 14, and the first and the second portions (1 and 11) of the hanger being connected at an aft end of the shroud (see hook 26 connecting first portion 1 and second portion 11) and the second portion 11 of the hanger defining a spring arm that acts to retain the shroud (second portion 11 is preloaded by flexible annular ferrule 39 and thus acts as a spring arm to retain the shroud segment 14).
Regarding claim 2, Miraucourt discloses the shroud hanger assembly of claim 1, wherein the first and the second portions of the hanger are radially connected at the aft end of the shroud (flange 26 radially restrains the equivalent first portion 1 and second portion 11).
Regarding claim 3, Miraucourt discloses the shroud hanger assembly of claim 1, wherein the shroud 14 is retained between a first shroud retainer and a second shroud retainer (in Fig. 1, the forward and aft ends 33 and 34 of the shroud 14 sit in hooks that may be equated to the claimed “retainers”).
Regarding claim 4, Miraucourt discloses the shroud hanger assembly of claim 3, wherein the first portion of the hanger 11 is fastened to the first shroud retainer and the second shroud retainer by respective pins 44 (Fig. 1; as the shroud structure 14 is fastened by pins 44, the retainers which are part of the shroud may also be considered to be fastened to first hanger portion 11 by the pins).
Regarding claim 6, Miraucourt discloses the shroud hanger assembly of claim 3, wherein the first shroud retainer has an angled surface that engages a first angled surface of the shroud and the second shroud retainer has an angled surface that engages a second angled surface of the shroud (in Fig. 1, shroud flanges 33 and 34 may be considered “angled surfaces” that engage respect pockets in hooks of the hanger assembly).
Regarding claim 14, Miraucourt discloses the shroud hanger assembly of claim 1, wherein the shroud 14 is an open top construction (this limitation is notably being treated very broadly and considered anticipated by the fact that Miraucourt discloses a shroud with a top exposed to a cavity in the assembly).
Regarding claim 15, Miraucourt discloses the shroud hanger assembly of claim 1, wherein the shroud has a forward wall, an aft wall, and a base extending between and connecting the forward wall and the aft wall.
PNG
media_image1.png
567
695
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Miraucourt discloses the shroud hanger assembly of claim 1, wherein the first portion of the hanger is larger than the second portion of the hanger (in Fig. 1, element 11 has a greater radial extent, up and down in the image, than element 1, so it may be said to be “larger” in radial context).
Regarding claim 17, Miraucourt discloses the shroud hanger assembly of claim 1, wherein the first portion defines a cavity and the second portion is disposed in the cavity (first portion 1 defines an annular cavity and second portion 11 is radially within that cavity).
Regarding claim 18, Miraucourt discloses the shroud hanger assembly of claim 17, wherein the second portion 11 extends radially inward into the cavity (Fig. 1; portion 11 exists radially within portion 1 of the hanger assembly).
Regarding claim 19, Miraucourt discloses the shroud hanger assembly of claim 1, wherein the shroud is U-shaped (see the embodiment of Fig. 4 with features on circumferential edges of the shroud that may be said to make it a U-shape; applicant might consider further limiting U-shape language to overcome a rejection based on Miraucourt alone).
Regarding claim 20, Miraucourt discloses the shroud hanger assembly of claim 1, wherein the spring arm extends axially from the first portion of the hanger to the aft end of the shroud (Fig. 1; section 13 of the second portion 11 extends axially forward from first portion 1 to the aft end of the shroud 14)).
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miraucourt as applied above in view of Proctor et al. in US Patent 5553999 (hereinafter “Proctor”).
Regarding claim 9, Miraucourt as applied above is silent to the shroud hanger assembly of claim 1, wherein the hanger defines flow through aperture that extends from a forward end of the hanger and allows for cooling air to access the shroud. Proctor teaches an analogous gas turbine engine blade outer air seal assembly comprising a shroud segment suspended from casing by a hanger structure, just like Miraucourt. Specifically, Proctor teaches that on such assemblies, it is desirable to form passages in the forward end of the hanger in order to introduce compressor bleed air to cool the shroud segment and control thermal response (see cooling hole 56 in Fig. 1 and column 6 line 8 to line 23). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shroud hanger of Miraucourt by incorporating a cooling hole or flow through aperture extending from the forward end of the hanger as taught by Proctor in order to provide cooling air to the shroud and control its thermal response and the result would have been predictable.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Claims 5, 7-8, and 10-13 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.
Regarding claim 5, the art of record, either alone or in combination, is silent to the shroud hanger assembly of claim 4, wherein the respective pins are axially oriented. Miraucourt, applied above and considered the closest art of record, discloses radially oriented pins. The art of record provides no motivation to modify Miraucourt to a configuration with axial pins and its not readily apparent how one would do such without completely changing how the shroud is retained by the hanger. The use of axially oriented retaining pins by itself is demonstrated by the art of record (like in US20070077141), however, axially oriented pins with the totality of what is required by claim 5 is not disclosed or suggested by the art of record.
Regarding claim 7, the art of record is silent to the shroud hanger assembly of claim 3, wherein the first shroud retainer includes a first pedestal and a first upwardly extending portion extending from the first pedestal, and the second shroud retainer includes a second pedestal and a second upwardly extending portion extending from the second pedestal. The art of record demonstrates various different mounting and attachment configurations between shrouds and hangers in gas turbines but not the particular feature of pedestals and upwardly (understood to be radially out) extending portions required of claim 7. Claim 8 depends on claim 7.
Regarding claim 10, the art of record is silent to the shroud hanger assembly of claim 1, further comprising a leaf seal, wherein the leaf seal engages a radially extending surface of the shroud and is joined to one of the hanger and the shroud, the hanger defining a pocket in which the leaf seal is received. Miraucourt, applied above and considered the closest art of record, discloses a leaf seal structure. However, the leaf seal of Miraucourt extends circumferentially between mating edges of adjacent shroud segments (see element 41 in Fig. 2) in what may be considered a radially extending surface, however, the leaf seal does not sit in a pocket defined in the hanger. Instead, it is isolated to the shroud segment and has no hanger engagement. Claims 11-13 depend on claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Relevant Prior Art:
US20060067815 discloses a multi-piece shroud hanger assembly with springs biasing the shroud in the hanger. US5092735 discloses a spring-loaded multi-piece shroud hanger assembly including cooling features. US5197853 discloses a multi-piece cooled turbine shroud hanger with various seals and springs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELDON T BROCKMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3263. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm EST.
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, Court Heinle can be reached at (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 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.
/ELDON T BROCKMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799