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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 1 and 10 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8-10, 13-15 and 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner et al. (US 7,094,027 B2) hereinafter Turner in view of Hoeger et al. (US 2013/0051996 A1) hereinafter Hoeger and further in view of DiPietro (US 2017/0114796 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Turner teaches a turbomachinery apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising:
a turbine (Fig.1) comprising:
a turbine component (27, 37) defining an arcuate flowpath surface (surface of rotors 27 and 37 are arcuate and extend circumferentially around a rotor axis) (Figs. 1-2, Col. 3, lines 20-47);
an array of axial flow turbine airfoils (44) extending from the flow path surface, the turbine airfoils defining spaces therebetween (Figs. 3-4; Col. 4, lines 6-67); and
a plurality of splitter airfoils (46) (Figs. 3-4; Col. 4, lines 6-67) extending from the flowpath surface in the spaces between the turbine airfoils,
wherein each of the plurality of splitter airfoils has opposed pressure and suction sides extending between a leading edge and a trailing edge (Figs. 3-4) and,
Turner does not specifically state that the splitter airfoils have a thickness ratio less than a thickness ratio of the turbine airfoils; and wherein a span dimension of the plurality of splitter airfoils is 50% or less of a span dimension of the turbine airfoils.
However, Hoeger teaches a turbine apparatus comprising a turbine comprising a turbine component (18) a plurality of turbine airfoils (26) interspaced extending from the component (Figs. 1-2; paras. 0036-0038), and a plurality of splitter airfoils (28) disposed between the turbine airfoils (Figs. 1-2; paras. 0036-0038). Hoeger further discloses that the splitter airfoils have a thickness ratio less than a thickness ratio of the turbine airfoils (para. 00154) to reduce “parasite secondary flow” (para. 0016).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Turner such the splitter airfoils have a thickness ratio less than the thickness ratio of the turbine airfoils as taught by Hoeger in order to reduce parasite secondary flow (Hoeger, para. 0016).
Turner as modified by Hoeger does not specifically state a span dimension of the plurality of splitter airfoils is 50% or less of a span dimension of the turbine airfoils.
However, DiPietro teaches a turbine engine component (38) comprising an arcuate flow path surface (50) (Fig. 2); a plurality of airfoils (52) extending from the flowpath surface and defining spaces therebetween (Fig. 3) and a plurality of splitter airfoils (152) extending in the spaces between the airfoils (Fig. 2) (para. 0035). DiPietro further discloses a span dimension of the plurality of splitter airfoils is 50% or less of a span dimension of the turbine airfoils (Fig. 2) for reducing frictional losses (para. 0035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify Turner such that the span dimension of the plurality of splitter airfoils is 50% or less of a span dimension of the turbine airfoils in order to reduce frictional losses (DiPietro, para. 0035).
Regarding claims 4-5, Turner as modified by Hoeger and DiPietro teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claims 1 and 6 but does not specifically state that:
the thickness ratio of the splitter airfoil is approximately 5% or 2%;
However, a careful examination of the specification reveals that no criticality for the specific ratio and dimension has been shown nor any reason as to why the splitter airfoils of the applicant with the claimed ratio and dimension would operate any different than the splitter airfoils of Turner as modified, and Applicant has not disclosed that this design with the specific ratio provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. Hence this design for the thickness ratio being approximately 5% or 2% is considered to be a design choice by the applicant. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the splitter airfoils of Turner as modified, and Applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with the ratio and dimensions taught by Turner modified or the claimed ratio and dimension, because both would perform the same function.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the claimed ratio and dimension with the splitter airfoils of Turner modified in order to achieve a desired dimension, shape, or configuration, as they are a matter of design choice. Such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 6, Turner as modified by Hoeger and DiPietro teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Turner as modified by Hoeger and DiPietro further teaches the chord dimension of the splitter airfoils is less than the chord dimension of the turbine airfoils (Turner, Figs. 3-4; Col. 4, lines 6-67).
Regarding claim 8, Turner as modified by Hoeger and DiPietro teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 6. Turner as modified by Hoeger and DiPietro does not specifically state the chord dimension of the splitter airfoils adjacent the flowpath surface is 50% or less of the chord dimension of the turbine airfoils adjacent the flowpath surface.
However, DiPietro further teaches the chord dimension of the splitter airfoils adjacent the flowpath surface is 50% or less of the chord dimension of the turbine airfoils adjacent the flowpath surface for least frictional losses (Figs. 10-11; para. 0044).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify Turner such that the chord dimension of the splitter airfoils adjacent the flowpath surface is 50% or less of the chord dimension of the turbine airfoils adjacent the flowpath surface as further taught by DiPietro for least frictional losses (DiPietro, Figs. 10-11; para. 0044).
Regarding claim 9, Turner as modified by Hoeger and DiPietro teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Turner as modified by Hoeger and DiPietro further teaches a combustor (14) disposed upstream of the turbine, in fluid communication with the turbine (Fig. 1), a compressor (12) disposed upstream of the combustor in fluid communication with the combustor; and wherein the turbine is connected in mechanical driving relationship with the compressor (Turner, Fig. 1, Col. 3, 20-34).
Regarding claim 10, Turner teaches a turbine apparatus comprising:
a turbine rotor stage (19, 21) including a disk (27, 37) rotatable about a centerline axis (Figs. 1-2, Col. 3, lines 20-47), the disk defining a rotor flowpath (surface of rotors 27 and 37 are arcuate and extend circumferentially around a rotor axis), and an array of axial-flow turbine blades (44) extending outward from the rotor flowpath surface, the turbine blades defining spaces therebetween (Figs. 3-4; Col. 4, lines 6-67);
a turbine nozzle stage (23, 33) comprising at least one wall (30, 32) defining a stator flowpath surface (Fig. 2), and an array of axial-flow turbine vanes (35) extending away from the stator flowpath surface, the turbine vanes defining spaces therebetween (Figs. 1-2, Col. 4, Col. 3, lines 20-47); and
wherein the rotor stage includes an array of splitter airfoils (46) extending from the flowpath surface, the splitter airfoils disposed in the spaces between the turbine blades of the corresponding stage (Figs. 3-4; Col. 4, lines 6-67), wherein the splitter airfoils have a smaller chord length and a smaller thickness than that of the turbine airfoils (Figs. 3-4; Col. 4, lines 6-67).
Turner does not specifically state that the splitter airfoils have a thickness ratio less than a thickness ratio of the turbine blades; wherein a span dimension of the plurality of splitter airfoils is 50% or less of a span dimension of the turbine airfoils.
However, Hoeger teaches a turbine apparatus comprising a turbine comprising a turbine component (18) a plurality of turbine airfoils (26) interspaced extending from the component (Figs. 1-2; paras. 0036-0038), and a plurality of splitter airfoils (28) disposed between the turbine airfoils (Figs. 1-2; paras. 0036-0038). Hoeger further discloses that the splitter airfoils have a thickness ratio less than a thickness ratio of the turbine airfoils (para. 00154) to reduce “parasite secondary flow” (para. 0016).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Turner such that the splitter airfoils have a thickness ratio less than the thickness ratio of the turbine airfoils as taught by Hoeger in order to reduce parasite secondary flow (Hoeger, para. 0016).
Turner as modified by Hoeger does not specifically state a span dimension of the plurality of splitter airfoils is 50% or less of a span dimension of the turbine airfoils.
However, DiPietro teaches a turbine engine component (38) comprising an arcuate flow path surface (50) (Fig. 2); a plurality of airfoils (52) extending from the flowpath surface and defining spaces therebetween (Fig. 3) and a plurality of splitter airfoils (152) extending in the spaces between the airfoils (Fig. 2) (para. 0035). DiPietro further discloses a span dimension of the plurality of splitter airfoils is 50% or less of a span dimension of the turbine airfoils (Fig. 2) for reducing frictional losses (para. 0035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify Turner such that the span dimension of the plurality of splitter airfoils is 50% or less of a span dimension of the turbine airfoils in order to reduce frictional losses (DiPietro, para. 0035).
Regarding claims 13-14, Turner as modified by Hoeger and DiPietro teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claims 10 but does not specifically state that:
the thickness ratio of the splitter airfoil is approximately 5% or 2%;
However, a careful examination of the specification reveals that no criticality for the specific ratio and dimension has been shown nor any reason as to why the splitter airfoils of the applicant with the claimed ratio and dimension would operate any different than the splitter airfoils of Turner as modified, and Applicant has not disclosed that this design with the specific ratio provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. Hence this design for the thickness ratio being approximately 5% or 2% is considered to be a design choice by the applicant. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the splitter airfoils of Turner as modified, and Applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with the ratio and dimensions taught by Turner modified or the claimed ratio and dimension, because both would perform the same function.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the claimed ratio and dimension with the splitter airfoils of Turner modified in order to achieve a desired dimension, shape, or configuration, as they are a matter of design choice. Such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 15, Turner as modified by Hoeger and DiPietro teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 10. Turner as modified by Hoeger and DiPietro further teaches the chord dimension of the splitter airfoils is less than the chord dimension of the turbine airfoils (Turner, Figs. 3-4; Col. 4, lines 6-67).
Regarding claim 17, Turner as modified by Hoeger and DiPietro teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 10. Turner as modified by Hoeger and DiPietro does not specifically state the chord dimension of the splitter airfoils adjacent the flowpath surface is 50% or less of the chord dimension of the turbine airfoils adjacent the flowpath surface.
However, DiPietro further teaches the chord dimension of the splitter airfoils adjacent the flowpath surface is 50% or less of the chord dimension of the turbine airfoils adjacent the flowpath surface for least frictional losses (Figs. 10-11; para. 0044).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify Turner such that the chord dimension of the splitter airfoils adjacent the flowpath surface is 50% or less of the chord dimension of the turbine airfoils adjacent the flowpath surface as further taught by DiPietro for least frictional losses (DiPietro, Figs. 10-11; para. 0044).
Regarding claims 18, Turner as modified by Hoeger and DiPietro teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 10. Turner as modified by Hoeger and DiPietro further teaches the at least one wall (32, Turner, Fig. 4 and 18 in Hoeger, Fig. 1) of the nozzle stage faces radially outward relative to the centerline axis and the splitter airfoils extend radially outward from the at least one wall.
Regarding claim 19, Turner as modified by Hoeger and DiPietro teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 10. Turner as modified by Hoeger and DiPietro further teaches the at least one wall (30, Turner Fig. 4 and 20 in Hoeger, Fig. 1) the nozzle stage faces radially inward relative to the centerline axis and the splitter airfoils extend radially inward from the at least one wall.
Regarding claim 20, Turner as modified by Hoeger and Dipietro teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 10. Turner as modified by Hoeger and DiPietro further teaches the at least one of the spaces has two or more of the splitter airfoils positioned therein (Turner, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 21, Turner as modified by Hoeger and Dipietro teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Turner as modified by Hoeger and DiPietro further teaches the turbine component comprises an inner band (35) and an outer band (33) (Turner, Fig. 2) spaced from the inner band, wherein the arcuate flowpath surface comprises an inner flowpath surface of the inner band and an outer flowpath surface of the outerband (Turner, Fig. 2), and wherein each of the turbine airfoils extend between the inner flowpath surface and the outer flowpath surface (Turner, Fig. 2). Turner as modified by Hoeger and Dipietro fails to teach each of the splitter airfoils extend from the outer flowpath surface.
However, DiPietro further teaches the component comprising an inner band (444) and an outer band (470) spaced from the inner band (Figs. 12-13; paras. 0046-0048), wherein the arcuate flowpath surface comprises an inner flowpath surface of the inner band and an outer flowpath surface of the outerband (Figs. 12-13), and wherein each of the turbine airfoils extend between the inner flowpath surface and the outer flowpath surface (Figs. 12-13), DiPietro further discloses the splitter airfoil could extend either from the outer flowpath surface or the inner flowpath surface (Figs. 12-13, paras. 0054-0055).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify DiPietro such that each of the splitter airfoils extend from the outer flowpath surface as all claimed parts were known and would have yielded none; but an expected result; namely improve efficiency.
Claims 2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner in view of Hoeger and DiPietro in view of McCaffrey and further in view of Clark in view of Hu et al. (US 2015/0052751 A1; reference in IDS filed on 01/08/2025) hereinafter Hu.
Turner as modified by Hoeger and DiPietro teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claims 1 and 10. Turner as modified by Hoeger and DiPietro does not specifically teach the turbine airfoils comprise a metallic alloy and the splitter comprises a nonmetallic high temperature.
However, McCaffrey teaches a turbomachine comprising a turbine component (52) and a plurality of airfoils (56A, 56B), the airfoils comprising a ceramic matrix composite material (non-metallic high temperature capable material) (Col. 2, lines 34-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify Turner by making the splitter airfoils with a ceramic matrix composite material as taught by McCaffrey in order for the splitter airfoil to withstand high-operating temperature.
Turner as modified by Hoeger and McCaffrey fails to disclose the teach the turbine airfoils comprise a metallic alloy
However, Hu teaches a turbine (10) comprising an array of airfoils (Figs. 1), the airfoils being made from a metallic alloy (paras. 0004).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify Turner by making the turbine airfoils with metallic alloy as metallic alloy are known in the art to be more resistant to corrosion.
Claims 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner in view of Hoeger and Dipietro and further in view of McCaffrey (US 8,920,127 B2; reference in IDS filed on 01/08/2025).
Turner as modified by Hoeger and Dipietro teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claimed limitations as stated above in claims 1 and 10. Turner as modified by Hoeger and DiPietro does not specifically teach the splitter airfoils comprises a ceramic material.
However, McCaffrey teaches a turbomachine comprising a turbine component (52) and a plurality of airfoils (56A, 56B), the airfoils comprising a ceramic matrix composite material (Col. 2, lines 34-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify to further Turner by making the splitter airfoils with a ceramic matrix composite material as taught by McCaffrey in order for the splitter airfoil to withstand high-operating temperature.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAXIME M ADJAGBE whose telephone number is (571)272-4920. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-6.
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, NATHANIEL E 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.
/MAXIME M ADJAGBE/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745