FINAL REJECTION
This office action is in response to the amendment and remarks filed on 02/05/2026. Claims 2, 5, 8-11 and 14-19 are currently pending and being examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 2, 5, 8-11 and 14-19 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection (Vukanti et al. US 2024/0318822; refer particularly to the underline sections in the rejections addressing the newly added limitations) necessitated by the amendment.
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.
Claim 2, 5, 8-11, 14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrere et al. (US 9,506,652) in view of Webster et al. (US 2017/0298743) and further in view of Vukanti et al. (US 2024/0318822).
PNG
media_image1.png
665
1030
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
659
590
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Below, marked-up figures of Webster (secondary reference)
PNG
media_image3.png
472
803
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
472
803
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
798
848
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
798
848
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
472
803
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
798
848
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
637
876
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
505
803
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
472
808
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
628
876
media_image12.png
Greyscale
In regards to Independent Claim 1, and with particular reference to Figures 2-3 in Carrere, Carrere discloses a wall member 106 having cooling air holes 114, 116 each being formed as a through hole extending from a first surface of the wall member to a second surface opposite from the first surface (as shown in marked-up figures 3A, 3B), the through hole (114 and/or 116) being inclined with respect to a vertical direction (n as shown in figures 3A, 3B) by a predetermined inclination angle (angle alpha or beta as shown in figures 3A, 3B),
wherein the wall member 106 is a part of a liner (102, 104) of a combustor 100 for a gas turbine engine 10 (as shown in figures 1, 1A),
the wall member 106 is an end wall of the liner of the combustor for the gas turbine engine (figures 1A, 2 teach wall 106 is an end wall of the liner of the combustor), and
the end wall 106 is annular in shape (as shown in figures 1A, 2), and central axial lines of the cooling air holes 114 on an outer peripheral part (holes 114 outer with respect to inner annular wall 102, refer to figure 2) thereof are inclined in a clockwise direction SG1 and central axial lines of the cooling air holes 116 on an inner peripheral part (holes 116 inner with respect to outer annular wall 104, refer to figure 2) thereof are inclined in a counter-clockwise direction SG2.
the end wall 106 being formed with a plurality of mounting portions (the swirlers 112 as shown in figure 1A on which the fuel nozzles are mounted; col. 2 lines 15-17) at predetermined intervals in a circumferential direction for mounting corresponding fuel injection nozzles thereto (fuel nozzle not schematically shown but mentioned in col. 2 lines 15-17; swirler cooperating with the opening in order to be mounted with the fuel injector), the cooling air holes 114 being formed between adjacent mounting portions 112 of the plurality of mounting portions (refer to figures 1A, 2, 4)
Carrere does not teach:
the shape of the hole. Particularly, Carrere does not teach wherein in cross section the through hole includes a shaped part having an upper half part and a lower half part, the upper half part being more acute than the lower half part, in top view;
each cooling air hole being inclined in a direction intermediate between the circumferential direction and a radial direction in top view.
Webster teaches (refer to marked-up Figures 3 and 5D shown previously above) a gas turbine engine wall member similar to Carrere comprising
a wall member 90 having a through hole 88 extending from a first surface 96 of the wall member to a second surface 94 opposite from the first surface, the through hole 88 being inclined with respect to a vertical direction by a predetermined inclination angle (inclined at the angle shown in figure 3),
wherein in cross section the through hole 88 includes a shaped part (figure 5D shows the cross-section of the hole has a shape, thus the hole has a shaped part) having an upper half part (refer to marked-up figure 5D above) and a lower half part (shown in marked-up figure 5D above), the upper half part being more acute than the lower half part (marked-up figure 5D shows the lower half part is more blunt than the upper half part, that is, the upper half part is more pointed than the lower half part; compare figure 5D of the applied prior art with figures 4 and 7 and of the instant application showing similar structure).
It has been held that the configuration of the shape of an apparatus is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed apparatus is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shape of the openings in Carrere to have the upper part more acute than the lower half part, as taught by Webster (refer to explanation above), since it has been held that the configuration of the shape of an apparatus is a matter of choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed apparatus is significant*.See MPEP 2144.04 IV(B).
*The instant application in par. 77 seems to imply the device will perform equally well with any shape of opening.
Further, the Examiner additionally notes that "[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Carrere in view of Webster teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above except:
each cooling air hole being inclined in a direction intermediate between the circumferential direction and a radial direction in top view.
Vukanti (particularly figures 12 and 13) teaches a gas turbine combustor similar to Carrere and Webster wherein the cooling air holes (464 in figure 12; equivalent air cooling holes 514 in figure 13) can have different design configuration including each cooling air hole 464 being inclined (inclined at an angle 478) in a direction intermediate between the circumferential direction Cd and a radial direction Rd in top view (as shown in figure 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cooling air holes of Carrere-Webster’s combustor so that each cooling air hole is inclined in a direction intermediate between the circumferential direction and a radial direction in top view, as taught by Vukanti, since it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (in the instant case, having the cooling air holes inclined at an angle between the circumferential and radial direction OR not being inclined at an angle between the circumferential and radial direction, as shown in figures 12 and 13 in Vukanti) with a reasonable expectation of success (Vukanti teaches in figures 12 and 13 that with either cooling air hole arrangement the combustor performs equally well) would have been "obvious to try" and therefore was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
PNG
media_image13.png
798
848
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Regarding dependent Claim 2, Carrere in view of Webster and Vukanti teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above and Webster further teaches wherein in cross section a top part consists of a part of a circle, and side parts each consists of a tangential line connected to a corresponding end of the top part, refer to marked-up figure 5D above.
Regarding dependent Claim 5, Carrere in view of Webster and Vukanti teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above and Webster further teaches wherein the through hole 88 is a cooling medium hole for passing a cooling medium C from the side of the first surface 96 to the side of the second surface 94, as shown in figure 3.
Regarding dependent Claim 8, Carrere in view of Webster and Vukanti teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above and Webster further teaches wherein the downstream portion (refer marked-up figure 3 above) has a lateral width (refer to marked-up figure 5D above) that progressively increases toward the side of the second surface along the length of the through hole, refer to marked-up figures 3 and 5D above previously presented above.
Regarding dependent Claim 9, Carrere in view of Webster and Vukanti teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above and Webster further teaches wherein the upper half part of the shaped part of the through hole has a rounded triangular shape in cross section, as shown in marked-up figure 5D below.
PNG
media_image14.png
798
848
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Regarding dependent Claim 10, Carrere in view of Webster and Vukanti teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above and Webster further teaches wherein the rounded triangular upper half part has an apex angle of 90 degrees or less, as shown in marked-up figure 5D below.
PNG
media_image15.png
798
848
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Regarding dependent Claim 11, Carrere in view of Webster and Vukanti teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above and Webster further teaches wherein the shaped part of the through hole has a rounded rectangular lower half part smoothly connected to the rounded triangular upper half part in cross section, as shown in marked-up figure 5D below.
PNG
media_image16.png
798
848
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Regarding dependent Claim 16, Carrere in view of Webster and Vukanti teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above and Webster further teaches the shaped part of the through hole is laterally wider on a side of the first surface than on a side of the second surface in cross section (as shown in marked-up figure 5D above),
Regarding dependent Claim 17, Carrere in view of Webster and Vukanti teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above and Webster further teaches the shaped part of the through hole has a cross section that is progressively enlarged along a length (along the length from inlet 100 on the first surface to the outlet 102 on the side of the second surface 94) of the through hole toward the side of the second surface (as shown in marked-up figure 5D above),
Regarding dependent Claim 18, Carrere in view of Webster and Vukanti teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above and Webster further teaches the through hole 88 includes, along the length thereof, an upstream portion (as shown in marked-up figure 3 above from inlet 100 to line 113) having a substantially constant cross section 106 located on the side of the first surface 96 and a downstream portion (as shown in marked-up figure 3 above from line 113 to outlet 102) consisting of the shaped part located on the side of the second surface 94, a lower edge of the downstream portion being more inclined (with respect to an imaginary vertical line, shown in marked-up figure 3 of the prior art; also refer to figure 3 in the instant application using an imaginary unlabeled vertical line as a reference for the inclination angles) than an upper edge of the downstream portion (as shown in marked-up figure 3 above, angle B being greater than angle A, just like in figure 3 of the instant application represented by angle Beta being greater than angle Alpha).
Regarding dependent Claim 19, Carrere in view of Webster and Vukanti teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above and Webster further teaches an upper edge of the upstream portion and the upper edge of the downstream portion extend along a common line (as shown in marked-up figure 3 above), and
the lower edge of the downstream portion is connected (at 113) to a lower edge of the upstream portion (as shown in marked-up figure 3 above),
the lower edge of the downstream portion being more inclined (with respect to an imaginary vertical line, shown in marked-up figure 3 of the prior art; also refer to figure 3 in the instant application using an imaginary unlabeled vertical line as a reference for the inclination angles) than the lower edge of the upstream portion (as shown in marked-up figure 3 above, angle B being greater than angle A, just like in figure 3 of the instant application represented by angle Beta being greater than angle Alpha).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrere in view of Webster and Vukanti and further in view of Slavens et al. (US 2016/0201474).
Carrere in view of Webster and Vukanti teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above except using additive manufacturing for making the wall member.
Slavens teaches (particularly figures 3 and 4) a gas turbine engine component 94 with film cooling similar to Webster. Further, Slavens teaches that additive manufacturing allows the making of more complex features than using conventional casting techniques (par. 43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have made the wall member of Carrere-Webster-Vukanti using additive manufacturing, as taught by Slavens, because it has been held that applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement, in this case applying the known technique of additive manufacturing, to achieve predictable results, in this case, facilitated the making of complex forms/features, was an obvious extension of the prior art teachings. See KSR; MPEP 2143 (I) D.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2008/0104962; figure 2 shows a floating collar “mounting portion”
US 7,506,512; figure 1 shows swirler 32 “mounting portion”
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4831. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-6:30.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. 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.
/William H Rodriguez/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741