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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
“During examination, after applying the broadest reasonable interpretation to the claim, if the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are not clear, the claim is indefinite and should be rejected. Parkard, 752 F .3d at 1310.”
“If the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C 112, second paragraph is appropriate.” (MPEP 2173.02, I).
The claim looks ambiguous because a thermal barrier structure could comprise a second layer disposed between a first layer and a third layer. However, it is beyond the scope of the claimed invention. Instead, the thermal barrier structure comprising a third layer disposed between a first layer and a second layer is supported by the Applicant’s disclosure. Since the arrangement of the first, second, and third layers within the thermal barrier structure could be interpreted with more than one reasonable interpretation, and said more than one reasonable interpretation going beyond the scope of the claimed invention, the claim is rendered indefinite.
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 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.
Claims 1-13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2010/0143103 to Sellars et al. (hereinafter “Sellars”).
As to claims 1, and 16-20, Sellars discloses a seal between rotor blades and a casing of a gas turbine engine, comprising an abradable structure on the casing (abstract). The abradable coating 59 comprises a metallic foam 60 having pores 66, 68 wherein the metallic foam has a first region 62 and a second region 64; an abradable layer 72 comprising ceramic deposited on the second region of the metallic foam; a substrate 58 adhered to the first region of the metallic foam (figure 3; paragraph 55 and 67-69). The pores of the second region are filled with the ceramic of the abradable layer while the pores of the first region are left empty except for any contained gas or air (paragraph 55).
The ceramic abradable layer reads on the claimed first layer.
The metallic foam having pores filled with the ceramic reads on the claimed third layer.
The metallic foam free of the ceramic reads on the claimed second layer.
The abradable coating reduces air leakage between the tips of the rotor blades and casing, thereby lowering the loss in engine efficiency and engine performance (paragraph 3). The abradable coating reads on the claimed thermal barrier coating.
PNG
media_image1.png
306
296
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Sellars discloses that the substrate 58 is adhered to the first region of the metallic foam layer 62 (figure 3).
As to claim 3, Sellars discloses that the abradable layer 72 forms an outermost surface of the abradable coating or the thermal barrier coating.
As to claim 4, Sellars discloses that the metallic foam comprises an open cell foam (paragraph 33).
As to claim 5, Sellars discloses that the ceramic-containing metallic foam layer is disposed between the ceramic-free metallic foam layer and the abradable layer (figure 3).
As to claim 6, the open pores of the metallic foam layer are interspersed with the metallic foam and so is the ceramic filling.
As to claim 7, as shown in figure 3, Sellars discloses that the abradable layer 71, the ceramic-containing metallic foam 64 and the ceramic-free metallic foam are made of different materials and thus distinct from each other.
As to claims 8 and 11, Sellars discloses that the abradable layer 71 is made of a ceramic (paragraph 67), the metallic foam 62 made of nickel alloy (paragraph 69), and the metallic foam 64 made of a metal and a ceramic.
As to claim 9, Sellars discloses that the ceramic-containing metallic foam 64 is defined by an overlap between the abradable layer 72 and the ceramic-free metallic foam 62 (figure 3).
As to claim 10, Sellars discloses that the ceramic is zirconia or alumina (paragraph 67).
As to claim 12, Sellars discloses a seal between a rotor blade and a casing of a gas turbine engine, comprising an abradable structure on the casing (abstract). The abradable coating 59 comprises a metallic foam 60 having pores 66, 68 wherein the metallic foam has a first region 62 and a second region 64; an abradable layer 72 comprising ceramic deposited on the second region of the metallic foam; a substrate 58 adhered to the first region of the metallic foam (figure 3; paragraph 55 and 67-69). The substrate 58 reads on the claimed backing plate that is configured to be attached to the casing corresponding to the claimed substrate.
As to claim 13, the metallic foam has pores with a pore size of 1 to 1.25 mm or 20.3 to 25.4 ppi (paragraph 32).
d= 25.4 mm/ppi
ppi= 25.4/1 = 25.4
ppi= 25.4/1.25 = 20.3
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sellars as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2013/0071235 to Strock et al. (hereinafter “Strock”).
Sellars does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the abradable layer.
Strock, however, discloses a seal 60 comprising an abradable liner comprising a bond coat 65, and an abradable layer 70 which is made of a matrix of agglomerated hexagonal boron nitride and an oxide ceramic, having a thickness of 2.03 mm (paragraph 18; figure 2). The abradable layer 70 is adhered to a substrate 40 through the bond coat 65.
PNG
media_image2.png
304
465
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the ceramic abradable layer of Sellars having a thickness in the range instantly claimed, motivated by the desire to effectively reduce air leakage around the blade tips, thereby providing significant reductions in fuel consumption and increasing engine efficiency.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sellars as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2012/0248708 to Pattinson et al. (hereinafter “Pattinson”).
Sellars does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the metallic foam layer.
Pattison, however, discloses a seal comprising an abradable liner attached to a gas turbine engine casing wherein the abradable liner comprises a metallic open porous structure having a thickness greater than 10 mm (paragraph 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the metallic foam layer of Sellars having a thickness in the range instantly claimed, motivated by the desire to optimize to form a strong bond at the interface between the abradable structure and the gas turbine engine casing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hai Vo whose telephone number is (571)272-1485. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am - 6:00 pm with every other Friday off.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
/Hai Vo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights