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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 5, 2026 have been fully considered. The applicant argues that the combination of Hayton and Ueda does not teach the tang formed in an undulating pattern which is integral to the tang. The previous rejection is withdrawn and a new rejection with additional rationale / support are made in the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection below.
The changes to the rejection are therefore necessitated by amendment and are final.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayton (U.S Patent 5,129,783) hereinafter Hayton in view of Ueda et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20110135479) hereinafter Ueda.
PNG
media_image1.png
687
763
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hayton discloses:
A shroud for a gas turbine engine {Figure 4 (20); Column 1 lines 58-63}, the shroud comprising:
an arcuate base extending circumferentially about a central axis {Annotated Figure 1 (I) extends circumferentially about the central axis of the engine that is left/right in the figure};
a pair of opposing flanges extending from respective axial ends of the arcuate base {Annotated Figure 1, (IIa) and (IIb) are opposing flanges that extend from respective axial ends of the arcuate base (I)},
each flange from the pair of flanges being inclined to the arcuate base {Annotated Figure 1, (IIa)/(IIb) extend in the radial direction which is up/down while the arcuate base extends in the axial direction which is left/right. The pair of flanges are perpendicular to the arcuate base and are therefore inclined relative to the arcuate base}; and
a pair of tangs spaced apart from the arcuate base and extending towards each other {Annotated Figure 1 (IIIa) and (IIIb) are spaced apart from (I) in the radial direction and extends toward each other in the axial direction},
each tang from the pair of tangs extending from a respective flange from the pair of flanges distal to the arcuate base {Annotated Figure 1 (IIIa) and (IIIb) respectively extend from (IIa) and (IIb) and are distal to the arcuate base (I)},
wherein each tang is inclined to the respective flange {Annotated Figure 1, (IIIa)/(IIIb) extend the axial direction which is left/right while the flanges extend in the radial direction which is up/down. The tangs are perpendicular to the flanges and are therefore inclined relative to the respective flanges},
each tang defining a width extending from the respective flange and a thickness orthogonal to the width {Annotated Figure (W) and (T1); the width and thickness are present for each tang but are only shown for (IIIa) for simplicity and clarity};
wherein the arcuate base, the pair of flanges, and the pair of tangs define a slot therebetween configured to at least partially receive therein complementary mating features of a plurality of stator vanes of the gas turbine engine {Annotated Figure 1, (I)/(IIa)/(IIb)/(IIIa)/(IIIb) define a slot (48) which receives (82) of the stator vane (22); Column 3 lines 1-4}.
Hayton does not disclose:
each tang is formed in an undulating pattern which is integral to the tang extending along a whole of the thickness and at least a portion of the width,
the undulating pattern comprising alternating peaks and valleys,
such that the peaks are distal to the arcuate base and the valleys are proximal to the arcuate base,
wherein the undulating pattern of each tang is configured to at least partially engage with the complementary mating features of the plurality of stator vanes.
Ueda pertains to gas turbine engine stators. Ueda teaches:
A spring comprising an undulating pattern {Figure 4 shows the undulating pattern of the wave spring (15); [0126]. Figure 3 is the embodiment relied upon by the examiner which has the springs in phase, but Figure 4 is cited for its viewpoint although; [0128]}
the undulating pattern comprising alternating peaks and valleys {Figure 4 shows the alternating peaks and valleys in the radial direction; Figure 3 is the embodiment relied upon by the examiner which has the springs in phase, but Figure 4 is cited for its viewpoint although; [0128]},
such that the peaks and valleys are at opposite ends in the radial direction {Figure 4 shows the alternating peaks and valleys in the radial direction; Figure 3 is the embodiment relied upon by the examiner which has the springs in phase, but Figure 4 is cited for its viewpoint although; [0128]},
wherein the undulating pattern is configured to at least partially engage with the plurality of stator vanes {Figure 3 (15) presses on (13); [0124]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the wave spring of Ueda instead of the C-ring seal / spring of Hayton. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as this is a simple substitution, see MPEP 2143 I B. Both the wave spring of Ueda and C-ring seal / spring of Hayton are known for the function of sealing and spring behavior {Hayton Column 3 lines 10 – 25; Ueda [0125]}. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted these components for another as both are well known spring/seal components that are used in a variety of mechanical engineering applications including gas turbine engine stator configurations. The results would be predictable as both structures operate in substantially identical manners and act as well understood springs and seals.
The combination of Hayton and Ueda above does not teach:
The tang itself is formed in an undulating pattern integral to the tang
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the wave spring of Ueda when applied to Hayton be formed as part of the tang itself. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as making components integral that were rigidly secured together is a matter of obvious engineering choice, see MPEP 2144.04 V B. The results would be predictable with there being no evidence of insight that was contrary to the understandings and expectations of the art.
The combination of Hayton and Ueda therefore teaches:
each tang is formed in an undulating pattern which is integral to the tang extending along a whole of the thickness and at least a portion of the width {Hayton Figure 1 the radially inner instance of (84) is modified to be a wave spring as taught by Ueda. This wave spring is made as a part of the tang structure based on the additional modification above},
such that the peaks are distal to the arcuate base and the valleys are proximal to the arcuate base {Hayton (84) modified to be a wave spring has peaks and valleys in the radial direction where the peaks are distal to the arcuate base (I) in Annotated Figure 1 and valleys which are proximal to the base (I)},
wherein the undulating pattern of each tang is configured to at least partially engage with the complementary mating features of the plurality of stator vanes {Hayton (84) modified to be a wave spring and considered part of each tang engages with the mating feature of (82) of the stator vane (22)}.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Hayton and Ueda further teaches:
wherein the undulating pattern is a sinusoidal pattern {Ueda Figure 4 shows the sinusoidal pattern; Figure 3 is the embodiment relied upon by the examiner which has the springs in phase, but Figure 4 is cited for its viewpoint although; [0128]}.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Hayton and Ueda further teaches:
wherein it appears a height between each peak and the adjacent valley is greater than the thickness of the tang {Annotated Figure 1 (T2) shows roughly the height between the peak and valley and this C-seal is modified to be the wave spring of Ueda as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. (T2) appears to be greater than (T1) which is the thickness of the tang}.
The combination of Hayton and Ueda is not explicitly to scale and silent with regard to precise dimensions of these measurements.
Since the combination of Hayton and Ueda is silent regarding these measurements, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a wave spring which has a greater amplitude (height between peak and valley) than the thickness of the tang for the combination of Hayton and Ueda. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as precise proportions in the disclosures of Hayton and Ueda are not relied upon. Rather, only approximate relationships of one value being greater than another which are reasonably taught to one of ordinary skill in the art are used, see MPEP 2125 II.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Hayton and Ueda further teaches:
wherein each tang has a circumferential length, and wherein the undulating pattern extends along a whole of the circumferential length {Hayton Annotated Figure 1 (IIIa) and (IIIb) each extend semicircularly; the radially inner instance of (84) extends around the whole circumferential of each tang that forms the circle shown in Figure 2}.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Hayton and Ueda further teaches:
wherein each flange is orthogonal to the arcuate base {Annotated Figure 1, (IIa)/(IIb) each extend in the radial direction which is up/down while the arcuate base extends left/right. The flanges are orthogonal to the arcuate base}.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Hayton and Ueda further teaches:
wherein each tang is orthogonal to the flange and parallel to the arcuate base {Annotated Figure 1, (IIIa)/(IIIb) and (I) extend the axial direction which is left/right while the flanges extend in the radial direction which is up/down. The tangs (IIIa)/(IIIb) are perpendicular to the flanges (IIa)/(IIb) and parallel to the arcuate base (I)}.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayton in view of Ueda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Humhauser (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20180112555) hereinafter Humhauser.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Hayton and Ueda teaches the shroud ring of claim 1 {Claim 10 is dependent upon any preceding claim; for purposes of examination the examiner is choosing claim 1 as this is the broadest preceding claim}.
The combination of Hayton and Ueda does not teach:
the shroud ring comprising a plurality of shrouds of claim 1 contiguously connected to each other,
such that the shroud ring extends circumferentially by 360 degrees about the central axis and forms a circumferential slot formed by the slots of the plurality of shrouds.
Humhauser pertains to gas turbine stator shrouds. Humhauser teaches:
A shroud ring comprising a plurality of shrouds contiguously connected to each other {Figure 1 (10) is comprised of a plurality of segments that are contiguously connected to form the inner ring; [0015]}
such that the shroud ring extends circumferentially by 360 degrees about the central axis and forms a circumferential slot formed by the slots of the plurality of shrouds {Figure 1 (10) extends 360 degrees about the central axis (X) and forms a circumferential slot (11) formed by the plurality of shroud segments; abstract}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a segmented shroud segment with a circumferential slot as taught by Humhauser for the continuous structure with separated circular slots of the combination of Hayton and Ueda. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as the segmented structure and circumferential slot makes it easier to assemble {Humhauser [0015]-[0017]}. Additionally, making the ring structure segmented rather than continuous is similar to the fact pattern of MPEP 2144.04 V.B except it is in the opposite instance where the structure is modified to be separate pieces rigidly secured together as a single unit. The examiner finds the same logic applies of this being “merely a matter of obvious engineering choice” as discussed in MPEP 2144.04 V.B.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Hayton, Ueda, and Humhauser further teaches:
A gas turbine engine comprising the shroud ring of claim 10 {Hayton Column 1 lines 5-8; Humhauser [0003]. See claim 10 above.}.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Hayton, Ueda, and Humhauser further teaches:
a plurality of stator vanes coupled to the shroud ring {Hayton Figure 1, there are a plurality of instances of (22) that are each coupled to the shroud ring (20)},
each stator vane comprising a complementary mating feature that is at least partially received within the circumferential slot of the shroud ring {Hayton Figure 1, each instance of (22) has (82) is received within a slot of (48). The disclosure of Hayton is modified by Humhauser to be a circumferential slot. Humhauser Figure 1 each instance of (30) includes an instance of (20) which is received in the circumferential slot (11)}.
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL K. REITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1387. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 a.m. -5:30 p.m.
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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at 5712703508. 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.
/MICHAEL K. REITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3745