FINAL 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 .
This is the second office action on the merits. This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 03/23/2026. Applicant has amended claims 1, 8, 10, 21, 24, and 26. Claims 1, 4, 6, 8-11, 15, 17, and 21-31 are pending and examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 4, 8-9, 17, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DeBruhl (US 10,851,996 B2 - IDS reference).
Regarding claim 1, DeBruhl teaches (Fig. 1) a dome-deflector assembly for a combustor of a gas turbine (col. 2, ll. 1-2), the dome-deflector assembly comprising:
a dome portion (col. 2, l. 24: “combustor dome”) having a dome-side swirler opening (inherent in a combustor dome) therethrough; and
a deflector portion (100) having a deflector-side swirler opening (190) therethrough, the deflector-side swirler opening (190) defining a centerline axis (110) therethrough, a radial direction extending from the centerline axis (110), and a circumferential direction extending about the centerline axis (110), the dome portion and the deflector portion (100) being connected together (as discussed in col. 2, ll. 34-38) to form a dome-deflector cavity (col. 2, ll. 50-51 discusses flowing a cooling fluid over the second surface (cold side) of the heat shield, thus showing the existence of a cavity) therebetween,
wherein the deflector portion (100) (a) includes a first-side surface (col. 2, ll. 62-63: “first surface”) and a second-side surface (120), the second-side surface (120) being arranged within the dome-deflector cavity (col. 2, ll. 65-67: “the second surface 120…faces away from the combustion chamber”), and the second-side surface (120) including a plurality of stress-relief (see *Note on next page) contours (any of channels 140 or holes 180) arranged in a pattern about the deflector-side swirler opening (190) – (Fig. 1 shows channels 140 arranged in a pattern about opening 190, and holes 180 arranged in a circular pattern about opening 190), each stress-relief contour (140) extending in the circumferential direction with respect to the centerline axis (110) – (since each channel 140 has a thickness (or width), it extends in the circumferential direction) (b) includes a plurality of connector openings (see annotated Fig. 1 on next page) therethrough, and (c) defines a plurality of stress-relief zones (see annotated Fig. 1 on next page), respective ones of the plurality of stress-relief zones being arranged between the deflector-side swirler opening (190) and a respective one of the plurality of connector openings (as shown in annotated Fig. 1 on next page).
PNG
media_image1.png
686
659
media_image1.png
Greyscale
*Note: Regarding the functional recitation in claim 1 “stress-relief”, it has been held that “while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 4, DeBruhl teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and DeBruhl further teaches (Fig. 1) at least one of the plurality of connector openings includes at least one connector opening stress-relief (see *Note above) groove (see annotated Fig. 1 on next page) in the second-side surface (120) about the at least one of the plurality of connector openings.
PNG
media_image2.png
631
721
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, DeBruhl teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and DeBruhl further teaches (Fig. 1) the plurality of connector openings includes four connecting openings (annotated Fig. 1 on previous page shows four connecting openings), and the plurality of stress-relief zones includes four stress-relief zones (annotated Fig. 1 on previous page shows four stress-relief zones).
Regarding claim 9, DeBruhl teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and DeBruhl further teaches (Fig. 1) the plurality of stress-relief contours (140) comprise a plurality of stress-relief grooves (channels 140) including a first plurality of stress-relief grooves (140) arranged in a first group in a first stress-relief zone among the plurality of stress-relief zones, and a second plurality of stress-relief grooves (140) arranged in a second group in a second stress-relief zone among the plurality of stress-relief zones (see annotated Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
686
659
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, DeBruhl teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and DeBruhl further teaches (Fig. 1) each stress-relief contour of the plurality of stress-relief contours (140) is a V-shaped groove (as shown in Fig. 1, the grooves 140 are triangular shaped, or V-shaped, such that the width of the groove increases as the radial distance (measured from point 110) of the groove increases).
Regarding claim 23, DeBruhl teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 9, and DeBruhl further teaches (Fig. 1) the plurality of stress-relief grooves (channels 140) includes a third plurality of stress-relief grooves (140) arranged in a third group in a third stress-relief zone among the plurality of stress-relief zones, and a fourth plurality of stress-relief grooves (140) arranged in a fourth group in a fourth stress-relief zone among the plurality of stress-relief zones (see annotated Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
686
659
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeBruhl (US 10,851,996 B2 - IDS reference), in view of Sukumar (US 2023/0324047 A1 - IDS reference).
Regarding claim 6, DeBruhl teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 4, except for the at least one connector opening stress-relief groove including a plurality of concentric circular grooves extending about the at least one of the plurality of connector openings.
Sukumar teaches (Fig. 10) a similar deflector portion (1000) comprising: a plurality of connector openings (where fastening mechanism 214 extend through deflector portion 1000 – see Abstract, ll. 4-5) includes at least one connector opening stress-relief (see *Note on page 9) groove (groove formed in-between pins 1022) in a second-side surface (202) about the plurality of connector openings,
wherein the at least one connector opening stress-relief groove including a plurality of concentric circular grooves (one is formed in-between the two circular pins 1022, another is formed between inner-most circular pin 1022 and fastening mechanism 214) extending about at least one of the plurality of connector openings.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify DeBruhl by including a plurality of concentric pins about the at least one of the plurality of connector openings, thus providing a plurality of concentric circular grooves extending about the at least one of the plurality of connector openings, in order to provide structural support of the deflector assembly when mounted to the dome and facilitate turbulence of cooling air around the pins and provide greater surface area for heat transfer to improve cooling, as taught by Sukumar (¶ [0030], ll. 11-16).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeBruhl (US 10,851,996 B2 - IDS reference).
Regarding claim 15, DeBruhl teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 9, and DeBruhl further teaches (Figs. 1 and 4-5) the deflector portion (100) has a thickness (t) – (shown by the height of 100 in Figs. 4-5), and each of the plurality of stress relief grooves (140) has a depth (d) (as discussed in col. 5, ll. 18-19) from the second-side surface (120).
However, DeBruhl does not teach a ratio t/d < 2.
DeBruhl further teaches that the depth of groove 140 may vary (col. 5, ll. 18-29), thereby showing that depth (d) is a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
In this case, the recognized result is that varying the depth of groove 140 controls the amount of space between the dome portion and the deflector portion, which affects the amount of impingement cooling on the deflector portion.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that depth (d) of the grooves may vary, and thus, the ratio of the thickness (t) of the deflector portion to the depth (d) of the grooves (i.e., t/d) will also vary, were disclosed in the prior art by DeBruhl, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary the depth (d) of the grooves, and thus the ratio t/d, as taught by DeBruhl, in order to control the amount of space between the dome portion and the deflector portion (in this case, increasing depth d so that t/d < 2 allows for additional space between the dome portion and the deflector portion, thereby providing increased impingement cooling to the second surface of the deflector portion). It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11, 21-22, and 24-31 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, and rewritten to overcome the claim objections listed above.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding dependent claims 10, 21, 24, and 26, the prior art of record does not teach, in combination with the other limitations of the dependent claim, “a first stress-relief groove having a first radius, a second stress-relief groove having a second radius greater than the first radius, and a third stress-relief groove having a third radius greater than the second radius”.
As shown in the DeBruhl prior art above, each of the four groups of stress-relief zones comprises a plurality of grooves (140) having a first radius. There are no additional grooves having a second radius greater than the first radius. In addition, there are no additional grooves having a third radius greater than the second radius. As shown in Fig. 1 of DeBruhl, the plurality of grooves 140 are spaced apart from one another in the circumferential direction, rather than the radial direction.
Claims 11, 22, 25, and 28-31 are allowed by virtue of dependence upon either claim 10, 21, 24, or 26.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 9 of REMARKS, filed March 23, 2026, with respect to the double patenting rejections of claims 1, 4, 6, 8-9, 15, 17, and 23 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The double patenting rejections of claims 1, 4, 6, 8-9, 15, 17, and 23 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed March 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding Applicant’s statement (pg. 8 of REMARKS) that “The Applicant has chosen to accept, in part, the allowable subject matter of claim 10. The Applicant believes that the part of claim 10 relating the stress relief grooves extending the circumferentially direction renders claim 10 allowable”, Examiner notes that this was not stated in the “Reasons for Allowance” (above and in the previous office action). Rather, the “Reasons for Allowance” of claim 10 stated that DeBruhl does not teach any additional grooves having a second radius greater than the first radius, and additionally does not teach any additional grooves having a third radius greater than the second radius. The subject matter of the grooves extending in the circumferential direction with respect to the centerline axis does not make claim 10 allowable because this limitation is taught by DeBruhl. Each channel 140 of DeBruhl comprises a thickness (or width); thus, the channels do extend in the circumferential direction with respect to centerline axis 110.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102
Regarding Applicant’s argument (pg. 10 of REMARKS) that “the channels 140 extend radially from the fuel nozzle opening 190. In contrast, in the present claims, the plurality of stress relief grooves extend in the circumferential direction”, while the channels 140 extend in the radial direction, they also extend in the circumferential direction. Since each channel 140 comprises a thickness (or width), the channels therefore also extend in the circumferential direction.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HENRY NG whose telephone number is (571)272-2318. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at 571-272-7118. 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.
/HENRY NG/Examiner, Art Unit 3741 /DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights