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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 1-12 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claims 2-12 are rejected by virtue of their dependence.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Additionally, because of the utilization of “and/or” in combination with the phrase “preferably”, it’s not clear which of the limitations are required after the “and/or” since it’s in the alternative and the separation is not distinct.
The term “almost all” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “almost all” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the 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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang (US 8517667), hereinafter referenced as L1 in view of Osgood (US 20200300114).
Regarding claim 1;
L1 discloses A turbine vane (TV) for a gas turbine, comprising: an airfoil (11) having a suction side wall and a pressure side wall (SS, PS) encompassing at least one central cavity (23), both walls extending, when the turbine vane is assembled in a gas turbine, in axial direction of said gas turbine from a leading edge to a trailing edge (Figure 4) and in radial direction of said gas turbine from an outer end of the airfoil to an inner end of the airfoil (Figures 1-3), for guiding a hot gas of the gas turbine; an outer platform (13) and an inner platform (12), each located at the respective end of the airfoil and each having a hot gas surface facing towards the airfoil and an internal cold gas surface that is opposingly arranged to the hot gas surface (Col. 2, Lines 40-45; Figures 1-3); a number of cooling channels that are arranged in the suction side wall and/or the pressure side wall, the cooling channels extends substantially in radial direction (near wall cooling passages 21, 22, 24, 25 extend in radial direction, formed within the walls of the airfoil), wherein each cooling channel has at least one channel inlet and one channel outlet through which a coolant can enter/leave the respective cooling channel (Col. 2, Lines 55-65; Figures 2-3); wherein the channel inlets are in flow connection with at least one coolant supply chamber and the channel outlets are in flow connection with at least one coolant discharge chamber (inner and outer endwall impingement cavities 15 that feed cooling air to upward and downward flowing near wall cooling passages; the endwall cavities are supply chambers, the collection cavity 23 is discharge chamber), wherein for the respective cooling channel its first channel inlet of the at least one channel inlets is in flow connection with one the least one coolant supply chamber and its channel outlet is in flow connection with one of the at least one coolant discharge chamber (downward flowing passages 21, 22 connected to the endwall impingement cavity and upward flowing passages 24, 25 connected to the inner endwall impingement cavity; Figures 2-4), wherein the first channel inlets and the channel outlets of the number of cooling channels are arranged such, that for a substantial number of the cooling channels, preferably for all cooling channels the flow directions of direct adjacent cooling channels are opposite (L1 discloses counterflow: “upward and downward flowing near wall cooling passages” – passages 21, 22 from cavity flow downward while passages 24, 25 from the inner cavity flow upward, creating opposite flow directions)
L1 fails to teach a means is provided for reducing a risk of and/or resulting from plugging the cooling channel by particles, characterized in that the means is embodied as a bypass channel, connecting fluidly two cooling channels having their first channel inlet direct next to each other.
Osgood teaches a stator vane assembly for a gas turbine engine, the vane includes cooling passages and connecting means for providing reduced risk from dirt/dust/particles. Specifically, airflow (150) enters the means (cyclone separator, which is an equivalent thereof as an example cited in the specification) via tangential coling air inlet (144); the first portion (151) of the airflow is redirected back through the clean air conduit (148) and exits via the clean air outlet (145); the clean air outlet can be fluidly coupled to the first cooling passage (122). Clean cooling air flows through the separator to reach the cooling channels (see Figure 4 as an example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the turbine vane of L1 such that a means is provided for reducing a risk of and/or resulting from plugging the cooling channel by particles, characterized in that the means is embodied as a bypass channel, connecting fluidly two cooling channels having their first channel inlet direct next to each other as taught by Osgood for the purposes of removal of debris from the cooling passages/channels which improves cooling performance and reduces the usage of cooling air.
Regarding claim 2, L1 in view of Osgood teaches the turbine vane according to claim 1 above. L1 further discloses the at least one coolant supply chamber is partially limited by the internal cold gas surfaces of the inner platform or the outer platform and the at least one coolant discharge chamber is embodied as the at least one central cavity (inner and outer endwall impingement cavities 15 serve as supply chambers, and these cavities are bounded by the internal surfaces of the endwalls 12/13, and a collection cavity 23 servs as the discharge chamber – this is the central cavity of the airfoil/vane).
Regarding claim 3, L1 in view of Osgood teaches the turbine vane according to claim 1 above. L1 further discloses wherein along the axial direction the first channel inlets of each second cooling channel are arranged in the internal cold gas surface of the outer platform and the first channel inlets of alternating cooling channels located between two of each second cooling channels are arranged in the internal cold gas surface of the inner platform, and wherein the channel outlets of each second cooling channel are arranged at the inner end of the airfoil and the channel outlets of alternating cooling channels located between two of each second cooling channels are arranged at the outer end of the airfoil (L1’s counterflow design requires the claimed inlet/outlet arrangement; downward passages fed from the outer platform outlet at the inner end, and the upward passages fed from the inner platform outlet at the outer end; Figure 4 shows the alternating arrangement of these passages axially along the airfoil wall).
Regarding claim 6, L1 in view of Osgood teaches the turbine vane according to claim 1 above. L1 further discloses wherein an axial length of the airfoil is determined between its leading edge and trailing edge, and wherein the airfoil is free of film cooling holes in at least 85% of its axial length starting from its leading edge (L1 discloses in claim 9 that the vane is without film cooling holes on the airfoil walls, which encompasses “at least 85%” of tis axial length starting from the leading edge).
Regarding claims 7-8, L1 in view of Osgood teaches the turbine vane according to claim 1 above. L1 further discloses the inner platform and/or the outer platform each encompassing the respective coolant supply chamber (L1 discloses each platform is hollow and encompasses a coolant supply chamber; the endwall impingement cavities are hollow chambers within the platforms), and a separation wall separates the coolant discharge chamber from the coolant supply chamber (L1 discloses the endwall impingement cavities are structurally separated from the collection cavity by the airfoil walls and platform structure; cooling air travels through near-0wall passages to travel from supply to discharge chambers).
Regarding claims 9-10, L1 in view of Osgood teaches the turbine vane according to claim 8 above. L1 as modified by Osgood further teaches the means is embodied as a dust precipitator which is arranged in the inner and/or outer platform (Osgood teaches the means is a dust precipitator and it is arranged in the outer platform 109 as shown in Figure 4, and alternatively/additionally placed in the inner platform as shown in Figures 5 and 9), and the dust precipitator comprises an air acceleration zone (Osgood, tangential inlet creates swirling/accelerating airflow), a dust inertia separator (Osgood, cyclone separation relies on inertia to separate the particles, resulting in a dust inertia separator), and a dust trap with a dust exit hole (Osgood, 146 expels the separated debris/dust and includes an exit hole; Paragraphs 39-48).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang (US 8517667), hereinafter referenced as L1 in view of Osgood (US 20200300114), and further in view of MTU (DE102018205721).
L1 in view of Osgood teaches the turbine vane according to claim 1 above. L1 further discloses the passages with “racetrack cross-sectional shape” which is non-circular, and can be interpreted as “elliptical” or “egg shaped”, and thus the channels located along the suction side wall and around the leading edge are elliptical/egg-shaped.
L1 fails to teach the cooling channels located in the pressure side wall are - in cross section - circular with a second average pitch therebetween, wherein the first average pitch is smaller than the second average pitch.
MTU teaches cooling channels for an airfoil of a turbine engine. The channel cross-sections can be varied between circular, elliptical, angular, or other forms. Additionally, MTU teaches that elliptical provides better heat transfer, and that different distances between channel sections vary heat convection (variable pitch based on cooling requirements; “each have different cooling channel sections which have different geometric parameters in order to vary a heat convection in the cooling channels. Preferably, different cooling channels are arranged, which have different geometric parameters in order to obtain different heat convection in the various cooling channels. As heat convection, for example, a heat output per unit area can be understood.”).
One of ordinary skill in the art understands that the suction-side and pressure-side blade surfaces of the gas turbine blade are subject to different thermal loads; the temperature difference between the pressure and suction sides increases with increases in combustion temperature which can cause stress in the blade. Since selection of elliptical shapes with smaller pitch for high heat regions and circular shapes with larger pitch for lower heat regions is taught by MTU, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the turbine vane of L1 such that almost all or all of the cooling channels located the suction side wall and around the leading edge are - in cross section - elliptical or egg-shaped with a first average pitch therebetween and/or almost all or all of the cooling channels located in the pressure side wall are - in cross section - circular with a second average pitch therebetween, wherein preferably the first average pitch is smaller than the second average pitch as taught by MTU for the purposes of exposing higher thermal load areas to more cooling capacity and optimizing the amount of cooling fluid necessary thereby improving overall system efficiency.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang (US 8517667), hereinafter referenced as L1 in view of Osgood (US 20200300114), and further in view of Jacks (US 20050244264).
L1 in view of Osgood teaches the turbine vane according to claim 1 above. L1 further discloses the airfoil comprises at least one discharge cooling hole at or in the trailing edge (discharge cooling hole 27).
L1 fails to teach between the at least one coolant discharge chamber and the at least one discharge cooling hole an array of cooling pins and/or axially extending stiffening ribs are/is arranged.
Jacks teaches a turbine component with cooling channels included therein, the component includes pins extending radially between airfoil sides in axially spaced rows between cavity and trailing edge discharge apertures, and alternatively includes axially extending radially spaced ribs defining flow channels (claim 1). The pins and ribs provide enhanced trailing edge cooling while maintaining structural integrity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the turbine vane of L1 such that between the at least one coolant discharge chamber and the at least one discharge cooling hole an array of cooling pins and/or axially extending stiffening ribs are/is arranged as taught by Jacks for the purposes of enhancing the cooling and maintaining structural integrity of the vane.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang (US 8517667), hereinafter referenced as L1 in view of Osgood (US 20200300114), and further in view of Mitsubishi (JP 2015038358).
L1 in view of Osgood teaches the turbine vane according to claim 10 above.
L1 as modified fails to teach the dust inertia separator is embodied as a pipe with multiple clean coolant exit holes and extending in the same direction to which the coolant leaves the air acceleration zone.
Mitsubishi teaches an airfoil for a turbine engine with a dust inertia separator embodied as a pipe with multiple clean coolant exit holes, and the holes extend in the same direction as coolant flow from the acceleration zone (Abstract; “multiple air discharge holes formed in the peripheral wall nr the opening”; Figures 5b, 6, 8, and 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the turbine vane of L1 as modified by Osgood such that the dust inertia separator is embodied as a pipe with multiple clean coolant exit holes and extending in the same direction to which the coolant leaves the air acceleration zone as taught by Mitsubishi for the purposes of providing more even coolant distribution and enhanced separation efficiency since multiple holes work synergistically with the cyclone’s swirling flow pattern, ad thereby avoiding concertation at a singular point.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang (US 8517667), hereinafter referenced as L1 in view of Osgood (US 20200300114), and further in view of Liang (US 8414263), hereinafter referenced as L2.
L1 in view of Osgood teaches the turbine vane according to claim 1 above.
L1 fails to teach the turbine vane is monolithic.
L2 teaches that vanes with cooling passages can be made utilizing metal printing process in which metal powders are sintered using a laser, which thereby allows for a monolithic vane.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the turbine vane of L1 such that the turbine vane is monolithic as taught by L2 for the purposes of improved yield and reliability and cost reduction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN D SEABE whose telephone number is (571)272-4961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00-5:30.
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, Nathaniel 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.
/JUSTIN D SEABE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745