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 .
Claims 1-8 are currently pending. Claim 5 is objected to. Claims 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 11, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizukami et al. (US 2017/0108221 A1), hereinafter Mizukami, in view of Bunker et al. (US 2017/0234139 A1), hereinafter Bunker.
Regarding Claim 1, Figure 2-5 of Mizukami teach a cylinder (12) for a combustor (2), in which a combustion gas (Cg) generated by combustion of fuel is flowable, the cylinder (12) comprising: a cylinder body (main body of 12) extending along an axis (horizontally in view of Figure 4), wherein the cylinder body includes at least one cooling passage (22 or 23) that is formed in a wall portion (cross-section shown in Figure 4 with passages 22, 23) of the cylinder body, that extends in an extending direction of the axis, and through which a cooling fluid (Ca) is flowable, the at least one cooling passage (22 or 23) has an inlet opening (25 or 28) that is an inlet for the cooling fluid and that is open to a circumferential surface (top surface of the wall portion in view in Figure 4) of the cylinder body, and an outlet opening (26 or 27) that is an outlet for the cooling fluid and that is open to the circumferential surface of the cylinder body [0078-0088].
Mizukami does not expressly teach at least any one of the inlet opening or the outlet opening has a first dimension in the extending direction of the axis that is larger than a second dimension in a circumferential direction of the cylinder body as claimed. However, such dimensions would have been obvious in view of Bunker.
Figures 4-5 of Bunker teach a cooling passage (160). The cooling passage has an inlet opening (162) that has a first dimension in a direction of the flow of fluid (C) that is larger than a second dimension in a direction perpendicular to the flow of fluid (C). Bunker treats oval and circular openings as being equivalent [0044]. Note Figures 8A-8C exemplify further shapes for openings (200) that are also equivalent to circular openings, and that the shaping is also applicable to the outlet openings [0046]. Thus, Bunker exemplifies that there are a variety of known shapes for openings that equivalent. One of ordinary skill would simply substitute between known openings with the expectation that the opening allows for the flow of fluid in and out of the cooling passage. Seeing the arrangement of Mizukami, the direction of the flow of fluid for the cooling passages is along the claimed axis (see 22, 23 in Figure 5 of Mizukami extending horizontally). Thus, the combination results in the claimed alignments of the dimensions.
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 cylinder taught by Mizukami such that at least any one of the inlet opening or the outlet opening has a first dimension in the extending direction of the axis that is larger than a second dimension in a circumferential direction of the cylinder body as exemplified by Bunker, since one of ordinary skill would simply substitute between known opening shapes, predictably resulting in the passing of fluid in and out of the passage.
Regarding Claim 2, Mizukami and Bunker teach the cylinder as set forth in Claim 1.
The modification in Claim 1 by Bunker results wherein the second dimension is equal to a passage width of the at least one cooling passage in the circumferential direction, as exemplified by all the passages in Figures 5, 8A-C of Bunker. Note the width dimension in the vertical direction of openings (162, 200) being equivalent to the passage width. This is equivalent to the circumferential direction of Mizukami. Note Claim 1 discussing the flow direction (C) of Bunker being equivalent to the claimed axis when applied to Mizukami.
Regarding Claim 3, Mizukami and Bunker teach the cylinder as set forth in Claim 1.
Figure 5 of Mizukami teaches wherein the at least one cooling passage (22 or 23) includes a plurality of cooling passage (see plurality of 22 and plurality of 23) disposed at intervals in the circumferential direction.
Regarding Claim 6, Mizukami and Bunker teach the cylinder as set forth in Claim 1.
The modification in Claim 1 by Bunker results wherein a shape of at least any one of the inlet opening or the outlet opening when viewed from a radial direction of the axis is any one of a long-hole shape, a rectangular shape with rounded corners, or an elliptical shape, as exemplified by the shapes of openings (162, 200) in Figures 5, 8A-8C of Bunker [0044, 0046].
Regarding Claim 7, Mizukami and Bunker teach the cylinder as set forth in Claim 1.
Figures 2-3 of Mizukami teach a combustor (2) comprising: the cylinder (12) for a combustor; and a burner (14) that injects fuel [0074-0076].
Regarding Claim 8, Mizukami and Bunker teach the combustor as set forth in Claim 7.
Figures 1-2 of Mizukami teach a gas turbine engine (GT) comprising: the combustor (2); a compressor (1) that generates compressed air to be delivered to the combustor (2); and a turbine (3) including a rotor (4) that rotates by means of a combustion gas (Cg) delivered from the combustor (2) [0067-0070].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizukami and Bunker as applied to Claim 3 above, and further in view of Shibata (US 2018/0038594 A1), hereinafter Shibata.
Regarding Claim 4, Mizukami and Bunker teach the cylinder as set forth in Claim 3.
Mizukami does not expressly teach wherein a thickness of a wall in the circumferential direction that separates the cooling passages adjacent to each other in the circumferential direction is equal to or less than 4.0 times a passage width of the cooling passages in the circumferential direction as claimed. However, such relative dimensions would have been obvious in view of Shibata.
Figure 9 of Shibata teaches a cylinder for a combustor wherein cooling passages have a width (S1 or S2). Shibata discusses these dimensions in relation to the thickness of a wall in the circumferential direction (Dc) that separates the cooling passages adjacent to each other in the circumferential direction when discussing the effect of the weld (29). Particularly, the welded part (29) has a larger thickness between cooling passages (35) adjacent to each other than other pairs of passages (35), resulting in lower cooling performance per unit length in the circumferential direction (Dc) [0138]. To compensate, Shibata sets the passage width (S2) to be larger than other passage widths (S1) so that the cooling performance is enhanced such that the region is cooled equally as well [0139]. Thus, Shibata evidences that the relationship between the thickness of a wall in the circumferential direction that separates the cooling passages adjacent to each other in the circumferential direction and the passage width of the cooling passages in the circumferential direction is a results-effective variable. One of ordinary skill would routinely optimize the relationship, i.e. the thickness compared to the passage width, such that a desired cooling performance is obtained (see MPEP 2144.05, II regarding routine optimization). Too great of a thickness compared to the passage width would lead to an undesirable decrease in cooling performance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the cylinder taught by Mizukami-Bunker such that a thickness of a wall in the circumferential direction that separates the cooling passages adjacent to each other in the circumferential direction is equal to or less than 4.0 times a passage width of the cooling passages in the circumferential direction as evidenced by Shibata, since one of ordinary skill would routinely optimize the dimension of the thickness compared to the passage width to obtain a desired cooling performance for the region of the cylinder.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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.
Regarding Claim 5, the closest prior art, Mizukami, does not expressly teach wherein a the first dimension is equal to or more than 1.5 times and equal to or less than 2.0 times the second dimension as claimed. Figures 5 and 8A-8C of Bunker teach openings (162, 200) with differing first and second dimensions (horizontal and vertical with respect to view shown). However, the exact relative values are not detailed. Paragraphs [0046-0047] of the Specification of the instant application filed August 11, 2025 note that the claimed relative dimensions allows for the desired opening area to be secured while suppressing the decrease in strength of the cylinder due to the openings. Thus, the claimed relative dimensions provide an advantage not contemplated by the art of record, and are not merely a matter of design choice.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELTON K WONG whose telephone number is (408)918-7626. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM - 5:00PM PST.
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, Court Heinle can be reached at (571)270-3508. 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.
/ELTON K WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights