DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in response to the claims filed 8/19/2025.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/19/2025 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 § 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(s) 1, 4-7, 11, and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. in US Patent Application Publication 2018/0023409 (hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a ring segment 112 arranged to define a gap with a rotating turbine blade, the ring segment comprising: a substrate 112 (Fig. 2); a coating 120 (Fig. 2) fixedly attached to the substrate, the coating defining a base surface; a ridge 382 (see Fig. 26) formed as a part of the coating and extending from the base surface away from the substrate (having surface 377 in Fig. 26) to a first surface 374, the ridge having a first side surface 385 and a second side surface 386 (labeled in the embodiment of Fig. 27), the first surface extending between the first side surface and the second side surface and partially defining the gap; and a first notch (378A in Fig. 26 or 388A in Fig. 27) formed on the first side surface at a first location and extending toward the second side surface (paragraph [0065]-[0067], [0083]).
Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses the ring segment of claim 1, wherein the notch extends from the first side surface to a tip defining a depth of the notch, and wherein the depth is between 0.01 mm and a width of the ridge at the base surface (the notch is the width of the ridge; Fig. 26 and 27).
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses ring segment of claim 1, wherein the notch has a wedge shape formed by a first notch side and a second notch side, and wherein each of the first notch side and the second notch side is arranged at an oblique angle with respect to the base surface (Fig. 26 and 27; the notches may be considered “wedge shaped”, and they are set at an angle).
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses the ring segment of claim 1, wherein the first side surface is a leading side with respect to a rotation direction of the rotating turbine blade (in Fig. 26 and 27, blade travel is in the direction of the arrow labeled SR).
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses the ring segment of claim 6, further comprising a second notch formed on the second side surface at a second location and extending toward the first side surface (Fig. 26 and 27 each show multiple notches).
Regarding claim 11, Lee discloses a ring segment arranged to define a gap with a rotating turbine blade (Fig. 2), the ring segment comprising: a substrate 112; a coating 120 fixedly attached to the substrate, the coating defining a base surface; a groove formed on the coating (see the grooves in the coating ridges in Fig. 26 and 27), the groove having a first side surface (a side of the ridge) that extends from the base surface to a first surface (such as the bottom of the groove) and a second side surface (other side of the ridge) that extends from the base surface to a second surface (such as the tip of the ridge), the first surface and the second surface cooperating with the rotating turbine blade to define the gap; and a first notch formed on the first side surface at a first location and extending away from the second side surface (see the notches in Fig. 26 and 27 that read on this language as they are “on the first side surface” and could be said to “extend away from the second side surface).
Regarding claim 14, Lee discloses the ring segment of claim 11, wherein the groove is one of a plurality of grooves, wherein a ridge is defined between two adjacent grooves, wherein the notch extends from the first side surface to a tip defining a depth of the notch, and wherein the depth is between 0.01 mm and a width of the ridge at the base surface (the notch is the width of the ridge; Fig. 26 and 27).
Regarding claim 15, Lee discloses the ring segment of claim 11, wherein the first notch has a wedge shape formed by a first notch side and a second notch side, wherein each of the first notch side and the second notch side are arranged at an oblique angle with respect to the base surface (Fig. 26 and 27; the notches may be considered “wedge shaped”, and they are set at an angle).
Regarding claim 16, Lee discloses the ring segment of claim 11, wherein the first side surface is a trailing side with respect to a rotation direction of the rotating turbine blade (either side of the ridges seen in Fig. 26 and 27 could be mapped to the claimed first side surface).
Regarding claim 17, Lee discloses the ring segment of claim 16, further comprising a second notch formed on the second side surface at a second location and extending away from the first side surface (the multiple notches in Fig. 26 and 27 anticipate this language).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 10, 12, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee alone.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Lee as applied above is silent to the first location is closer to the base surface than the first surface. This language is understand to require that a position of the floor of the notch is closer to the base surface of the coating than the tip of the ridge. The Court has held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” See MPEP 2144.04. Instantly, Lee discloses the device as claimed EXCEPT the particular size or relative dimensions of the notch. A claim to the device of Lee but with a particular sized notch fails to patentably distinguish over Lee alone. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that gas turbine engines are made across a wide range of different sizes, and merely making a notch deeper or shallower to suit a particular use application to arrive at the instantly claimed invention would be obvious to one of ordinary skill. Further, the Court has held that optimization within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation supports a finding of prima facie obviousness. Here, Lee teaches that notch depth size (see dimension DGA in Fig. 26 and 27) is a result effective variable that can be used to establish different wear zones (paragraph [0083]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified notch depth as a matter of routine optimization, particularly knowing that notch depth affects abradable component wear resistance, thermal resistance, and structural stability and airflow characteristics of the engine, and arrive at the device having the limitations of claims 2 and 12.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Lee as applied above is silent to an opening of the notch is between 0.01 mm to 1 mm. However, the Court has held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” See MPEP 2144.04. Instantly, Lee discloses the device as claimed EXCEPT the particular size or relative dimensions of the notch. A claim to the device of Lee but with a particular sized notch fails to patentably distinguish over Lee alone. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that gas turbine engines are made across a wide range of different sizes, and merely scaling up or scaling down an engine size to suit a particular use application to arrive at the instantly claimed invention would be obvious to one of ordinary skill. Further, the Court has held that optimization within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation supports a finding of prima facie obviousness. Here, Lee teaches that notch opening size (see dimension WGA in Fig. 26 and 27) is a result effective variable that affects abradable component wear resistance, thermal resistance, and structural stability and airflow characteristics (paragraph [0089]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified notch opening size as a matter of routine optimization, particularly knowing that notch opening affects abradable component wear resistance, thermal resistance, and structural stability and airflow characteristics of the engine.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 13, 8 and 18, and 9 and 19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Lee, applied above and considered to closest art of record, is silent to the ridge extending along a length, and wherein the first notch extends along an entire length of the ridge. Lee discloses notches that exist and distinct circumferential positions of the ridges along the shroud segments, not notches that meet all of the limitations required of claim 1 as well as extending along an entire length of the ridge.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Lee, applied above and considered to closest art of record, is silent to the ring segment of claim 7, wherein the second location is closer to the base surface than the first surface. Lee discloses multiple notches, but not multiple radially offset notches on opposite sides of a ridge peak, which is the structure required of the language of claims 8 and 18.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Lee, applied above and considered to closest art of record, is silent to the ring segment of claim 7, wherein the second notch is symmetric to the first notch. Lee discloses notches that extend an entire axial length through ridges, not individual notches on each side of a ridge. It is unclear how the notch structure of Lee extending completely though a ridge from one side to the other could be considered two symmetric notches.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Relevant Prior Art:
US10927695 discloses a grooved blade outer air seal with cavities formed along ridges.
US9194243 discloses a shroud or blade outer air seal with a grooved or ridged pattern with further flow features incorporated into the surface of the seal.
US20150337672 discloses a grooved blade outer seal with notches cut into groove peaks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELDON T BROCKMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3263. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm EST.
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.
/ELDON T BROCKMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights