Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species XI (FIG. 15-16) in the reply filed on 16 December 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Species are in the same classes and subclasses. This is not found persuasive because the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search; in particular the different species would require employing different search strategies or search queries.
It is noted that no claims are withdrawn as a result of the election.
The restriction is deemed proper and considered final.
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication(s) filed on 16 December 2025.
Claims 1-20 are being considered.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted was/were considered by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner notes, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “plenum” includes “an air filled space in a structure” (see Merriam-Webster).
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.
Examiner note: no 112(f) invocations have been identified by the Office.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as unpatentable over Tsukimoto et al (US 20180010460), hereafter referred to as Tsukimoto, in view of Jackson et al (US 20030082053), hereafter referred to as Jackson.
Regarding Claim 1, Tsukimoto discloses the following:
A stator vane (24, FIG. 1, 11; also see [0053]) comprising:
a platform (synonymous with shroud portions 40A, 40B; see FIG. 3) defining an opening (42A, 42B; FIG. 3);
an airfoil (30) having a leading edge, a trailing edge, a suction side wall, and a pressure side wall (not labeled, as best seen in FIG. 3), the airfoil (30) extending radially between a base and a tip,
the airfoil (30) defining a cavity (74, FIG. 3-4),
wherein at least one of the base or the tip includes a protrusion (synonymous 32A,B, see FIG. 5; [0062]), the protrusion (synonymous 32A,B, see FIG. 5; [0062]) extending into the opening (42A, 42B; FIG. 3) of the platform (synonymous with shroud portions 40A, 40B; see FIG. 3) such that the platform (synonymous with shroud portions 40A, 40B; see FIG. 3) surrounds the protrusion (synonymous 32A,B, see FIG. 5; [0062]) of the airfoil (30);
a cooling circuit (having cooling hole 34 A,B, and plenum 50A,B; as best seen in FIG. 11) defined in the protrusion (synonymous 32A,B, see FIG. 5; [0062]) of the airfoil (30) to cool the weld joint (51), the cooling circuit (having cooling hole 34 A,B, and plenum 50A,B; as best seen in FIG. 11) fluidly connected to the cavity (74, FIG. 3-4).
Tsukimoto does not explicitly disclose the following:
wherein the welded joint is a brazed joint;
However Jackson teaches the following:
it is well known to use welding and brazing interchangeably (see [0025]) when mechanically fastening turbine blades (12) to platforms (synonymous with tip portion 20; see FIG. 3);
a braze joint (31, FIG. 3; [0025]) disposed between and fixedly coupling the platform (synonymous with tip portion 20; FIG. 3) and the protrusion (as seen in FIG. 3) of the airfoil (12);
MOTIVATION STATEMENT
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 welded joint between the turbine blade components as disclosed by Tsukimoto, wherein the joint is instead a brazed joint, as taught by Jackson, with the reasonable expectation of successfully mechanically joining the turbine blade components. The Examiner notes, the simple substitution of the welded joint of Tsukimoto, with the brazed joint of Jackson, yields the predictable result of joining an airfoil with a platform (i.e. substituting one known means to join an airfoil with a platform with another known means to join an airfoil with a platform). This rationale further supports a conclusion of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
Regarding Claim 2, Tsukimoto as modified by Jackson discloses the following:
The stator vane (24, FIG. 1, 11; also see [0053]) as in claim 1,
Tsukimoto continues to teach the following:
wherein the cooling circuit (having cooling hole 34 A,B, and plenum 50A,B; as best seen in FIG. 11) comprises one or more inlet (radially outer opening of the cavity; FIG. 4) channels (right side of 34A,B in combination with the radially outer opening of the cavity) and one or more outlet channels (outlet of plenum 50A,B where the circuit joins the fluid passage 72; FIG. 11).
Regarding Claim 3, Tsukimoto as modified by Jackson discloses the following:
The stator vane (24, FIG. 1, 11; also see [0053]) as in claim 1,
Tsukimoto continues to teach the following:
wherein the one or more inlet (radially outer opening of the cavity; FIG. 4) channels (right side of 34A,B in combination with the radially outer opening of the cavity) extend from an inlet (radially outer opening of the cavity; FIG. 4) on a radially outer surface of the airfoil (30) towards the braze joint (31, FIG. 3; [0025] as modified by Jackson).
Regarding Claim 11, Tsukimoto discloses the following:
A turbomachine comprising:
a compressor section;
a combustion section; and
a turbine section comprising a plurality of stator vanes (24, FIG. 1, 11; also see [0053]), wherein at least one stator vane (24, FIG. 1, 11; also see [0053]) of the plurality of stator vanes (24, FIG. 1, 11; also see [0053]) comprises:
a platform (synonymous with shroud portions 40A, 40B; see FIG. 3) defining an opening (42A, 42B; FIG. 3);
an airfoil (30) having a leading edge, a trailing edge, a suction side wall, and a pressure side wall (not labeled, as best seen in FIG. 3), the airfoil (30) extending radially between a base and a tip, the airfoil (30) defining a cavity (74, FIG. 3-4), wherein at least one of the base or the tip includes a protrusion (synonymous 32A,B, see FIG. 5; [0062]), the protrusion (synonymous 32A,B, see FIG. 5; [0062]) extending into the opening (42A, 42B; FIG. 3) of the platform (synonymous with shroud portions 40A, 40B; see FIG. 3) such that the platform (synonymous with shroud portions 40A, 40B; see FIG. 3) surrounds the protrusion (synonymous 32A,B, see FIG. 5; [0062]) of the airfoil (30);
a cooling circuit (having cooling hole 34 A,B, and plenum 50A,B; as best seen in FIG. 11) defined in the protrusion (synonymous 32A,B, see FIG. 5; [0062]) of the airfoil (30) to cool the weld joint (51), the cooling circuit (having cooling hole 34 A,B, and plenum 50A,B; as best seen in FIG. 11) fluidly connected to the cavity (74, FIG. 3-4).
Tsukimoto does not explicitly disclose the following:
wherein the welded joint is a brazed joint;
However Jackson teaches the following:
it is well known to use welding and brazing interchangeably (see [0025]) when mechanically fastening turbine blades (12) to platforms (synonymous with tip portion 20; see FIG. 3);
a braze joint (31, FIG. 3; [0025]) disposed between and fixedly coupling the platform (synonymous with tip portion 20; FIG. 3) and the protrusion (as seen in FIG. 3) of the airfoil (12);
MOTIVATION STATEMENT
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 welded joint between the turbine blade components as disclosed by Tsukimoto, wherein the joint is instead a brazed joint, as taught by Jackson, with the reasonable expectation of successfully mechanically joining the turbine blade components. The Examiner notes, the simple substitution of the welded joint of Tsukimoto, with the brazed joint of Jackson, yields the predictable result of joining an airfoil with a platform (i.e. substituting one known means to join an airfoil with a platform with another known means to join an airfoil with a platform). This rationale further supports a conclusion of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
Regarding Claim 12, Tsukimoto as modified by Jackson discloses the following:
The turbomachine as in claim 11,
Tsukimoto continues to teach the following:
wherein the cooling circuit (having cooling hole 34 A,B, and plenum 50A,B; as best seen in FIG. 11) comprises one or more inlet (radially outer opening of the cavity; FIG. 4) channels (right side of 34A,B in combination with the radially outer opening of the cavity) and one or more outlet channels (outlet of plenum 50A,B where the circuit joins the fluid passage 72; FIG. 11).
Regarding Claim 13, Tsukimoto as modified by Jackson discloses the following:
The turbomachine as in claim 11,
Tsukimoto continues to teach the following:
wherein the one or more inlet (radially outer opening of the cavity; FIG. 4) channels (right side of 34A,B in combination with the radially outer opening of the cavity) extend from an inlet (radially outer opening of the cavity; FIG. 4) on a radially outer surface of the airfoil (30) towards the braze joint (31, FIG. 3; [0025] as modified by Jackson).
Claim(s) 5-10 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tsukimoto et al (US 20180010460), hereafter referred to as Tsukimoto, in view of Jackson et al (US 20030082053), hereafter referred to as Jackson, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, in further view of Wilson (US 4288201), hereafter referred to as Wilson.
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, Tsukimoto and Jackson disclose the following:
The stator vane and turbomachine as in claims 1 and 11 (respectively),
wherein the stator vane (24, FIG. 1, 11; also see [0053]) defines a cavity (74, FIG. 3-4),
Tsukimoto as modified by Jackson does not disclose the following:
further comprising an insert coupled to the protrusion and extending into the cavity.
However Wilson teaches the following:
wherein the stator vane defines a cavity (24, FIG. 1), wherein an insert (26, FIG. 1) is coupled to the protrusion (as applied to the protrusion of Tsukimoto) and extends into the cavity (24, FIG. 1), and wherein a cap (42, FIG. 1) is coupled to the protrusion (as applied to the protrusion of Tsukimoto) and extends across the cavity (24, FIG. 1).
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 cavity of the airfoil as disclosed by Tsukimoto and modified by Jackson, wherein an insert is coupled to the protrusion and extends into the cavity, and wherein a cap is coupled to the protrusion and extends across the cavity, as taught by Wilson, with the reasonable expectation of successfully providing an airfoil with improved use of vane cooling air without introducing mechanical stresses or differential growth induced deformation into the structure (see for example Abstract, Wilson).
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, Tsukimoto, Jackson, and Wilson disclose the following:
The stator vane and turbomachine as in claims 5 and 15 (respectively),
Wilson continues to teach the following:
further comprising a cap (42, FIG. 1) coupled to the protrusion (synonymous 32A,B, see FIG. 5; [0062]) and extending across the cavity (74, FIG. 3-4).
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, Tsukimoto, Jackson, and Wilson disclose the following:
The stator vane and turbomachine as in claims 6 and 16 (respectively),
Wilson continues to teach the following:
wherein the cap (42, FIG. 1) and the insert (26, FIG. 1) define an outlet plenum within the cavity (74, FIG. 3-4) of the stator vane (24, FIG. 1, 11; also see [0053]).
Regarding Claims 8 and 18, Tsukimoto, Jackson, and Wilson disclose the following:
The stator vane and turbomachine as in claims 7 and 17 (respectively),
Tsukimoto continues to teach the following:
wherein the cooling circuit (having cooling hole 34 A,B, and plenum 50A,B; as best seen in FIG. 11) is in fluid communication with the outlet plenum (It is noted, since there is a gap between the cap, insert, and airfoil, the insert of Wilson as applied to Tsukimoto would result in the cooling circuit of Tsukimoto in fluid communication with the outlet plenums of the insert.).
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, Tsukimoto, Jackson, and Wilson disclose the following:
The stator vane and turbomachine as in claims 8 and 18 (respectively),
Wilson continues to teach the following:
wherein an annular plenum (space between 26 and 28, FIG. 1; for example see Col. 2, line 60-Col. 3, line 20) is defined between the insert (26, FIG. 1) and a wall of the airfoil (30).
Regarding Claims 10 and 20, Tsukimoto, Jackson, and Wilson disclose the following:
The stator vane and turbomachine as in claims 9 and 19 (respectively),
Wilson continues to teach the following:
wherein the annular plenum (space between 26 and 28, FIG. 1; for example see Col. 2, line 60-Col. 3, line 20) is fluidly coupled to the outlet plenum via an insert aperture (30, FIG. 1) defined in the insert (26, FIG. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 14 would appear to be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
In combination with the other structures required by the independent claims, the inclusion of:
Regarding Claims 4 and 14:
wherein the one or more outlet channels extend from the inlet channel away from the braze joint to an outlet on an interior surface of the airfoil;
was not found or fairly taught by prior art and differentiated the claims from the closest prior art to Tsukimoto et al (US 20180010460), Jackson et al (US 20030082053), and Wilson (US 4288201).
The Examiner notes Tsukimoto is considered the closest prior art and does not teach the limitations as described above. Further, it appears there would be no reason to modify the prior art without the benefit of Applicant's disclosure and impermissible hindsight.
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.”
Conclusion
See form No. 892 for other references pertinent to the application that may not have been cited within the Office Action.
For references which show similar stator vane arrangements see Pages 1-3.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN C DELRUE whose telephone number is (313)446-6567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Eastern).
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 E. Wiehe can be reached on (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.
/BRIAN CHRISTOPHER DELRUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights