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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 7-10 of the response, filed 02/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) and §103, have been fully considered and are persuasive. As discussed in the interview conducted on 02/11/2026, the amendments to Claim 1 regarding the fastening section are not disclosed in the previously cited prior art. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ring (US Patent No: 8,899,914), Matheny (US Patent No: 7,445,426), and Solomon (US Patent No: 7,874,794).
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 16-17 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.
Claim 16 discloses the limitation “a recess” in Line 3. However, Claim 11, upon which Claim 16 depends, already discloses a recess in Line 4.
Claim 17 discloses the limitation “an extension section” in Lines 1-2. However, Claim 11, upon which Claim 17 depends, already discloses an extension section in Line 6.
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.
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(s) 1-4, 6, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ring (US Patent No: 8,899,914) in view of Solomon (US Patent No: 7,874,794).
Regarding Claim 1: Ring discloses a guide vane element (Figures 2 & 5, No. 26) for a compressor (Figure 1, No. 12) of a turbomachine (10), comprising an airfoil (32) and a shroud (30) arranged on a radially outer end of the airfoil (Figures 2 & 5); on a radially outer side, the shroud has a hook-shaped fastening section (34, 36) with a form-fitting connection to a housing (28) of the turbomachine (Figure 5); the fastening section resides in a channel (35, 37) and structurally interconnects the shroud to the housing (Figure 5); on a radially inner side, the shroud has an inner surface (Figure 5); wherein the inner surface of the shroud has a longer axial extension compared to the axial width of the airfoil (Figure 5). Ring, however, fails to disclose the radially inner side having at least one radially inward projecting elevation and/or a radially outward indented depression in a sectional view perpendicular to the circumferential direction.
Solomon teaches a guide vane element (Figure 3) comprising an airfoil (46) and a shroud (50) with a radially inner side (Figures 3-5, No. 58), wherein the radially inner side has at least one radially inward projecting elevation (70) in a sectional view perpendicular to the circumferential direction (Figures 3-5).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the guide vane element of Ring with at least one radially inward projecting elevation, as taught by Solomon, for the purpose of facilitating extending a range of incidence over which a flow of working fluid remains free of separation from the airfoil, thereby facilitating reducing pressure loss of the working fluid (Column 3, Lines 41-47).
Regarding Claim 2: Ring, as modified by Solomon, discloses the guide vane element according to Claim 1, wherein the fastening section has at least one undercut for the connection to the housing in the radial direction (Ring: Figure 5 – undercut under hooks 34 and 36).
Regarding Claim 3: Ring, as modified by Solomon, discloses the guide vane element according to Claim 1, wherein the shroud has a longer axial extension than an axial extension of the fastening section (Ring: Figure 5 – bottom of shroud 30 has a longer axial extension than an axial extension of hook 36).
Regarding Claim 4: Ring, as modified by Solomon, discloses the guide vane element according to Claim 1, wherein the shroud projects beyond the fastening section in the downstream direction (Ring: Figure 5 – bottom of shroud 30 has a longer axial extension than an axial extension of hook 36).
Regarding Claim 6: Ring, as modified by Solomon, discloses the guide vane element according to Claim 1, wherein the shroud projects beyond the airfoil in the upstream direction (Ring: Figure 5 – bottom of shroud 30 projects beyond the airfoil in the upstream direction) and is configured and arranged to project into a recess (35, 37) of the housing when assembled (Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 8: Ring, as modified by Solomon, discloses the guide vane element according to Claim 1, wherein the guide vane element is formed in one piece with the airfoil (Solomon: Column 3, Lines 42-45).
The limitation "by an additive manufacturing process" is being treated as a product-by-process limitation; that is, the guide vane element is made by additive manufacturing. Product-by-process claims are limited ONLY to the structure implied by the cited steps, NOT to the manipulation of the recited steps. It has been held that if the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable, even though the prior product was made by a different process, and the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding Claim 9: Ring, as modified by Solomon, discloses the turbomachine for an aircraft engine (Ring: Figure 1, No. 10), with at least one guide vane element according to Claim 1 (Ring: Figures 1, 2, & 5).
Claim(s) 1, 5, 9-12, 15-16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matheny (US Patent No: 7,445,426) in view of Solomon.
Regarding Claim 1: Matheny discloses a guide vane element for a compressor of a turbomachine (Abstract, Line 1), comprising an airfoil (Figure 3, No. 34) and a shroud (32) arranged on a radially outer end of the airfoil (Figure 3); on a radially outer side, the shroud has a hook-shaped fastening section with a form-fitting connection to a housing (30) of the turbomachine (Figures 3-4, see below); the fastening section resides in a channel (see below) and structurally interconnects the shroud to the housing (Figure 3); on a radially inner side, the shroud has an inner surface (Figure 3); and wherein the inner surface of the shroud has a longer axial extension compared to the axial width of the airfoil (Figure 3 – inner surface of shroud 32 has longer axial extension than axial width of airfoil 34).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Extension Section)][AltContent: textbox (Channel)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Stepless connection)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Step in the radial direction)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Hook-Shaped fastening section)]
PNG
media_image1.png
294
392
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Matheny, however, fails to disclose the radially inner side having at least one radially inward projecting elevation and/or a radially outward indented depression in a sectional view perpendicular to the circumferential direction.
Solomon teaches a guide vane element (Figure 3) comprising an airfoil (46) and a shroud (50) with a radially inner side (Figures 3-5, No. 58), wherein the radially inner side has at least one radially inward projecting elevation (70) in a sectional view perpendicular to the circumferential direction (Figures 3-5).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the guide vane element of Matheny with at least one radially inward projecting elevation, as taught by Solomon, for the purpose of facilitating extending a range of incidence over which a flow of working fluid remains free of separation from the airfoil, thereby facilitating reducing pressure loss of the working fluid (Column 3, Lines 41-47).
Regarding Claim 5: Matheny, as modified by Solomon, discloses the guide vane element according to Claim 1, wherein the inner surface of the shroud protrudes by at least 5% of the axial width of the airfoil downstream beyond the respective blade edge (Matheny: Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 9: Matheny, as modified by Solomon, discloses the turbomachine for an aircraft engine, with at least one guide vane element according to Claim 1 (Matheny: Column 1, Lines 15-20).
Regarding Claim 10: Matheny, as modified by Solomon, discloses the turbomachine according to Claim 9, wherein the housing has a step in the radial direction (Figure 3, see above), and the housing is configured and arranged to receive the shroud of the guide vane element such that an inner surface of the housing steplessly connects to the inner surface of the shroud (Figure 3, see above).
Regarding Claim 11: Matheny discloses a guide vane element for a compressor of a turbomachine (Abstract, Line 1), comprising an airfoil (34) and a shroud (32) arranged on a radially outer end of the airfoil (Figure 3); on a radially outer side, the shroud has a fastening section for connection to a housing (30) of the turbomachine (see above); the housing having an inner surface and a recess (Figure 3, see above); the fastening section structurally interconnects the shroud to the housing (Figure 3); on a radially inner side, the shroud has an extension section extending upstream with an inner surface (Figure 3, see above), the extension section residing directly in the recess in the housing (Figure 3); the inner surface of the housing being steplessly connected to the inner surface of the shroud (Figure 3, see above); wherein the inner surface of the shroud has a longer axial extension compared to the axial width of the airfoil (Figure 3 – inner surface of shroud 32 has longer axial extension than axial width of airfoil 34). Matheny, however, fails to disclose the radially inner side having at least one radially inward projecting elevation and/or a radially outward indented depression in a sectional view perpendicular to the circumferential direction.
Solomon teaches a guide vane element (Figure 3) comprising an airfoil (46) and a shroud (50) with a radially inner side (Figures 3-5, No. 58), wherein the radially inner side has at least one radially inward projecting elevation (70) in a sectional view perpendicular to the circumferential direction (Figures 3-5).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the guide vane element of Matheny with at least one radially inward projecting elevation, as taught by Solomon, for the purpose of facilitating extending a range of incidence over which a flow of working fluid remains free of separation from the airfoil, thereby facilitating reducing pressure loss of the working fluid (Column 3, Lines 41-47).
Regarding Claim 12: Matheny, as modified by Solomon, discloses the guide vane element according to Claim 11, wherein the fastening section has at least one undercut for the connection to the housing in the radial direction (Matheny: Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 15: Matheny, as modified by Solomon, discloses the guide vane element according to Claim 11, wherein the inner surface of the shroud protrudes by at least 5% of the axial width of the airfoil downstream beyond the respective blade edge (Matheny: Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 16: Matheny, as modified by Solomon, discloses the guide vane element according to Claim 11, wherein the shroud projects beyond the airfoil in the upstream direction and is configured and arranged to project into the recess of the housing when assembled (Matheny: Figure 3, see above).
Regarding Claim 18: Matheny, as modified by Solomon, discloses the guide vane element according to Claim 11, wherein the guide vane element is formed in one piece with the airfoil (Solomon: Column 3, Lines 42-45).
The limitation "by an additive manufacturing process" is being treated as a product-by-process limitation; that is, the guide vane element is made by additive manufacturing. Product-by-process claims are limited ONLY to the structure implied by the cited steps, NOT to the manipulation of the recited steps. It has been held that if the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable, even though the prior product was made by a different process, and the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2113.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matheny and Solomon as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Ring.
Regarding Claims 13-14: Matheny, as modified by Solomon, discloses the guide vane element according to Claim 11; however, Matheny fails to disclose the shroud having a longer axial extension than an axial extension of the fastening section or the shroud projecting beyond the fastening section in the upstream and/or the downstream direction.
Ring teaches a guide vane element (Figures 2 & 5, No. 26) comprising an airfoil (32) and a shroud (30) having a fastening section (34, 36), wherein the shroud has a longer axial extension than an axial extension of the fastening section and the shroud projecting beyond the fastening section in the downstream direction (Figure 5 – bottom of shroud 30 has a longer axial extension than an axial extension of downstream hook 36).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the inner side of the shroud of Ring in for the inner side of the shroud of Matheny, as modified by Solomon. Both shroud inner sides are known elements, and substituting the inner side of the shroud of Ring in for the inner side of the shroud of Matheny, as modified by Solomon, still results in the shroud being fastened to a housing of the turbomachine. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the inner side of the shroud of Ring in for the inner side of the shroud of Matheny, as modified by Solomon, thus resulting in the shroud having a longer axial extension than an axial extension of the fastening section or the shroud projecting beyond the fastening section in the upstream and/or the downstream direction.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 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, and Claim 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Claim 7: See previous office action.
Claim 17: Contains the same allowable subject matter as Claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL L SEHN whose telephone number is (571)270-3564. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM-6 PM, every other Friday off.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Courtney 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.
/MICHAEL L SEHN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745