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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 7 of the response, filed 06/18/2026, with respect to the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. §112(b), have been fully considered and are persuasive. The indefiniteness has been removed from Claims 16-17; therefore, the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 7-15 of the response, filed 06/18/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. §103, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Solomon fails to disclose the added limitation to Claims 1 and 11 of the at least one radially inward projecting elevation/radially outward indented depression being in a sectional view perpendicular to the circumferential direction being disposed upstream of the airfoil. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Marshall (US Patent No: 9,638,212).
Applicant's arguments filed 06/18/2026 regarding Matheny have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the “extension” area of Matheny is so short that there is no room for an inward projection elevation, and the applicant points to Figure 3 to show this area. Therefore, the applicant argues that one of ordinary skill would not modify Matheny to have an inward projection elevation/outward indented depression. The Office respectfully disagrees. Matheny does not state that the figures, in particular Figure 3, are to scale or make any mention of the size of the “extension” area. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that the “extension” area of the Matheny is too short to fit an inward projection elevation. In addition, even if the “extension” area of Matheny is short, one of ordinary skill could still modify it with an inward projection elevation/outward indented depression. A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton (see MPEP 2141.03(I)). Thus, one of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of an inward projection elevation/outward indented depression to the guide vane element of Matheny. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Matheny to have an inward projection elevation/outward indented depression as claimed. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments regarding Matheny are not persuasive.
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) 1-2, 5-6, 9-12, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matheny (US Patent No: 7,445,426) in view of Marshall (US Patent No: 9,638,212).
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). 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 disposed upstream of the airfoil.
Marshall teaches a guide vane element (Figures 4-5, No. 26) comprising an airfoil (28) and a shroud (32) arranged on a radially outer end of the airfoil, wherein a radially outward indented depression (54) in a sectional view perpendicular to the circumferential direction (Figure 7) is disposed upstream of the airfoil on a radially inward side of the shroud (Figure 7 – depression 54 is upstream of leading edge 33 of airfoil 28).
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 a radially outward indented depression, as taught by Marshall, for the purpose of minimizing flow disturbances (Column 7, Lines 30-45).
Regarding Claim 2: Matheny, as modified by Marshall, 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 (Matheny: Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 5: Matheny, as modified by Marshall, 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 upstream and/or downstream beyond the respective blade edge (Matheny: Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 6: Matheny, as modified by Marshall, discloses the guide vane element according to Claim 1, wherein the shroud projects beyond the airfoil in the upstream direction and is configured and arranged to project into a recess of the housing when assembled (Matheny: Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 9: Matheny, as modified by Marshall, 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 Marshall, discloses the turbomachine according to Claim 9, wherein the housing has a step in the radial direction (Figure 3, see previous OA), 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 previous OA).
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 disposed upstream of the airfoil.
Marshall teaches a guide vane element (Figures 4-5, No. 26) comprising an airfoil (28) and a shroud (32) arranged on a radially outer end of the airfoil, wherein a radially outward indented depression (54) in a sectional view perpendicular to the circumferential direction (Figure 7) is disposed upstream of the airfoil on a radially inward side of the shroud (Figure 7 – depression 54 is upstream of leading edge 33 of airfoil 28).
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 a radially outward indented depression, as taught by Marshall, for the purpose of minimizing flow disturbances (Column 7, Lines 30-45).
Regarding Claim 12: Matheny, as modified by Marshall, 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 Marshall, 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 Marshall, 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).
Claim(s) 3-4 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matheny and Marshall as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Arness (US Patent No: 8,038,389).
Regarding Claims 3 and 13: Matheny, as modified by Marshall, discloses the guide vane element according to Claims 1 and 11; however, Matheny fails to disclose the shroud having a longer axial extension than an axial extension of the fastening section.
Arness teaches a guide vane element (Figure 2, No. 20) comprising a shroud (24) and a fastening section (70, 74), wherein the shroud has a longer axial extension (44) than an axial extension of the fastening section (Figure 2).
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 shroud of Matheny, as modified by Marshall, with a longer axial extension than an axial extension of the fastening section, as taught by Arness, for the purpose of facilitating easy maintenance and/or replacement of guide vane assembly seals, thus allowing the guide vane assembly to be reliably and efficiently maintained in proper operating condition (Column 5, Lines 46-54; Column 6, Lines 5-12).
Regarding Claim 4 and 14: Matheny, as modified by Marshall, discloses the guide vane element according to Claims 1 and 11; however, Matheny fails to disclose the shroud projecting beyond the fastening section in the upstream and/or downstream direction.
Arness teaches a guide vane element (Figure 2, No. 20) comprising a shroud (24) and a fastening section (70, 74), wherein the shroud projects (44) beyond the fastening section in the downstream direction (Figure 2).
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 shroud of Matheny, as modified by Marshall, projecting beyond the fastening section in the downstream direction, as taught by Arness, for the purpose of facilitating easy maintenance and/or replacement of guide vane assembly seals, thus allowing the guide vane assembly to be reliably and efficiently maintained in proper operating condition (Column 5, Lines 46-54; Column 6, Lines 5-12).
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matheny and Marshall as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Solomon (US 7,874,794).
Regarding Claims 8 and 18: Matheny, as modified by Marshall, discloses the guide vane element according to Claims 1 and 11; however, Matheny fails to disclose the guide vane element being formed in one piece.
Solomon teaches a guide vane element (Figure 3) comprising an airfoil (46) and a shroud (50) formed in one piece (Column 3, Lines 24-25).
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, as modified by Marshall, formed in one piece, as taught by Solomon. Both Matheny, as modified by Marshall, and Solomon disclose gas turbine guide vane assemblies with airfoils and shrouds, and it has been held that making elements integral is an obvious modification (see MPEP 2144.04(V)(B)). Therefore, 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, as modified by Marshall, formed in one piece, as taught by Solomon.
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 17 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. See previous office action for reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights