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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “stiffeners forming an extension of the stator vanes” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-16 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “stiffeners integral to the shroud or integrated into the shroud being disposed on a radially outer side of the shroud, the stiffeners forming an extension of the stator vanes in the radial direction or a contour of the stiffeners on the outer side of the shroud lies within an outer contour formed by a band around a projection of contours of the stator vane at a radially inner side onto the outer side of the shroud, a width of the band in the circumferential direction around the projection being no more than 20% of the thickness of the projection in the circumferential direction”. It appears that “stiffeners integral” is grouped with “the stiffeners forming an extension of the stator vanes” and the latter two limitations after the two instances of “or” are grouped together. However, this is not totally clear. This leads to issues when certain parts of the claim are selected. For example, “the stiffeners on the outer side of the shroud” lacks antecedent basis if the claim is read as only having “stiffeners integral to the shroud”. The grouping of optional limitations must be made clear.
Claim 12 recites “preferably”, and it is thus unclear what is required by the claim.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependence on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claims 1-8, 10-12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Freeman et al. (US2015/0016972).
PNG
media_image1.png
686
455
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Freeman teaches a stator vane segment for a gas turbine, in particular an aircraft engine, comprising: a plurality of stator vanes (22); a radially outer shroud (26) connecting the plurality of stator vanes; stiffeners (201) integral to the shroud or integrated into the shroud being disposed on a radially outer side of the shroud, the stiffeners forming an extension of the stator vanes in the radial direction (the stiffeners are integrated with vane extensions) or a contour of the stiffeners on the outer side of the shroud lies within an outer contour formed by a band around a projection of contours of the stator vane at a radially inner side onto the outer side of the shroud a width of the band in the circumferential direction around the projection being no more than 20% of the thickness of the projection in the circumferential direction (the “or” makes the latter limitation interpreted as optional).
Regarding claim 2, Freeman teaches the stiffeners are spaced apart in the circumferential direction (see Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 3, Freeman teaches the stiffeners are configured as ribs or beads.
Regarding claim 4, Freeman teaches a connector connecting two adjacent stiffeners is disposed between the two adjacent stiffeners and formed on the radially outer side of the shroud integral to the shroud or integrated into the shroud (the stiffeners are connected by the shroud sidewalls).
Regarding claim 5, Freeman teaches the stiffeners and the connectors form a common stiffening structure on the shroud, in particular in that all stiffeners and all connectors form a single common stiffening structure on the shroud (the stiffeners and connectors are all interconnected, see Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 6, Freeman teaches all of the stiffeners and all of the connectors form a common stiffening structure on the shroud (see Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 7, Freeman teaches the stiffeners have a lateral concavity (202) at least along a portion of a longitudinal extent.
Regarding claim 8, Freeman teaches the concavity forms an undercut (202).
Regarding claim 10, Freeman teaches the shroud has a forward, radially outwardly projecting connector structure (the leading edge outer shroud wall) in the region of a leading edge of the stator vanes, and at least one of the stiffeners begins in an axial direction at or aft of the connector structure in an axially forward region of the shroud between 0% and 50% of the axial extent of the shroud (the stiffeners begin at the leading edge shroud wall).
Regarding claim 11, Freeman teaches the shroud has a rearward, radially outwardly projecting connector structure (the trailing edge outer shroud wall) in the region of a trailing edge of the stator vanes, and the stiffeners end at or on the rearward connector structure (the stiffeners end at the trailing edge shroud wall).
Regarding claim 12, Freeman teaches the shroud has a forward, radially outwardly projecting connector structure in the region of a leading edge of the stator vanes (see rejection of claim 10), the shroud has a rearward, radially outwardly projecting connector structure in the region of a trailing edge of the stator vanes (see rejection of claim 11), and a groove (202) having a maximum radial groove depth is formed between the forward connector structure and the rearward connector structure, and wherein a maximum height of the stiffeners in the groove as measured from a groove base is no more than 100%, in particular no more than 50%, preferably 40% of the radial groove depth (the stiffeners appear flush with the connector structure).
Regarding claim 15, Freeman teaches a compressor (11) for an aircraft engine comprising the stator vane segment as recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Freeman teaches an aircraft engine (10) comprising a stator vane segment the stator vane segment as recited in claim 1.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 9 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman.
Regarding claim 9, Freeman teaches the stator vane segment as recited in claim 1 but fails to teach the stiffeners are conical in shape in the radial direction, or the stiffeners have a T-shaped cross section perpendicular to the axial direction.
Since applicant has not disclosed that having the stiffeners conical in shape or T-shaped solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above the fact that the stiffeners modulate vibration and it appears that the stiffeners of Freeman would perform equally well with a shape as claimed by applicant, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the stator vane segment of Freeman by utilizing the conical or T shape as claimed for the purpose of modulating vibration.
Regarding claims 13-14, Freeman teaches stator vane segment as recited in claim 1 wherein the shroud has a forward, radially outwardly projecting connector structure in the region of a leading edge of the stator vanes (see rejection of claim 10), the shroud has a rearward, radially outwardly projecting connector structure in the region of a trailing edge of the stator vanes (see rejection of claim 11), and a groove (202) having a maximum radial groove depth is formed between the forward connector structure and the rearward connector structure, but fails to teach a maximum height of the stiffeners in the groove as measured from a groove base is no more than 40% of the radial groove depth, or no more than 50% of the radial groove depth.
Since applicant has not disclosed that having a maximum height of the stiffeners in the groove as measured from a groove base is no more than 40% of the radial groove depth, or no more than 50% of the radial groove depth solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above the fact that the stiffeners modulate vibration and it appears that the stiffeners of Freeman would perform equally well with a height as claimed by applicant, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the stator vane segment of Freeman by utilizing the stiffener height as claimed for the purpose of modulating vibration.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US references 20240254886, 11725518, 11225875, 10914180, 10876416, 9103218, 2013/0189108, 2012/0107123, 10428668, 3365173, 3319930 and 4832568 teach turbine airfoils with outer platform stiffener structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMERON A CORDAY whose telephone number is (571)272-0383. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 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, 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.
/CAMERON A CORDAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights