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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species VI, Fig. 9 in the reply filed on 3/16/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5, line 1, “first stiffness” should read “the first stiffness”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Read et al. (US2013/0029117).
Regarding claims 1-2, Read teaches a turbine engine comprising: a fan section, a compressor section, a combustor section, and a turbine section in serial flow arrangement (see paragraph [0015] describing an axial gas turbine engine), and defining an engine centerline; and an airfoil (1), provided in one of the fan section, the compressor section, or the turbine section, the airfoil including an outer wall having a pressure side (6) and a suction side (8), and the airfoil rotatable about the engine centerline, the airfoil comprising: a core (30) having a first stiffness and a first elasticity; a laminate skin (26) having a second stiffness and a second elasticity, the laminate skin being located exterior of the core; and a sheath (22, the outer layer of Read is interpreted as a sheath because it is a protective cover) having a third stiffness and a third elasticity, the sheath being located exterior of the laminate skin.
Read fails to explicitly teach a stiffness transition or an elasticity transition is defined among the core, the laminate skin, and the sheath, wherein the stiffness transition or the elasticity transition includes a decreasing stiffness or a decreasing elasticity that decreases from the core to the laminate skin and to the sheath.
However, Read teaches using a material with an intermediate stiffness between the
composite layers mediates the stiffness differences and reduces the possibility of delamination
(paragraph [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the invention to modify the gas turbine engine of Read and change it so that a stiffness transition or an elasticity transition is defined among the core, the laminate skin, and the sheath, wherein the stiffness transition or the elasticity transition includes a decreasing stiffness or a decreasing elasticity that decreases from the core to the laminate skin and to the sheath to reduce the possibility of delamination.
Regarding claim 10, Read further teaches the second stiffness is between the first stiffness and the third stiffness, or wherein the second elasticity is between the first elasticity and the second elasticity (Read teaches an intermediate stiffness between layers reduces the possibility of delamination).
Claims 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Read in view of Hazel (US7354651), as evidenced by Zhang (US2013/0210299).
Regarding claims 3-5 and 8-9, Read teaches the turbine engine of claim 1, but fails to teach the airfoil further comprises a first coating provided exterior of the sheath, wherein the first coating has a fourth stiffness and a fourth elasticity, further comprising a second coating being located exterior of the first coating, further comprising an adhesive layer being located between the first coating and the second coating.
In an analogous art, Hazel teaches a turbine blade (Fig. 1) having first and second coatings (74, 58) with an adhesive layer (66) between them to provide corrosion and thermal protection (abstract). The layer 66 is interpreted to be adhesive because it holds the coating layers together by surface attachment that resists separation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the airfoil of Read as modified and change it to have a first coating provided exterior of the sheath, further comprising a second coating located exterior of the first coating, further comprising an adhesive layer located between the first coating and the second coating as taught by Hazel to provide corrosion and thermal protection.
Zhang is provided as evidence that it is known in the art that environmental barrier coatings (EBC) can be provided on the exterior of foreign impact layers. Zhang teaches an impact layer 110 with EBC generally indicated as 108 to provide oxidation and/or thermal resistance (see Fig. 1 and paragraph [0022]).
Read as modified fails to teach the first stiffness is greater than the second stiffness, the second stiffness is greater than the third stiffness, and the third stiffness is greater than the fourth stiffness, and wherein the adhesive layer includes an adhesive stiffness that is between a first coating stiffness for the first coating and a second coating stiffness for the second coating. However, Read teaches using a material with an intermediate stiffness between the composite layers mediates the stiffness differences and reduces the possibility of delamination (paragraph [0025]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the airfoil of Read as modified and change it so that the first stiffness is greater than the second stiffness, the second stiffness is greater than the third stiffness, and the third stiffness is greater than the fourth stiffness, and wherein the adhesive layer includes an adhesive stiffness that is between a first coating stiffness for the first coating and a second coating stiffness for the second coating to reduce the possibility of delamination.
Regarding claim 6, Read as modified teaches the turbine engine of claim 4, but fails to explicitly teach the first elasticity is lesser than the second elasticity, the second elasticity is lesser than the third elasticity, and the third elasticity is lesser than the fourth elasticity. However, Read teaches using materials for the core that have less elasticity than materials for the composite skin (see paragraph [0019]). Thus, Read teaches an elasticity transition that is lesser from the core outwards. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the turbine engine of Read and change it so that the first elasticity is lesser than the second elasticity, the second elasticity is lesser than the third elasticity, and the third elasticity is lesser than the fourth elasticity to provide materials that are more flexible in the outer regions of the blade.
Regarding claim 7, Read as modified teaches the first coating and the sheath define a bi-layer (Read as modified teaches the coating applied to the sheath), and wherein the airfoil further comprises a set of bi-layers of at least two bi-layers including the bi-layer defined by the first coating and the sheath, wherein each bi-layer includes one coating and one sheath (Read as modified teaches the coating applied to the sheath).
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Read in view of Lallo et al. (US5248242).
Regarding claims 11-14, Read teaches turbine engine of claim 1, but fails to teach the core includes an inner core and an outer core, and wherein the first stiffness is defined as an inner core stiffness for the inner core and an outer core stiffness for the outer core, wherein the inner core is a foam core, wherein the outer core is a woven core.
In an analogous art, Lallo teaches a rotor blade. Lallo teaches an inner core (100) formed of foam, and an outer core (32, 34) formed of woven composite.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the invention to modify the gas turbine engine of Read and change it so that the core includes an inner core and an outer core, and wherein the first stiffness is defined as an inner core stiffness for the inner core and an outer core stiffness for the outer core, wherein the inner core is a foam core, wherein the outer core is a woven core as taught by Lallo to form the core from strong, lightweight materials.
Read as modified fails to explicitly teach the inner core stiffness is greater than the outer core stiffness. However, Read teaches using a material with an intermediate stiffness between the
composite layers mediates the stiffness differences and reduces the possibility of delamination (paragraph [0025]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the turbine engine of Read and change it so that the inner core stiffness is greater than the outer core stiffness to reduce the possibility of delamination.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Read in view of Parkin et al. (US2012/0134839).
Regarding claim 15, Read teaches an airfoil for a turbine engine, the airfoil comprising: a core (30) having a first stiffness; and a laminate skin (26) having a second stiffness and located exterior of the three-dimensional woven core; a sheath (22) having a third stiffness and located exterior of the laminate skin.
Read fails to teach a three-dimensional woven core.
In an analogous art, Parkin teaches a woven core with a braided three-dimensional weave (see paragraph [0025] and Fig. 6). Parkin teaches the three-dimensional core provides higher toughness relative to a two-dimensional core (see paragraph [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the airfoil of Read and change it so that the core is a three-dimensional woven core as taught by Parkin to provide higher toughness.
Read as modified fails to teach the second stiffness is between the first stiffness of the three-dimensional woven core and the third stiffness of the sheath to define a stiffness transition among the three- dimensional woven core, the laminate skin, and the sheath. However, Read teaches using a material with an intermediate stiffness between the composite layers mediates the stiffness differences and reduces the possibility of delamination (paragraph [0025]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the airfoil of Read as modified and change it so that the second stiffness is between the first stiffness of the three-dimensional woven core and the third stiffness of the sheath to define a stiffness transition among the three- dimensional woven core, the laminate skin, and the sheath to reduce the possibility of delamination.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Read in view of Parkin and Hazel, as evidenced by Zhang.
Regarding claims 16-18, Read as modified teaches the airfoil of claim 15, but fails to teach the airfoil further comprises a first coating provided exterior of the sheath, further comprising a second coating located exterior of the first coating, further comprising an adhesive layer located between the first coating and the second coating.
In an analogous art, Hazel teaches a turbine blade (Fig. 1) having first and second coatings (74, 58) with an adhesive layer (66) between them to provide corrosion and thermal protection (abstract). The layer 66 is interpreted to be adhesive because it holds the coating layers together by surface attachment that resists separation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the airfoil of Read as modified and change it to have a first coating provided exterior of the sheath, further comprising a second coating located exterior of the first coating, further comprising an adhesive layer located between the first coating and the second coating as taught by Hazel to provide corrosion and thermal protection.
Read as modified fails to explicitly teach the first coating includes a fourth stiffness that is lesser than the third stiffness, wherein the adhesive layer includes an adhesive stiffness that is between a first coating stiffness for the first coating and a second coating stiffness for the second coating. However, Read teaches using a material with an intermediate stiffness between the composite layers mediates the stiffness differences and reduces the possibility of delamination (paragraph [0025]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the airfoil of Read as modified and change it so that the first coating includes a fourth stiffness that is lesser than the third stiffness, wherein the adhesive layer includes an adhesive stiffness that is between a first coating stiffness for the first coating and a second coating stiffness for the second coating to reduce the possibility of delamination.
Zhang is provided as evidence that it is known in the art that environmental barrier coatings (EBC) can be provided on the exterior of foreign impact layers. Zhang teaches an impact layer 110 with EBC generally indicated as 108 to provide oxidation and/or thermal resistance (see Fig. 1 and paragraph [0022]).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Read in view of Parkin and Lallo.
Regarding claims 19-20, Read as modified teaches the airfoil of claim 15, but fails to teach the three-dimensional woven core includes an inner core and an outer core, and wherein the first stiffness is defined as an inner core stiffness for the inner core and an outer core stiffness for the outer core.
In an analogous art, Lallo teaches a rotor blade. Lallo teaches an inner core (100) formed of foam, and an outer core (32, 34) formed of woven composite.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the invention to modify the gas turbine engine of Read as modified and change it so that the three-dimensional woven core includes an inner core and an outer core, and wherein the first stiffness is defined as an inner core stiffness for the inner core and an outer core stiffness for the outer core as taught by Lallo to form the core from strong, lightweight materials.
Read as modified fails to teach the inner core stiffness is greater than the outer core stiffness, the stiffness transition includes a decreasing stiffness that decreases from the three-dimensional woven core to the laminate skin and to the sheath. However, Read teaches using a material with an intermediate stiffness between the composite layers mediates the stiffness differences and reduces the possibility of delamination (paragraph [0025]). Thus. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the turbine engine of Read and change it so that the inner core stiffness is greater than the outer core stiffness, the stiffness transition includes a decreasing stiffness that decreases from the three-dimensional woven core to the laminate skin and to the sheath to reduce the possibility of delamination.
Conclusion
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