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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roberts (US 4239452).
Regarding claim 1, Roberts discloses A fluid flow machine (Column 1, lines 11-20) comprising a casing structure extending around an axial direction of the fluid flow machine (item 28), and a turbomachine blade disposed within the casing structure (Figure 1, item 14)), wherein:
the casing structure includes an axially extending slot having an axial extent at least partially overlapping with an axial extent of a tip of the turbomachine blade (Figures 4-5B, item 38), wherein the slot has an angular extent of no more than 36 degrees (Figure 1 shows at least 43 blades shown in figure, meaning that more blades than that exist in the stage of the engine. Column 3, lines 42-57 describes that the number of grooves 38 exceeds the number of blades by at least a factor of two. This means that around the engine at least 86 grooves exist, meaning that at most each one can only extend about 4 degrees, although Figure 4 shows gaps between each one so it would be less than that); and
the casing structure includes a circumferentially extending groove having an angular extent of at least 72 degrees (Figure 4, item 40 shows circumferentially extending grooves. Column 2, lines 39-52 describe that the circumferentially extending grooves are annular, meaning their angular extent is 360 degrees); and
the groove is axially offset from the slot (Figure 4 shows 40 being axially offset from 38).
Regarding claim 2, Roberts discloses that the slot is configured to promote recirculation of gas flow therein along the axial direction (This is a functional limitation so because the slot is capable of providing recirculation of gas flow in the axial direction, the limitation is disclosed. See MPEP 2173.05(g)).
Regarding claim 3, Roberts discloses that the groove is configured to promote circulation of gas flow along an angular direction of the fluid flow machine (This is a functional limitation so because the groove is capable of providing circulation of gas flow along an angular direction, the limitation is disclosed).
Regarding claim 4, Roberts discloses that the slot is axially upstream of the groove (Figure 4 shows the slot 38 being axially upstream the groove 40 as the upstream end is described as 34).
Regarding claim 5, Roberts discloses that the angular extent of the groove is at least 180 degrees (Column 2, lines 39-52 describe that the circumferentially extending grooves are annular, meaning their angular extent is 360 degrees).
Regarding claim 6, Roberts discloses that the angular extent of the groove is equal to 360 degrees (Column 2, lines 39-52 describe that the circumferentially extending grooves are annular, meaning their angular extent is 360 degrees).
Regarding claim 7, Roberts discloses that the groove has an axial extent at least partially overlapping with the axial extent of the tip of the turbomachine blade (Figures 5-5B show the groove overlapping axially with the blade).
Regarding claim 9, Roberts discloses that the axial extent of the groove is completely overlapped by the axial extent of the tip of the turbomachine blade (Figures 5-5B show the groove overlapping axially with the blade).
Regarding claim 12, Roberts discloses that the casing structure comprises a plurality of circumferentially extending grooves (Figure 4 shows multiple grooves 40), wherein each groove has an axial extent at least partially overlapping with the axial extent of the tip of the turbomachine blade (Figures 5-5B show the grooves overlapping axially with the blade), and wherein each of the grooves are axially offset from one another (Figure 4 shows the grooves 40 being axially spaced from each other).
Regarding claim 13, Roberts discloses that the casing structure comprises a plurality of axially extending slots (Figure 4, item 38), wherein each slot has an axial extent at least partially overlapping with the axial extent of the tip of the turbomachine blade (Figures 5-5B show the slots axially overlapping with the blades), and wherein the slots are angularly offset from one another (Figure 4).
Regarding claim 14, Roberts discloses that the turbomachine blade is part of a compressor stage, a turbine stage or a fan of the fluid flow machine (Figure 1 shows the blades being fan blades).
Regarding claim 15, Roberts discloses an aircraft comprising the fluid flow machine of claim 1 (Column 4, lines 26-37 describes this engine can be used in an aircraft).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brignole (US 20100329852) in view of Reynolds (US 20200386111).
Regarding claim 1, Brignole discloses A fluid flow machine (Abstract) comprising a casing structure extending around an axial direction of the fluid flow machine (item 21), and a turbomachine blade disposed within the casing structure (item 23), wherein:
the casing structure includes an axially extending slot having an axial extent at least partially overlapping with an axial extent of a tip of the turbomachine blade (Figures 1-19, item 27); and
the casing structure includes a circumferentially extending groove having an angular extent of at least 72 degrees (Item 26. Figures 4 and 9-18 show 26 extending along the entire engine casing and paragraphs 0019-0020 describes that item 26 is annular, meaning it extends 360 degrees around the engine); and
the groove is axially offset from the slot (Each of the figures that shows item 26 shows it axially offset from the slots).
However, Brignole does not explicitly disclose the number of slots or angular extent of each slot so it does not explicitly disclose that the slot has an angular extent of no more than 36 degrees.
Brignole and Reynolds are analogous prior art because both describe compressor sections of turbine engines with casing treatments radially outside of the blades. Reynolds teaches the stage of the compressor section having 49 blades (Figure 6, item 80). While Brignole shows a plurality of blades (Figures 9-18) and describes that theses blades are in a stage of a compressor (Par. 0019), it does not explicitly describe the number of blades to be used for the stage of the compressor. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose a suitable number of blades to use for the compressor section. As both Brignole and Reynolds describe compressor sections of gas turbine sections of aircraft engines and both desire casing treatments to modify the flow around the tip of the blade, the number of blades of Reynolds would provide predictable results in the compressor stage of Brignole. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use 49 blades as shown in Reynolds in the compressor stage of Brignole because combining prior art elements according to known methods is obvious with predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Brignole Figures 9-18 show at least seven slots for each set of two blades with minimal circumferential overlap and none in Figures 16 and 18. As such, around the full annulus of the engine casing, there would be at least 171 slots around the 360 degrees of the casing of Brignole in view of Reynolds. This would provide an angular extent of about 2.1 degrees for each slot, which is significantly less than the required angular extent of 36 degrees. Thereby, the limitations are taught by Brignole in view of Reynolds.
Regarding claim 2, Brignole in view of Reynolds teaches that the slot is configured to promote recirculation of gas flow therein along the axial direction (This is a functional limitation so because the slot is capable of providing recirculation of gas flow in the axial direction, the limitation is disclosed. See MPEP 2173.05(g). Brignole describes this recirculation in paragraph 0007).
Regarding claim 3, Brignole in view of Reynolds teaches that the groove is configured to promote circulation of gas flow along an angular direction of the fluid flow machine (This is a functional limitation so because the groove is capable of providing circulation of gas flow along an angular direction, the limitation is disclosed. Brignole describes this circulation in paragraph 0007).
Regarding claim 4, Brignole in view of Reynolds teaches that the slot is axially upstream of the groove (Brignole Paragraph 0021 describes that the slots 27 are upstream of the chamber 26).
Regarding claim 5, Brignole in view of Reynolds teaches that the angular extent of the groove is at least 180 degrees (Brignole Figures 4 and 9-18 show 26 extending along the entire engine casing and paragraphs 0019-0020 describes that item 26 is annular, meaning it extends 360 degrees around the engine).
Regarding claim 6, Brignole in view of Reynolds teaches that the angular extent of the groove is equal to 360 degrees (Brignole Figures 4 and 9-18 show 26 extending along the entire engine casing and paragraphs 0019-0020 describes that item 26 is annular, meaning it extends 360 degrees around the engine).
Regarding claim 7, Brignole in view of Reynolds teaches that the groove has an axial extent at least partially overlapping with the axial extent of the tip of the turbomachine blade (Brignole Figures 1-19 show that the groove at least partially overlaps with the blade in the axial direction).
Regarding claim 8, Brignole in view of Reynolds teaches that at least a portion of the slot is axially upstream of the tip of the turbomachine blade (Brignole Figures 1-18 show the slot 27 extends upstream from the tip of the turbomachine blade. Figure 2 shows that upstream distance being measured by v).
Regarding claim 9, Brignole in view of Reynolds teaches that the axial extent of the groove is completely overlapped by the axial extent of the tip of the turbomachine blade (Brignole Figures 1-18 show the groove overlapping axially with the blade).
Regarding claim 10, Brignole in view of Reynolds teaches that a shape of an internal surface of the slot in a plane defined by the axial direction and a radial direction of the fluid flow machine is curvilinear and concave (Figures 1-2 and 7-8 show that the shape of 27 is curvilinear and concave in a plane defined by the axial and radial direction).
Regarding claim 11, Brignole in view of Reynolds teaches that a radial location of a maximum axial extent of the slot is radially offset from a mouth of the slot (Brignole Figures 1-2 and 8 show the slot 27 leaning upstream, meaning the most axially forward portion of the slot and the maximum axial extent exists radially offset from the mouth located at the casing inner end).
Regarding claim 12, Brignole in view of Reynolds teaches that the casing structure comprises a plurality of circumferentially extending grooves (Brignole Figure 16 shows multiple grooves 26), wherein each groove has an axial extent at least partially overlapping with the axial extent of the tip of the turbomachine blade (Figure 16), and wherein each of the grooves are axially offset from one another (Figure 16 shows the grooves 26 being axially spaced from each other).
Regarding claim 13, Brignole in view of Reynolds teaches that the casing structure comprises a plurality of axially extending slots (Brignole Figures 1-19), wherein each slot has an axial extent at least partially overlapping with the axial extent of the tip of the turbomachine blade (Figures 1-19 shows that each slot at least partially overlaps with the tip of the blade in the axial direction), and wherein the slots are angularly offset from one another (Figures 3-4 and 9-18, items 27).
Regarding claim 14, Brignole in view of Reynolds teaches that the turbomachine blade is part of a compressor stage, a turbine stage or a fan of the fluid flow machine (Brignole Paragraphs 0017-0019 describes the blades being part of a compressor stage).
Regarding claim 15, Brignole in view of Reynolds teaches an aircraft comprising the fluid flow machine of claim 1 (Brignole Paragraphs 0002 and 0037 describe the turbine being part of an aircraft).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE C RIBADENEYRA whose telephone number is (469)295-9164. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00 (CT).
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, Nathan Wiehe can be reached at (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.
/THEODORE C RIBADENEYRA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights