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 § 112(b)
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 5, 8, 15, and 18 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.
The term “relatively far” in claims 5 and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively far” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In the instant case, both terms are relative because it is not clear how relative is considered relative enough and how is considered far enough to read on the claim limitation of “relatively far.”
The term “smoothly” in claims 8 and 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “smoothly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In the instant case, it is not clear how smooth would be smooth enough to read on the claim limitation.
Any and all claims rejected herein under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, if rejected with art below under sections 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103, are rejected as best understood.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 11, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sakaguchi et al. (US 2018/0347369), referred to hereinafter as Sakaguchi.
With regard to claims 1 and 11, Sakaguchi discloses a gas turbine comprising: a compressor (20, Fig. 1, [0063]) configured to compress external air; a combustor (30, Fig. 1, 2, [0063]) configured to mix fuel with air compressed in the compressor to combust a mixture thereof; a turbine (40, Fig. 1, 2) having a turbine casing (45, or 45b) in which a plurality of turbine blades and a plurality of turbine vanes are mounted (Fig. 1, 2), the plurality of turbine blades being rotated by a combustion gas discharged from the combustor ([0063]); a turbine vane carrier having an inner circumferential surface to which the plurality of turbine vanes are coupled (Fig. 3); the turbine casing having an inner portion on which the turbine vane carrier is mounted (Fig. 2), the turbine casing being provided with a cooling air inlet (45p) configured to supply cooling air towards the turbine vane carrier (Fig. 2); and a guide baffle (81, Fig. 5) mounted on an outer circumferential portion of the turbine vane carrier and configured to guide the cooling air supplied through the cooling air inlet to an outer circumferential surface of the turbine vane carrier (Fig. 5).
With regard to claims 2 and 12, Sakaguchi further discloses that the guide baffle comprises a perforated plate (81) having a plurality of holes (82) through which the cooling air passes (Fig. 5).
With regard to claims 5 and 15, Sakaguchi further discloses that the guide baffle comprises: a guide plate (83) positioned radially inside (in the absence of a recitation of a plane of reference, the “radially inside” is considered relative to the cooling airflow) the cooling air inlet and configured to guide the cooling air toward a perforated plate (81); and the perforated plate positioned relatively far from the cooling air inlet and having a plurality of holes through which the cooling air passes (Fig. 5).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 3, 4, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaguchi et al. (US 2018/0347369), referred to hereinafter as Sakaguchi in view of Lagueux (US 2013/0028705).
With regard to claim 3, 4, 13, and 14:
Sakaguchi discloses the turbine and gas turbine of claims 1 and 11, as set forth above.
Sakaguchi does not appear to explicitly disclose that the perforated plate is configured such that the number of holes increases as a distance from the cooling air inlet increases, or the perforated plate is configured such that the holes are arranged in a larger size as a distance from the cooling air inlet increases.
However, Lagueux teaches a guide baffle comprising a perforated plate having a plurality of holes through which the cooling air passes and further teaches that the perforated plate is configured such that the number of holes increases as a distance from the cooling air inlet increases, or the perforated plate is configured such that the holes are arranged in a larger size as a distance from the cooling air inlet increases (Fig. 7, 8, [0037], [0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way and have the perforated plate configured such that the number of holes increases as a distance from the cooling air inlet increases, or such that the holes are arranged in a larger size as a distance from the cooling air inlet increases. Lagueux furthermore teaches that these designs help to maintain a uniform mass of air flow.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims 6, 7, 9, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaguchi et al. (US 2018/0347369), referred to hereinafter as Sakaguchi in view of Przybyl et al. (US 2015/0292341), referred to hereinafter as Przybyl.
With regard to claims 6 and 16:
Sakaguchi discloses the turbine and gas turbine of claims 1 and 11, as set forth above.
Sakaguchi does not appear to explicitly disclose that the turbine vane carrier is manufactured separately into an upper half portion and a lower half portion, the upper half portion and the lower half portion are coupled to each other by a pair of radial flange portions provided on the upper half portion and a pair of radial flange portions provided on the lower half portion, and the turbine vane carrier is mounted on an inner circumferential portion of the turbine casing by the pair of radial flange portions.
However, Przybyl teaches a turbine vane carrier and further teaches that the turbine vane carrier is manufactured separately into an upper half portion and a lower half portion, the upper half portion and the lower half portion are coupled to each other by a pair of radial flange portions provided on the upper half portion and a pair of radial flange portions provided on the lower half portion (17 or the combination of 17 and 12 in Fig. 1 with their corresponding elements in the other half portion. See also 26, or the combination of 26 and 22 with their corresponding elements in the other half portion. See [0027], [0030]), and the turbine vane carrier is mounted on an inner circumferential portion of the turbine casing by the pair of radial flange portions ([0027], [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way and manufacture the turbine vane carrier separately into an upper half portion and a lower half portion, the upper half portion and the lower half portion being coupled to each other by a pair of radial flange portions provided on the upper half portion and a pair of radial flange portions provided on the lower half portion, and the turbine vane carrier being mounted on an inner circumferential portion of the turbine casing by the pair of radial flange portions.
With regard to claims 7 and 17, the combination of Sakaguchi and Przybyl further discloses a protruding portion on an upper surface of the upper half portion and a lower surface of the lower half portion, the protruding portions being configured to reduce uneven thermal expansion (see the protruding portion on the upper surface of the upper half portion in Fig. 1-4 and note their corresponding structure in the lower half portion).
It is noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims 7 and 17 are directed to an apparatus and must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP § 2114.II. The recitations of claims 7 and 17 attempt to define the invention by what it does rather than what it is. The combination of Sakaguchi and Przybyl discloses all of the claim elements of the current invention and is capable of performing the recited functions including reducing uneven thermal expansion by virtue of having protruding portions, just as applicants’ protruding portions.
With regard to claims 9 and 19, the combination of Sakaguchi and Przybyl further discloses that the turbine vane carrier further comprises a pair of axial flange portions extending outwardly on both axial sides of the outer circumferential surface of the turbine vane carrier (Fig. 3-5, 8-11, 15, 18), and the guide baffle is fastened to the pair of axial flange portions by a plurality of fastening members ([0077], [0086], [0107], [0121]. Note that fastening members can be weld sections).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 10 and 20 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.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 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: with regard to claims 8, 10, 18, and 20, the prior art doesn’t disclose that the guide baffle is configured to cover outer surfaces of the protruding portion, and a part of the guide baffle located adjacent to the cooling air inlet in a circumferential direction among both sides of the protruding portion has an inclined surface to smoothly guide the cooling air, and an opposite part in close contact with a side surface of the protruding portion is formed in a stepped shape, or that the pair of axial flange portions is formed such that a radial length of a second axial flange portion of the pair of axial flange portions is greater than a radial length of a first axial flange portion of the pair of axial flange portions, wherein a first side edge portion of the guide baffle is fastened to an outer circumferential surface of the first axial flange portion by a plurality of fastening members, and wherein a second side edge portion of the guide baffle is fastened to a coupling member by the plurality of fastening members, the coupling member being coupled to an inner side surface of the second axial flange portion, and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application, nor any motivation, to modify the prior arts for these deficiencies, because it would require improper hindsight reconstruction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to the attached form PTO-892 for pertinent prior art disclosing similar assemblies such as US 4157232 and US 8714911.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BEHNOUSH HAGHIGHIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7558. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:00am-15:00pm.
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 D 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.
/BEHNOUSH HAGHIGHIAN/
Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
