DETAILED ACTION
Preliminary Amendment
Preliminary Amendment of 26 September 2025 has been entered.
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 “another annular metallic sealing plate mounted between the upstream attaching lug of the ring segment and the upstream radial flange of the ring support structure” (claim 1) 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 1-10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein it further comprises an annular metallic sealing plate” (emphasis added); it is not clear what previously recited element is being referred to by the “it” recitation rendering the claim indefinite. For prior art examination purposes, the claim is being interpreted as reciting “wherein the turbine ring assembly further comprises an annular metallic sealing plate”.
Claims 2-10 depend or include all limitations from claim 1 and fail to remedy its deficiencies.
Claims 2-8 recite “the sealing plate” and depend from claim 1 which recites “an annular metallic sealing plate … another annular metallic sealing plate”. It is not clear to which of the an annular metallic sealing plate and the another annular metallic sealing plate the recitation of the sealing plate in claims 2-8 refer to rendering the claim indefinite.
Claims 3, 4 and 5, depend from claims 2, 3 and 2, respectively, and fail to remedy the respective deficiencies.
Claim 7 contains the trademark/trade names A600®, Hastelloy X®, HA188®, and HS25®. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe materials and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5 and 8-10 (as far as the claim(s) are definite and understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman et al – hereafter Freeman – (US 20210148244 A1; also US 11,092,027 B2) in view of Roussille et al – hereafter Roussille – (US 20180149034 A1; US 10,626,745 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Freeman teaches a turbine ring assembly (Fig.1/5) comprising a plurality of ring segments (326; ¶63, note “blade track segment 326”) made of ceramic matrix composite material (¶6, note “blade track segment can be made of ceramic matrix composite materials”) forming a turbine ring (¶6, note “blade track segment may include a shroud wall that extends circumferentially partway around the axis”), defining an axial direction (11), a radial direction (not labelled) and a circumferential direction (not labelled),
and a ring support structure (328) retained by a turbine casing (320), each ring segment comprising a base (336) from which extend, radially outward, an upstream attaching lug (344) and a downstream attaching lug (345) axially spaced apart from one another, the ring support structure including an upstream radial flange (353) and a downstream radial flange (359) between which are retained the upstream attaching lug and the downstream attaching lug of each ring segment (Fig.5),
and, to radially retain the ring segment in position with the ring support structure, the ring assembly comprising, for each ring segment, at least a first pin (385) traversing the downstream attaching lug and the downstream radial flange and the at least a first pin traversing the upstream attaching lug and the upstream radial flange (Fig.5), wherein it further comprises an annular metallic sealing plate (334) mounted between the downstream attaching lug of the ring segment and the downstream radial flange of the ring support structure (Fig.5), and another annular metallic sealing plate (332) mounted between the upstream attaching lug of the ring segment and the upstream radial flange of the ring support structure (Fig.5).
Freeman does not explicitly teach the at least a first pin being at least a first and second pins.
Roussille teaches a turbine ring assembly (Fig.1) comprising a plurality of ring segments (10) and a ring support structure (30); an upstream attaching lug (14) and a downstream attaching lug (16), an upstream radial flange (32) and a downstream radial flange (36). Roussille further teaches at least a first pin (41) traversing the downstream attaching lug and the downstream radial flange and at the least a second pin (40) traversing the upstream attaching lug and the upstream radial flange (Fig.1).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the turbine ring assembly of Freeman by having the at least a first pin being at least a first and second pins and configured as claimed based on the teachings of Roussille because this would provide a fastening mechanism that could decrease total mass and weight of a gas turbine engine by eliminating a middle portion of Freemans pins.
Regarding claim 2, Freeman and Roussille further teach the sealing plate forms a radial shroud extending over at least a part of the radial length of the downstream attaching lug (Freeman Fig.5, note portion of 334 radially between 345 and 359), the sealing plate being traversed by said at least one first pin (Freeman Fig.5 note portion of 334 traversed by pin and as modified by Roussille) to be radially retained with the ring segment and the ring support structure (Freeman Fig.5).
Regarding claim 3, Freeman and Roussille teach all the limitations of claim 2, see above, however, do not explicitly teach the sealing plate comprises a thickness between 0.1 mm and 1 mm, the thickness being measured along the axial direction.
However, it is noted that applicant has not disclosed that having the sealing plate comprises a thickness between 0.1 mm and 1 mm results in an unpredicted result not seen in the prior art and it appears that the invention of Freeman and Roussille would perform equally well with the sealing plate comprising a thickness between 0.1 mm and 1 mm. Accordingly, it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Regarding claim 5, Freeman and Roussille teach all the limitations of claim 2, see above, however, do not explicitly teach the sealing plate comprises a radial length between 3 mm and 10 mm.
However, it is noted that applicant has not disclosed that having the sealing plate comprises a radial length between 3 mm and 10 mm results in an unpredicted result not seen in the prior art and it appears that the invention of Freeman and Roussille would perform equally well with the sealing plate comprises a radial length between 3 mm and 10 mm. Accordingly, it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Regarding claim 8, Freeman and Roussille teach all the limitations of claim 2, see above, however, do not explicitly teach the sealing plate comprises a plurality of sealing plate segments together forming a ring coaxial with the turbine ring, the plate segments comprising a length between 50 mm and 150 mm in the circumferential direction of the turbine ring.
Freeman further teaches an annular metallic sealing plate (Fig.4, 234) which comprises a plurality of sealing plate segments together forming a ring coaxial with the turbine ring (¶55).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the turbine ring assembly of Freeman and Roussille by having the sealing plate comprises a plurality of sealing plate segments together forming a ring coaxial with the turbine ring based on the further teachings of Freeman because this would require a simple substitution of one known element (sealing plate of Freeman and Roussille) for another (segmented sealing plate of Freeman) to obtain predictable results (sealing the space between ring segments and ring support structure).
Regarding claim 9, Freeman and Roussille further teach the first pin and the second pin are two transverse pins (Roussille Fig.1), each transverse pin traversing the upstream attaching lug and the downstream attaching lug of the ring segment and the ring support to retain the ring segment and the ring support secured to one another (Roussille Fig.1).
Regarding claim 10, Freeman and Roussille further teach a turbomachine comprising an assembly as claimed in claim 1 (see claim 1 above)
Claim(s) 7 (as far as the claim(s) are definite and understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman and Roussille as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Barker et al – hereafter Barker – (US 20200149477 A1; US 10,968,761 B2).
Regarding claim 7, Freeman and Roussille teach all the limitations of claim 1, see above, however, do not explicitly teach the sealing plate (66, 660) is made of a metallic material chosen from among A600®, Hastelloy X®, HA188®, and HS25®.
Barker teaches a turbine ring assembly including a ring segment and a ring support structure (Fig.1/5). Barker further teaches a sealing plate made of a Hastelloy X® material which has a moderate temperature capability for a gas turbine engine application (¶57).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the turbine ring assembly of Freeman and Roussille by having sealing plate made of a Hastelloy X® material based on the teachings of Barker because this would provide a material which has a moderate temperature capability for a gas turbine engine application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 6 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.
The following claim limitations were not found in the prior art.
the thickness of the sealing plate varies along the circumferential direction of the shroud formed by the sealing plate (as in the context of claim 4).
the sealing plate forms an axial ring extending along the axial direction, with a thickness measured along the radial direction and a length along the axial direction greater than the thickness, the downstream radial flange including a first groove extending along the circumferential direction, and the downstream attaching lug including a second groove extending along the circumferential direction facing the first groove, the first groove and the second groove each having a depth measured along the axial direction less than half the axial length of the sealing plate (as in the context of claim 6).
With respect to claim 4, none of the cited prior art references disclose the claimed thickness circumferential variation of the sealing plate and the applicant has disclosed that a sealing plate including the claimed circumferential thickness variation would perform differently than the prior art by evenly distributing the forces of the ring segment (applicant’s specification ¶33).
With respect to claim 6, none of the cited prior art references disclose the downstream radial flange including a first groove extending along the circumferential direction, and the downstream attaching lug including a second groove extending along the circumferential direction facing the first groove, the first groove and the second groove each having a depth measured along the axial direction less than half an axial length of the sealing plate. A potential modification of Freeman could render the disclosed turbine ring assembly inoperable.
No other prior art reference was found that would anticipate or allow establishing a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the cited prior art above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN G FLORES whose telephone number is (571)272-3486. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:30pm Pacific Time.
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 E 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.
/JUAN G FLORES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights