Ex Parte Gautschi et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 27, 2019

14683408 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/683,408 04/10/2015
52237 7590
Bachman & LaPointe, P.C.
900 Chapel St., Suite 1201
New Haven, CT 06510
03/27/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Steven Bruce Gautschi
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
76780US02 (14-216-2) 1029
EXAMINER
DELRUE, BRIAN CHRISTOPHER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2019 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEVEN BRUCE GAUTSCH!, SAN QUACH, and
TRACY A. PROPHETER-HINCKLEY1
Appeal2018-007505
Application 14/683,408
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1, 5-12, and 16-20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 United Technologies Corporation (Appellant) is the applicant as provided
in 37 C.F.R. § 1.46 and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br.
2.
Appeal2018-007505
Application 14/683,408
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant's invention is directed to "components for a gas turbine
engine, and more particularly, to cooling features for an airfoil therefor."
Spec. ,r 3. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A turbine blade for a gas turbine engine, comprising:
a root including a neck and a fir tree, said fir tree
including an outer tooth, said root includes a feed passage in
communication with a tooth cooling passage that extends
through said outer tooth outside of a maximum compressive
stress zone, said tooth cooling passage is directed into a
circumferential space formed between said outer tooth and a
disk fillet that blends an inner lug and an outer lug of a rotor
disk when said turbine blade is assembled to said rotor disk.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1 and 8-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(2) as
anticipated by Giametta (US 2015/0118045 Al, published Apr. 30,
2015).
II. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as
anticipated by Zelesky (US 2014/0000282 Al, published Jan. 2,
2014).
III. Claims 6, 7, and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Giametta and Zelesky.
IV. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Giametta and Nakamata (US 2014/0020393 Al, published
Jan. 23, 2014).
V. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Zele sky and N akamata.
2
Appeal2018-007505
Application 14/683,408
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
Appellant argues that the Examiner errs in finding that Giametta
anticipates the subject matter of claim 1 because (1) Giametta's cooling hole
7 4 ( on which the Examiner reads the claimed "cooling passage") is directed
toward the first lug of Giametta' s rotor disk, and not "into a circumferential
space formed between said outer tooth and a disk fillet that blends an inner
lug and an outer lug of a rotor disk," as called for in claim 1, and (2) cooling
hole 7 4 "would likely pass through the maximum compressive stress zone as
identified by example in Appellant's Figure 7." Appeal Br. 10-13; id. at 18
(Claims App.).
Appellant's first argument is not persuasive. The "disk fillet that
blends an inner lug and an outer lug of a rotor disk" is the concave surface
that transitions the inner lug to the outer lug. Further, we construe the term
"circumferential" in claim 1 as requiring that the recited "space" have a
dimension in the circumferential direction of the disk (i.e., in a direction
normal to the radius and axis of the disk). Giametta's cooling hole 74 is
directed into a circumferential space formed between the outer tooth
(dovetail tang 54) and the fillet of the disk (rotor wheel 44). We reproduce
below Figure 6 of Giametta with annotations to show the limits of what we
understand the Examiner to be considering the "circumferential space," as
well as what we consider to be the limits of the "fillet."
3
Appeal2018-007505
Application 14/683,408
FIG. 6
The annotated Figure 6 includes annotations "outer limit of fillet" and
"inner limit of fillet" to denote the outer and inner limits of the fillet, as well
as annotations "outer limit of space" and "inner limit of space" to denote the
outer and inner limits of the circumferential space. As is evident from the
annotated Figure 6, the denoted space is formed between the outer tooth and
the fillet, and cooling hole 7 4 is directed into the denoted space.
Giametta's cooling hole 74 is not directed toward or into the fillet
itself, but claim 1 does not require that the cooling passage be directed into
4
Appeal2018-007505
Application 14/683,408
the fillet itself. See Ans. 2 ( correctly pointing out that claim 1 "does not
require that the cooling passage be configured in such a way as to direct air
to directly impinge on the fillet"). Further, the denoted space extends
beyond the fillet. However, claim 1 does not recite any language that
precludes the "circumferential space" from extending beyond the fillet. We
additionally appreciate that Giametta's fillet extends beyond the outer limit
of the denoted space, but claim 1 does not recite that the "circumferential
space" extend in a radial direction along the entirety of the fillet. 2
Turning now to Appellant's second argument, claim 1 recites that the
cooling passage extends "outside of a maximum compressive stress zone."
Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.). Appellant's Specification discloses that
"[m]aximum compressive stress zones 134, 136 (illustrated schematically)
are formed adjacent to the interface surfaces 131, 133 from the centrifugal
and rotational forces applied to the blade 84." Spec. ,r 48. Further,
Appellant's Specification discloses that "[e]ach of the multiple of tooth
cooling passages 160 are also positioned through the outer tooth 126 to
avoid the maximum compressive stress zones 136 such that the strength of
the fir tree 122 is unaffected." Id. ,r 50.
Appellant's Specification does not provide any quantitative definition
for the "maximum compressive stress zone." See id. passim. As the
Examiner points out, Appellant's Figure 7 illustrates the maximum
2 In fact, claim 1 is directed solely to a turbine blade, and does not positively
recite a rotor disk, much less a disk fillet that blends an inner lug and an
outer lug of such rotor disk, or a circumferential space formed between the
outer tooth of the turbine blade and a disk fillet. See Appeal Br. 18 ( claim 1
reciting a turbine blade root having a cooling passage directed as discussed
above "when said turbine blade is assembled to said rotor disk").
5
Appeal2018-007505
Application 14/683,408
compressive stress zones only "schematically," and, thus, cannot be relied
on for any quantitative guidance as to the spatial extent of these zones. See
Ans. 5-6; Spec. ,r 48. Thus, the Examiner interprets "the language
'maximum compressive stress zone' [as] the zone with the highest
compressive stress, which would occur at the direct contact point between
the disk fillet and the blade outer tooth when the engine is operating."
Ans. 6. Appellant does not contest the Examiner's finding that the zone with
the highest compressive stress would be the direct contact point between the
disk fillet and the blade outer tooth. 3 See Reply Br. 3--4.
As illustrated in Figure 6 of Giametta, cooling hole 74 does not extend
to, or even adjacent, the direct contact point between the disk fillet and the
tooth (tang 54). Thus, Giametta's cooling hole 74 extends "outside of a
maximum compressive stress zone," as recited in claim 1.
For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Giametta. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 8-11, for which Appellant does not
present any separate arguments, as anticipated by Giametta. See Appeal
Br. 10-13.
Rejections III and IV
In contesting the rejections of claims 5-7 and 17-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103, Appellant relies solely on the arguments presented against
3 Consistent with the Examiner's finding, although areas of the outer tooth
beyond the direct point of contact will experience some levels of stress,
which gradually subside with distance from the direct contact point, they
will experience lower levels of stress than the direct contact point and, thus,
are not in the "maximum compressive stress zone."
6
Appeal2018-007505
Application 14/683,408
the rejection of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 14. For the reasons discussed
above, these arguments fail to apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 1
and, likewise, fail to apprise us of error in the rejections of claims 5-7 and
17-20, which we, thus, sustain.
Rejection II
Appellant argues that the Examiner errs in finding that Zelesky's neck
cooling passage (impingement hole 102, and first and second holes 104 and
106) are directed toward the outer lug of a rotor disk when the turbine blade
is assembled to such rotor disk, as required in claim 12. See Appeal Br. 14--
16; Final Act. 10. According to Appellant, Zelesky' s hole 102 is directed to
an under platform area (U-channel 94), and first and second holes 104 and
106 simply connect U-channel 94 to pressure and side pockets 96, 98. Id. at
14--15. Thus, Appellant contends that Zelesky directs cooling flow to the
underside of platform 7 6, "not to the outer lug as apparently interpreted by
the Examiner." Id. at 16.
As the Examiner points out, claim 12 does not require the neck
cooling passage to direct cooling flow to the outer lug. See Ans. 8. Rather,
claim 12 recites that the "neck cooling passage is directed toward said outer
lug" when the "turbine blade is assembled to a rotor disk." Appeal Br. 20
(Claims App.). 4
4 Notably, claim 12 is directed only to a turbine blade, and not to the
combination of the turbine blade assembled to a rotor blade. See Appeal
Br. 20 (Claims App.) (claim 12 reciting a turbine blade root including a feed
passage in communication with a neck cooling passage directed toward an
outer lug of a rotor disk "when said turbine blade is assembled to a rotor
disk" having such a lug).
7
Appeal2018-007505
Application 14/683,408
The Examiner provides an annotated version of Figure 5 of Zelesky to
illustrate how first and second holes 104 and 106 are directed toward the
outer lug. Ans. 9. The Examiner's annotated Figure 5 is reproduced below.
,.t·M
_.-~: .. n~
l!'igure !i: Office (1tmofated 1-'igure 1-f Zeli?Iky Figure .t
The Examiner's annotated Figure 5 includes arrows A and B, added by the
Examiner, to depict the direction in which holes 104 and 106 are directed.
Id. at 8-9.
Zelesky' s Figure 2 illustrates rotor disk 68, but Figure 5 of Zelesky
depicts only blade 64, and does not include rotor disk 68. However,
Appellant's Figure 7 is illustrative as to how root 74 of Zelesky's blade 64 is
received in a rotor disk. For convenience, we reproduce Appellant's Figure
7 below.
8
Appeal2018-007505
Application 14/683,408
;,;,;i ~
-··t·'
FlG. 7
'
'1
!
!
l
J
I
I
i
i ,.
,.
\
\ . I .. , , \
,: ' lH) : I \
/ ! n~ l :
/ 1. j :
! \ i j
/ \ / r
\"----~-~ -------- ··--..--~---------'/ '
·T•
00
• ~_.._ .... ,..,,,,,,,,,,,~-~---..-.••••--..,-. •• ,......,,.. __ .,. ...... -Jl
Appellant's Figure 7 depicts how the root of Appellant's turbine blade
is received in the rotor disk, with the root teeth received in fillets between
inner and outer lobes of the disk. Appellant's Figure 7 also depicts cooling
passages 170 extending downwardly, in the area just under the platform, and
"directed toward the outer surface 154 of the disk 86, which is also the outer
surface of the outer lug 130." Spec. ,r 51. In the same manner, Zelesky's
holes 104 and 106, which are in communication, via impingement hole 102,
with the feed passage ( cooling passage 108), would be directed toward the
outer surface of rotary disk 68, which, as defined in Appellant's
Specification, is also the outer surface of the outer lug of the disk, when
turbine blade 64 is assembled to such a rotor disk. See Zelesky ,r 52-53; id.,
Fig. 5; Spec. ,r 51.
For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
rejection of claim 12 as anticipated by Zelesky, which we, thus, sustain.
9
Appeal2018-007505
Application 14/683,408
Rejection V
In contesting the rejection of claim 16, Appellant relies solely on the
argument presented against the rejection of claim 12. See Appeal Br. 16.
For the reasons discussed above, this argument fails to apprise us of error in
the rejection of claim 12, and, likewise, fails to apprise us of error in the
rejection of claim 16. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 12 as
unpatentable over Zelesky and Nakamata.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 5-12, and 16-20 is
AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
10