2020005258 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 9, 2021)

United Technologies Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 9, 2021

2020005258 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 9, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/729,002 06/02/2015 Gabriel L. Suciu 30459- USAA;67097-2957PUS1 5036 54549 7590 04/09/2021 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 EXAMINER BREAZEAL, WILLIAM LEE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3741 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/09/2021 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): ptodocket@cgolaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte GABRIEL L. SUCIU, BRIAN D. MERRY, JAMES D. HILL, and MARK F. ZELESKY Appeal 2020-005258 Application 14/729,002 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–17, which constitute all the claims pending in this application.2 See Final Act. 1 (Office Action Summary). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “United Technologies Corp.” Appeal Br. 1. 2 Claims 18–20 have been cancelled. See Appeal Br. 12. Appeal 2020-005258 Application 14/729,002 2 We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections of these claims and designate our affirmance as NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The disclosed subject matter “relates generally to a cooling system for cooling turbine stages in a gas turbine engine, and more specifically to a system for utilizing compressor bleed air to cool at least one turbine stage.” Spec. ¶ 1. Apparatus claim 1 and method claim 12 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below. 1. A gas turbine engine comprising: a compressor section having a plurality of compressor stages; a combustor fluidly connected to said compressor section; a turbine section fluidly connected to said compressor section, the turbine section having at least one stage; a compressor bleed structure disposed in one of said plurality of compressor stages and operable to remove air from said one of said plurality of compressor stages; a fluid passage connecting the compressor bleed structure to an active cooling system of at least one turbine stage; wherein the fluid passage includes a first fluid pathway directly connecting an output of the compressor bleed structure to a mixing plenum, a second fluid pathway connecting the output of the compressor bleed structure to an input of a heat exchanger, and a third fluid pathway connecting an output of the heat exchanger to the mixing plenum; and wherein the mixing plenum is connected to a cooling air input of an active cooling system for at least one turbine stage. Appeal 2020-005258 Application 14/729,002 3 EVIDENCE Name Reference Date Elovic US 4,254,618 Mar. 10, 1981 Seitzer et al. (“Seitzer”) US 2008/0112798 A1 May 15, 2008 Senior US 2010/0011779 A1 Jan. 21, 2010 Turco US 2011/0088405 A1 Apr. 21, 2011 REJECTIONS Claims 1 and 3–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Seitzer and Senior. Claims 1 and 3–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Seitzer and Elovic. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Seitzer, Elovic, and Turco. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Seitzer, Senior, and Turco. ANALYSIS The rejection of claims 1 and 3–17 as unpatentable over Seitzer and Senior Appellant presents separate arguments, one directed to all the claims on appeal and another directed to dependent claim 10. See Appeal Br. 4–7. We select claim 1 and claim 10 for review, with the remaining claims standing or falling with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). Claim 1 Claim 1 recites a gas turbine engine having compressor, combustor, and turbine sections. More particularly, claim 1 recites “a compressor bleed structure” with this bleed structure “disposed in one of said plurality of Appeal 2020-005258 Application 14/729,002 4 compressor stages.” Claim 1 further recites “a fluid passage connecting the compressor bleed structure to an active cooling system of at least one turbine stage.” The Examiner primarily relies upon the teachings of Seitzer for disclosing the limitations of claim 1, but acknowledges that Seitzer does not specifically teach the bleed structure “disposed in one of said plurality of compressor stages” as recited. Final Act. 6. This is because Seitzer teaches such bleeding (and subsequent delivery of compressor air to the turbine) from the compressor in general, not from any particular stage thereof. See Seitzer ¶¶ 41, 73; see also Seitzer Figs. 2, 3. The Examiner relies on Senior for this more specific teaching. See Final Act. 6; Ans. 4 (both referencing Senior ¶ 46). Paragraph 46 of Senior teaches that for “active clearance control in the turbine stages . . . compressor air [is] bled from a location of the compressor 102 where a certain pressure level is present by use of a bypass 121.”3 Emphasis added. We understand Senior’s reference to “a certain pressure level” to be a reference to a particular stage within Senior’s compressor (i.e., that stage having the desire pressure level). Appellant does not challenge Senior’s teaching of providing bleed air from “one of said plurality of compressor stages” as recited. However, in rendering the rejection, the Examiner introduces some confusion stating that it would have been obvious to modify “Seitzer with Senior teachings on interstage bleed air.” Final Act. 7 (emphasis added). 3 It is noted that Senior’s discussion of “clearance control” as the reason to provide turbine stages with compressor air is the same reason expressed by Seitzer when providing compressor air to the turbine. See Seitzer ¶ 71 (“compressor discharge air 34a is now used for active clearance control”). Appeal 2020-005258 Application 14/729,002 5 The Examiner reasons that Senior teaches that compressor4 “bleed air and interstage bleed air may be used interchangeably.” Final Act. 7; see also Ans. 5 (“per paragraph 85 of the Final Rejection dated 11/22/2019, the use of interstage air instead of compressor bleed air provides additional benefits”). This reference to “interstage bleed air” by the Examiner gives rise to Appellant’s contention that, in using interstage bleed air rather than compressor bleed air, the Examiner’s combination fundamentally alters the design and operation of Seitzer’s system. See Appeal Br. 4–6; see also Reply Br. 2, 3. Seitzer does not specifically describe “interstage bleed air,” only that it differs from “compressor discharge air 34a.” Seitzer ¶ 71. Paragraphs 42, 44, and 45 of Seitzer discuss air flow through a “second circuit 62,” and from a review of Seitzer’s Figure 3, it is understood that “spent impingement air” or “spent cooling air” 34c (i.e., the “interstage bleed air”) is recycled back from the turbine stage via circuit 62 for blending with “compressor discharge air 34a” and/or “cooled CDP [compressor discharge pressure] air 34b” (the latter 34b air being differentiated from 34a air by also passing through a heat exchanger). The Examiner’s focus on Seitzer’s “interstage bleed air” (as understood above) rather than upon Seitzer’s compressor discharge air 34a or 34b, is disconcerting. However, because Figure 3 of Seitzer teaches airflow “34a, b, c” being supplied to turbine blades 40 (see bottom of 4 The Examiner mistakenly employed the term “combustor,” rather than “compressor,” to describe the bleed air. Final Act. 7. However, it is clear that both Seitzer and Senior pertain to compressor bleed air. Appellant is silent on this point and does not raise an issue regarding the Examiner’s incorrect choice of words. Appeal 2020-005258 Application 14/729,002 6 figure), the Examiner’s statement that compressor bleed air and interstage bleed air “may be used interchangeably” is supported by substantial evidence. Final Act. 7. Regardless, the Examiner’s detour addressing interstage bleed air, when discharge air directly from Seitzer’s compressor 18 (34a air) or indirectly from Seitzer’s heat exchanger 56 (34b air) is equally disclosed, causes one to question the Examiner’s focus on interstage air when concluding that the subject matter of claim 1 is obvious. See Final Act. 7; see also Appeal Br. 6 (where Appellant disagrees with the Examiner “replac[ing] the compressor discharge air with interstage air”). This uncertainty with the Examiner’s rationale is because the Supreme Court has provided instruction that “there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In the present matter, the Examiner’s discussion of interstage bleed air (and not compressor discharge air) detracts from the Examiner’s establishment of “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning” concerning the use of air from the compressor for cooling the turbine. However, because Seitzer teaches the use of compressor discharge air for cooling a turbine stage for clearance purposes (see Seitzer Fig. 3; ¶¶ 41, 71, 73), and because Senior teaches extracting air from a particular stage of the compressor for a similar purpose (see Senior Figs. 5, 7; ¶¶ 45, 46), we discern that a rational basis exists to establish why one skilled in the art would combine Seitzer and Senior to render claim 1 obvious. Accordingly, because the rationale relied upon by the Examiner may differ from our analysis above focusing on compressor discharge air, we still affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 in view of Seitzer and Senior, but Appeal 2020-005258 Application 14/729,002 7 we do so as a New Ground of Rejection. This designation as a New Ground of Rejection is to provide Appellant with a full and fair opportunity to react to the thrust of the rejection. See In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1302 (CCPA 1976). Consequently, for these reasons, the rejection of claims 1, 3–9, and 11–17 is sustained, but as a New Ground of Rejection. Claim 10 Claim 10 depends indirectly from claim 1, and further recites “cooling said at least one cooled engine component outside of said turbine section.” Appellant acknowledges that the Examiner is relying on Seitzer’s disclosure of cooling impingement baffle 54 as the basis for rejecting claim 10. See Appeal Br. 6. However, Appellant contends that Seitzer’s baffle 54 as the recited “engine component outside of said turbine section” “is overly broad.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellant contends that a skilled person “would not reasonably interpret that as reading on” this “engine component” limitation of claim 10. Appeal Br. 7. The Examiner disagrees stating that Appellant’s Specification “provides no guidance as to how to construe the term ‘component outside of said turbine section.’” Ans. 6. As such, according to the Examiner, Appellant has not explained how Seitzer’s baffle 54 cannot be reasonably construed as such a component. See Ans. 6. As per the Examiner, “Appellant has not provided evidence that the term ‘component’ has acquired an art attained meaning that would exclude consideration of impingement baffle 54 of Seitzer as said component.” Ans. 6. Appellant does not reply to these assertions by the Examiner, or otherwise indicate how such assertions might be incorrect, faulty, or misplaced. It is also not self-evident that the Examiner’s reasoning is Appeal 2020-005258 Application 14/729,002 8 improper; nor are we persuaded that a skilled person would fail to understand that Seitzer’s baffle meets the limitation of claim 10. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 as being obvious in view of Seitzer and Senior (but subject to the New Ground of Rejection above regarding parent claim 1). The rejection of claims 1 and 3–17 as unpatentable over Seitzer and Elovic The Examiner’s rationale for combining Seitzer and Elovic likewise involves a discussion involving the interchangeability of compressor discharge and interstage bleed air. See Final Act. 14.5 For similar reasons to those expressed above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3–17; however, we do so as a New Ground of Rejection. The rejection of (a) claim 2 as unpatentable over Seitzer, Elovic, and Turco; and (b) claim 2 as unpatentable over Seitzer, Senior, and Turco Appellant does not argue either rejection of claim 2. However, as claim 2 depends directly from claim 1, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claim 2 but, as with claim 10 above, we designate our affirmance a New Ground of Rejection due to claim dependency. CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed New Ground 1, 3–17 103 Seitzer, Senior 1, 3–17 1, 3–17 5 Like Senior above, Appellant does not address the teachings of Elovic when responding to this rejection. Appeal 2020-005258 Application 14/729,002 9 Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed New Ground 1, 3–17 103 Seitzer, Elovic 1, 3–17 1, 3–17 2 103 Seitzer, Elovic, Turco 2 2 2 103 Seitzer, Senior, Turco 2 2 Overall Outcome 1–17 1–17 FINALITY OF DECISION This decision contains new grounds of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Section 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.” Section 41.50(b) also provides: When the Board enters such a non-final decision, the Appellant, within two months from the date of the decision, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims: (1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the prosecution will be remanded to the examiner. The new ground of rejection is binding upon the examiner unless an amendment or new Evidence not previously of Record is made which, in the opinion of the examiner, overcomes the new ground of rejection designated in the decision. Should the examiner reject the claims, appellant may again appeal to the Board pursuant to this subpart. (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. The request for rehearing must address any new ground of rejection and state Appeal 2020-005258 Application 14/729,002 10 with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked in entering the new ground of rejection and also state all other grounds upon which rehearing is sought. Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1214.01. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)