2020004346 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 2021)

UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 2, 2021

2020004346 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 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. 14/915,455 02/29/2016 Charles Thistle 67097-2592PUS1;73631US02 9603 54549 7590 04/02/2021 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 EXAMINER ADJAGBE, MAXIME M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/02/2021 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 CHARLES THISTLE and LANE THORNTON __________ Appeal 2020-004346 Application 14/915,455 Technology Center 3700 __________ Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges. REIMERS, 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, 3–6, 8, 10–13, 15, 17–19, and 21–26. Claims 2, 7, 9, 14, 16, and 20 have been canceled.2 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 Raytheon Technologies Corporation. See Update to Real Party in Interest, filed Apr. 23, 2020. 2 See Amendment filed May 8, 2019. Appeal 2020-004346 Application 14/915,455 2 We AFFIRM IN PART and designate our affirmance of the rejection of claims 8, 10–13, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter “relates to a gas turbine engine component having a cooling passage, such as an airfoil. More particularly, the disclosure relates to a cooling arrangement within a cooling passage of the airfoil.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recites: 1. A gas turbine engine component comprising: spaced apart walls extending in a load direction and providing a cooling passage, the cooling passage providing a tortuous passage having a generally straight portion extending in the load direction and a bend transverse to the load direction; elongated turbulators protruding from at least one of the walls and extending substantially in the load direction, the elongated turbulators [sic] substantially within the generally straight portion; wherein the component is a turbine blade, the spaced apart walls provide an airfoil, and the load direction is a radial direction; and wherein the elongated turbulators are oriented at an angle relative to the radial direction within +/- 15°. Appeal 2020-004346 Application 14/915,455 3 THE REJECTIONS I. Claims 1, 3–6, 8, 10–13, 21, and 243 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Zausner (US 8,210,814 B2, issued July 3, 2012). II. Claims 1, 3–6, 8, and 10–134 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lee (US 7,094,031 B2, issued Aug. 22, 2006) and Kaufman (US 2014/0196433 A1, published July 17, 2014). III. Claims 1, 3–6, 8, 10–13, 15, 17–19, and 21–26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Liang (US 7,163,373 B2, issued Jan. 16, 2007) and Kaufman. ANALYSIS Rejection I – Obviousness over Zausner Claims 1, 3–6, and 21 Appellant does not offer arguments in favor of dependent claims 3–6 and 21 separate from those presented for independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 4–5. We select claim 1 as the representative claim, and claims 3–6 and 21 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). Claim 1 is drawn to a gas turbine engine component comprising “elongated turbulators protruding from at least one of the walls and 3 The rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Zausner has been withdrawn. Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) 3, dated Mar. 31, 2020. Because claims 17–19 and 26 depend from claim 15, the rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Zausner also has been withdrawn. 4 The rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lee and Kaufman has been withdrawn. Ans. 3. Because claims 17–19 depend from claim 15, the rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lee and Kaufman also has been withdrawn. Appeal 2020-004346 Application 14/915,455 4 extending substantially in the load direction,” in which “the elongated turbulators are oriented at an angle relative to the radial direction within +/- 15°.” Appeal Br. 8 (Claims App.). As to independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Zausner discloses a gas turbine engine component comprising elongated turbulators 44 protruding from at least one of the walls and extending substantially in the load direction, in which the elongated turbulators 44 are at an angle relative to the radial direction. Final Act. 45 (citing Zausner Figs. 1–5). The Examiner acknowledges that “Zausner does not specifically state[] that the angle is within +/-15°.” Id. The Examiner, however, finds that Zausner discloses that the angle of the turbulators “may be varied as desired for optimizing individual and collective performance thereof with the crossover holes,” such as for “heat transfer and cooling performance.” Id. (citing Zausner 6:30–41). Thus, the Examiner finds that Zausner discloses that “the angle or angular orientation of the turbulators is recognized as [a] result effective-variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result.” Id. at 5 (citing In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(11)(8)). The Examiner concludes that because “it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation,” it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Zausner’s gas turbine engine component “by orienting the turbulators at the specific claimed angle in order to obtain the desired heat transfer and cooling in the turbine blade.” 5 Final Office Action (“Final Act.”), dated Aug. 7, 2019. We note that the Examiner refers to Zausner’s “turbulators” as “tabulators.” See id. e.g., at 4 (“tabulators (44)”). We consider this an inadvertent typographical error. Appeal 2020-004346 Application 14/915,455 5 Final Act. 5 (citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)). Appellant contends that “one would not modify the structure of Zausner to have the claimed angle, as this modification would render Zausner unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.” Appeal Br. 4.6 Appellant argues that “[t]he proposed modification of drastically changing the angle from 45° to 15° or less would also change the spacing of the turbulators 44 and the aspect ratio of the channel 2” and “[t]hus, the proposed modification would impact the aspect ratio of the channel, spacing of the turbulators 44, and arrangement of the cross over holes 40, which Zausner taught were already arranged to maximize cooling effectiveness.” Id. at 4–5 (citing Zausner 6:30–34, 43–62; 6:66–7:1; 7:24–28, 37–42; Fig. 3); see also Reply Br. 1–2.7 Appellant’s contentions are unpersuasive. The Examiner correctly responds that “the proposed modification would not render Zausner unsatisfactory because Zausner explicitly states that: the angle of the turbulators may be varied as desired for optimizing individual and collective performance thereof with the crossover holes.” Ans. 4 (citing Zausner 6:30– 41 (italics added)). Zausner discloses “[t]he turbulators 44 themselves have an acute inclination angle B which is preferably 45 degrees in the exemplary embodiment illustrated, but may be varied as desired for optimizing individual and collective performance thereof with the crossover holes.” Zausner 6:30–34 (emphases added). In other words, Zausner discloses the 45 degrees angle of the turbulators is for an exemplary embodiment and the 6 Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”), filed Dec. 2, 2019. 7 Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed May 27, 2020. Appeal 2020-004346 Application 14/915,455 6 angle of the turbulators may be varied even with the disclosed arrangement of the crossover holes. Towards that end, Zausner discloses “[t]he present invention relates generally to gas turbine engines, and, more specifically, to turbine airfoil cooling therein” (Zausner 1:5–7 (emphasis added)), “improvements in cooling efficiency may be obtained by introducing cooperating banks of turbulators 44 . . . for cooperating with the corresponding crossover holes 40” (id. at 6:21–25 (emphasis added)), and “[b]y introducing the corresponding rows of turbulators 44 . . ., the turbulators locally trip the main flow and create corresponding secondary flows shown in FIGS. 4 and 5 which affect heat transfer and cooling performance” (id. at 6:37–42 (emphasis added)). Thus, Zausner’s intended purpose is maximizing heat transfer and cooling performance rather than having a particular angle and spacing of turbulators or a particular aspect ratio of a channel. Zausner discloses that “the orientation of the turbulators 44 is controlled by the aspect ratio of the flow channels in which they are disposed for best cooperating with the corresponding perforate partitions 36 and the oblique crossover holes 40 for maximizing cooling effectiveness and efficiency.” Zausner 7:24–28. Here, Zausner merely discloses that the angle of the turbulators are affected by the aspect ratio8 of the flow channels and vice versa. At best, Zausner teaches from this passage that, if the angle of the turbulators is changed, then the aspect ratio of the flow channels is also changed (and vice versa) for maximizing cooling effectiveness and 8 The aspect ratio AR of each flow channel “is the ratio of the local width W of the channel in the axial or chordal direction over the circumferential or transverse height H between the opposite sidewalls 24, 26.” Zausner 6:52– 43; see also id. at Fig. 2. Appeal 2020-004346 Application 14/915,455 7 efficiency. In other words, both variables could be viewed as result- effective variables. And even if the proposed modification would impact the other variables, including the aspect ratio of the channel, the spacing of the turbulators 44, and the arrangement of the cross over holes 40, Appellant does not direct us to any disclosure in Zausner, or apprise us of any other evidence or technical reasoning, that demonstrates that changing the angle from 45° to 15° would negatively impact the heat transfer and cooling performance or that the other variables cannot be changed as well to maximize cooling effectiveness and efficiency. In summary, and based on the record presented, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Zausner. We further sustain the rejection of claims 3–6 and 21, which fall with claim 1. Claims 8, 10–13, and 24 Appellant does not offer arguments in favor of dependent claims 10– 13 and 24 separate from those presented for independent claim 8. Appeal Br. 4–5. We select claim 8 as the representative claim, and claims 10–13 and 24 stand or fall with claim 8. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). Claim 8 recites limitations similar to those of claim 1 discussed above. Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.). Claim 8 further recites “a cluster of elongated turbulators.” Id. Claims 10–13 and 24 depend from claim 8. Id. at 9–10. As to claim 8, Appellant appears to rely on arguments presented for claim 1 as discussed above. Appeal Br. 4–5. Consequently, those arguments are unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above. Appellant further contends that “Zausner does not disclose a cluster of elongated turbulators.” Appeal Br. 5. Appellant argues that “[t]he Examiner generally cites to turbulators 44 and Figures 1–5 of Zausner” but “the Appeal 2020-004346 Application 14/915,455 8 Examiner has not pointed to anything in Zausner that suggests the turbulators 44 are arranged in a cluster.” Id.; see also Reply Br. 2. In this case, the Examiner correctly responds that “[t]he word ‘cluster’ is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as: a group of similar things that are close together.” Ans. 6. Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s proffered definition. Appeal Br., passim. The Examiner, however, states that “[t]he elongated turbulators 44 being similar and forming a group as shown in figures 2–5 constitute a cluster.” Ans. 6. The Examiner’s explanation here, is unreasonable to the extent that it effectively finds that all turbulators shown in the figures constitute a “cluster.” Nonetheless, with respect to Figures 1–3, Zausner’s turbulators 44 that are on the same wall in the left channel can be regarded as a cluster of elongated turbulators and turbulators 44 that are on the same wall in the right channel can be regarded as another cluster of elongated turbulators. Alternatively, turbulators that are positioned at the same radial position within the airfoil can be regarded as “a cluster of elongated turbulators” as they are “a group of similar things that are close together,” i.e., a “cluster.” In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues that “[c]laim 24 further recites ‘the cluster of elongated turbulators are arranged at a same position in the radial direction’” and “[t]he Examiner has not pointed to anything in Zausner suggesting such an arrangement.” Reply Br. 2. We note, however, that this argument was not raised in the Appeal Brief, and does not appear to be responsive to any argument raised in the Examiner’s Answer. As stated in 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2): Any argument raised in the reply brief which was not raised in the appeal brief, or is not responsive to an argument raised in the examiner’s answer, including any designated new ground of Appeal 2020-004346 Application 14/915,455 9 rejection, will not be considered by the Board for purposes of the present appeal, unless good cause is shown. (Emphasis added). Accordingly, Appellant’s argument is considered untimely. Nonetheless, we note that even had this argument been timely made, it is unpersuasive for the following reasons. With respect to the rejection of claim 24, the Examiner points to Figure 5 of Zausner. Final Act. 10. Figure 5 shows each of turbulators 44 extending along sidewall 26 at the same radial position opposite a turbulator 44 extending along sidewall 24. Zausner Fig. 5; see also id. at Fig. 2. Accordingly, a turbulator and its opposing turbulator as shown in Figure 5 can be regarded as a cluster (i.e., a group) of elongated turbulators that are arranged at a same position in the radial direction. Furthermore, Zausner’s Figures 1–5 collectively appear to show more than two turbulators (in different channels) that are positioned at the same radial position, thereby forming a “cluster.” Accordingly, for these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 as unpatentable over Zausner. We further sustain the rejection of claims 10–13 and 24, which fall with claim 8. As we set forth reasoning, which may differ from or supplement the Examiner’s reasoning, we designate our affirmance of this rejection as including a new ground of rejection under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) to afford Appellant the procedural options for response associated therewith. Appeal 2020-004346 Application 14/915,455 10 Rejections II – III Obviousness over Lee and Kaufman or Liang and Kaufman Claims 1, 3–6, 8, 10–13, 15, 17–19, and 21–26 The Examiner finds that Lee or Liang discloses a gas turbine engine component comprising elongated turbulators protruding from at least one of the walls and extending substantially in the load direction, in which the elongated turbulators are at an angle relative to the radial direction. Final Act. 10–11, 18 (citing Lee Figs. 1–5; Liang Figs. 1–5). The Examiner acknowledges that Lee and Liang do not disclose the angle is within +/-15°. Id. at 11, 18. The Examiner, however, finds that Kaufman discloses turbulators (trip strips 78A) that are “a[t] an angle α relative to the mate faces (71, 73) of the platform,” in which “[t]he value of the angle α can vary depending on design specific criteria, including but not limited the specific amount of heat transfer required to cool the platform 62, 64.” Id. at 11, 19 (citing Kaufman ¶ 54 (emphasis added)); see also Kaufman Fig. 7. The Examiner also finds that “it is well known in the art to vary the orientation angle of turbulators in [a] gas turbine engine in order to obtain the desired amount of heat transfer required” and thus, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify the gas turbine engine component of Lee or Liang “by varying the angular orientation of the turbulators to obtain the amount of heat transfer required to cool the turbine blade.” Final Act. 11, 19. The Examiner further states that “Lee as modified by Kaufman does however as stated above teach that the angle α can be vary depending on design specific such as amount of heat transfer required for cooling turbine blade” and “[t]herefore, the angle or angular orientation of the turbulators is recognized as result effective-variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result.” Id. (citing Kaufman ¶ 54). Appeal 2020-004346 Application 14/915,455 11 Appellant contends that “[t]he turbulators 78A of Kaufman are arranged in a platform, and the mate faces 71, 73 extend in an axial direction” but that “[t]he Examiner has not identified anything suggesting varying an angle relative to the radial direction.” Appeal Br. 5; see also id. at 6. We agree. For these rejections, the Examiner does not provide any evidentiary support for finding that “it is well known in the art to vary the orientation angle of turbulators” in a passage of an airfoil “in order to obtain the desired amount of heat transfer required.” Final Act. 11, 19. Lee’s turbulators 40, 42, 44, 46, and 50 and Liang’s upstream section 58, vortex breaker 44, and midsection 60 (the corresponding turbulators) all reside within passages of an airfoil and are angled or extend in the radial direction. See Lee Figs. 1–6; Liang Figs. 2–7. On the other hand, Kaufman’s trip strips 78A reside under platform 62, 64 and extend in an axial direction. Kaufman Figs. 4, 7. At best, Kaufman discloses that the angle of trip strips 78A with respect the axial direction and under a platform is a result effective variable. Thus, the Examiner’s reason for the proposed modification of Lee’s or Liang’s gas turbine engine component based on the teachings of Kaufman’s angled trip strips lacks a rational underpinning. “[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3–6, 8, and 10–13 as unpatentable over Lee and Kaufman or of Appeal 2020-004346 Application 14/915,455 12 claims 1, 3–6, 8, 10–13, 15, 17–19, and 21–26 as unpatentable over Liang and Kaufman. CONCLUSION In summary: FINALITY OF DECISION This decision contains a new ground 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: 9 We designate the affirmance of the rejection of claims 8, 10–13, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Zausner as a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION. Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s) /Basis Affirmed Reversed New Ground 1, 3–6, 8, 10–13, 21, 24 103 Zausner 1, 3–6, 8, 10–13, 21, 249 8, 10–13, 24 1, 3–6, 8, 10–13 103 Lee, Kaufman 1, 3–6, 8, 10–13 1, 3–6, 8, 10–13, 15, 17– 19, 21–26 103 Liang, Kaufman 1, 3–6, 8, 10–13, 15, 17–19, 21–26 Overall Outcome 1, 3–6, 8, 10–13, 21, 24 15, 17–19, 22, 23, 25, 26 8, 10–13, 24 Appeal 2020-004346 Application 14/915,455 13 (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 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED IN PART; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)