DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 26, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed November 26, 2025 have been fully considered.
The applicant argues that the wire mesh (56) does not extend to/from the radially innermost surface of the first cavity. The examiner in the rejection of October 1, 2025 mapped the inner rim (which defines the radially innermost surface of the first cavity) as (60) in Storace. Based on the amendment regarding the wire mesh extending from the radially innermost surface, the examiner now interprets the inner rim as (58). The applicant’s argument is therefore moot. The reasoning above applies to the rejection of each of the independent claims and claims which depend from them.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1, 6-7, 10, 14, 20, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Storace (U.S Patent 6,325,546) hereinafter Storace.
Regarding claim 1, Storace discloses:
A rotor damping device for a turbomachine {Figure 2 (54), Column 1 lines 4-6}, comprising:
a first fluid damper {Figure 2 (70)} including:
a damper housing {Annotated Figure 1, the damper housing comprises the elements discussed below}
the damper housing having an outer rim having an outer rim outer surface and an outer rim inner surface {Annotated Figure 1, the damper housing has an outer rim (II) with an outer surface (IIIa) and an inner surface (IIIb)}
an inner rim {Figure 2 (58)},
An oil feed port having a port inlet at the outer rim outer surface and a port outlet at the outer rim inner surface {Annotated Figure 1 (IVa) is at an oil port inlet at the outer rim outer surface (IIIa) and (IVb) is an oil port outlet at the outer rim outer surface (IIIb)}
a first cavity defined between the outer rim and the inner rim {Annotated Figure 1, the first cavity is defined between (III) and (58)}.
the first cavity having a radially innermost surface and containing damper oil {Figure 2, damper oil is contained within the first cavity; the radially innermost surface is the radially outer surface of (58); Column 4 lines 22-45}; and
a second damper in communication with the first fluid damper {Figure 2 (56) is in communication with (70)}
the second damper including a wire mesh {Figure 2 (56); Column 4 lines 9-15},
the wire mesh is contained within the first cavity extending from the radially innermost surface and is immersed in the damper oil {Annotated Figure 1, the wire mesh (56) is in the first cavity which is defined between (III) and (58). (56) extends from the radially innermost surface of the cavity defined by the radially outer surface of (58). The wire mesh is considered “immersed” as the damper oil passes through it via the hole (76). It is noted that immersed under the broadest reasonable does not mean something is completely surrounded or submerged in a fluid. Phrases such as “fully/completely immersed” would be redundant if this were not true}
wherein the first fluid damper is transitionable between a working condition and an interruption condition {the first fluid damper (70) inherently is capable of working (always assumed components in a patent function) and being interrupted (such as if there was a lack of oil)}, and
wherein, during the interruption condition, the wire mesh of the second damper damps vibration of the turbomachine {inoperability of (70) still results in the mechanical damper (56) functioning}
{For the last two limitations, see MPEP 2112.01 I. These limitations are functional aspects or properties of the system and are presumed inherent as well as being inherent for the reasons described in the rejection above}.
Regarding claim 6, Storace further discloses: wherein the first fluid damper includes a film of fluid squeezed between a first non-rotating surface and a second non-rotating surface {Column 4 lines 22-24, Figure 2 (58) and (60) are implicitly understood to one of ordinary skill in the art to be non-rotating due to the shaft rotating in the bearing configuration, see MPEP 2144.01}.
Regarding claim 7, Storace further discloses: wherein the film of fluid is oil {Column 4 lines 29-33}.
PNG
media_image1.png
697
695
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Storace further discloses:
wherein the wire mesh is metal {Column 4 lines 4-21}.
Regarding claim 14, Storace teaches the rotor device of claim 1. Storace further discloses wherein the first fluid damper transitions to the interruption condition when a fluid runs out or when bottomed out {Similar to claim 1, the structure of Storace inherently is such that if the fluid runs out, the second damper (56) still dampens vibration of the turbomachine due to forces still reacted out along the structure through (56). Also see MPEP 2112.01 I. These limitations are functional aspects or properties of the system and are presumed inherent as well as being inherent for the reasons described in the rejection above}
Regarding claim 20, Storace discloses:
A method for damping vibration of a turbomachine {Figure 2 (54), Column 1 lines 4-6}, the method comprising:
Providing a rotor damping device including:
a first fluid damper {Figure 2 (70)} including:
a damper housing {Annotated Figure 1, the damper housing comprises the elements discussed below}
the damper housing having an outer rim having an outer rim outer surface and an outer rim inner surface {Annotated Figure 1, the damper housing has an outer rim (II) with an outer surface (IIIa) and an inner surface (IIIb)}
an inner rim {Figure 2 (58)},
An oil feed port having a port inlet at the outer rim outer surface and a port outlet at the outer rim inner surface {Annotated Figure 1 (IVa) is at an oil port inlet at the outer rim outer surface (IIIa) and (IVb) is an oil port outlet at the outer rim outer surface (IIIb)}
a first cavity defined between the outer rim and the inner rim {Annotated Figure 1, the first cavity is defined between (III) and (58)}.
The first cavity having a radially innermost surface and containing damper oil {Figure 2, damper oil is contained within the first cavity; the radially innermost surface is the radially outer surface of (58); Column 4 lines 22-45}; and
a second damper in communication with the first fluid damper {Figure 2 (56) is in communication with (70)}
the second damper including a wire mesh {Figure 2 (56); Column 4 lines 9-15},
the wire mesh is contained within the first cavity extending from the radially innermost surface and is immersed in the damper oil {Annotated Figure 1, the wire mesh (56) is in the first cavity which is defined between (III) and (58). (56) extends from the radially innermost surface of the cavity defined by the radially outer surface of (58). The wire mesh is considered “immersed” as the damper oil passes through it via the hole (76). It is noted that immersed under the broadest reasonable does not mean something is completely surrounded or submerged in a fluid. Phrases such as “fully/completely immersed” would be redundant if this were not true}
wherein the first fluid damper is transitionable between a working condition and an interruption condition {the first fluid damper (70) inherently is capable of working (always assumed components in a patent function) and being interrupted (such as if there was a lack of oil)}, and
damping vibration of the turbomachine with the second damper during the interruption condition {inoperability of (70) still results in the mechanical damper (56) functioning}
{For the last two limitations, see MPEP 2112.01 I. These limitations are functional aspects or properties of the system and are presumed inherent as well as being inherent for the reasons described in the rejection above}.
Regarding claim 23, Storace further discloses:
damping vibration of the turbomachine with the first fluid damper during the working condition by squeezing a film of fluid between a first non-rotating surface and a second non-rotating surface {Figure 2, the overall damper assembly (54) which includes the first fluid damper works when the decoupler fails. This scenario is still a part of the working condition. The transition to an interruption condition occurs when there is a lack of oil as described in the rejection of claim 20. Even though Storace states that it is not expected that the fluid damper contribute significant damping due to the large clearance, this is still considered to provide some damping by squeezing of a film of fluid; Column 4 line 60 – Column 5 line 33}.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 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.
Claim 4, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Storace (U.S Patent 6,325,546) hereinafter Storace in view of in view of Daimer (U.S Patent 9,797,304) hereinafter Daimer.
Regarding claim 4, Storace discloses the rotor damping device of claim 1. Storace further discloses comprising: a sidewall portion extending from a static structure {Annotated Figure 1 (I) extends from (40)}, wherein the wire mesh is contained within the sidewall portion to constrain axial deflection {axial deflection is inherently constrained by Annotated Figure 1 (I) which is fixed}.
Storace is silent regarding the sidewall applying a preload.
Daimer pertains to a turbomachine bearing and damping system. Daimer teaches applying a preload to the wire mesh {Figure 2 (23), Daimer Column 3 lines 24-31 and Column 4 lines 64 – Column 5 line 4}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied a preload to the wire mesh by the sidewall of Storace as taught by Daimer. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to increase the damping effect of the wire mash damper {Daimer Column 3 lines 24-31}.
Regarding claim 15, Storace discloses:
A rotor damping device for a turbomachine {Figure 2 (54), Column 1 lines 4-6}, comprising:
a first fluid damper {Figure 2 (70)} including:
a damper housing {Annotated Figure 1, the damper housing comprises the elements discussed below}
the damper housing having an outer rim having an outer rim outer surface and an outer rim inner surface {Annotated Figure 1, the damper housing has an outer rim (II) with an outer surface (IIIa) and an inner surface (IIIb)}
an inner rim {Figure 2 (58)},
An oil feed port having a port inlet at the outer rim outer surface and a port outlet at the outer rim inner surface {Annotated Figure 1 (IVa) is at an oil port inlet at the outer rim outer surface (IIIa) and (IVb) is an oil port outlet at the outer rim outer surface (IIIb)}
a first cavity defined between the outer rim and the inner rim {Annotated Figure 1, the first cavity is defined between (III) and (58)}.
The first cavity having a radially innermost surface and containing damper oil {Figure 2, damper oil is contained within the first cavity; the radially innermost surface is the radially outer surface of (58); Column 4 lines 22-45}; and
a second damper in communication with the first fluid damper {Figure 2 (56) is in communication with (70)}
the second damper including a wire mesh {Figure 2 (56); Column 4 lines 9-15},
the wire mesh is contained within the first cavity extending from the radially innermost surface and is immersed in the damper oil {Annotated Figure 1, the wire mesh (56) is in the first cavity which is defined between (III) and (58). (56) extends from the radially innermost surface of the cavity defined by the radially outer surface of (58). The wire mesh is considered “immersed” as the damper oil passes through it via the hole (76). It is noted that immersed under the broadest reasonable does not mean something is completely surrounded or submerged in a fluid. Phrases such as “fully/completely immersed” would be redundant if this were not true}
a sidewall portion extending from a static structure {Annotated Figure 1 (I) is between (40)},
wherein the first fluid damper is transitionable between a working condition and an interruption condition {the first fluid damper (70) inherently is capable of working (always assumed components in a patent function) and being interrupted (such as if there was a lack of oil)}, and
wherein, during the interruption condition, the wire mesh of the second damper damps vibration of the turbomachine {inoperability of (70) still results in the mechanical damper (56) functioning}
{For the previous two limitations, see MPEP 2112.01 I. These limitations are functional aspects or properties of the system and are presumed inherent as well as being inherent for the reasons described in the rejection above}
wherein the wire mesh is contained within the sidewall portion to constrain axial deflection {axial deflection is inherently constrained by Annotated Figure 1 (I) which is fixed}.
Storace is silent regarding the sidewall applying a preload.
Daimer pertains to a turbomachine bearing and damping system. Daimer teaches applying a preload to the wire mesh {Figure 2 (23), Daimer Column 3 lines 24-31 and Column 4 lines 64 – Column 5 line 4}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied a preload to the wire mesh by the sidewall of Storace as taught by Daimer. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to increase the damping effect of the wire mash damper {Daimer Column 3 lines 24-31}.
Regarding claim 17, Storace further discloses:
wherein the wire mesh is metal {Column 4 lines 4-21}.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Storace (U.S Patent 6,325,546) hereinafter Storace in view of in view of Smedresman (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20170122369) hereinafter Smedresman.
PNG
media_image2.png
657
807
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Storace discloses the rotor damping device of claim 1 and further discloses:
a ball bearing mounted on a first portion of a support structure {Figure 1 (36) is mounted on a first portion of the support structure}; and
a roller bearing mounted on a second portion of the support structure {Storace Annotated Figure 2 (II) is mounted on a second portion of the support structure}.
Storace is silent regarding the exact geometry of the bearing support structure (38)/(40) and is therefore silent regarding, “a squired cage configured to take up an axial load, the second damper mounted on the squirrel cage”.
Smedresman pertains to a bearing, damper, and support structure in a gas turbine engine. Smedresman discloses a bearing support structure that is a squirrel cage (by being composed of multiple beam elements) {[0017]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the support structure of Storace be formed by multiple beam elements that form a squirrel cage as taught by Smedresman. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as both solid cylindrical members and multibeam members are known substitutes {Smedresman [0017]}.
The combination of Storace and Smedresman therefore teaches:
a ball bearing mounted on a first portion of a squirrel cage {Figure 1 (36) is mounted on a first portion of the support structure; the support structure of Storace is modified to be a squirrel cage based on the teachings of Smedresman in paragraph [0017]}; and
a roller bearing mounted on a second portion of the squirrel cage {Storace Annotated Figure 2 (II) is mounted on a second portion of the support structure; the support structure of Storace is modified to be a squirrel cage based on the teachings of Smedresman in paragraph [0017]}.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Storace (U.S Patent 6,325,546) hereinafter Storace in view of Ryu (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20150267740) hereinafter Ryu.
Regarding claim 13, Storace discloses the rotor damping device of claim 1, but is silent regarding the wire mesh being a shape memory material.
Ryu teaches wherein the wire mesh is a shape memory material {Figures 4 and 9 (71), [0045]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the wire mesh of Storace a shape memory material {[0045]}. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to change the properties of the damper during different operating points of the turbomachine {Ryu [0046]}.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Storace (U.S Patent 6,325,546) hereinafter Storace in view of Ertas et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20170321747) hereinafter Ertas.
Regarding claim 21, Storace discloses the rotor damping device of claim 1, but does not disclose:
comprising a plurality of integral springs located at circumferential ends of the first cavity to block circumferential flow of the damper oil.
Ertas pertains to a rotor damping device for a turbomachine. Ertas teaches:
comprising a plurality of integral springs located at circumferential ends of the first cavity to block circumferential flow of the damper oil {Figure 3, plurality of instances of (44A/B) are located at circumferential ends of (42) of the first cavity to block the circumferential flow of damper oil; [0040]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first cavity of Storace be circumferentially segmented and bounded by springs as taught by Ertas. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as a segmented damper can have a higher damping value and reduce cavitation / air ingestion {Ertas [0038]}. The springs are an effective structure to circumferentially bound the annular gaps {Ertas [0047]}.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Storace in view of Daimer as applied to claim 15 above, and in further view of Ertas et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20170321747) hereinafter Ertas.
Claim 22 is substantially identical to claim 21 and is rejected in a substantially identical manner. For the purpose of clarity and brevity, the rejection is not repeated. Please see the rejection of claim 21 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 2 requires the second damper is in parallel configuration with the first damper. .
The closest prior art to the claims is Storace. The damping configuration however is in series and not in parallel. There is no evidence to suggest modifying the configuration of Storace to have the first and second damper in a parallel configuration.
Daniels does not teach “the wire mesh being contained within the first cavity and immersed in the damper oil” as required in claim 1. The wire mesh and squeeze film damper are in entirely separate axial locations. There is insufficient evidence to suggest having the wire mesh contained as claimed.
Carlson (U.S Patent 4,971,458) describes a system in Column 3 lines 21-30 that has a mechanical damper that functions when the fluid damper is interrupted by bottoming out. This system is in series and not in parallel.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL K. REITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1387. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 a.m. -5:30 p.m.
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 Heinle can be reached at 5712703508. 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.
/MICHAEL K. REITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3745