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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Coulombe does not disclose the damping element 22, 40, fig 6 being arranged on the seal carrier 16, fig 6, as it is desirable for the damping element 40 to provide a wear surface of wear rings 31 or split rings 47, fig 5, upon which the finger springs 40 may slide.
Examiner notes that Coulombe Col 4 Lines 7 – 11 discloses “As illustrated in FIG. 6, the finger springs may be mounted so that they exert pressure upon the seal carrier ring 16. This prevents radial vibrations in the carrier ring. Utilizing the carrier ring automatically provides a wear surface upon which the damper reacts.” Hence, the Columbe discloses the damping element is arranged on the seal carrier.
Applicant argues that Coulombe does not disclose the joint being capable of linear and tilt displacement to allow the non-rotating component to displace with respect to the rotating component, as the bellows 14 allows the seal carrier ring 16, not the housing 13, to flex relative to the rotating shaft 11.
Examiner notes that Coulombe discloses that the non-rotating component/housing 13 displaces with respect to the rotating component /shaft 11, as the bellows 14 allows the joint between the housing 13 and shaft 11 to flex. Hence the claim limitation of the relative displacement between the housing and the shaft is satisfied.
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 – 3, 6 – 8, 14 – 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Coulombe (U.S. Patent # 3372939).
Regarding Claim 1, Coulombe discloses a seal assembly for a turbomachine (fig 6), the seal assembly comprising:
a rotating component (11);
a non-rotating component (13) comprising:
a face seal ring (17) arranged with the rotating component (11) at a sealing interface (fig 6), the sealing interface defining a gap between the face seal ring and the rotating component (gap between 17 and 11);
a ring carrier (16) coupled to the face seal ring (17);
a joint attached to the ring carrier (joint attached to 16 and 13), the joint being capable of linear and tilt displacement to allow the non-rotating component to displace with respect to the rotating component (joint capable of the limitation); and
at least one damping element (22, 40) arranged on the ring carrier (16) for maintaining the seal assembly centrally in a radial direction in the turbomachine (22, 40 configure to maintain the seal assembly centrally in a radial direction in the turbomachine), the at least one damping element comprising at least one mass element (22).
Regarding Claim 2, Coulombe discloses the seal assembly, wherein the at least one damping element comprises at least one tuned mass damper comprising at least one spring element (40) attached to the at least one mass element (22).
Regarding Claim 3, Coulombe discloses the seal assembly, wherein the at least one spring element and the at least one mass element of the at least one damping element are disposed in at least one recess formed in a radially exterior surface of the ring carrier (40 and 22 in a recess at the radially exterior surface of 16).
Regarding Claim 6, Coulombe discloses the seal assembly, wherein the at least one spring element comprises at least one of a helical spring or a leaf spring (leaf or finger like springs 40).
Regarding Claim 7, Coulombe discloses the seal assembly, wherein the at least one damping element is formed integrally with the ring carrier (22, 40 integral with 16).
Regarding Claim 8, Coulombe discloses the seal assembly, wherein the at least one damping element comprises a plurality of damping elements (plurality of 40), the plurality of damping elements extending in both axial and radial directions (plurality of 40 in both axial and radial directions).
Regarding Claim 14, Coulombe discloses the seal assembly, wherein the seal assembly is configured as at least one of a carbon face seal ring, an aspirating face seal ring, a hybrid face seal ring, a fluid bearing, a gas bearing, or a film riding seal (17 is made of carbon).
Regarding Claim 15, Coulombe discloses a turbomachine (fig 6) comprising:
one or more turbines that generate a torque output;
a rotor (11) driven by the torque output;
a stator (13) arranged with the rotor (11) at a sealing interface (fig 6); and
a seal assembly at the sealing interface (fig 6), the seal assembly comprising:
a ring carrier (16);
a face seal ring (17), the sealing interface defining a gap between the face seal ring and the rotor (gap between 17 and 11); and
a joint coupled between the stator and the ring carrier (joint between 13 and 16), the joint capable of linear and tilt displacement to allow the seal assembly to displace with respect to the rotor (structure capable of the limitation); and
at least one damping element (22, 40) arranged on the ring carrier (16) for maintaining the seal assembly centrally in a radial direction in the turbomachine (structure capable of the limitation), the at least one damping element comprising at least one mass element (22).
Regarding Claim 16, Coulombe discloses the turbomachine, wherein the at least one damping element comprises at least one tuned mass damper comprising at least one spring element (40) attached to the at least one mass element (22).
Regarding Claim 17, Coulombe discloses the turbomachine, wherein the at least one spring element and the at least one mass element of the at least one damping element are disposed in at least one recess formed in a radially exterior surface of the ring carrier (40, 22 in a radially exterior surface of 16).
Regarding Claim 20, Coulombe discloses the turbomachine, wherein the at least one spring element comprises at least one of a helical spring or a leaf spring (leaf spring or finger like springs 40).
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.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coulombe alone.
Regarding Claim 12, Coulombe discloses the seal assembly.
Coulombe does not disclose wherein the at least one mass element of the at least one damping element increases a total mass of the non-rotating component by about 5% to about 10%.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the mass limitation of the non-rotating component disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, to provide pressure and thereby better damping effect to the sealing assembly. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 13, Coulombe discloses the seal assembly.
Coulombe does not disclose wherein a mass fraction of the at least one mass element of the at least one damping element ranges from about 0.05 to about 0.25 and a damping parameter represented as Ca/(2 square root (m sub a ; k sub a) ranges from about 0.1 to about 0.7 to provide an optimal combination of a broadband amplification and an operating frequency amplification less than 0.5.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the mass fraction limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, to provide pressure and thereby better damping effect to the sealing assembly. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 4, 5, 9, 10, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coulombe in view of Tokunaga et al. ( U.S. PG Pub # 20200011425).
Regarding Claim 4, Coulombe discloses the seal assembly.
Coulombe does not disclose wherein the at least one spring element extends from a surface of the ring carrier radially inward and into a recess formed between the face seal ring and the ring carrier.
However, Tokunaga teaches wherein the at least one spring element extends from a surface of the ring carrier radially inward and into a recess formed between the face seal ring and the ring carrier (14 between 12 and 11b, fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to position the damping element of Coulombe between the ring carrier and the face seal ring as in Tokunaga with a reasonable expectation of success so that the damping element reduces the frictional resistance (Tokunaga Para 0023).
Regarding Claim 5, Coulombe discloses the seal assembly.
Coulombe does not disclose wherein the at least one spring element extends from a surface of the ring carrier radially inward between the face seal ring and the ring carrier.
However, Tokunaga teaches wherein the at least one spring element extends from a surface of the ring carrier radially inward between the face seal ring and the ring carrier.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to position the damping element of Coulombe between the ring carrier and the face seal ring as in Tokunaga with a reasonable expectation of success so that the damping element reduces the frictional resistance (Tokunaga Para 0023).
Regarding Claim 18, Coulombe discloses the turbomachine.
Coulombe does not disclose wherein the at least one spring element extends from a surface of the ring carrier radially inward and into a recess formed between the face seal ring and the ring carrier.
However, Tokunaga teaches wherein the at least one spring element extends from a surface of the ring carrier radially inward and into a recess formed between the face seal ring and the ring carrier (14 between 12 and 11b, fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to position the damping element of Coulombe between the ring carrier and the face seal ring as in Tokunaga with a reasonable expectation of success so that the damping element reduces the frictional resistance (Tokunaga Para 0023).
Regarding Claim 19, Coulombe discloses the turbomachine.
Coulombe does not disclose wherein the at least one spring element extends from a surface of the ring carrier radially inward between the face seal ring and the ring carrier.
However, Tokunaga teaches wherein the at least one spring element extends from a surface of the ring carrier radially inward between the face seal ring and the ring carrier.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to position the damping element of Coulombe between the ring carrier and the face seal ring as in Tokunaga with a reasonable expectation of success so that the damping element reduces the frictional resistance (Tokunaga Para 0023).
Regarding Claim 9, Coulombe discloses the seal assembly, wherein the at least one damping element further comprises a flexible hairpin carrier (16 is hairpin carrier).
Coulombe does not disclose the at least one mass element being a radial foil damper supported by the spring element and arranged within the flexible hairpin carrier.
However, Tokunaga teaches the at least one mass element being a radial foil damper (14, fig 1) supported by the spring element (19, fig 1) and arranged within the flexible hairpin carrier (Coulombe 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the mass element of Coulombe with the radial foil damper of Tokunaga with a reasonable expectation of success so that the radial foil reduces the frictional resistance (Tokunaga Para 0023).
Regarding Claim 10, Coulombe discloses the seal assembly wherein the at least one damping element further comprises a flexible hairpin carrier (16 is hair pin carrier).
Coulombe does not disclose the at least one mass element being a fluid restricted by a plurality of seal members arranged within the flexible hairpin carrier.
However, Tokunaga teaches the at least one mass element being a fluid restricted by a plurality of seal members arranged within the flexible hairpin carrier (fluid within the layers of foil 14, fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the mass element of Coulombe with the seal members of Tokunaga with a reasonable expectation of success so that the fluid acts as a reducing resistance of the gaps between the layers of the foil (Tokunaga Para 0030).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coulombe in view of Husband et al. (U.S. PG Pub # 20180306061).
Regarding Claim 11, Coulombe discloses the seal assembly.
Coulombe does not disclose wherein the at least one mass element of the at least one damping element further comprises one or more mass balls moveably arranged in one or more channels containing a viscous fluid.
However, Husband teaches wherein the at least one mass element of the at least one damping element further comprises one or more mass balls (114, 116, fig 3) moveably arranged in one or more channels containing a viscous fluid (channel formed by fluid from 112, fig 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the mass element of Coulombe with the mass element including balls of Tokunaga with a reasonable expectation of success so that the balls stop the advancement of the pressurized oil to increase the efficiency of the damping element (Husband Para 0044).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to L. SUSMITHA KONERU whose telephone number is (571) 270-5333. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 9 A.M.- 4 P.M.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christine Mills can be reached on 571.272.8322. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free)? If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/L. K./
Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675