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 .
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 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.
Examiner's Note.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers and/or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
The Examiner notes that it has been held that a recitation that a structural element is "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to” perform a function does not limit the claim to a particular structure and thus only requires the ability to so perform the function. (See In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. See also, MPEP 2111.04) As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims and the prior art, the recitations of "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to” will be deemed met by an element in the prior art capable of performing the function recited in connection with "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to”.
The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 4 and 8 objected to because of the following informalities:
The term “to be” is not a positive limitation inasmuch as the term is in future tense and implies a change in condition in the future. This does not serve to limit the structure in the present tense. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 16 objected to because of the following informalities: (thereby). Appropriate correction is required.
Specification objections
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Reference of prior art
Jesinger. (US 4764086, Blower For Circulating Larger Gas Volumes, In Particular For High-power Laser Systems).
Cornelius et al. (US 20080066444, Seal For A Turbine Engine).
Suciu et al. (US 20130098067, CONSTANT SPEED TRANSMISSION FOR GAS TURBINE ENGINE).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1), (a)(2) as being anticipated by Jesinger.
Re claim 1 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Jesinger discloses:
An air pressurisation system for an aircraft (item 11), the air pressurisation system comprising:
a blower compressor configured to be mechanically coupled to a spool of a gas turbine engine (item 16 and 33) and configured to receive an inlet flow of air from a bypass duct of the gas turbine engine (item 16, 33 and the arrows), wherein the blower compressor comprises:
a rotor configured to be mechanically coupled to the spool of the gas turbine engine (rotor of item 16);
an oil-lubricated bearing for supporting rotation of the rotor (items 34, 35), wherein the oil-lubricated bearing is disposed within a bearing chamber (fig. 2, items 34, 35);
a seal assembly for restricting oil from the bearing chamber from reaching an inlet of the blower compressor (items 131-133); and
a delivery line configured to convey air compressed by the blower compressor to a cabin pressurisation system of the aircraft (item 20), wherein the seal assembly comprises:
a seal disposed between the bearing chamber and an air buffer chamber (items 132-134);
an air buffer inlet configured to receive a flow of pressurised air into the air buffer chamber (item 135); and
an air buffer outlet configured to allow the flow of pressurised air to be exhausted from the air buffer chamber together with oil from the bearing chamber that has passed through the seal and become entrained within the flow of pressurised air (items 74, 136 and col. 14, l 13-17).
Re claim 10 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Jesinger discloses:
The air pressurisation system of claim 1, wherein the system further comprises a flow restrictor configured to restrict a flow rate of air buffer air between the air buffer inlet and the air buffer chamber (depicted in figs. 1-3 and 6).
Re claim 11 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Jesinger discloses:
The air pressurisation system of claim 10, wherein the flow restrictor is arranged between the air buffer inlet and the first air buffer seal (depicted in figs. 1-3 and 6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 2-8, 9 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jesinger and further in view of Cornelius.
Re claim 2 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Jesinger fails to teach as disclosed by Cornelius: The air pressurisation system of claim 1, wherein the system further comprises a first air buffer seal arranged to restrict a flow of air buffer air between the air buffer chamber and the air buffer inlet (¶ 0028, item 48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Cornelius teachings wherein the system further comprises a first air buffer seal arranged to restrict a flow of air buffer air between the air buffer chamber and the air buffer inlet into the Jesinger, to discourage fluid from flowing past the seal.
Re claim 3 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Jesinger, as modified above, discloses: The air pressurisation system of claim 2, wherein the first air buffer seal comprises a seal configured to create a tortuous path for air to pass between the air buffer chamber and the air buffer inlet (Cornelius ¶ 0028, item 48).
Re claim 4 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Jesinger, as modified above, discloses: The air pressurisation system of claim 2, wherein the first air buffer seal is configured to be more effective in a flow direction from the air buffer chamber towards the air buffer inlet (Cornelius ¶ 0028, item 48).
Re claim 5 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Jesinger, as modified above, discloses: The air pressurisation system of claim 4, wherein the first air buffer seal is a labyrinth seal comprising a plurality of fins, wherein the fins are angled relative to the flow of air between the air buffer chamber and the air buffer inlet, so that the first air buffer seal is more effective in a flow direction from the air buffer chamber towards the air buffer inlet (Cornelius ¶ 0028, item 48).
Re claim 6 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Jesinger, as modified above, discloses: The air pressurisation system of claim 1, wherein the system further comprises a second air buffer seal arranged to restrict a flow of air between the air buffer inlet and an inlet of the blower compressor (Cornelius ¶ 0028, item 48 the opposite side).
Re claim 7 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Jesinger, as modified above, discloses: The air pressurisation system of claim 6, wherein the second air buffer seal comprises a seal configured to create a tortuous path for air to pass between the air buffer inlet and the air buffer chamber (Cornelius ¶ 0028, item 48).
Re claim 8 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Jesinger, as modified above, discloses: The air pressurisation system of claim 6, wherein the second air buffer seal is configured to be more effective in a flow direction from the air buffer inlet towards the compressor inlet (Cornelius ¶ 0028, item 48).
Re claim 9 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Jesinger, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention except for a first air buffer seal arranged to restrict a flow of air buffer air between the air buffer chamber and the air buffer inlet, and wherein the first air buffer seal is positioned radially outward of the second air buffer seal. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a first air buffer seal arranged to restrict a flow of air buffer air between the air buffer chamber and the air buffer inlet, and wherein the first air buffer seal is positioned radially outward of the second air buffer seal for better performance, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Re claim 12 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Jesinger fails to teach as disclosed by Cornelius: The air pressurisation system of claim 1, wherein the system further comprises an oil slinger ring configured to rotate together with the rotor, wherein the oil slinger ring comprises an inner portion, configured to engage the rotor and a radially extending portion extending from the inner portion towards the air buffer chamber (Cornelius ¶ 0033, item 48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Cornelius teachings wherein the system further comprises an oil slinger ring configured to rotate together with the rotor, wherein the oil slinger ring comprises an inner portion, configured to engage the rotor and a radially extending portion extending from the inner portion towards the air buffer chamber inlet into the Jesinger, to discourage fluid from flowing past the seal.
Re claim 13 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Jesinger, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention except for a first air buffer seal arranged to restrict a flow of air buffer air between the air buffer chamber and the air buffer inlet, and wherein the first air buffer seal has an outer radius smaller than an outer radius of the radially extending portion of the oil slinger ring. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to include a first air buffer seal arranged to restrict a flow of air buffer air between the air buffer chamber and the air buffer inlet, and wherein the first air buffer seal has an outer radius smaller than an outer radius of the radially extending portion of the oil slinger ring to effectively stop the fluids from flowing past the seal, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re claim 14 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Jesinger, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention except for a first air buffer seal arranged to restrict a flow of air buffer air between the air buffer chamber and the air buffer inlet, and wherein the oil slinger ring further comprises an outer portion disposed at a radially outward position relative to the inner portion, wherein the first air buffer seal is positioned radially between the outer portion of the oil slinger ring and the rotor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a first air buffer seal arranged to restrict a flow of air buffer air between the air buffer chamber and the air buffer inlet, and wherein the oil slinger ring further comprises an outer portion disposed at a radially outward position relative to the inner portion, wherein the first air buffer seal is positioned radially between the outer portion of the oil slinger ring and the rotor for better sealing the area, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jesinger in view of Suciu.
Re claim 15 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Jesinger, as modified above, fails to teach as disclosed by Suciu: The air pressurisation system of claim 12, wherein the system further comprises a first air buffer seal arranged to restrict a flow of air buffer air between the air buffer chamber and the air buffer inlet, wherein the seal assembly comprises a housing element coupled to the compressor housing, wherein a portion of the housing element is at least partially axially aligned with, and radially inside of, the outer portion of the oil slinger ring, and wherein the first air buffer seal is formed between the portion of the seal housing element and the outer portion of the oil slinger ring (fig. 3 depicts the limitation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Cornelius teachings wherein a first air buffer seal arranged to restrict a flow of air buffer air between the air buffer chamber and the air buffer inlet, wherein the seal assembly comprises a housing element coupled to the compressor housing, wherein a portion of the housing element is at least partially axially aligned with, and radially inside of, the outer portion of the oil slinger ring, and wherein the first air buffer seal is formed between the portion of the seal housing element and the outer portion of the oil slinger ring into the Jesinger, to discourage fluid from flowing past the seal.
Re claim 16 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Jesinger, fails to teach as disclosed by Suciu: The air pressurisation system of claim 1, wherein the air buffer chamber comprises a radially inner surface arranged at an angle relative to a rotational axis of the rotor to thereby encourage oil that has passed through the seal to flow towards the air buffer outlet (figs. 3 and depict the limitation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Suciu teachings wherein a radially inner surface arranged at an angle relative to a rotational axis of the rotor to thereby encourage oil that has passed through the seal to flow towards the air buffer outlet into the Jesinger, as modified above, to discourage fluid from flowing past the seal.
Re claim 17 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Jesinger, as modified above, fails to teach as disclosed by Suciu: An aircraft comprising an airframe, a gas turbine engine and the air pressurisation system of claim 1 (¶ 0022).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Suciu teachings wherein an aircraft comprising an airframe, a gas turbine engine and the air pressurisation system into the Jesinger, as modified above, to provide an efficient air pressurisation system for better performance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEDHAT BADAWI whose telephone number is (571)270-5983. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri during office hours. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JOSHUA MICHENER can be reached on 571-272-1467. 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.
/MEDHAT BADAWI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights