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 .
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, 7-11, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anglin et al. (US 2016/0281536).
With regard to claim 1, Anglin discloses a piston ring (22a or 22b) for use with a gas turbine engine (as disclosed in para. [0001], etc.), comprising: a circular body (as seen in Figs. 1-4) having a rectangular cross section (as seen in Fig. 1 it has as much of a rectangular cross-section as Applicant’s disclosed ring is) with circumferentially overlapping open free ends (as seen in Figs. 2A-3 they overlap along the circumferential direction. Additionally see the below annotated Fig. illustrating such); and an anti-rotating feature (28a/b or 128a/b) extending from an axial surface of the circular body (as seen in Figs. 2B-3), the anti-rotating feature being integrally formed with the circular body such that the circular body and the anti-rotating feature are formed from a single unitary member (as seen in Figs. 2B-3); wherein the anti-rotating feature is formed from material remaining after reducing an axial thickness of the piston ring (It has been held that the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The anti-rotation feature of Anglin clearly still has the claimed structure as it is a projecting portion (see Figs. 1-4) which could be formed in many different processes that still result in the same end product).
PNG
media_image1.png
734
718
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 2, Anglin discloses that anti-rotating feature is located at one of the overlapping free ends such that an axial thickness of the one of the overlapping free ends is greater than the rectangular cross section of the circular body (as seen in Figs. 2B-3).
With regard to claim 3, Anglin discloses that the axial surface of the circular body is opposite to an axial side of the piston ring that provides an axial sealing interface (i.e. as seen in Figs. 1-3 the axial surface opposite the axial surface with the anti-rotating feature, and as interpreted in light of the above 112b rejection is configured to provide a sealing interface by virtue of its shape and ability to seal when placed against another cooperating surface).
With regard to claim 7, Anglin discloses a seal assembly (as seen in Figs. 1-4, etc.) for use in a gas turbine engine (as disclosed in para. [0001], etc.), comprising: a first inner cylindrical component (18); a second outer cylindrical component (12); a groove (20a/b) located in the first inner cylindrical component or the second outer cylindrical component (as seen in Fig. 1), the groove defined by a seal side rail (e.g. one of the left or right hand side wall) that extends radially away from a surface of the first inner cylindrical component (as seen in Fig. 1) or a surface of the second outer cylindrical component (as seen in Fig. 1) and a non-seal side rail (e.g. the other of the left or right hand side wall) that extends radially away from the surface of the first inner cylindrical component (as seen in Fig. 1) or the surface of the second outer cylindrical component (as seen in Fig. 1), the seal side rail and the non-seal rail being in a facing spaced relationship (as seen in Fig. 1 they face each other axially); and a piston ring (22a/b, 122a/b, or 222a/b) located in the groove between the first inner cylindrical component and the second outer cylindrical component (as seen in Fig. 1, etc.), the piston ring being located between the seal side rail and the non-seal side rail (as seen in Fig. 1, etc.), the piston ring having a circular body (as seen in Figs. 1-4) having a rectangular cross section (as seen in Fig. 1 it has as much of a rectangular cross-section as Applicant’s disclosed ring does) with circumferentially overlapping open free ends (as seen in Figs. 2A-3 they overlap along the circumferential direction. Additionally see the above annotated Fig. illustrating such. Furthermore see paras. [0020]-[0021] disclosing such ends in Fig. 4); and an anti-rotating feature (28a/b, 128a/b, or 228a/b) extending from an axial surface of the circular body (as seen in Figs. 2B-4), the anti-rotating feature being integrally formed with the circular body such that the circular body and the anti-rotating feature are formed from a single unitary member (as seen in Figs. 2B-4), wherein the anti-rotating feature is formed from material remaining after reducing an axial thickness of the piston ring (It has been held that the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The anti-rotation feature of Anglin clearly still has the claimed structure as it is a projecting portion (see Figs. 1-4) which could be formed in many different processes that still result in the same end product), wherein the anti-rotating feature is received within a slot (as seen in Figs. 2B-4) formed in the non-seal side rail (as seen in Figs. 2B-4) and contact between the anti-rotating feature and the slot prevents circumferential movement of the piston ring in the groove (as described in para. [0017], etc.).
With regard to claim 8, Anglin discloses that the slot extends from or up to an upper surface of the non-seal side rail (as seen in Figs. 2A-3) so that the anti-rotating feature can be received in a radial direction in the slot as the piston ring is radially inserted to the groove (as seen in Figs. 2A-3) and the slot is configured to allow for thermal expansion of the piston ring (as seen in Figs. 2B-3 as there is at least some amount of space between the wall of the slot and the piston ring it allows for such).
With regard to claim 9, Anglin discloses that anti-rotating feature is located at one of the overlapping free ends such that an axial thickness of the one of the overlapping free ends is greater than the rectangular cross section of the circular body (as seen in Figs. 2B-3).
With regard to claim 10, Anglin discloses that the axial surface of the circular body is opposite to an axial side of the piston ring that provides an axial sealing interface with the seal side rail (i.e. as seen in Figs. 2A-3 as the axial surface with the anti-rotating feature is opposite to another axial surface that can be a sealing interface with the seal side rail as it is at least in close proximity therewith).
With regard to claim 11, Anglin discloses that the slot is a plurality of slots (i.e. the slot can be considered to be defined by two smaller slots that each receive one of the anti-rotating features shown in Fig. 2A, etc.. Additionally per the disclosure of paras. [0020]-[0021] there can be plural ears offset by 90 degrees each from the split ends of the ring and thus plural slots of the type as seen in Fig. 4) formed in the non-seal side rail (as seen in Fig. 2A, etc.), and the anti-rotating feature is received within one of the plurality of slots formed in the non-seal side rail (as seen in Fig. 2A, etc., note this limitation does not require the anti-rotating feature being received in “only one” of the plurality of slots).
With regard to claim 14, Anglin discloses that the first inner cylindrical component is a bearing housing cover (as seen in Fig. 1 as it covers bearing 16) and the second outer cylindrical component is a housing slid over the piston ring (as seen in Fig. 1 as it is over such and thus houses it).
With regard to claim 15, Anglin discloses that the first inner cylindrical component is a bearing housing cover (as seen in Fig. 1 as it covers bearing 16) and the second outer cylindrical component is a housing slid over the piston ring (as seen in Fig. 1 as it is over such and thus houses it).
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 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anglin et al. (US 2016/0281536).
With regard to claim 16, Anglin discloses a method for providing a seal (i.e. the piston ring seal as shown as provided in Figs. 1-3, etc.) in a gas turbine engine (as disclosed in para. [0001], etc.), comprising: inserting a piston ring (22a or 22b) between a first inner cylindrical component (18) and a second outer cylindrical component (12), the piston ring having a circular body (as seen in Figs. 1-4) having a rectangular cross section (as seen in Fig. 1 it has as much of a rectangular cross-section as Applicant’s disclosed ring is) with circumferentially overlapping open free ends (as seen in Figs. 2A-3 they overlap along the circumferential direction. Additionally see the above annotated Fig. illustrating such); and an anti-rotating feature (28a/b or 128a/b) extending from an axial surface of the circular body (as seen in Figs. 2B-3), the anti-rotating feature being integrally formed with the circular body such that the circular body and the anti-rotating feature are formed from a single unitary member (as seen in Figs. 2B-3), wherein a groove (20a/b) is located in the first inner cylindrical component or the second outer cylindrical component (as seen in Fig. 1 it is in the first inner cylindrical component), the groove defined by a seal side rail (e.g. one of the left or right hand side wall) that extends radially away from a surface of the first inner cylindrical component (as seen in Fig. 1) or a surface of the second outer cylindrical component (as seen in Fig. 1) and a non-seal side rail (e.g. the other of the left or right hand side wall) that extends radially away from the surface of the first inner cylindrical component (as seen in Fig. 1) or the surface of the second outer cylindrical component (as seen in Fig. 1), the seal side rail and the non-seal rail being in a facing spaced relationship (as seen in Fig. 1 they face each other axially); and preventing circumferential movement of the piston ring within the groove by locating the anti-rotating feature within a slot formed in the non-seal side rail such that contact between the anti-rotating feature and the slot prevents circumferential movement of the piston ring in the groove (as seen in Figs. 2A-3 and as disclosed in paras. [0017], etc.).
Anglin is silent as to the method of producing the anti-rotating feature and thus fails to explicitly disclose wherein the anti-rotating feature is formed from material remaining after reducing an axial thickness of the piston ring. However it would have been considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have used a subtractive manufacturing process (e.g. any of the standard machining processes such as milling, cutting, grinding, edm, etc.) as Examiner hereby takes Official Notice that the art is replete with examples of piston rings made by suchsubtractive manufacturing. The combination would provide the expected benefit of higher precision, making the ring from a single piece of stock in a single process, allowing for quick adjustments in manufacturing piston rings of different dimensions (e.g. changing the size/location of the anti-rotation feature without having to retool), etc.. Additionally this combination would necessarily disclose the anti-rotating feature is formed from material remaining after reducing an axial thickness of the piston ring.
With regard to claim 17, the combination (Anglin) discloses that the slot extends from or up to an upper surface of the non-seal side rail (as seen in Figs. 2A-3) so that the anti-rotating feature can be received in a radial direction in the slot as the piston ring is radially inserted to the groove (as seen in Figs. 2A-3).
With regard to claim 18, the combination (Anglin) discloses that anti-rotating feature is located at one of the overlapping free ends (as seen in Figs. 2B-3).
With regard to claim 19, the combination (Anglin) discloses that the axial surface of the circular body is opposite to an axial side of the piston ring that provides an axial sealing interface with the seal side rail (i.e. as seen in Figs. 2A-3 as the axial surface with the anti-rotating feature is opposite to another axial surface that can be a sealing interface with the seal side rail as it is at least in close proximity therewith).
With regard to claim 20, the combination (Anglin) discloses that the anti-rotating feature is a plurality of anti-rotating features extending from the axial surface of the circular body (as seen in Fig. 2A) and the slot is a plurality of slots(i.e. the slot if defined by two smaller slots the each receive one of the anti-rotating features shown in Fig. 2A) formed in the non-seal side rail (as seen in Fig. 2A) each of the plurality of anti-rotating features being received within a respective one of the plurality of slots formed in the non-seal side rail (as seen in Fig. 2A as one of each is in each slot).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Additionally they are moot in view of the new/amended grounds of rejection above.
Applicant’s arguments against the art rejections are all with respect the newly added limitations in the independent claims regarding the manner in which the anti-rotating feature is made. Regarding the apparatus claims these arguments are not persuasive in light of the above amended grounds of rejection (see above and the discussion of product-by-process limitations in an apparatus claim). Regarding the method claims these arguments are not persuasive as they are fully rejected by the above new grounds of rejection of claims 16-20 (see above).
In the interest of advancing prosecution, Examiner recommends amending the claims to claim more of what is shown in Fig. 5 with the anti-rotation feature on only one end of the ring, extending circumferentially into a pocket in the other end of the ring and extending axially past the main axial side (i.e. 101) of the ring into the slot, such that they have the illustrated overlap.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 NICHOLAS L FOSTER whose telephone number is (571)270-5354. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at (571) 272-7376. 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.
/NICHOLAS L FOSTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights