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 view of the appeal brief filed on 06/01/2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejection are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. A new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Stoyanov et al. (US 20200056506, hereinafter: “Stoyanov”) as modified by Bentley (US 20190284411).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
In Claim 16, the claim verbiage “means forward of the groove reducing thermal asymmetry in the shaft aft of the groove caused by aft-to-fore leakage through the seal split” offers no structure to define the aforementioned claim limitation.
Based on the Applicant’s Original Specification, the claimed “means forward of the groove reducing thermal asymmetry in the shaft aft of the groove caused by aft-to-fore leakage through the seal split” is disclosed as “a fore-to-aft stagger in the plurality of holes” in [0019-0020].
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 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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 11, 13-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoyanov et al. (US 20200056506, hereinafter: “Stoyanov”) as modified by Bentley (US 20190284411).
In reference to Claim 1
Stoyanov discloses:
A turbine engine rotor (60) having a central longitudinal axis and comprising:
a central shaft (40, 50, 70) having an outer diameter seal groove (76 annular groove);
a disk stack (63) having a plurality of disks (plurality of disks 63 as shown in Fig. 1-2) encircling the shaft; and
a split ring seal (74, [0044]) captured in the groove and engaging an inner diameter surface (surface 63A as shown in Fig. 3) of one of the disks [0045].
[0035, Stoyanov] The low speed spool 30 generally includes an inner shaft 40 that interconnects, a first (or low) pressure compressor 44 and a first (or low) pressure turbine 46. The inner shaft 40 is connected to the fan 42 through a speed change mechanism, which in exemplary gas turbine engine 20 is illustrated as a geared architecture 48 to drive a fan 42 at a lower speed than the low speed spool 30. The high speed spool 32 includes an outer shaft 50 that interconnects a second (or high) pressure compressor 52 and a second (or high) pressure turbine 54. A combustor 56 is arranged in exemplary gas turbine 20 between the high pressure compressor 52 and the high pressure turbine 54. A mid-turbine frame 57 of the engine static structure 36 may be arranged generally between the high pressure turbine 54 and the low pressure turbine 46. The mid-turbine frame 57 further supports bearing systems 38 in the turbine section 28. The inner shaft 40 and the outer shaft 50 are concentric and rotate via bearing systems 38 about the engine central longitudinal axis A which is collinear with their longitudinal axes.
[0039, Stoyanov] FIG. 2 illustrates a rotor assembly 60 for a section 58 of a gas turbine engine, such as the compressor section 24 of FIG. 1. Although the disclosure primarily refers to the compressor section 24, other portions of the engine 20 may benefit from the teachings herein, such as the fan and turbine sections 22, 28, towershafts and auxiliary systems. Other systems may also benefit from the teachings herein, including marine and ground based systems.
[0042, Stoyanov] One or more of the rotors 62 is mechanically attached or otherwise fixedly secured to an elongated, rotatable shaft 70. The shaft 70 is rotatable about the engine axis A. In examples, the shaft 70 interconnects a turbine and a compressor, such as one of the shafts 40, 50 of FIG. 1.
Stoyanov is silent on a plurality of holes forward of the seal groove; and wherein the plurality of holes comprises: a first group; and a second group spaced forward of the first group and circumferentially alternating therewith.
Bentley teaches a gas turbine engine comprising a turbine section (17) having concentric spools comprising an inner shaft (22) and outer shaft (21) and rotor disk (30). Bentley teaches a plurality of holes (56, 58) on the outer shaft (21); and wherein the plurality of holes comprises: a first group (58); and a second group (56) spaced forward of the first group and circumferentially alternating therewith (Fig. 3-4). Bentley teaches the plurality of holes (58, 56) are positioned forward of the axial end of the disc (30, 29; Fig. 7). [0042-0070] (Fig. 1-9).
[0060, Stoyanov] Although the present disclosure has referred to a shaft connecting a compressor to a turbine it is equally applicable to a sub shaft connecting a turbine rotor, e.g. turbine disc, to another turbine rotor, e.g. turbine disc or to a stub shaft connecting a compressor rotor, e.g. a compressor disc, to another compressor rotor, e.g. compressor disc.
Based on the teaching of Stoyanov and Bentley, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the outer shaft 50 and connecting shaft 70 by including a plurality holes forward of the seal groove and the plurality of holes having a first group; and a second group spaced forward of the first group and circumferentially alternating therewith as taught by Bentley for the purpose of providing cooling air in the annular space between the outer shaft and inner shaft [0050].
In reference to Claim 4
Stoyano in view of Bentley discloses
The turbine engine rotor of claim 1. Bentley teaches the same number of holes in the first group (58) and second group (56); and the holes of the first group and second group are all of the same diameter. [0011, 0052] (Fig. 1-9)
In reference to Claim 5
Stoyano in view of Bentley discloses
The turbine engine rotor of claim 1. Bentley teaches “[0057] The relative positions of the apertures in the first and second sets of apertures is determined by the requirement to position the apertures of the first and second sets of apertures as close together as possible to take advantage of the compressive stress field and the requirement to maximise the distance between the apertures in the first and second sets of apertures to have more material between the apertures in the first and second sets of apertures. The relative positions of the apertures in the first and second sets of apertures is a function of the torque and the temperatures and is determined by stress analysis.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the relative positions of the first and second group of holes to be as claimed by claim 5 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In reference to Claim 11
Stoyano in view of Bentley discloses
The turbine engine rotor of claim 1. Bentley teaches there are three to six holes in each of the first group and second group.[0052].
In reference to Claim 13
Stoyano in view of Bentley discloses
The turbine engine rotor of claim 1. Bentley teaches the first group (58) and second group (56) are drilled circular holes (Fig. 1-9).
The claimed process steps of drilled circular holes is not provided patentable weight since the patentability of the final product does not depend on its method of production. (MPEP 2113). Stoyano discloses the final product, circular holes, as claimed in the instant product-by-process claim.
In reference to Claim 14
Stoyano in view of Bentley discloses
Stoyano discloses a gas turbine engine (20) including the turbine engine rotor of claim 1 wherein the rotor is a high pressure compressor rotor (52) and further comprising: a high pressure turbine rotor co-spooled with the high pressure compressor rotor on a high spool (“The high speed spool 32 includes an outer shaft 50 that interconnects a second (or high) pressure compressor 52 and a second (or high) pressure turbine 54,” [0035]); a low spool (40) comprising a low pressure compressor rotor and a low pressure turbine compressor rotor (“The low speed spool 30 generally includes an inner shaft 40 that interconnects, a first (or low) pressure compressor 44 and a first (or low) pressure turbine 46,” [0035]); a combustor (26); and a gaspath (C) sequentially through the low pressure compressor, high pressure compressor, combustor, high pressure turbine, and low pressure turbine [0033-0038] (Fig. 1).
In reference to Claim 15
Stoyano in view of Bentley discloses
Bentley teaches a method for using the turbine engine of claim 14, the method comprising: compressing air in the low pressure compressor and high pressure compressor; combusting fuel with compressed air in the combustor to produce combustion gas; expanding the combustion gas in the high pressure turbine and low pressure turbine; a first flow of compressed air passing aft along an outer diameter surface of the shaft to pass radially inward through both the first group and the second group of the plurality of holes; and a leakage flow of compressed air passing forward through the split ring seal to mix with the first flow.[0002-0003, 0033-0037] (Fig. 1).
[0044, Stoyano] FIG. 3 illustrates an enhanced view of a portion 72 of the rotor assembly 60. The annular seal 74 is carried by the shaft 70 for establishing a sealing relationship between the hub 63 of the rotor 62 and the shaft 70 to block or reduce communication of flow between adjacent cavities defined by the rotor 62 and shaft 70.
In reference to Claim 16
Stoyano discloses
A turbine engine rotor comprising:
a central shaft (40, 50, 70) having an outer diameter seal groove (76);
a disk stack (63) having a plurality of disks (plurality of disks 63 as shown in Fig. 1-2) encircling the shaft and held in compression by tension in the shaft; and
a split ring seal (74, [0044]) captured in the groove and engaging an inner diameter surface (surface 63A as shown in Fig. 3) of one of the disks. [0035-0047] (Fig. 1-5).
Stoyanov is silent on a plurality of holes forward of the seal groove; and means forward of the groove reducing thermal asymmetry in the shaft aft of the groove caused by aft-to-to fore aft-to-fore leakage through the seal split.
Bentley teaches a gas turbine engine comprising a turbine section (17) having concentric spools comprising an inner shaft (22) and outer shaft (21) and rotor disk (30). Bentley teaches a plurality of holes (56, 58) on the outer shaft (21); and wherein the plurality of holes comprises: a first group (58); and a second group (56) spaced forward of the first group and circumferentially alternating therewith (Fig. 3-4). Bentley teaches the plurality of holes (58, 56) are positioned forward of the axial end of the disc (30, 29; Fig. 7). [0042-0070] (Fig. 1-9). In addition, Bentley teaches cooling air in the shaft to increase the life of the shaft [0003-0007].
Based on the teaching of Stoyanov and Bentley, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the outer shaft 50 and connecting shaft 70 by including a plurality holes forward of the seal groove and the plurality of holes having a first group; and a second group spaced forward of the first group and circumferentially alternating therewith as taught by Bentley for the purpose of providing cooling air in the annular space between the outer shaft and inner shaft [0050, Bentley] to increase the life of the shaft [0003, Bentley].
In reference to Claim 17
Stoyano as modified by Bentley discloses
The turbine engine rotor of claim 16. Bentley teaches the means comprises: a fore-to-aft stagger in the plurality of holes (56, 58).
In reference to Claim 18
Stoyano as modified by Bentley discloses
The turbine engine rotor of claim 17. Bentley teaches the means comprises: the fore-to-aft stagger in the plurality of holes is of one group relative to another group. (56, 58) (Fig. 3-4).
In reference to Claim 20
Stoyano as modified by Bentley discloses
The turbine engine rotor of claim 18. Bentley teaches “it may be possible to have any suitable number of first apertures and a corresponding number of second apertures, e.g. six, eight, ten, twelve etc.” [0052].
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the number of holes as claimed in Claim 20, 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 6-10, 12 and 19 are 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.
Stoyano as modified by Bentley is silent on the claimed limitations of Claims 2-3, 5-10, 12 and 19 regarding the details between the holes and the opening or center of the split ring.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AYE SU MON HTAY whose telephone number is (571)270-5958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-3:00pm PST.
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, Nathan Wiehe can be reached at 571-272-8648. 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.
/AYE S HTAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights