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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/23/2024, 2/28/2025, and 9/26/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites “trough” in line 2. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “through” since it seems to be misspelled.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Asti et al. US 20150330220.
Regarding claim 1, Asti discloses: An online rotor thrust adjustment system (Fig 1: 6) for balancing loads on a rotor thrust of a gas turbine (All of Fig 1) during operations in response to out of design operating profile and configuration of the gas turbine (Par 16), the gas turbine comprising
an expander (3) being located downstream of a compressor (3 is downstream of 1);
a combustor (4) configured to receive gas from the compressor through a line (Par 61: gas flows though conduits), realize gas combustion and provide combustion gas to the expander;
the gas turbine being housed within an enclosure (5);
the rotor thrust adjustment system comprising an axial thrust balance flow net between said compressor and said expander (6 has flow lines (61 &62) between 1 and 3), to feed high pressure gas from the compressor to an axial thrust balance piston cavity (Fig 2: 62 feeds gas to BP cavity);
the rotor thrust adjustment system having an open loop flow regulator (Fig 4; par 48: V1) is-arranged along said axial thrust balance flow net.
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 2-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asti et al. US 20150330220 in view of Zabrecky et al. US 6443690.
Regarding claim 2, Asti discloses:
the open loop flow regulator being arranged outside the gas turbine enclosure (Fig 1: 6 is located outside of 5).
However, Asti is silent as to:
wherein the open loop flow regulator is a manual valve comprising a stem and a wheel, the wheel and a portion of the stem being arranged outside the gas turbine enclosure.
From the same field of endeavor, Zabrecky teaches:
wherein the open loop flow regulator regulates gas analogous to Asti’s valve regulating gas for a balance piston (Fig 1; Col 3, line 43-67: 35 regulates piston 40).
wherein the open loop flow regulator is a manual valve comprising a stem and a wheel (Fig 2: Stem of 35 extending down from the wheel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the valve of Asti to have the design of the controller and globe valve structure of Zabrecky to reduce any complexity of the cooling system to reduce cost (Col 1, line 56-60) while maintaining gas flow/ pressure and ensuring that if there is failure that the control will close the valve (Col 4, line 67- Col 5, line 2).
The combination would result in: the wheel and a portion of the stem being arranged outside the gas turbine enclosure.
Regarding claim 3, Asti as modified by Zabrecky in claim 2, where Zabrecky teaches:
wherein the wheel is removably coupled with the stem (Fig 2: 35 is bolted onto the flow path)
Regarding claim 5, Asti discloses all of the above limitations. However, Asti is silent as to:
wherein the open loop flow regulator is a globe valve.
From the same field of endeavor, Zabrecky teaches:
wherein the open loop flow regulator regulates gas analogous to Asti’s valve regulating gas for a balance piston (Fig 1; Col 3, line 43-67: 35 regulates piston 40).
wherein the open loop flow regulator is a globe valve (Col 4, line 53-55: 35 is a globe valve).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the valve of Asti to have the design of the controller and globe valve structure of Zabrecky to reduce any complexity of the cooling system to reduce cost (Col 1, line 56-60) while maintaining gas flow/ pressure and ensuring that if there is failure that the control will close the valve (Col 4, line 67- Col 5, line 2).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asti et al. US 20150330220 in view of Saha et al. US 20140157791.
Regarding claim 4, Asti discloses all of the above limitations. However, Asti is silent as to:
wherein at least part of the axial thrust balance flow net is comprised of flexible hoses.
From the same field of endeavor, Saha teaches:
wherein at least part of the axial thrust balance flow net is comprised of flexible hoses (Fig 2; Par 37: 102/ 106 is a flexible conduit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the unknown structure of the pipes of Asti to be flexible conduits as taught by Saha to better create the fluid pathways around the turbine and the components of that turbine.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asti et al. US 20150330220 in view of Vandervort et al. US 20060140747.
Regarding claim 6, Asti discloses:
wherein the open loop flow regulator is regulated through orifices (Fig 4: O1 and O3).
However, Asti is silent as to:
wherein the open loop flow regulator is regulated through a table replicating equivalent reference orifice size.
From the same field of endeavor, Vandervort teaches:
wherein the open loop flow regulator is regulated through a table (Par 26/ Table 1: Controlling the steam through the valves by using a table for required thrust in different operation states).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Asti to have the control system use a table to regulate the flow though the valves based on the operation state of the turbine and the pressures of each conduit of the turbine and compressor as taught by Vandervort to enhance turbine reliability by actively protecting parts and controlling thrust in the case of a design flaw, and thus providing an option for extra thrust as needed depending on operating conditions (Par 30).
The combination will result in: wherein the open loop flow regulator is regulated through a table replicating equivalent reference orifice size.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jones et al. US 10781751 and Schwarz et al. US 10107131 discloses a similar flexible hose to applicants hose. Larson et al. US 20190063222, Pope US 4578018 and Sinha et al. US 20180045074 discloses a similar thrust piston system to applicants.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew J Marien whose telephone number is (469)295-9159. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am- 6:00 pm CST, Monday through Friday.
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 (571) 270-3508. 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.
/Andrew J Marien/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745