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 .
Claims 1-5, 7-15, 17-20 are currently pending. Claims 1-5, 7-15, 17-20 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Pg. 7 of the response, filed April 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As best understood, Applicant asserts Claims 1 and 11 do not disclose an elastic polymer layer configured as amended. This is found to be unpersuasive, since no evidence nor explanation is provided to support the assertion.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, Lines 14-15 of Claim 1 and Lines 14-15 of Claim 15 recite “still providing sufficiently high stiffness”. The phrase “sufficiently high” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “sufficiently high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. With respect to the instant application, there is no determination of how much stiffness is considered “sufficient”. It is also unclear how much stiffness is considered “high”. As such, the amount of stiffness required to be provided is undefined.
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, Line 1 of Claim 5 and Line 1 of Claim 15 recite “the rigid layer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since it has not been previously recited. It is unclear what layer the claims intend to refer to.
Claims 2-4, 7-10, 12-14, and 17-20 are subsequently rejected for their dependencies upon a previously rejected claim.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5, 7- 11, 15, and 17-20, as far as they are definite and understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gottschalk et al. (US 10,161,411 B1), hereinafter Gottschalk, in view of Wojtyczka et al. (US 2020/0096041 A1), hereinafter Wojtyczka, and Gittler (US 2005/0087933 A1), hereinafter Gittler.
Regarding Claim 1, Figure 5 of Gottschalk teaches a labyrinth seal (see 320 and 225) for sealing between a rotating portion (205) and a non-rotation portion (210) of rotating machinery, the labyrinth seal comprising: a first portion (205 or 210) having a series of projections (225 or 320) and recessions (between neighboring 225 or 320) that are concentric about an axis of rotation (vertically along center of 300) of the rotating portion (205) of the rotating machinery; and a second portion (210 or 205, other of first portion) having a series of projections (320 or 225) and recessions (between neighboring 320 or 225) that are concentric about the axis of rotation, the projections (320/225) of the series of projections and recessions of the second portion (210/205) are configured to mate with the recessions (between 225/320) of the series of projections and recessions of the first portion (205/210), the projections (225/320) of the series of projections and recession of the first portion (205/210) are configured to mate with the recessions (between 320/225) of the series of projections and recession of the second portion (210/205). Although of a different embodiment, Col. 7, Lines 1-27 discuss the relationship between similarly numbered (225) and (320). Please note that the other end of the rotor (205) has projections and recessions in a similar relationship as well, with respect to (235) and (335) of the rotating portion (205) and stationary portion (210), respectively.
Gottschalk does not expressly teach the second portion further comprising at least one elastomeric polymer layer configured to allow for at least part of the second portion of the labyrinth seal to be temporarily pushed, in a radial direction, out of the way of the first portion during an excursion of the rotating portion of the rotating machinery, while still providing sufficiently high stiffness, in a direction orthogonal to said radial direction, of the first portion relative to the second portion as claimed. However, an elastomeric polymer layer would have been obvious in view of Wojtyczka and Gittler.
Figures 6-8 of Wojtyczka teach a portion (50) comprising at least one elastomeric polymer layer (51, 53, 55). The elastomeric polymer layers (51, 53, 55) are made of an elastomeric material that is allowed to deform. This allows them to absorb part of the mount (50) to absorb some of the vibrational loading. Meanwhile, the rigid layers (52, 54) contribute to the securement of the elastomeric layers (51, 53, 55) and the structural integrity of the mount (50) [0036-0040]. See also the embodiment of Figure 4, which only has an elastomeric polymer layer (41), and further clarifying the polymer material when referring to the “viscoelastic” elastomeric layers [0025]. While the mount of Wojtyczka is not for a labyrinth seal as in the instant application, the teachings are considered relevant because they are reasonably pertinent to a problem faced by the inventor: dealing with vibrational problems between rotary and non-rotary portions of seals. The presence of the problem is evidenced by Gittler. Figure 1 of Gittler shows a labyrinth seal (14) between rotary portion (11) and non-rotary portion (12). Paragraph [0005] elaborates that this region (between impeller, rotary, and housing, non-rotary) is known to be subjected to severe vibrations during operation. Thus, Gittler evidences that vibrational loading is a known problem that is present in assemblies with rotary-nonrotary portions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the labyrinth seal taught by Gottschalk such that the second portion comprises at least one elastomeric polymer layer as suggested by Wojtyczka-Gittler, to provide the benefit of absorbing some of the vibrational loading while maintaining the structural integrity of the mount. The limitations of to allow for at least part of the second portion of the labyrinth seal to be temporarily pushed, in a radial direction, out of the way of the first portion during an excursion of the rotating portion of the rotating machinery, while still providing sufficiently high stiffness, in a direction orthogonal to said radial direction, of the first portion relative to the second portion are treated as intended use of the claimed apparatus. Recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP 2114 regarding functional language). The combination teaches the structural requirement of the second portion comprising at least one elastomeric polymer layer. Such layers are capable of temporary deformation [0037]. Thus, they are capable of being temporarily pushed, since they are elastically deformable. The claim does not specify how much stiffness is required to be sufficiently high, so the material being elastomeric polymer is treated as being sufficient for purposes of addressing the claim.
Regarding Claim 5, Gottschalk, Wojtyczka, and Gittler teach the labyrinth seal as set forth in Claim 1.
The modification by Wojtyczka in Claim 1 results in which the rigid layer is a rigid metal alloy, as exemplified by rigid layers (52, 54) in Figure 8 of Wojtyczka and the materials they are described as [0036].
Regarding Claim 7, Gottschalk, Wojtyczka, and Gittler teach the labyrinth seal as set forth in Claim 1.
Figure 5 of Gottschalk teaches in which the first portion (with 205) of the labyrinth seal further comprises a bearing surface (see location at annotated Figure 5’ below) that is concentric to the series of projections (225) and recessions of the first portion, the bearing surface of the first portion of the labyrinth seal having a radial surface area (surface facing away from 300), in which each projection (225, not including one forming the bearing surface) of the series of projections and recessions of the first portion has a first radial side (facing towards 300) and a second radial side (facing away from 300), the second radial side being radially farther from the bearing surface of the first portion of the labyrinth seal than the first radial side is from the bearing surface of the first portion of the labyrinth seal, each first radial side of each projection having a surface area (surface area of 225 facing towards 300, not including one forming the bearing surface), in which the radial surface area of the bearing surface of the first portion of the labyrinth seal is greater than the surface area of the first radial side of each projection (225) of the series of projections and recessions of the first portion; and the second portion (with 210) of the labyrinth seal further comprising a bearing surface (see location at annotated Figure 5’ below) that is concentric to the series of projections (320) and recessions of the second portion, in which the bearing surface of the second portion is configured to engage the bearing surface of the first portion of the labyrinth seal (see portions of 225, 320 facing each other at bearing surface annotation), in which each projection (320, not including one forming bearing surface) of the series of projections and recessions of the second portion has a first radial side (facing towards 300) and a second radial side (facing away from 300), the second radial side being radially farther from the bearing surface of the second portion of the labyrinth seal than the first radial side is from the bearing surface of the second portion of the labyrinth seal, each first radial side of each projection (320) having a surface area (surface area of 320 facing towards 300, not including one forming bearing surface), in which the radial surface area of the bearing surface of the second portion of the labyrinth seal is greater than the surface area of the first radial side of each projection (320) of the series of projections and recessions of the second portion. See annotated Figure 5’ below.
PNG
media_image1.png
602
914
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, Gottschalk, Wojtyczka, and Gittler teach the labyrinth seal as set forth in Claim 7.
Gottschalk does not expressly teach in which the bearing surface of the first portion of the labyrinth seal is radially farther from the axis of rotation than the series of projections and recession of the first portion as claimed.
However, the courts have held various practices to be routine expedients, requiring only ordinary skill in the art. One such practice is the rearrangement of parts (see MPEP 2144.04, VI, C). In the case of the instant application, although of a different embodiment, Col. 7, Lines 1-27 discuss the relationship between similarly numbered (225) and (320). Gottschalk does not discuss any criticality towards placement of the longer of the of the projections (225) forming the bearing surface relative to the shorter projections (225). Thus, there is no evidence of record such a rearrangement of parts to arrive at the claimed invention results in a difference in operation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the labyrinth seal taught by Gottschalk-Wojtyczka-Gittler such that the bearing surface of the first portion of the labyrinth seal is radially farther from the axis of rotation than the series of projections and recession of the first portion as a matter of design choice, since such a modification is considered merely a rearrangement of parts.
Regarding Claim 9, Gottschalk, Wojtyczka, and Gittler teach the labyrinth seal as set forth in Claim 7.
Figure 5 of Gottschalk teaches in which the bearing surface of the first portion of the labyrinth seal is closer to the axis of rotation than the series of projections and recessions of the first portion. See also annotated Figure 5’ above, the bearing surface associated with (225).
Regarding Claim 10, Gottschalk, Wojtyczka, and Gittler teach the labyrinth seal as set forth in Claim 7.
Figure 5 of Gottschalk teaches in which the bearing surface of the first portion of the labyrinth seal is into the rotating portion of the rotating machinery. See also annotated Figure 5’ above, the bearing surface associated with (225). The limitation of machined is treated as a product by process limitation. Patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in a 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 is made by a different process (see MPEP 2113). Since the bearing surface is a one-piece construction, it is treated as satisfying the structure required of the process of being machined.
Regarding Claim 11, Figure 5 of Gottschalk teaches a hydromotive machine (see Col. 1, Lines 7-31) comprising: a blade assembly (205) configured to rotate about an axis of rotation (vertical axis along center of 300); a non-rotation portion (210); a labyrinth seal (see 320 and 225) between the blade assembly (205) and the non-rotating portion (210), the labyrinth seal comprising: a first portion (connected to 205) having a series of projections (225) and recessions (between neighboring 225) that are concentric about the axis of rotation; and a second portion (connected to 210) having a series of projections (320) and recessions (between neighboring 320) that are concentric about the axis of rotation, the projections (320) of the series of projections and recessions of the second portion (of 210) are configured to mate with the recessions (between 225) of the series of projections and recessions of the first portion (of 205), the projections (225) of the series of projections and recession of the first portion (of 205) are configured to mate with the recessions (between 320) of the series of projections and recession of the second portion (of 210). Please note that the interpretation of “first” and “second” portions may be switched as well, i.e. first portion being of (210) and second being of (205). Although of a different embodiment, Col. 7, Lines 1-27 discuss the relationship between similarly numbered (225) and (320). Please note that the other end of the rotor (205) has projections and recessions in a similar relationship as well, with respect to (235) and (335) of the blade assembly (205) and stationary portion (210), respectively.
Gottschalk does not expressly teach the second portion further comprising at least one elastomeric polymer layer configured to allow for at least part of the second portion of the labyrinth seal to be temporarily pushed, in a radial direction, out of the way of the first portion during an excursion of the blade assembly, while still providing sufficiently high stiffness, in a direction orthogonal to said radial direction, of the first portion relative to the second portion as claimed. However, an elastomeric polymer layer would have been obvious in view of Wojtyczka and Gittler.
Figures 6-8 of Wojtyczka teach a portion (50) comprising at least one elastomeric polymer layer (51, 53, 55). The elastomeric polymer layers (51, 53, 55) are made of an elastomeric material that is allowed to deform. This allows them to absorb part of the mount (50) to absorb some of the vibrational loading. Meanwhile, the rigid layers (52, 54) contribute to the securement of the elastomeric layers (51, 53, 55) and the structural integrity of the mount (50) [0036-0040]. See also the embodiment of Figure 4, which only has an elastomeric polymer layer (41), and further clarifying the polymer material when referring to the “viscoelastic” elastomeric layers [0025]. While the mount of Wojtyczka is not for a labyrinth seal as in the instant application, the teachings are considered relevant because they are reasonably pertinent to a problem faced by the inventor: dealing with vibrational problems between rotary and non-rotary portions of seals. The presence of the problem is evidenced by Gittler. Figure 1 of Gittler shows a labyrinth seal (14) between blade assembly (11) and non-rotary portion (12). Paragraph [0005] elaborates that this region (between impeller, rotary, and housing, non-rotary) is known to be subjected to severe vibrations during operation. Thus, Gittler evidences that vibrational loading is a known problem that is present in assemblies with rotary-nonrotary portions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hydromotive machine taught by Gottschalk such that the second portion comprises at least one elastomeric polymer layer as suggested by Wojtyczka-Gittler, to provide the benefit of absorbing some of the vibrational loading while maintaining the structural integrity of the mount. The limitations of to allow for at least part of the second portion of the labyrinth seal to be temporarily pushed, in a radial direction, out of the way of the first portion during an excursion of the blade assembly, while still providing sufficiently high stiffness, in a direction orthogonal to said radial direction, of the first portion relative to the second portion are treated as intended use of the claimed apparatus. Recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP 2114 regarding functional language). The combination teaches the structural requirement of the second portion comprising at least one elastomeric polymer layer. Such layers are capable of temporary deformation [0037]. Thus, they are capable of being temporarily pushed, since they are elastically deformable. The claim does not specify how much stiffness is required to be sufficiently high, so the material being elastomeric polymer is treated as being sufficient for purposes of addressing the claim.
Regarding Claim 15, Gottschalk, Wojtyczka, and Gittler teach the hydromotive machine as set forth in Claim 11.
The modification by Wojtyczka in Claim 11 results in which the rigid layer is a rigid metal alloy, as exemplified by rigid layers (52, 54) in Figure 8 of Wojtyczka and the materials they are described as [0036].
Regarding Claim 17, Gottschalk, Wojtyczka, and Gittler teach the hydromotive machine as set forth in Claim 11.
Figure 5 of Gottschalk teaches in which the first portion (with 205) of the labyrinth seal further comprises a bearing surface (see location at annotated Figure 5’ below) that is concentric to the series of projections (225) and recessions of the first portion, the bearing surface of the first portion of the labyrinth seal having a radial surface area (surface facing away from 300), in which each projection (225, not including one forming the bearing surface) of the series of projections and recessions of the first portion has a first radial side (facing towards 300) and a second radial side (facing away from 300), the second radial side being radially farther from the bearing surface of the first portion of the labyrinth seal than the first radial side is from the bearing surface of the first portion of the labyrinth seal, each first radial side of each projection having a surface area (surface area of 225 facing towards 300, not including one forming the bearing surface), in which the radial surface area of the bearing surface of the first portion of the labyrinth seal is greater than the surface area of the first radial side of each projection (225) of the series of projections and recessions of the first portion; and the second portion (with 210) of the labyrinth seal further comprising a bearing surface (see location at annotated Figure 5’ below) that is concentric to the series of projections (320) and recessions of the second portion, in which the bearing surface of the second portion is configured to engage the bearing surface of the first portion of the labyrinth seal (see portions of 225, 320 facing each other at bearing surface annotation), in which each projection (320, not including one forming bearing surface) of the series of projections and recessions of the second portion has a first radial side (facing towards 300) and a second radial side (facing away from 300), the second radial side being radially farther from the bearing surface of the second portion of the labyrinth seal than the first radial side is from the bearing surface of the second portion of the labyrinth seal, each first radial side of each projection (320) having a surface area (surface area of 320 facing towards 300, not including one forming bearing surface), in which the radial surface area of the bearing surface of the second portion of the labyrinth seal is greater than the surface area of the first radial side of each projection (320) of the series of projections and recessions of the second portion. See annotated Figure 5’ above.
Regarding Claim 18, Gottschalk, Wojtyczka, and Gittler teach the hydromotive machine as set forth in Claim 17.
Gottschalk does not expressly teach in which the bearing surface of the first portion of the labyrinth seal is radially farther from the axis of rotation than the series of projections and recession of the first portion as claimed.
However, the courts have held various practices to be routine expedients, requiring only ordinary skill in the art. One such practice is the rearrangement of parts (see MPEP 2144.04, VI, C). In the case of the instant application, although of a different embodiment, Col. 7, Lines 1-27 discuss the relationship between similarly numbered (225) and (320). Gottschalk does not discuss any criticality towards placement of the longer of the of the projections (225) forming the bearing surface relative to the shorter projections (225). Thus, there is no evidence of record such a rearrangement of parts to arrive at the claimed invention results in a difference in operation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the hydromotive machine taught by Gottschalk-Wojtyczka-Gittler such that the bearing surface of the first portion of the labyrinth seal is radially farther from the axis of rotation than the series of projections and recession of the first portion as a matter of design choice, since such a modification is considered merely a rearrangement of parts.
Regarding Claim 19, Gottschalk, Wojtyczka, and Gittler teach the hydromotive machine as set forth in Claim 17.
Figure 5 of Gottschalk teaches in which the bearing surface of the first portion of the labyrinth seal is closer to the axis of rotation than the series of projections and recessions of the first portion. See also annotated Figure 5’ above, the bearing surface associated with (225).
Regarding Claim 20, Gottschalk, Wojtyczka, and Gittler teach the hydromotive machine as set forth in Claim 17.
Figure 5 of Gottschalk teaches in which the bearing surface of the first portion of the labyrinth seal is into the blade assembly. See also annotated Figure 5’ above, the bearing surface associated with (225). The limitation of machined is treated as a product by process limitation. Patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in a 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 is made by a different process (see MPEP 2113). Since the bearing surface is a one-piece construction, it is treated as satisfying the structure required of the process of being machined.
Claims 2-4 and 12-14, as far as they are definite and understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gottschalk, Wojtyczka, and Gittler as applied to Claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Letourneau (US 6,682,077 B1), hereinafter Letourneau.
Regarding Claim 2, Gottschalk, Wojtyczka, and Gittler teach the labyrinth seal as set forth in Claim 1.
Gottschalk does not expressly teach the second portion further comprises a mount that is configured to mount the second portion of the labyrinth seal to the non-rotating portion of the rotating machinery as claimed. However, a mount would have been obvious in view of Letourneau.
Figure 4 of Letourneau teaches a labyrinth seal arrangement between a rotation portion (2) and a non-rotation portion (1). Portions (8, 9) comprise a mount (via 43, 45) configured to mount the portion to the non-rotating portion (1) of the rotating machinery. Rather than being formed with the portions (1, 2), the mounting allows for various manufacturability advantages, such as reductions in material requirements, machining time, material waste, component complexity, and cost (Col. 8, Lines 12-28). Thus, one of ordinary skill would consider mounting one of or both portions of Gottschalk if such benefits are desirable. Additionally, please note that making portions separable is considered by the courts to be a routine expedient, requiring only ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04, V, C). Having a mount is interpretable as merely separating the second portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the labyrinth seal taught by Gottschalk-Wojtyczka-Gittler such that the second portion further comprises a mount that is configured to mount the second portion of the labyrinth seal to the non-rotating portion of the rotating machinery as suggested by Letourneau, to provide the benefits of improving manufacturability. Additionally, modifying to make portions separable is an obvious matter of design choice.
Regarding Claim 3, Gottschalk, Wojtyczka, Gittler, and Letourneau teach the labyrinth seal as set forth in Claim 2.
Figure 5 of Gottschalk teaches in which the first portion (205 portion with 225) of the labyrinth seal is into the rotating portion (205) of the rotating machinery. The limitation of machined is treated as a product by process limitation. Patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in a 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 is made by a different process (see MPEP 2113). Figure 5 of Gottschalk at least illustrates the first portion of the seal (see projections 225) is one piece with the rotating portion (205). This is the same structure as the product resulting from being machined, since machining is recognized to involve taking one part and performing operations to remove material to result in a one-piece construction having desired features. Thus, the limitation is met by Gottschalk.
Regarding Claim 4, Gottschalk, Wojtyczka, and Gittler teach the labyrinth seal as set forth in Claim 1.
Gottschalk does not expressly teach a mount that is configured to mount the second portion of the labyrinth seal to the rotating portion of the rotating machinery as claimed. However, a mount would have been obvious in view of Letourneau.
Figure 4 of Letourneau teaches a labyrinth seal arrangement between a rotation portion (2) and a non-rotation portion (1). Portions (8, 9) comprise a mount (via 43, 45) configured to mount the portion to the rotating portion (2) of the rotating machinery. Rather than being formed with the portions (1, 2), the mounting allows for various manufacturability advantages, such as reductions in material requirements, machining time, material waste, component complexity, and cost (Col. 8, Lines 12-28). Thus, one of ordinary skill would consider mounting one of or both portions of Gottschalk if such benefits are desirable. Additionally, please note that making portions separable is considered by the courts to be a routine expedient, requiring only ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04, V, C). Having a mount is interpretable as merely separating the second portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the labyrinth seal taught by Gottschalk-Wojtyczka-Gittler with a mount that is configured to mount the second portion of the labyrinth seal to the rotating portion of the rotating machinery as suggested by Letourneau, to provide the benefits of improving manufacturability. Additionally, modifying to make portions separable is an obvious matter of design choice.
Regarding Claim 12, Gottschalk, Wojtyczka, and Gittler teach the hydromotive machine as set forth in Claim 11.
Gottschalk does not expressly teach the second portion further comprises a mount that is configured to mount the second portion of the labyrinth seal to the non-rotating portion as claimed. However, a mount would have been obvious in view of Letourneau.
Figure 4 of Letourneau teaches a labyrinth seal arrangement between a rotation portion (2) and a non-rotation portion (1). Portions (8, 9) comprise a mount (via 43, 45) configured to mount the portion to the non-rotating portion (1). Rather than being formed with the portions (1, 2), the mounting allows for various manufacturability advantages, such as reductions in material requirements, machining time, material waste, component complexity, and cost (Col. 8, Lines 12-28). Thus, one of ordinary skill would consider mounting one of or both portions of Gottschalk if such benefits are desirable. Additionally, please note that making portions separable is considered by the courts to be a routine expedient, requiring only ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04, V, C). Having a mount is interpretable as merely separating the second portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hydromotive machine taught by Gottschalk-Wojtyczka-Gittler such that the second portion further comprises a mount that is configured to mount the second portion of the labyrinth seal to the non-rotating portion as suggested by Letourneau, to provide the benefits of improving manufacturability. Additionally, modifying to make portions separable is an obvious matter of design choice.
Regarding Claim 13, Gottschalk, Wojtyczka, Gittler, and Letourneau teach the hydromotive machine as set forth in Claim 12.
Figure 5 of Gottschalk teaches in which the first portion (205 portion with 225) of the labyrinth seal is machined into the blade assembly (205). The limitation of machined is treated as a product by process limitation. Patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in a 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 is made by a different process (see MPEP 2113). Figure 5 of Gottschalk at least illustrates the first portion of the seal (see projections 225) is one piece with the blade assembly (205). This is the same structure as the product resulting from being machined, since machining is recognized to involve taking one part and performing operations to remove material to result in a one-piece construction having desired features. Thus, the limitation is met by Gottschalk.
Regarding Claim 14, Gottschalk, Wojtyczka, and Gittler teach the hydromotive machine as set forth in Claim 11.
Gottschalk does not expressly teach a mount that is configured to mount the second portion of the labyrinth seal to the blade assembly as claimed. However, a mount would have been obvious in view of Letourneau.
Figure 4 of Letourneau teaches a labyrinth seal arrangement between a blade assembly (2) and a non-rotation portion (1). Portions (8, 9) comprise a mount (via 43, 45) configured to mount the portion to the blade assembly (2). Rather than being formed with the portions (1, 2), the mounting allows for various manufacturability advantages, such as reductions in material requirements, machining time, material waste, component complexity, and cost (Col. 8, Lines 12-28). Thus, one of ordinary skill would consider mounting one of or both portions of Gottschalk if such benefits are desirable. Additionally, please note that making portions separable is considered by the courts to be a routine expedient, requiring only ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04, V, C). Having a mount is interpretable as merely separating the second portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hydromotive machine taught by Gottschalk-Wojtyczka-Gittler with a mount that is configured to mount the second portion of the labyrinth seal to the blade assembly as suggested by Letourneau, to provide the benefits of improving manufacturability. Additionally, modifying to make portions separable is an obvious matter of design choice.
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 ELTON K WONG whose telephone number is (408)918-7626. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM - 5:00PM 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, Court 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.
/ELTON K WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights