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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment submitted 03/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-11 remain pending. Claims 12-20 have been cancelled. New claims 21-29 have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/26/2026 have been fully considered and were found persuasive. However, the amendments to the claims have changed the scope of the claims necessitating new grounds of rejection. The Examiner further notes that, after further search, the Dupeux prior art was found to contain teachings rendering the limitations of claim 6, previously indicated as containing allowable subject matter, as obvious. Please see new grounds of rejection below.
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(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 10815809 to DiFrancesco.
(a) Regarding claim 1:
(i) DiFrancesco discloses an apparatus for a gas turbine engine (Col 4 Lns 11-13), the apparatus comprising:
a rotor (rotor structure 26, Fig 1) revolving at a rotational speed about a longitudinal axis of the rotor (rotational axis 22, Fig 1); and
a radial seal (primary seal device 40, Fig 3) surrounding a circumference of the rotor (Figs 1/3),
the radial seal including a plurality of seal segments (shoes 54, Fig 3), each having a natural frequency (must exist),
wherein the plurality of seal segments is a prime number that is greater than or equal to three (seven shoes 54, Fig 3).
(ii) The Examiner notes that “asymmetric radial seal” in the preamble is merely the intended use of the applicant which does not give meaning and purpose to the apparatus and does not constitute a limitation of the claim, see MPEP 2111.02(II).
(iii) The limitations “having a number of vibrational loads during a single revolution of the rotor, the rotational speed and the number of vibrational loads defining a cyclic vibration experienced by the rotor during operation of the gas turbine engine” and “the prime number differing from the number of vibrational loads during a single revolution of the rotor, wherein the cyclic vibration experienced by the rotor imparts a vibrational load having a vibration frequency to each of the plurality of seal segments, and the prime number of seal segments reduces a likelihood of the vibration frequency matching the natural frequency of one of the plurality of seal segments” are functional language regarding the use of the apparatus. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. As DiFrancesco discloses all structural limitations of the claim, recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed invention is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed invention from a prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114(II).
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.
Claim(s) 2-3, 5, 7-8, 23, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10815809 to DiFrancesco in view of US 11608747 to Ganiger.
(a) Regarding claim 2:
(i) DiFrancesco discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
(ii) DiFrancesco does not disclose wherein at least one of a dimension or a material property of the plurality of seal segments differs between at least two seal segments of the plurality of seal segments.
(iii) Ganiger is also in the field of gas turbine engines (see abstract) and teaches a plurality of seal segments (segments 304/306/308/310/312/314, Fig 3; segments 402/404/406/408/410/412/414, Fig 4A; segments 452/454/456/460/462/464/466, Fig 4B), wherein at least one of a dimension (axial length: Col 8 Lns 15-23, Col 8 Lns 57-59, Col 9 Lns 25-26; circumferential length, Col 8 Lns 33-34) or a material property (durability, stiffness, weight: Col 7 Lns 41-43, Col 9 Lns 65-67, Col 10 Lns 42-45) of the plurality of seal segments differs between at least two seal segments of the plurality of segments (Col 7 Lns 61-62).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the plurality of seal segments as disclosed by DiFrancesco to have at least one of a dimension or a material property which differs between at least two seal segments of the plurality of segments as taught by Ganiger for the purpose of damping and/or reducing component vibration (Col 7 Lns 34-36/46-50), prevent and/or reduce strain caused by engine vibration (Col 9 Lns 27-29), reducing weight and cost (Col 9 Lns 34-36), and increase reliability and durability of the gas turbine engine (Col 9 Lns 39-43).
(b) Regarding claim 3:
(i) DiFrancesco as modified by Ganiger teaches the apparatus of claim 2.
(ii) Ganiger further teaches wherein the dimension corresponds to at least one of a width along a circumferential direction relative to the longitudinal axis (Col 8 Lns 33-34) and/or a length along an axial direction of the longitudinal axis (Col 8 Lns 15-23, Col 8 Lns 57-59, and Col 9 Lns 25-26).
(c) Regarding claim 5:
(i) DiFrancesco as modified by Ganiger teaches the apparatus of claim 2.
(ii) Ganiger further teaches wherein the material property corresponds to at least one of a mass, a density, or a material composition (durability, stiffness, weight: Col 7 Lns 41-43/61-62, Col 9 Lns 65-67, and Col 10 Lns 42-45).
(e) Regarding claim 7:
(i) DiFrancesco as modified by Ganiger teaches the apparatus of claim 2.
(ii) Ganiger further teaches:
wherein the plurality of seal segments include a first seal segment (any one of the seal segments, Figs 4A-4B),
a second seal segment adjacent to the first seal segment (any other adjacent seal segment, Figs 4A-4B), and a
third seal segment adjacent to the second seat segment (any another one adjacent seal segment, Figs 4A-4B),
the first and third seal segments having at least one of a first dimension (respective circumferential or axial lengths, Figs 4A-4B) or a first material property (durability, stiffness, weight: Col 7 Lns 41-43/61-62, Col 9 Lns 65-67, Col 10 Lns 42-45),
the second seal segment having at least one of a second dimension (respective circumferential or axial length, Figs 4A-4B) or a second material property (durability, stiffness, weight: Col 7 Lns 41-43, Col 9 Lns 65-67, Col 10 Lns 42-45),
the first dimension different from the second dimension (Col 8 Lns 33-34, Col 8 Lns 15-23, Col 8 Lns 57-59, and Col 9 Lns 25-26),
the first material property different from the second material property (Col 7 Lns 41-43/61-62, Col 9 Lns 65-67, Col 10 Lns 42-45).
(f) Regarding claim 8:
(i) DiFrancesco as modified by Ganiger teaches the apparatus of claim 2.
(ii) Ganiger further teaches wherein the at least one of the dimension or the material property decreases between the plurality of seal segments in a circumferential direction of the rotor (Figs 3-4B).
(f) Regarding claim 23:
(i) DiFrancesco teaches the turbine engine of claim 22.
(ii) DiFrancesco further discloses wherein the plurality of seal segments include a first seal segment (any shoe 54, Fig 3), a second seal segment adjacent to the first seal segment (any other shoe 54 adjacent to the first seal segment, Fig 3), and a third seal segment adjacent to the second seal segment (any shoe 54 adjacent to second seal segment opposite to the first seal segment, Fig 3), the first and third seal segments having at least one of a first dimension or a first material property (must exist as defined), and the second seal segment having at least one of a second dimension or a second material property (must exist as defined).
(iii) DiFrancesco does not disclose the first dimension being different from the second dimension nor the first material property being different from the second material property.
(iv) Ganiger is also in the field of gas turbine engines (see abstract) and teaches a plurality of seal segments (segments 304/306/308/310/312/314, Fig 3; segments 402/404/406/408/410/412/414, Fig 4A; segments 452/454/456/460/462/464/466, Fig 4B), wherein at least one of a dimension (axial length: Col 8 Lns 15-23, Col 8 Lns 57-59, Col 9 Lns 25-26; circumferential length, Col 8 Lns 33-34) or a material property (durability, stiffness, weight: Col 7 Lns 41-43, Col 9 Lns 65-67, Col 10 Lns 42-45) of the plurality of seal segments differs between at least two seal segments of the plurality of segments (Col 7 Lns 61-62).
(v) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second dimension or material properties, respectively, as disclosed by DiFrancesco to differ as taught by Ganiger for the purpose of damping and/or reducing component vibration (Col 7 Lns 34-36/46-50), prevent and/or reduce strain caused by engine vibration (Col 9 Lns 27-29), reducing weight and cost (Col 9 Lns 34-36), and increase reliability and durability of the gas turbine engine (Col 9 Lns 39-43).
(d) Regarding claim 28:
(i) DiFrancesco teaches the turbine engine of claim 22.
(ii) DiFrancesco does not teach wherein at least one of a material property of the plurality of seal segments differs between at least two seal segments of the plurality of seal segments, and the material property corresponds to at least one of a mass, density, or a material composition.
(iii) Ganiger is also in the field of gas turbine engines (see abstract) and teaches a plurality of seal segments (segments 304/306/308/310/312/314, Fig 3; segments 402/404/406/408/410/412/414, Fig 4A; segments 452/454/456/460/462/464/466, Fig 4B), wherein at least one of a material property (durability, stiffness, weight: Col 7 Lns 41-43, Col 9 Lns 65-67, Col 10 Lns 42-45) of the plurality of seal segments differs between at least two seal segments of the plurality of segments (Col 7 Lns 61-62).
(v) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the at least one of a material property as disclosed by DiFrancesco to differ as taught by Ganiger for the purpose of damping and/or reducing component vibration (Col 7 Lns 34-36/46-50), prevent and/or reduce strain caused by engine vibration (Col 9 Lns 27-29), reducing weight and cost (Col 9 Lns 34-36), and increase reliability and durability of the gas turbine engine (Col 9 Lns 39-43).
Claim(s) 4, 6, 9, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10815809 to DiFrancesco in view of US 11608747 to Ganiger as applied to claims 2, 5, and 28 above, and further in view of US 7500299 to Dupeux.
(a) Regarding claim 4:
(i) DiFrancesco as modified by Ganiger teaches the apparatus of claim 2.
(ii) DiFrancesco as modified by Ganiger does not teach wherein a standard of deviation of the dimension of the plurality of seal segments arranged along the circumference of the rotor is in a range from five percent to one hundred percent, inclusive, of a mean value of the dimension of the plurality of seal segments along the circumference.
(iii) Dupeux is also in the field of vibration reductions (see abstract) and teaches wherein the standard of deviation of structural differences determines the maximum vibrational response amplitude (Col 1 Lns 47-61, Fig 1), thereby establishing it as a result effective variable. Routine optimization requires only ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.05(II).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the standard of deviation of the dimension to be within the claimed range through routine optimization of a result effective variable, see MPEP 2144.05(II).
(b) Regarding claims 6 and 29:
(i) DiFrancesco as modified by Ganiger teaches the apparatus of claim 5 and the turbine engine of claim 28.
(ii) DiFrancesco as modified by Ganiger does not teach wherein a standard of deviation of the mass of the plurality of seal segments along the circumference of the rotor is in a range from five percent to twenty percent, inclusive, of a mean value of the mass of the plurality of seal segments along the circumference.
(iii) Dupeux is also in the field of vibration reductions (see abstract) and teaches wherein the standard of deviation of structural differences determines the maximum vibrational response amplitude (Col 1 Lns 47-61, Fig 1), thereby establishing it as a result effective variable. Routine optimization requires only ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.05(II).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the standard of deviation of the mass to be within the claimed range through routine optimization of a result effective variable, see MPEP 2144.05(II).
(c) Regarding claim 9:
(i) DiFrancesco as modified by Ganiger teaches the apparatus of claim 2.
(ii) DiFrancesco as modified by Ganiger further teaches wherein the plurality of seal segments include first seal segments and second seal segments (DiFrancesco: any two adjacent shoes 54, Fig 3), the first seal segments adjacent to the second seal segments (DiFrancesco: Fig 3), the second seal segments substantially the same as the first seal segments (DiFrancesco: Fig 3).
(iii) DiFrancesco as modified by Ganiger does not teach wherein the at least one of the dimension or the material property is randomly distributed across the first seal segments.
(iv) Dupeux is also in the field of vibration reductions (see abstract) and teaches wherein at least one of a dimension or material property is randomly distributed among different structures (Col 3 Lns 7-21).
(v) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the at least one of the dimension or the material property as taught by the combined teachings of DiFrancesco as modified by Ganiger to be randomly distributed as taught by Dupeux for the purpose of determining an optimal mismatch value (Col 3 Lns 7-21).
Claim(s) 10 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10815809 to DiFrancesco in view of US 11608747 to Ganiger in further view of US 11255345 to Kushner.
(a) Regarding claim 10:
(i) DiFrancesco discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
(ii) DiFrancesco does not disclose wherein a natural frequency of the plurality of seal segments is distributed at least one of linearly, logarithmically, or exponentially along the circumference of the rotor.
(iii) Ganiger is also in the field of gas turbine engines (see abstract) and teaches a plurality of seal segments (segments 304/306/308/310/312/314, Fig 3; segments 402/404/406/408/410/412/414, Fig 4A; segments 452/454/456/460/462/464/466, Fig 4B), wherein at least one of a dimension (axial length: Col 8 Lns 15-23, Col 8 Lns 57-59, Col 9 Lns 25-26; circumferential length, Col 8 Lns 33-34) or a material property (durability, stiffness, weight: Col 7 Lns 41-43, Col 9 Lns 65-67, Col 10 Lns 42-45) of the plurality of seal segments differs between at least two seal segments of the plurality of segments (Col 7 Lns 61-62) to vary the natural frequency of the at least two seal segments (Col 7 Lns 41-45).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the plurality of seal segments as disclosed by DiFrancesco to have at least one of a dimension or a material property which differs between at least two seal segments of the plurality of segments as taught by Ganiger for the purpose of damping and/or reducing component vibration (Col 7 Lns 34-36/41-50), prevent and/or reduce strain caused by engine vibration (Col 9 Lns 27-29), reducing weight and cost (Col 9 Lns 34-36), and increase reliability and durability of the gas turbine engine (Col 9 Lns 39-43).
(v) DiFrancesco as modified by Ganiger does not teach wherein the distribution is at least one of linearly, logarithmically, or exponentially along the circumference of the rotor.
(vi) Kushner is also in the field of vibrational control (see title and abstract) and teaches varying structures in a linear distribution along the circumference of a rotor (Col 4 Lns 59-62).
(vii) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the natural frequency of the plurality of seal segments as taught by the combined teachings of DiFrancesco as modified by Ganiger to be vary linearly as taught by Kushner for the purpose of mistuning cavities to minimize acoustic pulsations (Col 4 Lns 59-62).
(b) Regarding claim 24:
(i) DiFrancesco teaches the turbine engine of claim 22.
(ii) DiFrancesco does not disclose wherein at least one of a dimensional or a material property continuously decreases between the plurality of seal segments in a circumferential direction relative to the longitudinal axis of the rotor.
(iii) Ganiger is also in the field of gas turbine engines (see abstract) and teaches a plurality of seal segments (segments 304/306/308/310/312/314, Fig 3; segments 402/404/406/408/410/412/414, Fig 4A; segments 452/454/456/460/462/464/466, Fig 4B), wherein at least one of a dimension (axial length: Col 8 Lns 15-23, Col 8 Lns 57-59, Col 9 Lns 25-26; circumferential length, Col 8 Lns 33-34) or a material property (durability, stiffness, weight: Col 7 Lns 41-43, Col 9 Lns 65-67, Col 10 Lns 42-45) of the plurality of seal segments differs decreases between at least two seal segments of the plurality of segments (Col 7 Lns 61-62).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the at least one of a dimensional or a material property as disclosed by DiFrancesco to decrease as taught by Ganiger for the purpose of damping and/or reducing component vibration (Col 7 Lns 34-36/46-50), prevent and/or reduce strain caused by engine vibration (Col 9 Lns 27-29), reducing weight and cost (Col 9 Lns 34-36), and increase reliability and durability of the gas turbine engine (Col 9 Lns 39-43).
(v) DiFrancesco as modified by Ganiger does not teach wherein decrease is continuous.
(vi) Kushner is also in the field of vibrational control (see title and abstract) and teaches varying structures in a linear distribution along the circumference of a rotor (Col 4 Lns 59-62).
(vii) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the decrease as taught by the combined teachings of DiFrancesco as modified by Ganiger to be linear as taught by Kushner for the purpose of mistuning cavities to minimize acoustic pulsations (Col 4 Lns 59-62).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10815809 to DiFrancesco in view of US 11608747 to Ganiger as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US 9777594 to Lang.
(a) Regarding claim 11:
(i) DiFrancesco as modified by Ganiger teaches the apparatus of claim 2.
(ii) DiFrancesco further discloses:
a stator (seal base 52, Fig 3),
wherein the plurality of seal segments include a first seal segment and a second seal segment (any two adjacent shoes 54, Fig 3),
the first seal segment being arranged in a circumferential direction relative to the longitudinal axis adjacent to the second seal segment along the circumference of the rotor (Fig 3), and
wherein a first retraction spring (respective one of spring elements 56, Figs 3-4) is operatively coupled between the first seal segment and the stator (Fig 3), and
a second retraction spring is operatively coupled between the second seal segment and the stator (Fig 3).
(vi) DiFrancesco as modified by Ganiger does not teach a first stiffness of the first retraction spring is greater than a second stiffness of the second retraction spring.
(vii) Lang is also in the field of gas turbine engines (see title) and teaches first and second springs (two adjacent springs 34), a first stiffness of a first spring greater than a second stiffness of the second retraction spring (springs have different spring constants: Col 4 Lns 52-55, Col 5 Lns 50-52, and Col 8 Lns 5-12).
(viii) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second spring as taught by the combined teachings of DiFrancesco as modified by Ganiger to have different stiffnesses as taught by Lang for the purpose of tuning each spring (Col 5 Lns 50-52) to prevent certain high and/or low frequencies (Col 4 Lns 52-55) thereby allowing tailoring of the spring constants to accommodate radial and/or axial variations as well as avoid crack formation (Col 8 Lns 7-18).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10815809 to DiFrancesco in view of US 11608747 to Ganiger as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of US 11255345 to Kushner.
(a) Regarding claim 21:
(i) DiFrancesco as modified by Ganiger teaches the apparatus of claim 8.
(ii) DiFrancesco as modified by Ganiger does not teach wherein the dimension continuously decreases linearly, logarithmically, or exponentially.
(iii) Kushner is also in the field of vibrational control (see title and abstract) and teaches varying structures in a linear distribution along the circumference of a rotor (Col 4 Lns 59-62).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the natural frequency of the plurality of seal segments as taught by the combined teachings of DiFrancesco as modified by Ganiger to be vary linearly as taught by Kushner for the purpose of mistuning cavities to minimize acoustic pulsations (Col 4 Lns 59-62).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10815809 to DiFrancesco.
(a) Regarding claim 22:
(i) DiFrancesco discloses a gas turbine engine (Col 4 Lns 11-13) comprising:
a rotor (rotor structure 26, Fig 1) revolving at a rotational speed about a longitudinal axis of the rotor (rotational axis 22, Fig 1); and
a radial seal (primary seal device 40, Fig 3) surrounding a circumference of the rotor (Figs 1/3),
the radial seal including a plurality of seal segments (shoes 54, Fig 3), each having a natural frequency (must exist),
wherein the plurality of seal segments is a prime number that is greater than or equal to three (seven shoes 54, Fig 3).
(ii) The Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would immediately understand that a gas turbine engine must have a combustor that generates combustion gases, a turbine that receives the combustion gases, and that the turbine drives a rotor.
(iii) The limitations “having a number of vibrational loads during a single revolution of the rotor, the rotational speed and the number of vibrational loads defining a cyclic vibration experienced by the rotor during operation of the gas turbine engine” and “the prime number differing from the number of vibrational loads during a single revolution of the rotor, wherein the cyclic vibration experienced by the rotor imparts a vibrational load having a vibration frequency to each of the plurality of seal segments, and the prime number of seal segments reduces a likelihood of the vibration frequency matching the natural frequency of one of the plurality of seal segments” are functional language regarding the use of the apparatus. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. As DiFrancesco discloses all structural limitations of the claim, recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed invention is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed invention from a prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114(II).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10815809 to DiFrancesco in view of US 9777594 to Lang.
(a) Regarding claim 25:
(i) DiFrancesco teaches the turbine engine of claim 22.
(ii) DiFrancesco further discloses:
a stator (seal base 52, Fig 3),
wherein the plurality of seal segments include a first seal segment and a second seal segment (any two adjacent shoes 54, Fig 3),
the first seal segment being arranged in a circumferential direction relative to the longitudinal axis adjacent to the second seal segment along the circumference of the rotor (Fig 3), and
wherein a first retraction spring (respective one of spring elements 56, Figs 3-4) is operatively coupled between the first seal segment and the stator (Fig 3), and
a second retraction spring is operatively coupled between the second seal segment and the stator (Fig 3).
(vi) DiFrancesco does not disclose wherein a first stiffness of the first retraction spring is greater than a second stiffness of the second retraction spring.
(vii) Lang is also in the field of gas turbine engines (see title) and teaches first and second springs (two adjacent springs 34), a first stiffness of a first spring greater than a second stiffness of the second retraction spring (springs have different spring constants: Col 4 Lns 52-55, Col 5 Lns 50-52, and Col 8 Lns 5-12).
(viii) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second spring as taught by DiFrancesco to have different stiffnesses as taught by Lang for the purpose of tuning each spring (Col 5 Lns 50-52) to prevent certain high and/or low frequencies (Col 4 Lns 52-55) thereby allowing tailoring of the spring constants to accommodate radial and/or axial variations as well as avoid crack formation (Col 8 Lns 7-18).
Claim(s) 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10815809 to DiFrancesco in view of US 11608747 to Ganiger further in view of US 7500299 to Dupeux.
(a) Regarding claim 26:
(i) DiFrancesco teaches the turbine engine of claim 22.
(ii) DiFrancesco does not disclose wherein at least one of a dimension of the plurality of seal segments differ between at least two seal segments.
(iii) Ganiger is also in the field of gas turbine engines (see abstract) and teaches a plurality of seal segments (segments 304/306/308/310/312/314, Fig 3; segments 402/404/406/408/410/412/414, Fig 4A; segments 452/454/456/460/462/464/466, Fig 4B), wherein at least one of a dimension (axial length: Col 8 Lns 15-23, Col 8 Lns 57-59, Col 9 Lns 25-26; circumferential length, Col 8 Lns 33-34) of the plurality of seal segments differs between at least two seal segments of the plurality of segments (Col 7 Lns 61-62).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the plurality of seal segments as disclosed by DiFrancesco to have at least one of a dimension which differs between at least two seal segments of the plurality of segments as taught by Ganiger for the purpose of damping and/or reducing component vibration (Col 7 Lns 34-36/41-50), prevent and/or reduce strain caused by engine vibration (Col 9 Lns 27-29), reducing weight and cost (Col 9 Lns 34-36), and increase reliability and durability of the gas turbine engine (Col 9 Lns 39-43).
(v) DiFrancesco as modified by Ganiger does not teach wherein a standard of deviation of the dimension of the plurality of seal segments arranged along the circumference of the rotor is in a range from five percent to one hundred percent, inclusive, of a mean value of the dimension of the plurality of seal segments along the circumference.
(vi) Dupeux is also in the field of vibration reductions (see abstract) and teaches wherein the standard of deviation of structural differences determines the maximum vibrational response amplitude (Col 1 Lns 47-61, Fig 1), thereby establishing it as a result effective variable. Routine optimization requires only ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.05(II).
(vii) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the standard of deviation of the dimension to be within the claimed range through routine optimization of a result effective variable, see MPEP 2144.05(II).
(b) Regarding claim 27:
(i) DiFrancesco as modified by Ganiger as further modified by Dupeux teaches the turbine engine of claim 26.
(ii) Ganiger further teaches wherein the dimension corresponds to at least one of a width along a circumferential direction of the rotor (Col 8 Lns 33-34) and/or a length along an axial direction of the rotor (Col 8 Lns 15-23, Col 8 Lns 57-59, and Col 9 Lns 25-26).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin A Pruitt whose telephone number is (571)272-8383. The examiner can normally be reached T-F 8:30am - 6:30pm.
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, Nathaniel 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.
/JUSTIN A PRUITT/ Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights