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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “unobstructed” in claim 1, 11, 16 is used by the claim to mean “partially obstructed”, or “allowing leakage” while the accepted meaning is “clear or free from obstructions or obstacles” (Merriam-Webster). The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Paragraph 40 teaches “passage 90 is unobstructed in that the first rotational assembly 34 does not include a seal or other component (e.g., extending between and to the tie shaft 62 and the disk body 74 for one or more of the bladed compressor rotor disks 66) which prevents or substantially prevents the flow of fluid (e.g., air) through the passage 90 between the rotor cavities 88”. However, passage 90 comprises an “air flow discourager” (see para 47), which is known in the art to be a seal (labyrinth seal). The air flow discourager (labyrinth seal) would be considered by one of ordinary skill in the art to be an obstruction/obstacle, even if it allows some leakage flow through. If there is some difference between Applicant’s “air flow discourager” and the art accepted “labyrinth seal” it is unclear what that difference is.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-5, 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2013/0280028 (Benjamin).
Regarding claims 1-5, 9-10, Benjamin teaches a gas turbine engine of an aircraft propulsion system (Fig 1-2, para 41), the gas turbine engine comprising: a first compressor forming a core flow path of the gas turbine engine (compressor 10); a first turbine further forming the core flow path (para 44; HPT); and a first rotational assembly configured for rotation about a rotational axis, the first rotational assembly includes a first shaft (12), a first compressor rotor of the first compressor (rotor 11 having disks R1-R8), and a first turbine rotor of the first turbine (para 41; high pressure turbine rotor), the first shaft interconnects the first compressor rotor and the first turbine rotor (para 41), the first compressor rotor includes a compressor rotor stack mounted to the first shaft (para 42), the compressor rotor stack includes a plurality of bladed compressor rotor disks (R1-R8) arranged between a forward axial end of the first compressor rotor (at R1) and an aft axial end of the first compressor rotor (at R8), each of the bladed compressor rotor disks is radially spaced from the first shaft to form an unobstructed passage radially between the plurality of bladed compressor rotor disks and the first shaft (Fig 2, para 43-44; flow 48, 54, 64, 70 flows between the radially inner ends of the disks and the shaft 12; “some leakage 59 of hotter aft cavity cooling air may occur under the R6 disk through the piston ring”; this interpretation is consistent with Applicant’s use of “unobstructed”, which uses a seal and a leakage flow across the seal), the plurality of bladed compressor rotor disks includes at least one forward compressor rotor disk (R1-R6) and at least one aft compressor rotor disk (R7-R8), the at least one forward compressor rotor disk includes each of the plurality of bladed compressor rotor disks between the forward axial end and the at least one aft compressor rotor disk (at least one forward compressor disk R1-R6), the at least one forward compressor rotor disk forms at least one forward rotor cavity (36), the at least one aft compressor rotor disk forms at least one aft rotor cavity (38), each of the at least one forward rotor cavity are connected in fluid communication with the at least one aft rotor cavity by the unobstructed passage (Fig 2, para 44; it is noted that the claim does not require that the “at least one forward rotor cavity” includes all of the cavities formed by each of the at least one forward compressor rotor disks, or that each of the at least one forward compressor rotor disks forms a respective one of the least one forward rotor cavity; the claim only requires that “the at least one forward compressor rotor disk forms at least one forward rotor cavity” – in this case, cavity 36 alone is reasonably construed as “the at least one forward rotor cavity”), and the first rotational assembly forms a thermal conditioning assembly, the thermal conditioning assembly includes a plurality of air apertures formed by the at least one aft compressor rotor disk, and the plurality of air apertures extend from the core flow path in the first compressor to the at least one aft rotor cavity (apertures 56; para 44), the first rotational assembly is configured to direct high-pressure air from the core flow path, through the plurality of air apertures, through the at least one aft rotor cavity, to the first turbine (Fig 2, para 44; “flow 70 which flows on to a high pressure turbine (HPT)”), wherein each of the at least one forward compressor rotor disk includes a disk body and a plurality of compressor blades (disk body R1-R8, blades 16), the disk body extends between and to an inner radial end and an outer radial end (Fig 2), the plurality of compressor blades are disposed at the outer radial end, the outer radial end and the plurality of compressor blades further form the core flow path (Fig 2; core flow path 20), and the inner radial end is radially spaced from the first shaft by the unobstructed passage (para 44, Fig 2), wherein the disk body of each of the at least one forward compressor rotor disk is imperforate between the core flow path and the at least one forward rotor cavity (Fig 2; no holes in the disks R1-R6), the disk body of each of the at least one forward compressor rotor disks is configured for passive temperature control of the at least one forward rotor cavity (each disk body is “configured for passive temperature control” by defining the forward rotor cavity, distributing air from the heat exchanger 46, and transferring heat to and from their surroundings), wherein the thermal conditioning assembly includes a buffer air source, and the buffer air source is isolated from the at least one forward rotor cavity (annotated below; buffer air source is the space between shaft 12 and shaft 14, some distance upstream and separated from the holes 50; none of the flow from the buffer air source flows into the forward rotor cavity), wherein the thermal conditioning assembly includes a buffer air source, and the buffer air source is configured to direct a conditioning air flow through the first shaft and into an interior cavity of the first shaft (buffer air source 46, para 43; air flows through holes 50 into an interior of first shaft 12).
PNG
media_image1.png
424
723
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0280028 (Benjamin) in view of US 2016/0069193 (McCaffrey).
Regarding claim 4-5, Benjamin teaches wherein the disk body of each of the at least one forward compressor rotor disk is imperforate between the core flow path and the at least one forward rotor cavity, the disk body of each of the at least one forward compressor rotor disks is configured for passive temperature control of the at least one forward rotor cavity (each disk body is “configured for passive temperature control” by defining the forward rotor cavity, distributing air from the heat exchanger 46, and transferring heat to and from their surroundings), as discussed above. McCaffrey is further cited for teaching that it was well known in the art to maintain the integrity of the core air flowpath (para 39). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the at least one forward compressor rotor disk is imperforate between the core flow path and the at least one forward rotor cavity in order to maintain the integrity of the core flow path, as taught by McCaffrey. Doing so would increase efficiency and output by controlling bleed air to only those areas where it is desired/necessary. Removing air from the core flow path where it is not necessary would reduce efficiency and output of the engine. It has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, making the at least one forward compressor rotor disk imperforate between the core flow path and the at least one forward rotor cavity yields predictable results (desired flow from the core flow, efficiency, output).
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0280028 (Benjamin) in view of US 2016/0069193 (McCaffrey) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of US 2023/0296032 (Townes).
Regarding claim 6-8, Benjamin teaches an air flow discourager (60; para 44), but fails to teach the air flow discourager disposed at the inner radial end of a first forward compressor rotor disk of the at least one forward compressor rotor disk, and the air flow discourager extends radially inward from the inner radial end toward the first shaft; or the air flow discourager disposed at the first shaft, and the air flow discourager extends radially outward from the first shaft toward the inner radial end of a first forward compressor rotor disk of the at least one forward compressor rotor disk; or a plurality of air flow discouragers, a first portion of the plurality of air flow discouragers are disposed at the inner radial end of a first forward compressor rotor disk of the at least one forward compressor rotor disk and extend radially inward from the inner radial end toward the first shaft, and a second portion of the plurality of air flow discouragers are disposed at the first shaft and extend radially outward from the first shaft toward the inner radial end of the first forward compressor rotor disk of the at least one forward compressor rotor disk. However, Townes teaches an air flow discourager at an inner radial end of a surface, the air flow discourager extends radially inward; an air flow discourager extending radially outward; and a plurality of air flow discouragers comprising a first portion extending radially inward and a second portion extending radially outward (Fig 6; air flow discouragers including discouragers 90 extending radially inward and discouragers 92 extending radially outward; para 97, Fig 3; air flow discourager allows some leakage therethrough). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the air flow discourager disposed at the inner radial end of a first forward compressor rotor disk of the at least one forward compressor rotor disk, and the air flow discourager extends radially inward from the inner radial end toward the first shaft; or the air flow discourager disposed at the first shaft, and the air flow discourager extends radially outward from the first shaft toward the inner radial end of a first forward compressor rotor disk of the at least one forward compressor rotor disk; or a plurality of air flow discouragers, a first portion of the plurality of air flow discouragers are disposed at the inner radial end of a first forward compressor rotor disk of the at least one forward compressor rotor disk and extend radially inward from the inner radial end toward the first shaft, and a second portion of the plurality of air flow discouragers are disposed at the first shaft and extend radially outward from the first shaft toward the inner radial end of the first forward compressor rotor disk of the at least one forward compressor rotor disk in order to discourage flow between the disk and the shaft but still allow some leakage therethrough, as taught by Townes. It has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, making the air flow discourager disposed at the inner radial end of a first forward compressor rotor disk of the at least one forward compressor rotor disk, and the air flow discourager extends radially inward from the inner radial end toward the first shaft; or the air flow discourager disposed at the first shaft, and the air flow discourager extends radially outward from the first shaft toward the inner radial end of a first forward compressor rotor disk of the at least one forward compressor rotor disk; or a plurality of air flow discouragers, a first portion of the plurality of air flow discouragers are disposed at the inner radial end of a first forward compressor rotor disk of the at least one forward compressor rotor disk and extend radially inward from the inner radial end toward the first shaft, and a second portion of the plurality of air flow discouragers are disposed at the first shaft and extend radially outward from the first shaft toward the inner radial end of the first forward compressor rotor disk of the at least one forward compressor rotor disk yields predictable results (desired flow across cavities).
Claim(s) 11, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0280028 (Benjamin) in view of US 2013/0192253 (Ackermann).
Regarding claims 11, 14, Benjamin teaches a gas turbine engine of an aircraft propulsion system (Fig 1-2, para 41), the gas turbine engine comprising: a first compressor forming a core flow path of the gas turbine engine (compressor 10); a first turbine further forming the core flow path (para 44; HPT); and a first rotational assembly configured for rotation about a rotational axis, the first rotational assembly includes a first shaft (12), a first compressor rotor of the first compressor (rotor 11 having disks R1-R8), and a first turbine rotor of the first turbine (para 41; high pressure turbine rotor), the first shaft interconnects the first compressor rotor and the first turbine rotor (para 41), the first compressor rotor includes a compressor rotor stack mounted to the first shaft (rotor 11 having disks R1-R8), the compressor rotor stack includes a plurality of bladed compressor rotor disks (R1-R8), each of the bladed compressor rotor disks is radially adjacent and spaced from the first shaft to form an unobstructed passage extending along the first shaft radially between the plurality of bladed compressor rotor disks and the first shaft (Fig 2, para 43-44; flow 48, 54, 64, 70 flows between the radially inner ends of the disks and the shaft 12; “some leakage 59 of hotter aft cavity cooling air may occur under the R6 disk through the piston ring”; this interpretation is consistent with Applicant’s use of “unobstructed”, which uses a seal and a leakage flow across the seal), the plurality of bladed compressor rotor disks form at least one forward rotor cavity (32, 34, and/or 36) and at least one aft cavity (38), the at least one forward rotor cavity and the at least one aft rotor cavity are connected in fluid communication by the unobstructed passage (flow across disk R7 and/or across R6), and the first rotational assembly forms a thermal conditioning assembly, the thermal conditioning assembly includes a plurality of air apertures formed by at least one of the plurality of compressor rotor disks, and the plurality of air apertures extend from the core flow path in the first compressor to the at least one aft rotor cavity (Fig 2, para 44; apertures 56 from core flow path 20 to aft cavity 38), the first rotational assembly is configured to direct high-pressure air from the core flow path, through the plurality of air apertures, through the at least one aft rotor cavity, to the first turbine (Fig 2, para 44; “flow 70 which flows on to a high pressure turbine (HPT)”).
PNG
media_image1.png
424
723
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Benjamin teaches the thermal conditioning assembly includes a buffer air source the buffer air source is isolated from the at least one forward rotor cavity (annotated above, para 43; buffer air source is the space between shaft 12 and shaft 14, some distance upstream and separated from the holes 50; none of the flow from the buffer air source flows into the forward rotor cavity) but fails to teach the buffer air source configured to receive compressed air from the first compressor. However, Ackermann teaches that a buffer air source may be configured to receive compressed air from the first compressor (Fig 3, para 44-45; buffer air can be sourced from the high pressure compressor). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the buffer air source configured to receive compressed air from the first compressor, as taught by Ackermann. It has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, making the buffer air source configured to receive compressed air from the first compressor yields predictable results (air supply for conditioning/cooling).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0280028 (Benjamin) in view of US 2013/0192253 (Ackermann) and further in view of US 2023/0296032 (Townes).
Regarding claim 12-13, Benjamin in view of Ackermann teaches an air flow discourager (60; para 44 of Benjamin), disposed at an inner radial end of one of the plurality of bladed compressor rotor disks, the air flow discourager is disposed within the unobstructed passage between the at least one forward rotor cavity and the at least one aft rotor cavity (Fig 2), or disposed at a first forward compressor rotor disk of the at least one forward compressor rotor disk (Fig 2), or disposed at the first shaft and the unobstructed passage (Fig 2) but fails to teach the air flow discourager extends radially inward from the inner radial end toward the first shaft; or the air flow discourager extends radially outward from the first shaft toward the inner radial end of the one of the compressor rotor disks; or a plurality of air flow discouragers, a first portion of the plurality of air flow discouragers are disposed at the inner radial end of a first forward compressor rotor disk of the at least one forward compressor rotor disk and extend radially inward from the inner radial end toward the first shaft, and a second portion of the plurality of air flow discouragers are disposed at the first shaft and extend radially outward from the first shaft toward the inner radial end of the first forward compressor rotor disk of the at least one forward compressor rotor disk. However, Townes teaches an air flow discourager at an inner radial end of a surface, the air flow discourager extends radially inward; an air flow discourager extending radially outward; and a plurality of air flow discouragers comprising a first portion extending radially inward and a second portion extending radially outward (Fig 6; air flow discouragers including discouragers 90 extending radially inward and discouragers 92 extending radially outward; para 97, Fig 3; air flow discourager allows some leakage therethrough). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the discourager disposed at a first forward compressor rotor disk of the at least one forward compressor rotor disk, and the air flow discourager extends radially inward from the first forward compressor rotor disk toward the first shaft; or disposed at the first shaft and the unobstructed passage, and the air flow discourager extends radially outward from the first shaft toward a first forward compressor rotor disk of the at least one forward compressor rotor disk; or a first portion of the plurality of air flow discouragers are disposed at a first forward compressor rotor disk of the at least one forward compressor rotor disk and extend radially inward from first forward compressor rotor disk toward the first shaft, and a second portion of the plurality of air flow discouragers are disposed at the first shaft and extend radially outward from the first shaft toward the first forward compressor rotor disk of the at least one forward compressor rotor disk in order to discourage flow between the disk and the shaft but still allow some leakage therethrough, as taught by Townes. It has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, making the discourager disposed at a first forward compressor rotor disk of the at least one forward compressor rotor disk, and the air flow discourager extends radially inward from the first forward compressor rotor disk toward the first shaft; or disposed at the first shaft and the unobstructed passage, and the air flow discourager extends radially outward from the first shaft toward a first forward compressor rotor disk of the at least one forward compressor rotor disk; or a first portion of the plurality of air flow discouragers are disposed at a first forward compressor rotor disk of the at least one forward compressor rotor disk and extend radially inward from first forward compressor rotor disk toward the first shaft, and a second portion of the plurality of air flow discouragers are disposed at the first shaft and extend radially outward from the first shaft toward the first forward compressor rotor disk of the at least one forward compressor rotor disk yields predictable results.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0280028 (Benjamin) in view of US 2013/0192253 (Ackermann) and further in view of US 2019/0203600 (Petrasko).
Regarding claim 15, Benjamin in view of Ackermann fails to teach each of the plurality of bladed compressor rotor disks is an integrally bladed rotor. However, Petrasko teaches that it was well known in the art to make compressor rotor disks integrally bladed (para 54, 73). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make each of the plurality of bladed compressor rotor disks an integrally bladed rotor, as taught by Petrasko. It has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, making each of the plurality of bladed compressor rotor disks an integrally bladed rotor yields predictable results.
Claim(s) 16, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0280028 (Benjamin) in view of US 2008/0112793 (Lee).
Regarding claims 16, 20, Benjamin teaches a gas turbine engine of an aircraft propulsion system (Fig 1-2, para 41), the gas turbine engine comprising: a first compressor forming a core flow path of the gas turbine engine (compressor 10); a first turbine further forming the core flow path (para 44; HPT); and a first rotational assembly configured for rotation about a rotational axis, the first rotational assembly includes a first shaft (12), a first compressor rotor of the first compressor (rotor 11 having disks R1-R8), and a first turbine rotor of the first turbine (para 41; high pressure turbine rotor), the first shaft interconnects the first compressor rotor and the first turbine rotor (para 41), the first compressor rotor includes a compressor rotor stack mounted to the first shaft, the compressor rotor stack includes a plurality of bladed compressor rotor disks (rotor 11 having disks R1-R8), the plurality of bladed compressor rotor disks includes a forward-most compressor rotor disk (R1) and an aft-most compressor rotor disk (R8), each of the bladed compressor rotor disks is radially spaced from the first shaft to form an unobstructed passage radially between the plurality of bladed compressor rotor disks and the first shaft (Fig 2, para 43-44; flow 48, 54, 64, 70 flows between the radially inner ends of the disks and the shaft 12; “some leakage 59 of hotter aft cavity cooling air may occur under the R6 disk through the piston ring”; this interpretation is consistent with Applicant’s use of “unobstructed”, which uses a seal and a leakage flow across the seal), the unobstructed passage extends axially from the forward-most compressor rotor disk to the aft-most compressor rotor disk (flowpath is unobstructed from R1-R8; “some leakage 59 of hotter aft cavity cooling air may occur under the R6 disk through the piston ring”; this interpretation is consistent with Applicant’s use of “unobstructed”, which uses a seal and a leakage flow across the seal), the plurality of bladed compressor rotor disks includes at least one forward compressor rotor disk (R1-R6) and at least one aft compressor rotor disk (R7-R8), the at least one forward compressor rotor disk includes the forward-most compressor rotor disk and forms at least one forward rotor cavity (Fig 2, forward rotor cavity 32, 24, and/or 36), the at least one aft compressor rotor disk includes the aft-most compressor rotor disk and forms at least one aft cavity (Fig 2; aft cavity 38, 40), the at least one forward rotor cavity and the at least one aft rotor cavity are connected in fluid communication by the unobstructed passage (flow across disk R7 and/or across R6), the first rotational assembly forms a thermal conditioning assembly, the thermal conditioning assembly includes a plurality of air apertures formed by the at least one aft compressor rotor disk, the plurality of air apertures extend from the core flow path in the first compressor to the at least one aft rotor cavity, the first rotational assembly forms a high-pressure air flow path extending from the core flow path, through the plurality of air apertures, through the at least one aft rotor cavity, through the unobstructed passage, to the first turbine rotor (Fig 2, para 44; apertures 56 from core flow path 20 to aft cavity 38; “flow 70 which flows on to a high pressure turbine (HPT)”), wherein each of the at least one forward compressor rotor disk includes a disk body and a plurality of compressor blades (disk body R1-R8, blades 16), the disk body extends between and to an inner radial end and an outer radial end (Fig 2), the plurality of compressor blades are disposed at the outer radial end, the outer radial end and the plurality of compressor blades further form the core flow path (Fig 2; core flow path 20), and the inner radial end is radially spaced from the first shaft by the unobstructed passage (para 44, Fig 2).
Benjamin fails to teach the first turbine rotor comprises a turbine disk body and turbine disk blade, the turbine disk body comprising one or more or more cooling apertures; and wherein the high-pressure air flow path further extends through the one or more cooling apertures of the turbine disk body. However, Lee teaches the first turbine rotor comprises a turbine disk body and turbine disk blade, the turbine disk body comprising one or more or more cooling apertures; and wherein the high-pressure air flow path further extends through the one or more cooling apertures of the turbine disk body (Fig 2-3, para 50; turbine disk body 46 and/or 66 with cooling apertures 52 and unlabeled apertures, respectively, receiving air from the high-pressure air flow path 34b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the first turbine rotor comprises a turbine disk body and turbine disk blade, the turbine disk body comprising one or more or more cooling apertures; and wherein the high-pressure air flow path further extends through the one or more cooling apertures of the turbine disk body in order to cool the turbine disk and blade, as taught by Lee (see abstract, para 39-41).
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0280028 (Benjamin) in view of US 2008/0112793 (Lee) and further in view of US 2023/0296032 (Townes).
Regarding claim 17-19, Benjamin in view of Lee teaches an air flow discourager (60; para 44 of Benjamin), disposed at an inner radial end of one of the plurality of bladed compressor rotor disks, the air flow discourager is disposed within the unobstructed passage between the at least one forward rotor cavity and the at least one aft rotor cavity (Fig 2), or disposed at a first forward compressor rotor disk of the at least one forward compressor rotor disk (Fig 2), or disposed at the first shaft and the unobstructed passage (Fig 2) but fails to teach the air flow discourager extends radially inward from the inner radial end toward the first shaft; or the air flow discourager extends radially outward from the first shaft toward the inner radial end of the one of the compressor rotor disks; or a plurality of air flow discouragers, a first portion of the plurality of air flow discouragers are disposed at the inner radial end of a first forward compressor rotor disk of the at least one forward compressor rotor disk and extend radially inward from the inner radial end toward the first shaft, and a second portion of the plurality of air flow discouragers are disposed at the first shaft and extend radially outward from the first shaft toward the inner radial end of the first forward compressor rotor disk of the at least one forward compressor rotor disk. However, Townes teaches an air flow discourager at an inner radial end of a surface, the air flow discourager extends radially inward; an air flow discourager extending radially outward; and a plurality of air flow discouragers comprising a first portion extending radially inward and a second portion extending radially outward (Fig 6; air flow discouragers including discouragers 90 extending radially inward and discouragers 92 extending radially outward; para 97, Fig 3; air flow discourager allows some leakage therethrough). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the discourager disposed at a first forward compressor rotor disk of the at least one forward compressor rotor disk, and the air flow discourager extends radially inward from the first forward compressor rotor disk toward the first shaft; or disposed at the first shaft and the unobstructed passage, and the air flow discourager extends radially outward from the first shaft toward a first forward compressor rotor disk of the at least one forward compressor rotor disk; or a first portion of the plurality of air flow discouragers are disposed at a first forward compressor rotor disk of the at least one forward compressor rotor disk and extend radially inward from first forward compressor rotor disk toward the first shaft, and a second portion of the plurality of air flow discouragers are disposed at the first shaft and extend radially outward from the first shaft toward the first forward compressor rotor disk of the at least one forward compressor rotor disk in order to discourage flow between the disk and the shaft but still allow some leakage therethrough, as taught by Townes. It has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, making the discourager disposed at a first forward compressor rotor disk of the at least one forward compressor rotor disk, and the air flow discourager extends radially inward from the first forward compressor rotor disk toward the first shaft; or disposed at the first shaft and the unobstructed passage, and the air flow discourager extends radially outward from the first shaft toward a first forward compressor rotor disk of the at least one forward compressor rotor disk; or a first portion of the plurality of air flow discouragers are disposed at a first forward compressor rotor disk of the at least one forward compressor rotor disk and extend radially inward from first forward compressor rotor disk toward the first shaft, and a second portion of the plurality of air flow discouragers are disposed at the first shaft and extend radially outward from the first shaft toward the first forward compressor rotor disk of the at least one forward compressor rotor disk yields predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to Applicant’s argument that “the term ‘unobstructed’ as used applied in the claims to the passage (i.e., the ‘unobstructed passage’) can clearly be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as a structural state of the unobstructed passage whereby fluid (e.g., air) may flow through the passage between each of the claimed rotor cavities - the at least one forward rotor cavity and the at least one aft rotor cavity.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The specification and claims give conflicting meanings. In one meaning, “unobstructed” is taken to mean fluid may flow, wherein the passage does not include a seal or other component which prevents or substantially prevents the flow of fluid (para 40). In another conflicting meaning, the “unobstructed” passage comprises an “air flow discourager” (para 15, 21, claim 6-8, Fig 3A-3C).
The disclosed “air flow discourager” was well known in the art to be an obstruction (a labyrinth seal) that would allow some limited flow. “Discourage” by definition implies impeding the flow. Below are copied known labyrinth seals/discouragers, which are the same in structure and function as Applicant’s: US 2008/0080972 (Fig 11, para 47) and US 2018/0080972 (Fig 3 para 4-5, 38, abstract). Therefore, on the one hand these known “discouragers” would have read on an “unobstructed passage” under one of Applicant’s conflicting limitations, but not read on the other of the conflicting limitations. The metes and bounds of the claims are unclear.
Applicant argues that “the air flow discouragers 108 are not described in the present disclosure as labyrinth seals or fluid seals in general. The air flow discouragers 108 are also not described as components ‘which prevent[] or substantially prevent[] the flow of fluid (e.g., air) through the passage 90 between the rotor cavities 88,’ such that their inclusion would be inconsistent with Applicants' use of the term ‘unobstructed.’” However, the specification, claims, and drawings provide no teaching as to the difference between the claimed “discourager” and a “labyrinth seal”. As discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered Applicant’s “discourager” as a “labyrinth seal”, as both provide a torturous route for flow while allowing fluid through. Therefore, it is unclear how “unobstructed” is to be defined, or how a “discourager” is to be defined.
PNG
media_image2.png
645
567
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
280
545
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With regards to Applicant’s argument that “in FIG. 2 of Benjamin, the piston ring seal 60 extends between and contacts the tie shaft 12 and the R6 disk”, Examiner firstly points out that here again, it is unclear how “unobstructed” is to be defined, as Applicant’s “unobstructed” passage also includes a flow discourager (known in the art as a labyrinth seal). Secondly, the seal 60 of Benjamin is located at the R6 disk. The “at least one forward rotor cavity” was construed as cavity 36, which is in unobstructed flow communication with the at least one aft rotor cavity 38, which therefore meets the claim. As noted in the rejection, the claim does not require that the “at least one forward rotor cavity” includes all of the cavities formed by each of the forward compressor rotor disks, or that each of the at least one forward compressor rotor disks forms a respective one of the least one forward rotor cavity; the claim only requires that “the at least one forward compressor rotor disk forms at least one forward rotor cavity” – in this case, cavity 36 alone is reasonably construed as “the at least one forward rotor cavity”.
Regarding claims 11 and 16, the arguments were fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, necessitated by the amendments.
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 ANDREW NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5063. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 4 pm, Monday-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, Phutthiwat (Pat) Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. 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 H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights