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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 4/8/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1, 4-6, 10-11, 15, 17, and 19 have been withdrawn. However, it is unclear how the closed hydrodynamic lift cavity can extend through the radial bearing surface. And so new rejections under 35 USC 112(a) and (b) were made.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4-6, 10-12, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “at least two hydrodynamic lift cavities extending through the radial bearing surface, the at least two hydrodynamic lift cavities including an open hydrodynamic lift cavity and a closed hydrodynamic lift cavity” in lines 8-10. According to the specification (Paragraph 0043), the closed hydrodynamic lift cavities mean that “the hydrodynamic lift cavity is contained within the seal shoe such that a radially inner side of the closed hydrodynamic lift cavity is not open through the radial bearing surface”. So it does not appear that the original application supports a closed hydrodynamic lift cavity extending through the radial bearing surface. This is new matter.
Claims 4-6, 10-12, and 15-18 are rejected for depending upon a rejected base claim.
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, 4-6, 10-12, and 15-18 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.
Claim 1 recites “at least two hydrodynamic lift cavities extending through the radial bearing surface, the at least two hydrodynamic lift cavities including an open hydrodynamic lift cavity and a closed hydrodynamic lift cavity” in lines 8-10. It is unclear how the closed hydrodynamic lift cavity can be closed and also extend through the radial bearing surface. This renders the claim indefinite.
Claims 4-6, 10-12, and 15-18 are rejected for depending upon a rejected base claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-24 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 21:
Closest prior art: Bidkar et al. (US 11,047,481)
Bidkar discloses a seal assembly for a gas turbine, the seal assembly comprising: a seal case; and a seal shoe arranged within the seal case, the seal shoe including: a main seal portion that is configured to engage with a radial bearing engagement portion of a rotor shaft, a radial bearing surface that engages with the radial bearing engagement portion of the rotor shaft, at least two hydrodynamic lift cavities extending through the radial bearing surface, the at least two hydrodynamic lift cavities including a first hydrodynamic lift cavity and a second hydrodynamic lift cavity, and at least one airflow passage extending from a first side of the seal shoe through the at least two hydrodynamic lift cavities and providing airflow communication between the first side of the seal shoe and the at least two hydrodynamic lift cavities.
The closest prior art fails to disclose or suggest that the at least one airflow passage includes a plurality of branched airflow passages including a first branched airflow passage providing airflow communication with the first hydrodynamic lift cavity, and a second branched airflow passage providing airflow communication with the second hydrodynamic lift cavity.
Claims 22-23 depend upon claim 21 and so are allowable.
Regarding claim 24:
Closest prior art: Bidkar et al. (US 11,047,481)
Bidkar discloses a seal assembly for a gas turbine, the seal assembly comprising: a seal case; and a seal shoe arranged within the seal case, the seal shoe including:(1) a main seal portion that is configured to engage with a radial bearing engagement portion of a rotor shaft,(2) a radial bearing surface that engages with the radial bearing engagement portion of the rotor shaft,(3) a plurality of hydrodynamic lift cavities extending through the radial bearing surface, and (4) at least one airflow passage extending from a first side of the seal shoe through the plurality of hydrodynamic lift cavities and providing airflow communication between the first side of the seal shoe and the plurality of hydrodynamic lift cavities, wherein the plurality of hydrodynamic lift cavities include: a first group of hydrodynamic lift cavities arranged, in a first direction, at a first distance from the first side of the seal shoe, a second group of hydrodynamic lift cavities arranged, in the first direction, at a second distance greater than the first distance from the first side of the seal shoe, and a third group of hydrodynamic lift cavities arranged, in the first direction, at a third distance greater than the second distance from the first side of the seal shoe, wherein each of the first group of hydrodynamic lift cavities and the third group of hydrodynamic lift cavities includes: an open hydrodynamic lift cavity having a radially inner side extending through the radial bearing surface.
The closest prior art fails to disclose or suggest that the first and third group of hydrodynamic lift cavities includes a closed hydrodynamic lift cavity arranged within the seal shoe radially outward of the open hydrodynamic lift cavity and the second group of hydrodynamic lift cavities includes: a first closed hydrodynamic lift cavity arranged within the seal shoe radially outward of the radial bearing surface, and a second closed hydrodynamic lift cavity arranged radially outward of the first closed hydrodynamic lift cavity.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE M CHRISTENSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3275. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Courtney Heinle can be reached at 571-270-3508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DMC/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights