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 .
Status of the Claims
This is a final rejection in response to the amendments and arguments filed 04/08/2026. Claims 1-8 are currently pending with claim 8 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/11/2025. Claims 1-3 has been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments regarding the prior art Lee, on page 8 and 9, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Examiner contends that the prior art Ito teaches a first space (Fig. 2, space between 41 and 83 for instance) being formed between the bearing box (83) and the casing (41), and a second space (between 83 and 89) being formed inside the bearing box (83), the sealing air (from 90 for instance) flowing into the second space via the sealing air supply passage (90) then flows into the first space (see flow arrows from 90 and then to 79) due to a pressure within the first space being less than a pressure within the second space (predictably based on the flow arrows) when the sealing device has not deteriorated (predictably as normal operation of the system). The prior art Bidkar teaches determining deterioration of a sealing device and based on pressure difference on space on either side of the sealing device. This predictably teaches that leakage across the sealing device would change pressures across the system and be indicative of a deteriorated sealing device. Lee is cited to teach that pressure sensors can be used to sense pressures in a seal system. Therefore, regarding the amended claim 1, it is then obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art that the change of pressures within a system, such as pressures from external space into a cooling space would indicate a deteriorated seal in view of the teachings of Bidkar and Lee. See rejection to follow.
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) 1, and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2005344680 to Ito et al. (Ito, and based on English Machine Translation) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2024/0133309 to Bidkar et al. (Bidkar) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2019/0264577 to Lee et al. (Lee).
In Reference to Claim 1
Ito discloses a deterioration determination device for determining whether a sealing device of a rotating machine has deteriorated (intended use, see note below), the rotating machine (Abstract and Fig. 1, rotating device 1 and sealing device 79 for instance, see also figure 2) including:
a rotor (Figs. 1 and 2, 73 for instance);
a bearing (88 for instance) rotatably supporting the rotor (73);
a bearing box (83 for instance, see also figure 3) surrounding the bearing (88);
a sealing air supply pipe (Fig. 7, 103 for instance) defining a sealing air supply passage for sealing air supplied to the bearing box to flow (see flow arrow for instance); and
a casing (Fig. 7, 41 for instance) surrounding the bearing box (83), the casing separating the bearing box from an external space (space between 41 and 42 for instance) filled with high-temperature, high-pressure gas (processed gas within turbine section 70 for instance) having a higher temperature and higher pressure than the sealing air (as the sealing air is from a compressor section, see 26 in figure 1 for instance), the casing including an inner peripheral surface (portion of 78 as an extension of 41 for instance) on which the sealing device (79 for instance) is arranged between the inner peripheral surface and an outer peripheral surface of the rotor (of 73 for instance), a first space being formed between the bearing box and the casing (Fig. 7, space between 83 and 41 for instance), and a second space being formed inside the bearing box (between 83 and 89 for instance), the sealing air flowing into the second space via the sealing air supply passage (see flow arrow in 103 for instance) then flows into the first space (see flow arrows from space below 41 to 79 for instance) due to a pressure within the first space being less than a pressure within the second space (predictably based on airflow in the system) when the sealing device has not deteriorated (predictably as normal operation of the system for instance),
the rotating device defining a first space formed between the casing and the bearing box (Fig. 7, space between 41 and 83 for instance) and a second space formed inside the bearing box (space within 83 for instance).
Regarding the preamble of the claim, examiner notes that it has been held that ‘A claim containing a “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.’ Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); MPEP 2114(II).
Ito does not teach “... a deterioration determination device for determining whether a sealing device of a rotating machine has deteriorated ...” nor does Ito teach “... the deterioration determination device comprising: a determination part configured to determine that the sealing device has deteriorated when a first pressure corresponding to the pressure within the first space between the casing and the bearing box becomes greater than a second pressure corresponding to the pressure within the second space inside the bearing box due to inflow of the high-temperature, high-pressure gas into the first space from the external space .... ”
Bidkar is related to a deterioration determination device for determining whether a sealing device of a rotating machine has deteriorated (¶ [0019]-[0020], a seal monitoring apparatus in a gas turbine engine for instance), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein the deterioration determination device comprises a determination part configured to determine that the sealing device has deteriorated (¶ [0023], a controller for instance) when a first pressure corresponding to a pressure within a first space (¶ [0023], [0078], on one side of a seal for instance) becomes greater than (¶ [0023], pressures different from the expected pressures predictably where one side becomes greater than another for instance) a second pressure corresponding to a pressure of a second space (on another side of the seal for instance).
Lee is related to a seal system for rotating machine (abstract) and the use of pressure sensors to determine performance of the seal system (abstract and ¶ [0017], such as leaking from the seal for instance), as the claimed invention, and teaches the determining of leaking of the seal system when a first pressure corresponding to pressure of a first space (¶ [0074], such pressure detected by a first sensor for instance) is greater than (i.e. one pressure is less than or vice versa for instance) a second pressure corresponding to pressure of a second space (¶ [0074], such pressure detected by a second sensor for instance). This shows that fluid flow may leak through a seal and such leakage, whether greater than or less than, can be used to determine condition of and around the seals.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Ito to have a deterioration determination device for determining whether a sealing device of a rotating machine has deteriorated (as taught by Bidkar for instance) and wherein the deterioration determination device comprises a determination part configured to determine that the sealing device has deteriorated (as taught by Bidkar) when a first pressure corresponding to the pressure within the first space (of Ito) between the casing and the bearing box (of Ito) becomes greater than (as taught by Bidkar and Lee in the changes and differences in pressures) a second pressure corresponding to the pressure within the second space (of Ito) inside the bearing box (of Ito) due to inflow of the high-temperature, high-pressure gas (the flow and changes in pressures across seals as taught by Lee for instance) into the first space (of Ito) from the external space (of Ito), so as to use an art known technique (of determining deterioration of a seal using measured pressures, as taught by Bidkar for instance including the flow of fluid across seals which can be used to determine condition of a seal as taught by Lee for instance) into the system of Ito and predictably monitor the health of the seals and ensuring good operability of the rotating machine.
In Reference to Claim 4
Ito, as modified by Bidkar and Lee, discloses a deterioration determination system, comprising: the deterioration determination device according to claim 1; and the rotating machine (as taught by the combination of the prior art for instance).
In Reference to Claim 5
Ito, as modified by Bidkar and Lee, discloses the deterioration defemination system according to claim 4, wherein the bearing box (Ito Fig. 7, 83 for instance) has: an inner bearing box (Ito, 89 for instance) surrounding the bearing (Ito, 88 for instance); and an outer bearing box (Ito, 83 for instance) surrounding the inner bearing box (Ito, 83), wherein the second space is a space between the inner bearing box and the outer bearing box (Ito, between 89 and 83 for instance), and wherein the sealing air supply pipe (Ito, 103 for instance) is configured to supply the sealing air into the second space (Ito, as seen in figure 7 for instance).
In Reference to Claim 6
Ito, as modified by Bidkar and Lee, discloses the deterioration determination system according to claim 5, wherein the rotating machine is a gas turbine (Ito, see abstract), wherein the high-temperature, high-pressure gas is compressed air discharged from an outlet of a compressor of the gas turbine (Ito, air entering 70 for instance, figure 1), and wherein the sealing air is compressed air extracted from an intermediate stage of the compressor upstream of the outlet (Ito Fig. 1, at 26, see also ¶ [0029]).
In Reference to Claim 7
Ito, as modified by Bidkar and Lee, discloses the deterioration determination system according to claim 6, wherein the sealing device is a brush seal (as further taught by Lee, the known use of various turbine seals, see ¶ [0052]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2005344680 to Ito et al. (Ito, and based on English Machine Translation) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2024/0133309 to Bidkar et al. (Bidkar) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2019/0264577 to Lee et al. (Lee) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP61108808 to Kumada (Kumada, and based on English Machine Translation).
In Reference to Claim 2
Ito, as modified by Bidkar and Lee, discloses the deterioration determination device according to claim 1, wherein the rotating machine further includes: a discharge pipe (Ito Figs. 2, 4 and 7, 47 for instance) defining a sealing air discharge passage for the sealing air that flows from the bearing box (Ito Fig. 7, flow into 83 via 103 for instance); a first pressure gauge for measuring pressure inside the discharge pipe (as taught by Lee for instance, the installation of pressure gauges in discharge or inlet pipes for instance, ¶ [0055]); and a second pressure gauge for measuring pressure inside the sealing air supply pipe (as taught by Lee for instance, the installation of pressure gauges in discharge or inlet pipes for instance, ¶ [0055]), and wherein the deterioration determination device further comprises: a first pressure calculation part for calculating the first pressure based on a measured value of the first pressure gauge (as taught by Lee, the use of an adapter for instance, ¶ [0056]); and the pressure calculation part for calculating the second pressure based on a measured value of the second pressure gauge (as taught by Lee, the use of an adapter for instance, ¶ [0056]).
However, it is not taught that, the sealing air that flows from the bearing box, also flows “... into the first space to flow outside the rotating machine ...” or explicitly taught “... a second pressure calculation part for calculating the second pressure based on a measured value of the second pressure gauge ....”
Regarding the limitation “... into the first space to flow outside the rotating machine ...”: Kumada is related to a seal and bearing system for rotating machine (abstract), as the claimed invention, and teaches a discharge pipe (Figs. 3, outer portion of pipe at top for instance) that defines a sealing air discharge passage (see up flow arrows at top) for the sealing air (see down flow arrow at bottom) that flows from a bearing box (portion hosting elements 2 for instance) into a first space (space between structures of 2 and 3 for instance) to flow outside the rotating machine (out from the system in figure 3 for instance).
Regarding the limitation “... a second pressure calculation part for calculating the second pressure based on a measured value of the second pressure gauge ...”: Although Ito, as modified, fails to explicitly teach a second pressure calculation part, it has been held in re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), “the duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced” (see MPEP 2144.04, Section VI(B)). In the instant claim, additional pressure calculation parts produce the expected result of formulating pressure data of a second pressure sensor, wherein multiple pressure calculation parts would so the same.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Ito wherein the discharge pipe (of Ito) defines a sealing air discharge passage for the sealing air that flows from the bearing box (of Ito) and into the first space to flow outside the rotating machine (as taught by Kumada), and a first pressure gauge for measuring pressure inside the discharge pipe (as taught by Lee); and a second pressure gauge for measuring pressure inside the sealing air supply pipe (as taught by Lee), and wherein the deterioration determination device further comprises: a first pressure calculation part for calculating the first pressure based on a measured value of the first pressure gauge; and a second pressure calculation part for calculating the second pressure based on a measured value of the second pressure gauge (as taught by Lee and as a matter of duplication of parts), so as to use an art known technique (of a pressure measuring and data gathering system as taught by Lee and the routing of sealing air into and out of a bearing box as taught by Kumada) into the system of Ito and predictably provide sealing air of the seals and monitor the health of the seals thus ensuring good operability of the rotating machine.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: while the prior art teaches the deterioration determination device (see claim 1 above for instance), the combination of the prior art does not teach or make obvious wherein the first pressure calculation part is configured to calculate the first pressure by adding a first correction value corresponding to a first pressure loss in the sealing air discharge passage from the casing to the first pressure gauge to the measured value of the first pressure gauge, and wherein the second pressure calculation part is configured to calculate the second pressure by subtracting a second correction value corresponding to a second pressure loss in the sealing air supply passage from the second pressure gauge to the bearing box from the measured value of the second pressure gauge. This so as to accurately determine whether a sealing device of a rotating machine has deteriorated.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, as cited in the Notice of References Cited, are cited to show seal systems for gas turbine engines, monitoring systems for seal systems and pressure sensors in gas turbines including in the seal systems of gas turbines.
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 WAYNE A LAMBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-3516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9 am - 7 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, Nathaniel E 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.
/WAYNE A LAMBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights