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 .
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hartmann (US 6471468).
Regarding claim 1, Hartmann discloses a machine comprising: a rotor (5) supported for rotation about a rotational axis (axis of rotor); an outer casing (1) having an inner bore (internal cavity of casing); a head member (discharge side housing cover 10) disposed within the inner bore and including a first joint interface (face of housing cover 10 with bores 20 holding compensator modules 12); an inner casing (housings 7) disposed within the inner bore and surrounding a portion of the rotor, the inner casing including a second joint interface (end face of last impeller 13/last stage housing contacting load transmission element 17) that engages the first joint interface to form a joint (interface between housing cover 10 and last impeller 13 through compensator modules 12) therebetween; and a compliant element (12, 16) formed as part of one of the first joint interface and arranged to allow for movement of the second joint interface along the rotational axis in response to thermal expansion of the inner casing (Col. 3, Lines 19-42 and Col. 4, Lines 7-26).
Regarding claim 2, Hartmann discloses the machine according to claim 1 above. Hartmann further discloses the rotor includes a plurality of centrifugal impellers arranged to define a plurality of compression stages (stages 7 with impellers 6).
Regarding claims 3-4, Hartmann discloses the machine according to claim 1 above. Hartmann further discloses the second joint interface includes a first joint face that extends around a circumference of a first end of the inner casing and the first joint interface includes a second joint face that extends around a circumference of a first end of the head member, and wherein the first joint face and the second joint face contact one another to form the joint therebetween (Col. 3, Lines 43-46 and Col. 4, Lines 43-47; Figure 2), and the first joint face defines a first plane that is normal to the rotational axis and the second joint face defines a second plane that is normal to the rotational axis (Col. 4, Lines 43-47; Figure 2).
Regarding claim 5, Hartmann discloses the machine according to claim 1 above. Hartmann further discloses the second joint interface includes a first groove that extends around a circumference of a first end of the inner casing and the first joint interface includes a second groove that extends around a circumference of a first end of the head member (Col. 3, Lines 43-67; Figure 2).
Regarding claim 7, Hartmann discloses the machine according to claim 3 above. Hartmann further discloses the compliant element includes an annular member that extends in a direction parallel to the rotational axis and defines a joint face (Col. 3, Lines 19-30 and Col. 4, Lines 43-47).
Claims 12, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ryall (US 3801217).
Regarding claim 12, Ryall discloses A machine comprising: a rotor (12, 14) supported for rotation about a rotational axis; an outer casing (26) having an inner bore (interior thereof); an inner casing (12, 38, 44) disposed within the inner bore and surrounding a portion of the rotor; a head member (42) disposed within the inner bore and coupled to the inner casing to form a joint therebetween (interface between 12 and 38); a first joint interface (abutting of 38 with casing) formed as part of one of the inner casing and the head member, the first joint interface including a first joint face (abutting face of 38 contacting casing 12) and a first groove (groove in cylindrical surface 43 for piston ring 56) that each extend around a portion of a circumference of the one of the inner casing and the head member; a second joint interface (formed as part of 42 and 26) formed as part of the other of the inner casing and the head member, the second joint interface including a second joint face ( mating face of 42) and a second groove (annular passage 52) that each extend around a portion of a circumference of the other of the inner casing and the head member; and a compliant element (180) formed as part of the second joint interface and positioned between the second joint face and the second groove (Col. 5, Lines 30-47), the compliant element arranged to allow movement of the one of the first joint interface and the second joint interface along the rotational axis in response to thermal expansion of the inner casing (Col. 4, Lines 54-67).
Regarding claims 14 and 16, Ryall discloses the machine according to claim 12. Ryall further discloses the first joint face defines a first plane that is normal to the rotational axis (Col. 2, Lines 3-5; Figures 1 and 4) and the second joint face defines a second plane that is normal to the rotational axis (Col. 2, Lines 9-10; Figures 1 and 4), and the compliant element includes an annular member that extends in a direction parallel to the rotational axis and defines the second joint face (Col. 5, Lines 33-36 and Col. 6, Lines 38-41).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartmann (US 6471468) in view of Bergamini (US 10393148).
Hartmann discloses the machine according to claim 5 above.
Hartmann fails to teach a clamp member having a first leg engageable with the first groove and a second leg engageable with the second groove.
Bergamini teaches a split shear ring (3) that engages a first groove (6) on an outer surface of a cylindrical cover (2) and a second groove (4) on the inner surface of the barrel casing (1). The shear ring (3) is composed of two or more portions and in the mounted condition is partially accommodated in both grooves (4, 6). In this instance, Bergamini then teaches a clamp member (shear ring 3) with a first leg (portion accommodated in groove 6; Col. 3, Lines 42-65), and the second leg engageable with the second groove (portion of shear ring accommodated in groove 4; Col. 4, Lines 2-26; Figure 2).
Both Hartmann and Bergamini are directed to barrel-type centrifugal turbomachinery where a cartridge/bundle is retained within a cylindrical outer casing by an end cover. Hartmann requires secure retention of the housing cover against the pump housing while accommodating thermal expansion of the withdrawable pump unit; Bergamini addresses the same problem of securely coupling a cover to a barrel casing in a turbomachine, and also supplies the structure that provides positive mechanical coupling that resists axial and shear loads at cover to casing interface. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the machine of Hartmann such that a clamp member having a first leg engageable with the first groove and a second leg engageable with the second groove as taught by Bergamini for the purposes of providing positive mechanical coupling that resists axial and shear loads and enables assembly/disassembly of the barrel without disturbing the cover to casing connection.
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartmann (US 6471468) in view of Weisbrod (US 10876428).
Regarding claim 8;
Hartmann discloses the machine according to claim 7 above.
Hartmann fails to teach a plurality of slots formed in the annular member, each of the slots of the plurality of slots extending through the annular member.
Weisbrod teaches slot-like material recesses (6) introduced into casing segments, wherein adjacent slot-like recesses delimit straps (7) that accommodate cyclical thermal loads (Col. 4, Lines 12-20 and col. 53-57).
Both Hartmann and Weisbrod relate to turbomachinery casings that experience cyclical thermal loading. Weisbrod demonstrates that slot-like material recesses extending through a casing member create “thermo-straps” that accommodate cyclical thermal loads by providing localized flexibility. It is then established forming slots in an annular member at a joint interface can provide axial compliance. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the machine of Hartmann such that a plurality of slots formed in the annular member, each of the slots of the plurality of slots extending through the annular member as taught by Weisbrod for the purposes of integrating a mechanisms that reduces thermal stresses at the joint by simplifying assembly and reducing part count.
Regarding claims 9-11;
Hartmann as modified by Weisbrod teaches the machine according to claim 8 above.
Hartman as modified by Weisbrod fails to teach each of the slots defines a length in a circumferential direction and a width in a direction parallel to the rotational axis, the length being between 20 and 1000 times longer than the width, the slots are arranged in a first row and a second row that is offset a non-zero distance in a direction parallel to the rotational axis from the first row, and the slots in a first row are offset between 10 and 50 degrees from the slots in the second row.
An engineering designer would recognize that a higher aspect ratio (longer, narrower slots) would provide for a greater axial compliance for a given slot count as longer distances between slots have more bending length, but would reduce structural integrity, while a lower aspect ratio (shorter, wider slots) would provide greater stiffness and less compliance, but more structural robustness. Arranging slots in multiple axially offset rows distributes compliance and maintaining the structural continuity in the slotted member; a single row of through slots would create a circumferential weak plane that concentrates stress and risks failure, whereas multiple axially offset rows distribute compliance over a greater length while maintaining circumferential continuity between the rows. The designing of the offset angle between the rows also changes such compliance factors: zero offset creates a direct through path and maximum weakness, a medium offset allows for distributing loads evenly and maintaining circumferential continuity, a large offset places straps above the gaps and depending on slot count reduces the benefits of staggering. Additionally, Weisbrod teaches the optimizable design parameters of the slot geometry (Col. 4, Lines 43-65). At the top of MPEP 2144.04, it explains that various modifications, including changes in size and proportion, are “common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients.” Specifically, §§IV. A cites, Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), wherein the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Therefore, because Weisbrod teaches that the geometry and design parameters can be optimizable and designed as appropriate in the specific engineering context, 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 machine of Hartmann such that each of the slots defines a length in a circumferential direction and a width in a direction parallel to the rotational axis, the length being between 20 and 1000 times longer than the width, the slots are arranged in a first row and a second row that is offset a non-zero distance in a direction parallel to the rotational axis from the first row, and the slots in a first row are offset between 10 and 50 degrees from the slots in the second row as taught to change the design as taught by Weisbrod for the purposes of reducing points of failure and distributing the bending stresses in the apparatus, thereby extending life of the machine.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryall (US 3801217) in view of Kunishi (US 20200271126).
Ryal discloses the machine according to claim 12above.
Ryal fails to teach the rotor includes a plurality of centrifugal impellers arranged to define a plurality of compression stages.
Ryal further discloses a plurality of stages with centrifugal impellers which define pump stages (impellers 14). Kunishi teaches a multi-stage centrifugal fluid machine such as a pump and a compressor (Paragraph 1) configured as a double shell barrel type casing (Paragraph 22) with a plurality of impellers (Paragraph 20).
The structural principles of barrel-type multistage centrifugal machines are the same regardless of the fluid type. Kunishi establishes that such machines are utilized for compressors and pumps. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the machine of Ryal such that the rotor includes a plurality of centrifugal impellers arranged to define a plurality of compression stages as taught by Kunishi for the purposes of providing thermal expansion accommodation in a centrifugal compressor.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryall (US 3801217) in view of Bergamini (US 10393148).
Ryall discloses the machine according to claim 12 above.
Ryall fails to teach a clamp member having a first leg engageable with the first groove and a second leg engageable with the second groove.
Bergamini teaches a split shear ring (3) that engages a first groove (6) on an outer surface of a cylindrical cover (2) and a second groove (4) on the inner surface of the barrel casing (1). The shear ring (3) is composed of two or more portions and in the mounted condition is partially accommodated in both grooves (4, 6). In this instance, Bergamini then teaches a clamp member (shear ring 3) with a first leg (portion accommodated in groove 6; Col. 3, Lines 42-65), and the second leg engageable with the second groove (portion of shear ring accommodated in groove 4; Col. 4, Lines 2-26; Figure 2).
Both Ryall and Bergamini are directed to barrel-type centrifugal turbomachinery where a cartridge/bundle is retained within a cylindrical outer casing by an end cover. Ryall requires secure retention of the housing cover against the pump housing while accommodating thermal expansion of the withdrawable pump unit; Bergamini addresses the same problem of securely coupling a cover to a barrel casing in a turbomachine, and also supplies the structure that provides positive mechanical coupling that resists axial and shear loads at cover to casing interface. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the machine of Ryall such that a clamp member having a first leg engageable with the first groove and a second leg engageable with the second groove as taught by Bergamini for the purposes of providing positive mechanical coupling that resists axial and shear loads and enables assembly/disassembly of the barrel without disturbing the cover to casing connection.
Claims 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryall (US 3801217) in view of Weisbrod (US 10876428).
Regarding claim 17;
Ryall discloses the machine according to claim 7 above.
Ryall fails to teach a plurality of slots formed in the annular member, each of the slots of the plurality of slots extending through the annular member.
Weisbrod teaches slot-like material recesses (6) introduced into casing segments, wherein adjacent slot-like recesses delimit straps (7) that accommodate cyclical thermal loads (Col. 4, Lines 12-20 and col. 53-57).
Both Ryall and Weisbrod relate to turbomachinery casings that experience cyclical thermal loading. Weisbrod demonstrates that slot-like material recesses extending through a casing member create “thermo-straps” that accommodate cyclical thermal loads by providing localized flexibility. It is then established forming slots in an annular member at a joint interface can provide axial compliance. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the machine of Ryall such that a plurality of slots formed in the annular member, each of the slots of the plurality of slots extending through the annular member as taught by Weisbrod for the purposes of integrating a mechanisms that reduces thermal stresses at the joint by simplifying assembly and reducing part count.
Regarding claims 19-20;
Ryall as modified by Weisbrod teaches the machine according to claim 17 above.
Ryall as modified by Weisbrod fails to teach each of the slots defines a length in a circumferential direction and a width in a direction parallel to the rotational axis, the length being between 20 and 1000 times longer than the width, the slots are arranged in a first row and a second row that is offset a non-zero distance in a direction parallel to the rotational axis from the first row, and the slots in a first row are offset between 10 and 50 degrees from the slots in the second row.
An engineering designer would recognize that a higher aspect ratio (longer, narrower slots) would provide for a greater axial compliance for a given slot count as longer distances between slots have more bending length, but would reduce structural integrity, while a lower aspect ratio (shorter, wider slots) would provide greater stiffness and less compliance, but more structural robustness. Arranging slots in multiple axially offset rows distributes compliance and maintaining the structural continuity in the slotted member; a single row of through slots would create a circumferential weak plane that concentrates stress and risks failure, whereas multiple axially offset rows distribute compliance over a greater length while maintaining circumferential continuity between the rows. The designing of the offset angle between the rows also changes such compliance factors: zero offset creates a direct through path and maximum weakness, a medium offset allows for distributing loads evenly and maintaining circumferential continuity, a large offset places straps above the gaps and depending on slot count reduces the benefits of staggering. Additionally, Weisbrod teaches the optimizable design parameters of the slot geometry (Col. 4, Lines 43-65). At the top of MPEP 2144.04, it explains that various modifications, including changes in size and proportion, are “common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients.” Specifically, §§IV. A cites, Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), wherein the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Therefore, because Weisbrod teaches that the geometry and design parameters can be optimizable and designed as appropriate in the specific engineering context, 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 machine of Ryall such that each of the slots defines a length in a circumferential direction and a width in a direction parallel to the rotational axis, the length being between 20 and 1000 times longer than the width, the slots are arranged in a first row and a second row that is offset a non-zero distance in a direction parallel to the rotational axis from the first row, and the slots in a first row are offset between 10 and 50 degrees from the slots in the second row as taught to change the design as taught by Weisbrod for the purposes of reducing points of failure and distributing the bending stresses in the apparatus, thereby extending life of the machine.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryall (US 3801217) in view of Hartmann (US 6471468).
Ryall discloses the machine according to claim 12 above. Ryall further discloses the second joint interface is formed as part of the inner casing (Col.2, Lines 3-5).
Ryall fails to teach the first joint interface and the compliant element are formed as part of the head member.
Hartmann teaches an analogous compensation device for a machine with compensator modules held in the housing cover (head member) with the housing cover forming the first joint interface and the compliant element being part of the interface (Hartmann, Col. 3, Lines 20-21, Figure 4).
Because Ryall and Hartmann are both directed to a multi-stage centrifugal machine with barrel casings and compliance mechanisms at the end cover joint for accommodating thermal expansion, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the machine of Ryall such that the first joint interface and the compliant element are formed as part of the head member as taught by Hartmann for the purposes of simplifying assembly by having the compliant element pre-installed in the head member and reducing parts during cartridge installation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN D SEABE whose telephone number is (571)272-4961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00-5:30.
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 D SEABE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights