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 Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 4 recites, “wherein sealing device comprises:” and should read, “wherein the sealing device comprises:”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 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.
The term “substantially” in claim 1, line 4; is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite; it is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. “substantially” is defined as “consisting of or relating to substance” (see Merriam Webster online dictionary). This language is indefinite as the specification does not describe how much the term “substantially” modifies a target, and implicitly requires boundaries at some maximum value above the target and at some minimum value below the target beyond which one is not “substantially” the target any more.
Claims 2-9 are rejected based on their dependencies.
The term “substantially” in claim 10, line 4; is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite; it is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. “substantially” is defined as “consisting of or relating to substance” (see Merriam Webster online dictionary). This language is indefinite as the specification does not describe how much the term “substantially” modifies a target, and implicitly requires boundaries at some maximum value above the target and at some minimum value below the target beyond which one is not “substantially” the target any more.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fadgen et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0173557 A1) in view of Sullivan et al. (US PGPUB 2023/0323950 A1; Filed 04/06/2022)
PNG
media_image1.png
532
778
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Fadgen et al. discloses a sealing device (100) for a turbomachine ([0001]) for providing a seal (Fig. 1) between a first housing (112) and a second housing (122), said sealing device comprising:
a ring (Fig. 1), the ring presents a substantially annular form (Fig. 1) extending around an axis of revolution (A) extending along a longitudinal direction (Fig. 1, the ring has a depth around A), the ring comprising a main sealing lip (116) and a secondary sealing lip (created by the interface between the ring 110 and surface 132), the main sealing lip presents an inner surface configured to be in contact radially (28) with an annular surface of a shaft (116) , the secondary sealing lip presents a radial surface (created by the interface between the ring 110 and surface 132) extending perpendicularly to the longitudinal direction (Fig. 1), and
a casing (112, 123), the casing is configured to be sealingly maintained in relation to a separation wall (123), the casing comprising a cylindrical portion (121) and a radial portion (123), the cylindrical portion extends along the longitudinal direction around the ring, the radial portion presents a contact surface (132) extending perpendicularly to the longitudinal direction, the ring being biased (137) so as to apply the radial surface of the secondary sealing lip against the contact surface of the casing (Fig. 1).
However, Fadgen et al. does not disclose, “wherein the sealing device presents at least one leakage path forming a communication between the first housing and the second housing, the at least one leakage path extending between the secondary sealing lip and the radial surface of the casing.”
PNG
media_image2.png
338
560
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Sullivan et al. teaches in the field of sealing, a plurality of channels (74) placed on the radially extending surfaces of a sealing ring (Fig. 1) to reduce non-axisymmetric leakage and reduce the severity of thermal asymmetry.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the sealing ring of Fadgen et al. to have the channels of Sullivan et al. placed on the radially extending surfaces of the seal, as both references are in the same field of endeavor, and one of ordinary skill would appreciate that, “To reduce the severity of the thermal asymmetry associated with a non-axisymmetric leakage (e.g., a locally mis-seated seal ring (PSR)), features providing a relatively axisymmetric base leakage may be added around the circumference of the PSR. The term “base” is used to limit confusion with “baseline” (used to identify a prior art PSR or other PSR lacking the features). The symmetric leakage is sufficient to at least partially offset any non-axisymmetric leakage and thus reduces the severity of the thermal asymmetry.
The example PSR features are radial channels machined on both axial end faces of the ring. These channels allow leakage through the channels on the high pressure, side around the PSR, and through the channels on the low pressure side. Based on the system requirements the channels' size, shape, and location can be adjusted to maintain an adequate seal. [0047]-[0048]”
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Fadgen et al. and Sullivan et al. teach all of claim 1 as above, wherein the ring present at least one groove (Sullivan et al.; 74) formed in the secondary sealing lip and forming the at least one leakage path (Sullivan et al. [0047]-[0048]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Fadgen et al. and Sullivan et al. teach all of claim 1 as above, wherein the ring comprises a plurality of segments (Fadgen et al., [0021]), each forming a portion of a circle (Fadgen et al., [0021]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Fadgen et al. and Sullivan et al. teach all of claim 1 as above, wherein the at least one leakage path presents a depth of between 0.1 and 1 mm along the longitudinal direction (Sullivan et al.; [0077] teaches the channel depth is 0.20mm to 1.0mm, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Fadgen et al. and Sullivan et al. teach all of claim 1 as above, wherein the at least one leakage path extends perpendicularly to the longitudinal direction (The combination of Fadgen et al. and Sullivan et al. with the channels on the radial face allow for the leakage path to extend perpendicularly to the longitudinal direction as claimed).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Fadgen et al. and Sullivan et al. teach all of claim 1 as above.
However, the combination of Fadgen et al. and Sullivan et al. do not explicitly teach, “wherein the at least one leakage path presents a rectangular cross-section.
Sullivan et al. further teaches “The example PSR features are radial channels machined on both axial end faces of the ring. These channels allow leakage through the channels on the high pressure, side around the PSR, and through the channels on the low pressure side. Based on the system requirements the channels' size, shape, and location can be adjusted to maintain an adequate seal. [0048]” (emphasis added)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Fadgen et al. and Sullivan et al. to have the leakage path present a rectangular cross-section, as the only difference between the combined prior art and the claimed invention is the shape of the leakage path, and one of ordinary skill would appreciate that “In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).” (MPEP 2144.04 IV. B.).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Fadgen et al. and Sullivan et al. teach all of claim 1 as above, wherein the at least one leakage path presents a semi-circular cross-section (Sullivan et al., Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Fadgen et al. and Sullivan et al. teach all of claim 1 as above.
However, the combination of Fadgen et al. and Sullivan et al. do not explicitly teach, “wherein the at least one leakage path presents a triangular cross-section.
Sullivan et al. further teaches “The example PSR features are radial channels machined on both axial end faces of the ring. These channels allow leakage through the channels on the high pressure, side around the PSR, and through the channels on the low pressure side. Based on the system requirements the channels' size, shape, and location can be adjusted to maintain an adequate seal. [0048]” (emphasis added)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Fadgen et al. and Sullivan et al. to have the leakage path present a triangular cross-section, as the only difference between the combined prior art and the claimed invention is the shape of the leakage path, and one of ordinary skill would appreciate that “In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).” (MPEP 2144.04 IV. B.).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Fadgen et al. and Sullivan et al. teach all of claim 1 as above.
However, the combination of Fadgen et al. and Sullivan et al. do not explicitly teach, “wherein the at least one leakage path presents a wavy undulated cross-section.
Sullivan et al. further teaches “The example PSR features are radial channels machined on both axial end faces of the ring. These channels allow leakage through the channels on the high pressure, side around the PSR, and through the channels on the low pressure side. Based on the system requirements the channels' size, shape, and location can be adjusted to maintain an adequate seal. [0048]” (emphasis added)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Fadgen et al. and Sullivan et al. to have the leakage path present a wavy undulated cross-section, as the only difference between the combined prior art and the claimed invention is the shape of the leakage path, and one of ordinary skill would appreciate that “In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).” (MPEP 2144.04 IV. B.).
Regarding claim 10, Fadgen et al. discloses a turbomachine ([0001]) comprising a first housing (122), a second housing (112), a separation wall (123, 133, 135) extending between the first housing and the second housing, a shaft (abstract “A seal assembly is disclosed for sealing a high pressure fluid cavity from a low pressure fluid cavity. The cavities are at least partially disposed between a rotatable shaft and a sump housing.”) having an annular surface (indicated by the axis of symmetry A which indicates the part is revolved and therefor annular) and a sealing device (110)
a ring (Fig. 1), the ring presents a substantially annular form (Fig. 1) extending around an axis of revolution (A) extending along a longitudinal direction (Fig. 1, the ring has a depth around A), the ring comprising a main sealing lip (116) and a secondary sealing lip (created by the interface between the ring 110 and surface 132), the main sealing lip presents an inner surface configured to be in contact radially (28) with an annular surface of a shaft (116) , the secondary sealing lip presents a radial surface (created by the interface between the ring 110 and surface 132) extending perpendicularly to the longitudinal direction (Fig. 1), and
a casing (112, 123), the casing is configured to be sealingly maintained in relation to a separation wall (123), the casing comprising a cylindrical portion (121) and a radial portion (123), the cylindrical portion extends along the longitudinal direction around the ring, the radial portion presents a contact surface (132) extending perpendicularly to the longitudinal direction, the ring being biased (137) so as to apply the radial surface of the secondary sealing lip against the contact surface of the casing (Fig. 1).
However, Fadgen et al. does not disclose, “wherein the sealing device presents at least one leakage path forming a communication between the first housing and the second housing, the at least one leakage path extending between the secondary sealing lip and the radial surface of the casing.”
Sullivan et al. teaches in the field of sealing, a plurality of channels (74) placed on the radially extending surfaces of a sealing ring (Fig. 1) to reduce non-axisymmetric leakage and reduce the severity of thermal asymmetry.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the sealing ring of Fadgen et al. to have the channels of Sullivan et al. placed on the radially extending surfaces of the seal, as both references are in the same field of endeavor, and one of ordinary skill would appreciate that, “To reduce the severity of the thermal asymmetry associated with a non-axisymmetric leakage (e.g., a locally mis-seated seal ring (PSR)), features providing a relatively axisymmetric base leakage may be added around the circumference of the PSR. The term “base” is used to limit confusion with “baseline” (used to identify a prior art PSR or other PSR lacking the features). The symmetric leakage is sufficient to at least partially offset any non-axisymmetric leakage and thus reduces the severity of the thermal asymmetry.
The example PSR features are radial channels machined on both axial end faces of the ring. These channels allow leakage through the channels on the high pressure, side around the PSR, and through the channels on the low pressure side. Based on the system requirements the channels' size, shape, and location can be adjusted to maintain an adequate seal. [0047]-[0048]”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PNG
media_image3.png
246
612
media_image3.png
Greyscale
US Patent 11,525,515 B2 discloses a radial seal segment joint.
PNG
media_image4.png
410
464
media_image4.png
Greyscale
US PGPUB 2022/0162995 A1 discloses a face seal arrangement for reduced force and pressure.
PNG
media_image5.png
318
482
media_image5.png
Greyscale
US PGPUB 2022/0136400 A1 discloses a circumferential seal assembly with adjustable seating forces.
PNG
media_image6.png
348
394
media_image6.png
Greyscale
US Patent 10,619,742 B2 discloses a ring seal arrangement with installation foolproofing and pressure relieving grooves (92).
PNG
media_image7.png
342
402
media_image7.png
Greyscale
US PGPUB 2019/0195078 A1 discloses a contacting face seal.
PNG
media_image8.png
348
542
media_image8.png
Greyscale
US PGPUB 2018/0202304 A1 discloses a constant speed 2 piece ring seal arrangement.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN C CLARK whose telephone number is (571)272-2871. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0730-1730, Alternate Fridays 0730-1630.
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 D 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.
/RYAN C CLARK/Examiner, Art Unit 3745