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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) submitted April 21, 2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I (claims 1-13, 21, 22) in the reply filed on July 2, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Albrecht does not allow axial removal or axial insertion of the sealing ring and of the upstream ring support against the downstream ring support. This is not found persuasive for at least two reasons. First, the claims do not mention axial removal of any components, and thus the argument that Albrecht does not allow axial removal is moot. Second, the function of being able to axially insert the sealing ring and upstream ring support appears to merely be a result of having the claimed dimensions (“the maximum radius of the sealing ring is strictly smaller than the radius of the upstream end of the casing so as to allow mounting by axial insertion”). The sealing ring of Albrecht has the claimed size comparison, and thus it appears would perform the claimed function.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 14-20 and 23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on July 2, 2026. Claims 1-5, 10-13, 21, and 22 will be examined below.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 5, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, lines 3-4 recite “the maximum radius of the radially protruding portion” which lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 5, line 2 recites “the seal” which should be changed to “the at least one seal” to be consistent with claim 3.
Claim 10, line 2 also recites “the seal” which should be changed to “the at least one seal”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 11,073,026 to Thomas.
In Reference to Claim 1#
Thomas teaches:
A turbine (18) for a turbomachine (gas turbine engine 10), the turbine having a main axis (axis of rotation 11) and comprising an annular casing (19, see Figure 2), an upstream ring support (front/left half of 24, 60, 62 in Figure 3), a downstream ring support (rear/right half of 24, 60, 62 in Figure 3), and a sealing ring (22), the sealing ring being configured to extend around and radially face a blade assembly (15) of a rotor (13) of the turbine, wherein
the upstream ring support and the downstream ring support are mounted against a radially inner surface of the casing (see Figure 3), the upstream ring support and the downstream ring support having an upstream end (left side in Figure 3) and a downstream end (right side in Figure 3),
the sealing ring being configured to be disposed radially between the blade assembly and the casing, and being mounted against the upstream ring support and the downstream ring support (see Figure 3),
the sealing ring having a maximum radius (not numbered, see annotated Figure 3 below) with respect to the main axis, and the casing being dimensioned such that the maximum radius of the sealing ring is strictly smaller than the radius of the upstream end of the casing so as to allow a mounting by axial insertion, of the sealing ring and of the upstream ring support, against the downstream ring support,
the turbine comprising at least one C-shaped locking member (56) configured to hold together in contact, inside the C-shape, an upstream end of the sealing ring (left end in Figure 3) and the upstream ring support (see column 4, line 60 through column 5, line 39, column 6, lines 24-55 and Figure 3).
Regarding the axial insertion, Figure 3 shows the sealing ring is strictly smaller than the upstream end of the casing. Since the prior art teaches the claimed structure, there is a reasonable presumption that it inherently performs the same function.
PNG
media_image1.png
680
1115
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In Reference to Claim 2#
Thomas teaches:
The turbine for a turbomachine according to claim 1, wherein the sealing ring comprises a radially protruding portion (46), the maximum radius of the sealing ring being equal to a maximum radius of the radially protruding portion (see Figure 3).
In Reference to Claim 3#
Thomas teaches:
The turbine for a turbomachine according to claim 2, comprising at least one seal (not numbered, see annotated Figure 3) disposed between the downstream ring support and the radially protruding portion (see Figure 3).
Figure 3 shows a seal in a groove within the downstream portion of the downstream ring support. The seal is between the downstream end of the downstream ring support and the radially protruding portion.
PNG
media_image2.png
636
783
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In Reference to Claim 4#
Thomas teaches:
The turbine for a turbomachine according to claim 3, wherein the at least one seal extends axially. Figure 3 shows the seal has a length in the axial direction (left to right).
In Reference to Claim 11#
Thomas teaches:
The turbine for a turbomachine according to claim 1, wherein the casing is a low-pressure turbine casing. The casing of Thomas extends the entire length of the turbine (see Figure 1), and would include the low pressure section of the turbine (the downstream end). The shroud segments (22) of Thomas would be used at each blade stage, including in the low pressure turbine casing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 10, 12, 13, 21, and 22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record fails to teach at least one sealing metal sheet between the at least one seal and the downstream support ring as recited in claim 5 or between the at least one seal and the radially protruding portion as recited in claim 10. Thomas fails to teach a sealing metal sheet.
Claims 21 and 22 depend from claim 10 and contain its limitations, and therefore would be allowable for the same reason.
The prior art of record fails to teach at least one among a downstream end of the sealing ring and a downstream end of the downstream ring support is received in a housing of an external platform of a downstream distributor as recited in claim 12.
Claim 13 depends from claim 12 and contains its limitations, and therefore would be allowable for the same reason.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 7,866,943 to Durand teaches a turbine comprising a sealing ring and a C-shaped locking member on the upstream side and a C-shaped locking member on the downstream side of the sealing ring. US 7,186,078 to Tanaka teaches a turbine comprising a sealing ring and a C-shaped locking member on the upstream side of the sealing ring. US 5,593,277 to Proctor teaches a turbine comprising a sealing ring, upstream and downstream ring supports, and a C-shaped locking member on the downstream side of the sealing ring. US 10,125,627 to Gieg teaches a turbine comprising a sealing ring which is axially inserted and held to the casing by a C-shaped locking member.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON GREGORY DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3289. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:00-5:00, F: 8:00-12:00.
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, Nathan 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.
/JASON G DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights