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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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 9-10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delgado Marquez et al. (US2015/0104124) in view of Taguchi (US2019/0234458).
PNG
media_image1.png
499
507
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Delgado teaches a bearing device with a squeeze film damper, comprising: a plurality of pads (230) that constitute a bearing surface supporting a rotating shaft (122); a bearing housing (218) that accommodates the pads; a housing (202) that is located outside the bearing housing in a radial direction; and a plurality of squeeze film damper parts (248) arranged in a circumferential direction at a clearance between the bearing housing and the housing, wherein each of the squeeze film damper parts includes a plurality of elastic bodies (284, 286) that repel a radial force, the plurality of elastic bodies are located at equal intervals in the circumferential direction.
Delgado teaches a relationship between the axial and radial stiffness of the elastic bodies (paragraph [0063]), but fails to teach and the plurality of elastic bodies are set such that overall stiffness in the vertical direction is larger than the overall stiffness in the horizontal direction.
In an analogous art, Taguchi teaches a squeeze film damper for a bearing. Taguchi teaches a bearing support has a high anisotropy in which the stiffness in the vertical direction is high and the stiffness in the horizontal direction is low to enhance the damping effect (see paragraph [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the bearing of Delgado and change it so that the plurality of elastic bodies are set such that overall stiffness in the vertical direction is larger than the overall stiffness in the horizontal direction as taught by Taguchi to enhance the damping effect.
Regarding claim 10, Delgado as modified teaches the plurality of elastic bodies are located on both ends of each of the squeeze film damper parts in a circumferential direction (see Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 12, Delgado as modified teaches a position of at least one of the plurality of elastic bodies in the circumferential direction is located at a same position as one of the pads in the circumferential direction (see Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 13, Delgado as modified teaches when the pads are supporting the rotating shaft, one of the pads is located just under the rotating shaft in a self-weight direction of the rotating shaft (Delgado teaches pads on the underside of the shaft location).
Regarding claim 14, Delgado as modified teaches each of the plurality of elastic bodies is a plate spring (Delgado teaches thin, flat springs that are folded over, and as such are considered plate springs).
Regarding claim 15, Delgado as modified teaches a centrifugal compressor comprising: a rotating shaft (122); and a bearing device (200) with a squeeze film damper (248), the bearing device supporting the rotating shaft, wherein the bearing device with the squeeze film damper is a bearing device with a squeeze film damper according to claim 9.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delgado in view of Taguchi and Zeidan (US2012/0181734).
Delgado as modified teaches the bearing device with the squeeze film damper according to claim 9, but fails to teach a position of at least one of the plurality of elastic bodies in the circumferential direction is located between two of the pads that are adjacent to each other in the circumferential direction.
In an analogous art, Zeidan teaches a squeeze film damper. Zeidan teaches elastic bodies (42) located both behind bearing pads (62) and in the spaces between them (see Fig. 1). Zeidan teaches the orientation of the webs can vary the freedom of oscillation of the bearing (see paragraph [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the bearing of Delgado as modified and change it so that a position of at least one of the plurality of elastic bodies in the circumferential direction is located between two of the pads that are adjacent to each other in the circumferential direction as taught by Zeidan to adjust for the desired freedom of oscillation of the bearing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the PTO-892 for references related to squeeze film dampers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMERON A CORDAY whose telephone number is (571)272-0383. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 EST.
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.
/CAMERON A CORDAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights