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 § 112
Claims 1-11 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the pairs of circumferentially adjacent seal segments”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear which segments are being claimed. For the purpose of examination and compact prosecution, the limitation will be interpreted as any two circumferentially adjacent seal segments.
Claims 2-11 depend from claim 1 and inherit all deficiencies of the parent claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the said at least two blades". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what structures are to be interpreted as “at least two blades”.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “connect each circumferential-end radial leg to a common radial leg” which should be “connect each circumferential-end radial leg to [[a]]the common radial leg”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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) 1-2 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 3492705 to Tibos.
(a) Regarding claim 1:
(i) Tibos discloses a seal (sealing system 127, Fig 2) for an aircraft turbine engine (Par 0009), comprising:
a plurality of seal segments (seal segments 128, Fig 2) distributed circumferentially about a longitudinal axis (centerline axis 120, Fig 2, Par 0012),
each seal segment comprising:
a radially outer annular wall segment (respective right and left halves of outer base 201, Fig 2); and
a radially inner annular wall segment (respective right and left halves of pad 202, Fig 2) which are connected to each other by an elastically deformable member (respective left and right flexible arms 208, Fig 2), and
wherein the radially outer annular wall segments of the seal segments form a monolithic external shroud (reasonably disclosed in Fig 2).
wherein the pairs of circumferentially adjacent seal segments have their respective elastically deformable member implemented monolithically as a common deformable elastic member (both flexible arms 208, Fig 2),
the common deformable elastic member connecting together two radially inner annular wall segments (respective right and left halves of pad 202, Fig 2) of circumferentially-adjacent seal segments (Fig 2).
(b) Regarding claim 2:
(i) Tibos discloses the seal according to claim 1.
(ii) Tibos further discloses:
wherein the common deformable elastic member has a first circumferential-end radial leg (respective one of outer ends 214, Fig 2) connected to a circumferential end of the inner annular wall segment of a first seal segment (respective one of pad first end 209 and pad second end 217, Fig 2) and a second circumferential-end radial leg (respective other one of outer ends 214, Fig 2) connected to a circumferential end of the inner annular wall segment of a second seal segment (respective other one of pad first end 209 and pad second end 217, Fig 2),
each circumferential end radial leg being connected to a common radial leg (support member 204, Fig 2) by at least one first strip (respective one of flexible arms 208, Fig 2) and at least one second strip (respective other one of flexible arms 208, Fig 2) which each extend circumferentially to connect each circumferential-end radial leg to a common radial leg (Fig 2).
(c) Regarding claim 5:
(i) Tibos discloses the seal according to claim 2.
(ii) Tibos further discloses wherein the common radial leg defines a plane of symmetry for the common deformable elastic member (Fig 2, Par 0016).
(d) Regarding claim 6:
(i) Tibos discloses the seal according to claim 2.
(ii) Tibos further discloses wherein the circumferential-end radial legs of the seal segments are each integral with a circumferential end of a seal segment (reasonably disclosed in Fig 2, Par 0023).
(e) Regarding claim 7:
(i) Tibos discloses the seal according to claim 1.
(ii) Tibos further discloses wherein the common deformable elastic member (105) comprises three radial legs (support member 204 and the two outer ends 214, Fig 2), the common deformable elastic member having a common radial leg (support member 204, Fig 2) arranged circumferentially at the junction between the radially outer annular wall segments in order to join each pair of radially inner annular wall segments of the seal segments (Fig 2).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3492705 to Tibos as evidenced by US 10669888 to Ackerman.
(a) Regarding claim 3:
(i) Tibos discloses the seal according to claim 2.
(ii) Tibos further discloses wherein the at least one first strip and at least one second strip are elastically deformable (“configured to flex”, Par 0019).
(iii) Tibos does not disclose wherein said at least one first strip or said at least one second strip comprises at least two strips spaced radially apart from one another.
(iv) The at least one first strip and the at least one second strip each comprise one strip and modification to one or both of them to comprise more strips requires only duplication of parts. Mere duplication of parts supports a prima facie obviousness determination, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
(v) 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 at least of the at least one first strip and the at least one second strip to comprise at least two strips as claimed through mere duplication of parts, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B), to arrive at a configuration already well known in the art as evidenced by Ackermann (two strips comprising inner band 234 and outer band 236, Fig 5).
Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3492705 to Tibos in view of US 10669888 to Ackerman.
(a) Regarding claim 8:
(i) Tibos discloses the seal according to claim 1.
(ii) Tibos further discloses:
an assembly for an aircraft turbine engine (Par 0009) having a longitudinal axis (centerline axis 120, Fig 2, Par 0012),
the seal cooperating in a non-contact sealing manner with a cylindrical rotor shroud of the turbine engine (“avoid contact between film-riding seal segment 128 and rotor 106”, Par 0022).
(iii) Tibos does not disclose:
the assembly comprising a distributor which has a stator vane ring comprising a foot at the at a radially inner end of the distributor carrying the seal according to claim 1, nor
the cylindrical rotor shroud of the turbine engine arranged radially under the distributor.
(iv) Ackermann teaches:
an assembly for an aircraft turbine engine (high pressure turbine section 21A, Fig 3) having a longitudinal axis (centerline 12, Fig 3),
a seal (seal assembly 58 comprising non-contact seal 208, Figs 3-4) cooperating in a non-contact sealing manner with a cylindrical rotor shroud of the turbine engine (seal land 102 of inner side plate 100 of rotor disk structure 88, Fig 3),
the assembly comprising a distributor (stator vane assembly 52, Fig 3) which has a stator vane ring (platform 70, mounting structure 76, and base structure 78; Fig 3) comprising a foot (base structure 78, Fig 3) at a radially inner end of the distributor carrying the seal (Fig 3), and
the cylindrical rotor shroud of the turbine engine arranged radially under the distributor (Fig 3).
(v) 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 seal as disclosed by Tibos to be used in the assembly as taught by Ackermann for the purpose of providing a seal improving dynamic performance of the seal and reduce working fluid leakage (Tibos: Par 0007) while overcoming the disadvantages of dynamic instability and yawing of the sealing element (Tibos: Par 0003).
(b) Regarding claim 9:
(i) Tibos as modified by Ackermann teaches the assembly according to claim 8.
(ii) Tibos as modified by Ackermann further teaches a turbine (Ackermann: high pressure turbine section 21A, Fig 3) for an aircraft turbine engine (Tibos: Par 0009; Ackermann: Col 9 Lns 5-6), the turbine comprising:
a casing (Ackermann: inner case 24, Fig 2),
the assembly according to claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above), and
a rotor which comprises a cylindrical shroud rotated about the longitudinal axis (the cylindrical rotor shroud of claim 8, see rejection of claim 8 above),
the distributor being mounted in the casing (Ackermann: Fig 2) and the cylindrical shroud being arranged radially under the distributor (Ackermann: Fig 3).
(c) Regarding claim 10:
(i) Tibos as modified by Ackermann teaches the assembly according to claim 8.
(ii) Tibos as modified by Ackermann further teaches a turbine engine, such as an aircraft turbojet or turboprop engine (Tibos: Par 0009; Ackermann: Col 9 Lns 5-6), comprising the assembly according to claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above).
(d) Regarding claim 11:
(i) Tibos as modified by Ackermann teaches the turbine according to claim 9.
(ii) Tibos as modified by Ackermann further teaches a turbine engine (Tibos: Par 0009; Ackermann: Col 9 Lns 5-6) comprising the turbine according to claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 10815809 to DiFrancesco teaches a non-contact seal having a deformable member comprising two strips (Fig 5). US 8172232 to Justak teaches a non-contact seal having a deformable member comprising two strips (Fig 5). US 10577975 to Ertas teaches a non-contact seal comprising a common radial leg (stops 232, Fig 2A) defining a plane of symmetry for a common deformable elastic member (springs 214, Fig 2A).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin A Pruitt whose telephone number is (571)272-8383. The examiner can normally be reached T-F 8:30am - 6:30pm.
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 A PRUITT/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights