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 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: The reference numbers in claim 6 should be deleted in order to stay consistent with the remainder of the claims. 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.
Claim 2 is 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 2 is indefinite as including the limitation “preferably about 0.8 mm” which leads to a lack of clarity as to whether that limitation is optional or required after setting the larger range. As such, claim 2 is indefinite.
Claim 9 is 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 9 recites a turbine engine even though a turbine engine has already been set forth in claim 8 which claim 9 is dependent from. This creates a lack of clarity in the limitations and renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 7 is 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 7 recites “the assembly according to claim 8” even though claim 8 is directed to a turbine engine and not just the assembly. As such, this creates a lack of clarity with claim 7 and makes it unclear if all of claim 8 is required in claim 7. If not all of claim 8 is required in claim 7 that creates further indefiniteness in the dependency of the claims.
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Justak (US 20130234399) in view of Steiger (US 20150001815).
Regarding claim 2, Justak discloses A seal for an aircraft turbine engine (10, 130), the seal comprising a plurality of seal segments that are circumferentially distributed about a longitudinal axis (Figure 3 shows a plurality of segments 24), each seal segment comprising;
a radially outer annular wall segment (Figure 4, item 12);
a radially inner annular wall segment (Figure 4, item 20), the radially outer and radially inner wall segments connected to each other by an elastically deformable member (figure 4, items 28 and 26), the radially outer annular wall segments forming a monolithic outer shroud (Figure 3 shows the outer segments form a monolithic outer shroud), the radially inner annular wall segments arranged circumferentially end-to-end (Figure 3 shows each segment being circumferentially arranged end to end with the next segment), each radially inner annular wall segment comprising a first circumferential edge and an opposite second circumferential edge (Figure 3).
However, Justak does not explicitly disclose that each edge has a slit; and a tongue mounted in part in the slit of the first circumferential edge of one radially inner annular wall segment and in part in a circumferentially opposite slit of the second circumferential edge of a circumferentially adjacent radially inner annular wall segment.
Justak and Steiger are analogous prior art because both describe turbine seal components with circumferentially adjacent edges adjacent the gas path. Steiger teaches each circumferential edge having a slit (Figures 2 and 3, item 60); and a tongue mounted in part in the slit of the first circumferential edge of one radially inner annular wall segment and in part in a circumferentially opposite slit of the second circumferential edge of a circumferentially adjacent radially inner annular wall segment (Figures 2 and 3 show a tongue 60 mounted into each slit of the circumferentially adjacent walls). Steiger describes that the seal prevents the loss of high-pressure medium contained in plenums from the lower pressure hot gas of gas turbine (Par. 0030), the seal design prevents localized movement of the strip seal (Par. 0012), and the design is resilient to fatigue failure and resonance (Par. 0009). Further, as both Justak and Steiger relate to segmented seal portions adjacent the turbine gas flow path, the seals and slots of Steiger would provide predictable results between the circumferential faces of the segments of Justak. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the seals and slots of Steiger between the circumferential faces of the segments of Justak because the seal prevents the loss of high-pressure medium contained in plenums from the lower pressure hot gas of gas turbine (Par. 0030), the seal design prevents localized movement of the strip seal (Par. 0012), and the design is resilient to fatigue failure and resonance (Par. 0009) and combining prior art elements according to known methods is obvious with predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 2, Justak in view of Steiner teaches that each slit has a radial dimension between 0.5 and 1.2 mm, preferably about 0.8 mm. Steiner Paragraph 0041 describes that the seal thickness is defined between 0.2 mm and 0.8 mm and Figure 3 shows that the seal touches the top and bottom of the slot so the slot thickness would be between 0.2 mm and 0.8 mm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 3, Justak in view of Steiner teaches the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach that each tongue has a longitudinal dimension less than a circumferential dimension, a radial dimension being less than the longitudinal dimension. Regarding the dimensional relationship, the Applicant has not disclosed that having this relationship solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and thus it appears that the relationship of dimensions provided by the design of Justak in view of Steiner would perform equally well with the specified structure as claimed by applicant. The specification of the instant application has not provided any criticality to the specific relationship claimed. There is no mention as to the benefit provided by such a design or the criticality of such a relationship. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the seal tongue of Justak in view of Steiner to have the longitudinal, radial, and circumferential relationship as claimed and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as it would allow the structure to have a desired sealing effect for the specific orientation.
Regarding claim 4, Justak in view of Steiner teaches the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach that the tongues are arranged between an upstream end and a longitudinal median plane of the radially inner annular wall segment. Regarding the tongue arrangement, the Applicant has not disclosed that having this relationship solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and thus it appears that the tongue arrangement provided by the design of Justak in view of Steiner would perform equally well with the specified structure as claimed by applicant. The specification of the instant application has not provided any criticality to the specific relationship claimed. There is no mention as to the benefit provided by such a design or the criticality of such a location. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the seal tongue of Justak in view of Steiner to have the tongue location as claimed and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as it would allow the structure to have a desired sealing effect for the specific orientation.
Regarding claim 5, Justak in view of Steiner teaches that the tongues have a substantially rectangular shape (Steiner Figure 2 shows that when viewed from above the tongues are rectangular).
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Justak (US 20130234399) in view of Steiger (US 20150001815) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wesling (US 20190085712).
Regarding claim 6, Justak in view of Steiger teaches the limitations of claim 1 as set forth in the above 103 rejection. However, Justak in view of Steiger does not explicitly teach An assembly comprising
a cylindrical rotor shroud having a longitudinal axis and a distributor which has a stator vane ring, the distributor including a foot at a radially inner end of the distributor; and
a seal according to claim 1 being mounted on the foot of the distributor, and the seal cooperating in a non-contact sealing manner with the cylindrical rotor shroud of the turbine engine arranged radially under the distributor.
Justak in view of Steiger and Wesling are analogous prior art because both describe seal structures between a stator and a rotating component in a gas turbine engine with flexible radial movement. Wesling teaches An assembly comprising
a cylindrical rotor shroud having a longitudinal axis (Figure 3, item 230 and 112) and a distributor which has a stator vane ring (Figure 3, item 118), the distributor including a foot at a radially inner end of the distributor (Figure 3, item 200 and 210); and
a seal being mounted on the foot of the distributor (Figure 3, item 240), and the seal cooperating in a non-contact sealing manner with the cylindrical rotor shroud of the turbine engine arranged radially under the distributor (Figure 3 shows non-contact sealing).
Justak in view of Steiger and Wesling both show seal structures that allow for radial movement as Justak shows spring elements 28 and 26 and Wesling describes that 240 is a spring assembly (Par. 0046). Justak further describes that the seal is a non-contact seal (Par. 0002) and that it is intended to seal between a stator and a rotor component (Par. 0012) but does not describe the specific location in the engine so one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose a suitable location in the engine to place the seal. As Wesling shows a suitable location for such a type of seal, both show non-contact seals, and both show the radial self-actuating movement, the seal of Justak in view of Steiger would provide predictable results in the location at the base of the vane of Wesling. Steiger Figure 1 further shows the seals being capable of being used at the base of vanes where they interface with the rotors. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the seal structures of Justak in view of Steiger in the vane base location of Wesling because combining prior art elements according to known methods is obvious with predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 8, Justak in view of Steiger and further in view of Wesling teaches a turbine engine comprising the assembly according to claim 6 (Wesling Figures 1-7 show a turbine engine with the system).
Regarding claim 7, Justak in view of Steiger and further in view of Wesling teaches A turbine for an aircraft turbine engine, the turbine comprising:
a casing (Wesling Figure 2 shows an outer casing that supports the vanes),
the assembly according to claim 8 (See rejection above); and
a rotor which comprises a cylindrical shroud rotated about the longitudinal axis (Wesling Figure 3, items 112 and 230) and the distributor being mounted in the casing (Wesling Figure 2 shows the vanes being mounted in the casing) and the cylindrical shroud being arranged radially under the distributor (wesling Figure 3 shows the shroud being radially under the vanes).
Regarding claim 9, Justak in view of Steiger and further in view of Wesling teaches a turbine engine comprising the turbine according to claim 7 (Wesling Figures 1-7 show a turbine engine).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE C RIBADENEYRA whose telephone number is (469)295-9164. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00 (CT).
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.
/THEODORE C RIBADENEYRA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights