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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Ahn reference does not disclose a row of blades, as 31 is a labyrinth tooth. Ahn does not disclose a plurality of discrete, circumferentially spaced blade elements, in light of the specification of the present invention.
Examiner notes that Ahn Para 0076 discloses that the tooth portion 31 may be a labyrinth seal. The row of tooth portions 31 can be considered as blades, as labyrinth teeth 31 have wide, flat parts.
Definition of blade: a wide, flat part on a tool or machine, used to push back water or air;
Reference : BLADE | English meaning - Cambridge Dictionary
Applicant argues that Ahn reference does not disclose the blades 31 are configured to straightening air, as the blades cannot alter the tangential velocity component of the flow of air.
Examiner notes that Ahn’s blades / teeth 31 are configured to straighten the air intended to pass through the sealing gasket 41, as the gap between the blades / teeth has a straight path and the air passing through the gap would be straightened.
Applicant argues that Ahn reference does not disclose the sealing gasket/ brush seal 41 is configured to ensure a predefined clearance, as the brush seal 41 maintains sealing contact under axial displacement with the stepped portions 120 or inclined portions 130, and block the fluid flow.
Examiner notes that Ahn fig 5 discloses a predefined clearance between the brush seal 41 and the external surface of the rotor at 110, under axial displacement.
Applicant argues that Ahn reference does not disclose the spacer 40 is a brush seal holder, welded or bolted into the fixing groove 33 of the packing body and has no spacing function.
Examiner notes that Ahn discloses 40 to be a brush seal holder while also acting as a spacer.
Definition of spacer : a device or piece used to create or maintain a desired amount of space (as between two parts)
Reference : SPACER Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the last disk" in Lines 5 and 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1 and 8 - 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ahn et al. (U.S. PG Pub # 20170167613).
Regarding Claim 1, Ahn discloses a sealing assembly (fig 2) for a turbomachine (10) comprising a sealing gasket (41) configured to ensure a predefined clearance between said sealing gasket and an external surface of a rotor (100) mounted in rotation around an axis A (axis of 100) (clearance between 41 and 100), the axis A defining an axial direction (axial direction of 100), the sealing gasket extending circumferentially around the axis A (41 extends circumferentially around axis of 100) and the external surface being arranged facing the sealing gasket (external surface of 100 facing 41), the sealing assembly being characterized in that it further comprises an air straightening member (30) comprising at least one row of blades (left row of 31; Definition of blade: a wide, flat part on a tool or machine, used to push back water or air : BLADE | English meaning - Cambridge Dictionary) which extend radially (left 31 extends radially), the air straightening member being located upstream of the sealing gasket (30 with left 31 upstream of 41), the air straightening member being configured to straighten the air intended to pass through the sealing gasket (30 with left 31 configured to straighten the air intended to pass through the sealing gasket 41, as the gap between the blades has a straight path and the air passing through the gap would be straightened).
Regarding Claim 8, Ahn discloses the sealing assembly, wherein the air straightening member comprises a spacer (40) integral with the air straightening member (30).
Regarding Claim 9, Ahn discloses the sealing assembly, wherein the sealing assembly is arranged radially between a fixed portion of a turbomachine casing (20) and the external surface of the rotor ( external surface of 100) mounted in rotation around the axis A (axis of 100), and wherein the sealing gasket (41) is arranged axially between a radial recess of the fixed portion of the turbomachine casing (radial recess of 21) and the spacer (40) of the air straightening member (30).
Regarding Claim 10, Ahn discloses the sealing assembly, wherein the sealing assembly is arranged radially between a fixed portion of a turbomachine casing (fixed portion of 20) and an external surface of the rotor (external surface of 100) mounted in rotation around the axis A (axis of 100), and in which the air straightening member (30) comprises an external attachment flange (flange of 30) which is mounted against an external radial flange (radial flange of 20) of the fixed portion of the turbomachine casing (fixed portion of 20).
Regarding Claim 11, Ahn discloses an aeronautical turbomachine comprising at least one sealing assembly (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.
Claims 2 - 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn alone.
Regarding Claim 2, Ahn discloses the sealing assembly, wherein the air straightening member (30) has fixed blades (31), the fixed blades having an exit angle (angle of 31).
Ahn does not disclose the fixed blades having an exit angle (y) less than 10 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the exit angle dimension limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, so that the air straightening member with blades suppress the fluid leakage through the clearance between the rotor and the casing. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 3, Ahn discloses the sealing, wherein the blades of the air straightening member have a mean line (mean line of 41).
Ahn does not disclose wherein the blades of the air straightening member have a mean line comprised between 15 mm and 25 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the mean line dimension limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, so that the air straightening member with blades suppress the fluid leakage through the clearance between the rotor and the casing. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 4, Ahn discloses the sealing assembly, wherein the gap between two circumferentially adjacent blades (gap between blades 31).
Ahn does not disclose wherein the gap between two circumferentially adjacent blades is less than 40 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the gap dimension limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, so that the air straightening member with blades suppress the fluid leakage through the clearance between the rotor and the casing. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 5, Ahn discloses the sealing assembly, wherein the angle of attack of the blades (angle of attack of blades 31) of the air straightening member (30).
Ahn does not disclose wherein the angle of attack of the blades of the air straightening member is comprised between 30° and 75°.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the angle of attack dimension limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, so that the air straightening member with blades suppress the fluid leakage through the clearance between the rotor and the casing. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 6, Ahn discloses the sealing assembly, wherein the distance between the inlet of the air straightening member and the upstream edge of the sealing gasket (distance between inlet at left 31 and upstream edge of 41).
Ahn does not disclose wherein the distance between the inlet of the air straightening member and the upstream edge of the sealing gasket is comprised between 10 mm and 20 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the exit angle dimension limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, so that the air straightening member with blades and the gasket suppress the fluid leakage through the clearance between the rotor and the casing. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 7, Ahn discloses the sealing assembly, wherein the distance between the exit of the air straightening member and the upstream edge of the sealing gasket ( distance between the exit at left 31 and upstream edge of 41).
Ahn does not disclose wherein the distance between the exit of the air straightening member and the upstream edge of the sealing gasket is comprised between 2.0 mm and 5.0 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the exit angle dimension limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, so that the air straightening member with blades and gasket suppress the fluid leakage through the clearance between the rotor and the casing. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn in view of Bonneau et al. (U.S. PG Pub # 20110129336).
Regarding Claim 12, Ahn discloses the aeronautical turbomachine comprising at least one sealing assembly.
Ahn does not disclose wherein the at least one sealing assembly is arranged on a cooling-air routing circuit, which takes the form of an air orifice leading into an air intake cavity in communication with the cooling-air routing circuit, a first inlet extracting air downstream of the last disk of ahigh-pressure compressor and a second inlet extracting air radially below a combustion chamber which takes the form of an air orifice leading into an air intake cavity in communication with the cooling-air routing circuit and the sealing assembly being selected from: - an upstream sealing assembly located downstream of the high-pressure compression traversed by the air extracted downstream of the last disk of the high-pressure compressor; a downstream interior sealing assembly defining the inlet of said air intake cavity and arranged radially below the air inlet orifice; a downstream exterior sealing assembly defining the exit of said air intake cavity and arranged radially below a high-pressure guide nozzle.
However, Bonneau teaches wherein the at least one sealing assembly (as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below) is arranged on a cooling-air routing circuit (cooling circuit of fig 1), a first inlet (as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below) extracting air downstream of the last disk of a high-pressure compressor (Para 0040) and a second inlet (11) extracting air radially below a combustion chamber (Para 0003) which takes the form of an air orifice (air orifice of 11) leading into an air intake cavity in communication with the cooling-air routing circuit (air into a cavity through 11), and the sealing assembly being selected from: an upstream sealing assembly (as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below) located downstream of the high-pressure compression traversed by the air extracted downstream of the last disk of the high-pressure compressor (Para 0040); a downstream interior sealing assembly (as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below) defining the inlet of said air intake cavity and arranged radially below the air inlet orifice (as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below); a downstream exterior sealing assembly (as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below) defining the exit of said air intake cavity (as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below ) and arranged radially below a high-pressure guide nozzle ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the sealing assembly of Ahn in the cooling air circuit of Bonneau with a reasonable expectation of success so that the cooling circuit cools the turbine disk of a gas turbine engine ( Bonneau Para 0001).
PNG
media_image1.png
660
926
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to L. SUSMITHA KONERU whose telephone number is (571) 270-5333. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 9 A.M.- 4 P.M.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christine Mills can be reached on 571.272.8322. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free)? If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/L. K./
Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights