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 07/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the curved portions of Victor reference are only incidentally radiused or filleted corners connecting two flat sides of the seal structure. Victor is silent with respect to any consideration of fluid flow across the seal, or of aerodynamic effects.
Examiner notes that the radiused corners of the retainer for the seal provide flexibility and thereby aerodynamic effect.
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 1 – 5, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 14 - 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Victor et al. (U.S. Patent # 2172325).
Regarding Claim 1, Victor discloses a seal structure for a gas turbine engine (seal of fig 14 can be used for a gas turbine engine), the seal structure comprising: a seal element (85) for arranging around a gas turbine engine component (85 arranged around a gas turbine engine component which can be the shaft 14, fig 2 same as fig 14); and a retainer (75) having an outer transversal diameter along a transversal axis ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 14 below) and engaging the seal element (fig 14), wherein the retainer (75) is connected to a supporting structure (77) for arranging around the component (14);
the retainer comprising an external convex surface ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 14 below) having a first central portion defining a first opening ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 14 below) for inserting the component (shaft) and a first peripheral curved portion ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 14 below) defined by a first local radius ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 14 below), wherein the first local radius is constant or variable across the first peripheral curved portion ( first local radius is constant as seen in examiner annotated fig 14 below).
Victor does not disclose first local radius ranging between 10% to 30% of the outer transversal diameter.
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 first local radius 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, to provide flexibility to the retainer. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
PNG
media_image1.png
786
1416
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Victor discloses the seal structure, wherein the supporting structure (77) comprises a neck ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 14 above) defining a second opening ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 14 above) for inserting the component (shaft) and a lip ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 14 above) having an external convex surface ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 14 above) comprising a second central portion ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 14 above) which extends outwardly from the neck ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 14 above) and a second peripheral curved portion ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 14 above) defined by a second local radius ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 14 above) ranging between 5% to 25% of the outer transversal diameter, wherein the second local radius is constant or variable across the second peripheral curved portion (the second local radius is constant).
Victor does not disclose a second local radius ranging between 5% to 25% of the outer transversal diameter.
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 second local radius 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, to provide flexibility to the supporting structure. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 3, Victor discloses the seal structure, wherein a height ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 14 above) measured from an extremity of the retainer planarly aligned with an inlet of the first opening to an extremity of the lip of the supporting structure planarly aligned with an inlet of the second opening ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 14 above).
Victor does not disclose wherein a height ranges between 25% to 40% of the outer transversal diameter.
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 height 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, to provide flexibility and adapt to the height requirements of the gas turbine engine components. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 4, Victor discloses the seal structure, wherein the retainer has an outer longitudinal diameter along a longitudinal axis ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 14 above) which is oriented at an angle ranging between -30 degrees to +30 degrees relative to a local horizontal axis (outer longitudinal diameter is at 0 degrees angle).
Victor does not disclose wherein the outer longitudinal diameter ranges between 100% and 200% of the outer transversal diameter.
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 outer longitudinal and transversal diameters 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, to provide flexibility of the seal. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 5, Victor discloses the seal structure, wherein the angle is 0 degrees (outer longitudinal diameter is at 0 degrees angle).
Regarding Claim 7, Victor discloses the seal structure, wherein the retainer and the supporting structure are connected as part of a unitary monolithic structure (75 and 77 are part of unitary monolithic structure).
Regarding Claim 8, Victor discloses the seal structure, wherein the seal element is a floating seal (85 is a floating seal).
Regarding Claim 11, Victor discloses a method of manufacturing a seal structure (fig 14), the method comprising: providing a seal element (85) for arranging around a component (shaft); forming a retainer (75) having an outer transversal diameter along a transversal axis ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 14 above) and comprising a first opening for inserting the component ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 14 above) and an external convex surface comprising a first central portion ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 14 above) and a first peripheral curved portion defined by a first local radius ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 14 above, wherein the first local radius is constant or variable across the first peripheral curved portion (first local radius is constant);
engaging the seal element with the retainer (engaging 85 with 75);
connecting the retainer to a supporting structure for arranging around the component (connecting 75 to 77 for engaging around the shaft).
Victor does not disclose first local radius ranging between 10% to 30% of the outer transversal diameter.
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 first local radius 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, to provide flexibility to the retainer. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 12, Victor discloses the method of manufacturing, wherein the retainer and the supporting structure are connected as part of a unitary monolithic structure (75 and 77 are part of unitary monolithic structure).
Regarding Claim 14, Victor discloses the method of manufacturing, the method further comprising forming the supporting structure such that the supporting structure comprises a neck defining a second opening ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 14 above) for inserting the component ( shaft as seen in examiner annotated fig 14 above) and a lip having an external convex surface comprising a second central portion which extends outwardly from the neck ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 14 above) and a second peripheral curved portion defined by a second local radius( as seen in examiner annotated fig 14 above), wherein the second local radius is constant or variable across the second peripheral curved portion (second local radius is constant).
Victor does not disclose a second local radius ranging between 5% to 25% of the outer transversal diameter.
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 second local radius 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, to provide flexibility to the supporting structure. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 15, Victor discloses the method of manufacturing, wherein the retainer has an outer longitudinal diameter along a longitudinal axis ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 14 above) which is oriented at an angle ranging between -30 degrees to +30 degrees relative to a local horizontal axis (angle is 0 degrees).
Victor does not disclose wherein the outer longitudinal diameter ranges between 100% and 200% of the outer transversal diameter.
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 outer longitudinal and transversal diameters 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, to provide flexibility of the seal. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 16, Victor discloses the method of manufacturing, wherein the seal element is a floating seal (85 is a floating seal).
Regarding Claim 17, Victor discloses the method of manufacturing, wherein the forming comprises at least one of machining, additive manufacturing and casting (Col 1 Lines 27 – 35: seal structure of fig 1 formed by molding).
Regarding Claim 18, Victor discloses a method of improving the performance of a gas turbine engine, the method comprising altering an installed seal structure to obtain a seal structure ( Col 1 Lines 27 – 35: seal structure of fig 1 formed by molding).
Regarding Claim 19, Victor discloses the method, wherein the step of altering comprises at least one of replacing, machining, and adding to the installed seal structure ( adding to the seal structure of fig 1).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Victor in view of Huang et al. (U.S. PG Pub # 20160356223).
Regarding Claim 9, Victor discloses the seal structure.
Victor does not disclose wherein the supporting structure is an igniter plug sleeve for arranging around an igniter plug.
However, Huang teaches wherein the supporting structure is an igniter plug sleeve (114, fig 3) for arranging around an igniter plug (102, fig 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the supporting structure of Victor to be an igniter plug sleeve as in Huang with a reasonable expectation of success so that the igniter plug so that the seal provides flexibility radially in the igniter tube assembly.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Victor and Huang discloses the seal structure, wherein the igniter plug sleeve further comprises at least one purging hole (Huang 116, fig 3).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Victor in view of Richardson et al. (U.S. PG Pub # 20140007580).
Regarding Claim 13, Victor discloses the method of manufacturing.
Victor does not disclose wherein the retainer is connected to the supporting structure through electric resistance welding.
However, Richardson teaches wherein the retainer is connected to the supporting structure through electric resistance welding (Para 0022 – 312 welded to 302, fig 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to connect the retainer and the supporting structure of Victor using welding method as in Richardson with a reasonable expectation of success so that the retainer and the supporting structure are adhered securely.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20 and 21 are allowed.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art does not disclose or fairly suggest the seal structure as claimed in independent claims of the application. The examiner can find no motivation to combine or modify the reference without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Regarding Claim 20, Victor discloses a seal structure for a gas turbine engine ( seal of fig 14 can be used for a gas turbine engine), the seal structure comprising:
a seal element (85) for arranging around a gas turbine engine component (85 arranged around a gas turbine engine component which can be the shaft 14, fig 2 same as fig 14 below); and
a retainer (75) having an outer transversal diameter along a transversal axis ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 14 below) and
engaging the seal element (fig 14), wherein the retainer (75) is connected to a supporting structure (77) for arranging around the component (14);
the retainer comprising an external convex surface ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 14 below) having a first central portion defining a first opening for inserting the component (shaft) and a first peripheral curved portion ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 14 below) defined by a first local radius ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 14 below);
wherein the retainer has an outer longitudinal diameter along a longitudinal
axis which is oriented at an angle ranging between -30 degrees to +30 degrees
relative to a local horizontal axis, and wherein the outer longitudinal diameter
ranges between 100% and 200% of the outer transversal diameter; and
Victor does not disclose first local radius ranging between 10% to 30% of the outer transversal diameter.
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 first local radius 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, to provide flexibility to the retainer. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Victor does not disclose wherein the outer longitudinal diameter ranges between 100% and 200% of the outer transversal diameter.
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 outer longitudinal and transversal diameters 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, to provide flexibility of the seal. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The prior art does not disclose wherein the retainer has a curved outer perimeter situated in a plane defined by the transversal axis intersecting with the longitudinal axis, and wherein the curved outer perimeter is defined by a third local radius ranging between 50% and 150% of the outer transversal diameter, wherein the third local radius is constant or variable across the curved outer perimeter.
Regarding Claim 21, Victor discloses the method of manufacturing.
The prior art does not disclose wherein the retainer has a curved outer perimeter situated in a plane defined by the transversal axis intersecting with the longitudinal axis, and wherein the curved outer perimeter is defined by a third local radius ranging between 50% and 150% of the outer transversal diameter, wherein the third local radius is constant or variable across the curved outer perimeter.
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