DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “loads” is believed to be in error for --loads.--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3-5, 7, 8, 10, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beeck 6,308,511.
In regards to Independent Claim 1, Beeck teaches an assembly (figure 1) for a gas turbine engine of an aircraft propulsion system (intended use of the gas turbine engine shown in figure 1), the assembly comprising: at least one rotational assembly configured for rotation about an axis (assembly including 1 and 3 rotating about axis 8), the at least one rotational assembly comprising a shaft (shaft coupling 1 and 3), a bladed compressor rotor (1), and a bladed turbine rotor (3), and the shaft interconnects the bladed compressor rotor and the bladed turbine rotor (as shown in figure 1); an engine static structure comprising an engine case assembly (engine case 10), the engine case assembly extends circumferentially about the axis (10 extends about axis 8), and the engine case assembly surrounds the at least one rotational assembly (10 surrounds 1 and 3 in figure 1); a compressor comprising the bladed compressor rotor (compressor 1), and the compressor is configured to form a compressed air flow (generates compressed air flow 11); one or more compressed air loads disposed within the engine case assembly (15 and 13), and the one or more compressed air loads are connected in fluid communication with the compressor to receive the compressed air flow (tap 26 from compressor 1 leads to lines 20’ and 21’ that then connect to 15 and 13); and a particulate separator assembly (assembly including 24’, extending from tap 26 to loads 13 and 15 in figure 1) comprising at least one particulate separator (24’), the at least one particulate separator is disposed outside of the engine case assembly (Col. 3, ll. 12-18), the at least one particulate separator are connected in fluid communication with and between the compressor and the one or more compressed air loads (24’ is in line between tap 26 and loads 15 and 13), and the at least one particulate separator is configured to separate particulate from the compressed air flow and direct the compressed air flow to the one or more compressed air loads (Col. 3, ll. 22-33).
Regarding Dependent Claim 3, Beeck teaches the particulate separator (24’) is a particulate air filter (Col. 2, ll. 39-51).
Regarding Dependent Claim 4, Beeck teaches each particulate separator (24’) of the at least one particulate separator comprises a housing (housing of 24’ shown in figure 1), the housing forms an inlet (inlet to 24’ from 25), an outlet (outlets 21’ and 20’ from 24’), and a settling chamber between the inlet and the outlet (settling chamber that seconds flow to 21’ in figure 1, Col. 3, ll. 24-30).
Regarding Dependent Claim 5, Beeck teaches the particulate separator (24’) includes a housing (as shown in figure 1), the housing forms an inlet (from 25), and outlet (to 20’) and a serpentine passage between the inlet and the outlet (separator 24’ will comprise a serpentine passage, shown in figure 2, where the flow is not straight through the separator, and turns, where the number of turns or angles is not claimed).
Regarding Dependent Claim 7, Beeck teaches the one or more compressed air loads includes a rotor blade stage of the bladed turbine rotor (turbine blades immediately downstream of 13 receive compressed air load from 13 as shown in figure 1).
Regarding Dependent Claim 8, Beeck teaches that the one or more compressed air loads includes a vane stage of the turbine (load passing through 21’ exits through vane 13 of turbine 3).
Regarding Dependent Claim 10, Beeck teaches the compressor directs the compressed air flow to the at least one particulate separator (24’) from an intermediate stage of the compressor (26 is an intermediate point of compressor 1 in figure 1).
Regarding Dependent Claim 16, Beeck teaches the particulate separator (24’) is disposed outside of the gas turbine engine (24’ is outside of casing 10 of engine as shown in figure 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beeck as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thomassin 2016/0245152.
Regarding Dependent Claim 2, Beeck teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. However, Beeck does not teach using a bypass valve to selectively bypass air around the particulate separator. Thomassin teaches using a bypass valve (88) to selectively bypass flow (paragraph [0046]) about an air filter (86). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to use the bypass valve and passage of Thomassin in the assembly of Beeck, in order to allow the air to bypass the filter if the filter is blocked (paragraph [0046]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beeck as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Correia 2016/0045923.
Regarding Dependent Claim 6, Beeck teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. However, Beeck does not teach that the particulate separator includes a curved conduit with an inner diameter outlet and outer diameter outlet with clean air exiting the inner diameter outlet. Correia teaches a particulate separator (110 in figure 4) with a curved conduit (curved shape shown in figure 4) including an inlet (118) and outer and inner diameter outlets (166 and 120) where the clean air exits the inner diameter outlet (paragraph [0065]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to replace the particulate separator of Beeck with the curved particulate separator of Correia, in order to provide a separator with improved inertial separation through use of a bend in the separator body (paragraph [0067]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beeck as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eastwood 2019/0078514.
Regarding Dependent Claim 9, Beeck teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Beeck further teaches a turbine comprising the bladed turbine rotor (turbine 3 with blades in figure 1). However, Beeck does not teach that the one or more compressed air loads include a blade outer air seal of the turbine. Eastwood teaches sending a bypass air load (64) to a blade outer air seal (74). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to use a blade outer air seal as a compressed air load for the assembly of Beeck, as taught by Eastwood, in order to provide active clearance control for the turbine blades in the system (paragraph [0046]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beeck as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sanchez 2013/0192268.
Regarding Dependent Claim 13, Beeck teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. However, Beeck does not teach that the one or more compressed air loads includes a mid-turbine frame. Sanchez teaches a two stage turbine section (54 and 46) with a mid-turbine frame (57) that receives a compressed air load (Cooling air through 57 shown in figure 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify the turbine section of Beeck to have two stages with a mid-turbine frame that receives a compressed air load, as taught by Sanchez, in order to further expand exhaust gases from the combustor (paragraph [0011]), support bearings in the assembly at the turbine end (paragraph [0011]), and to reduce thermal growth of the mid-turbine frame (paragraph [0015]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beeck as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Barberger 11,326,516.
Regarding Dependent Claim 14, Beeck teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. However, Beeck does not teach that a bearing compartment is one of the compressed air loads. Barberger teaches sending compressed air loads to a bearing chamber (Col. 3, ll. 13-24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to pressurize a bearing chamber with a compressed air load of Beeck, as taught by Barberger, in order to seal the bearing chambers with compressed air (Col. 3, ll. 13-24).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beeck as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Beeck.
Regarding Dependent Claim 15, Beeck teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. However, Beeck does not teach that the particulate filter is a plurality of filters arranged circumferentially about the engine case assembly. Beeck teaches using a plurality of filters circumferentially about an engine axis (Col. 3, ll. 8-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to use a plurality of filters about the engine case assembly of Beeck, as taught by Beeck, in order to reduce the size of the filters required Col. 3, ll. 29-34).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beeck.
In regards to Independent Claim 17 and Dependent Claim 18, Beeck teaches an assembly (figure 1) for a gas turbine engine of an aircraft propulsion system (intended use of the gas turbine shown in figure 1), the assembly comprising: at least one rotational assembly (1 and 3) configured for rotation about an axis (1 and 3 rotate about axis 8), the at least one rotational assembly comprising a shaft (shaft between 1 and 3 in figure 1), a bladed compressor rotor (1), and a bladed turbine rotor (3), the shaft interconnecting the bladed compressor rotor and the bladed turbine rotor (shaft between 1 and 3 in figure 1); a compressor comprising the bladed compressor rotor (compressor 1), the compressor configured to form a compressed air flow (compressed air flow 11); a turbine comprising the bladed turbine rotor (turbine 3), the turbine comprising at least one rotor blade stage of the bladed turbine rotor and at least one vane stage (rotor blades shown between vanes 13, 14, and 15 in figure 1); an engine static structure comprising an engine case assembly (casing 10 in figure 1), the engine case assembly extending circumferentially about the axis 10 extends about 8 as shown in figure 1), the engine case assembly surrounding the at least one rotational assembly (as shown in figure 1); and a particulate separator assembly (assembly from 26 to 15 and 13 in figure 1) comprising a particulate separator (24’), the particulate separator disposed outside of the engine case assembly (24’ outside 10 in figure 1, Col. 3, ll. 13-16), the particulate separator connected in fluid communication with and between an intermediate stage of the compressor (tap 26 at intermediate stage of 1, where 26 is not at upstream or downstream end of 1) and the at least one rotor blade stage (at 15 and 13, such that air exits into turbine rotor blades of turbine 3) and the at least one vane stage (at 15 and 13), the particulate separator configured to receive the compressed air flow from the intermediate stage (line 25 between 26 and 24’), separate particulate from the compressed air flow (Col. 3, ll. 22-29), and direct the compressed air flow to the at least one rotor blade stage and the at least one vane stage (outlets of 24’ lead to 15 and 13 in figure 1). However, Beeck does not teach that the particulate separator is a plurality of separators arranged circumferentially about the engine case assembly. Beeck teaches using a plurality of separators circumferentially about an engine axis (Col. 3, ll. 8-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to use a plurality of separators about the engine case assembly of Beeck, as taught by Beeck, in order to reduce the size of the separators required Col. 3, ll. 29-34).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 12, 19 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: prior art fails to teach, in combination with the other limitations of dependent claim 11, that the plurality of hollow vanes of the vane stage of the compressor are connected in fluid communication with and between the at least one particulate separator and the one or more compressed air loads; and prior art fails to teach, in combination with the other limitations of dependent claim 19, that the plurality of hollow vanes of the vane stage of the compressor are connected in fluid communication with and between the plurality of particulate separators and the at least one rotor blade stage and the at least one vane stage.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN M SUTHERLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-1902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571) 270 - 1814. 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.
/STEVEN M SUTHERLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
