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 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: “gap,” must be amended to --gap.--. 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.
Claims 26 and 27 are 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.
Claims 26 and 27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: there are no steps that are claimed; furthermore, it is unclear to the examiner as to what method is being claimed. For the purposes of this examination, the examiner is interpreting the claims to be claimed a method of sealing a turbomachine/aircraft engine.
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.
Claim(s) 13 and 15-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Datta (US Pub. No. 2009/0072486).
Regarding claim 13, the Datta reference discloses a sealing device (Fig. 2) comprising:
at least one brush element (17) for sealing a gap between a first component (24) and a second component (26), the brush element being attached or fixed to the first component and resting against or contacting a sealing surface (surface of 26) of the second component in order to form a brush seal (Fig. 2) and seal off two pressure zones with different pressures from each other during normal operation (Fig. 2), the first component and the second component being rotor components (Para. [0026]).
Regarding claim 15, the Datta reference discloses the first component and the second component are disposed such that they are immovable relative to each other during operation, substantially without the relative position of the two components changing during normal operation (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, the Datta reference discloses the first component is a shaft or the second component is a disk or a blisk (Para. [0047]).
Regarding claim 17, the Datta reference discloses the brush element is pressed against the sealing surface of the second component by a pressure difference between the two pressure zones with different pressures (Fig. 2, e.g. through the difference in pressure and back plates 30,32).
Regarding claim 18, the Datta reference discloses the brush seal rests against the sealing surface of the second component at an angle between 10° and 90° (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 19, the Datta reference discloses the gap is a radial gap (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 20, the Datta reference discloses the gap is a turbomachine gap (Para. [0007]).
Regarding claim 21, the Datta reference discloses the brush element is quasi-statically disposed between the two components, and the two components move together substantially without a relative position of the two components being changed or changeable (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 22, the Datta reference discloses on a side of the brush element opposite the gap, in an axial direction of the turbomachine, a stop element (e.g. clip holding 34 in Fig. 2) is disposed on the first component to fix the brush element in place and prevent the brush element from shifting (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 23, the Datta reference discloses the bristle material of the brush element includes a thermoplastic, a meta-aramid, polyether ether ketone (PEEK), ceramic, or a metal (Para. [0024]).
Regarding claim 24, the Datta reference discloses a turbomachine (Para. [0007]) comprising the sealing device as recited in claim 13, configured to seal off the two pressure zones with the different pressures from each other (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 25, the Datta reference discloses an aircraft engine (Para. [0007]) comprising the sealing device as recited in claim 13, configured to seal off the two pressure zones with the different pressures from each other (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 26, the Datta reference, as best understood, discloses a method comprising employing the sealing device as recited in claim 13 in a turbomachine (Para. [0007]).
Regarding claim 27, the Datta reference, as best understood, discloses a method comprising employing the sealing device as recited in claim 13 in an aircraft engine (Para. [0007]).
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) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Datta.
Regarding claim 14, the examiner takes official notice that it is well known in the art that two components of an aircraft engine or turbomachine rotate at the same speed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GILBERT Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5894. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm.
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, Christine Mills can be reached at (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 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.
/GILBERT Y LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675