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 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 19 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 19 recites the limitation "the one or more geometrical parameters" in line 1. 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-12, 15-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saha (US 20180087669).
Regarding claim 1, Saha discloses A fluid flow machine comprising:
a casing structure (figure 17, item 980);
a turbomachine blade disposed within the casing structure (Figure 1, item 50. Paragraph 0038 describes that the systems described here can be located between a rotor blade tip and the casing); and
a sealing arrangement coupled to the casing structure (figure 17, item 986 which includes the layers 918 and 916), wherein the sealing arrangement comprises an abrasion portion configured to provide a seal with a tip of the turbomachine blade (Paragraph 0064 describes that 986 is an abradable system), wherein the abrasion portion includes a lattice structure having a lattice density that increases along a radial direction of the machine (Figures 17 and 18 show that the density of 918 is greater than the density of 916, so the density of the lattice increases as the seal extends radially outwardly. Paragraph 0066 describes that the honeycombs in 918 have a smaller width than the honeycombs in 916 and as such have a higher density).
Regarding claim 3, Saha discloses that one or more geometrical parameters of the lattice structure varies along a radial direction of the fluid flow machine (Figure 17 shows that both the shape and size of the lattice varies radially between 916 and 918).
Regarding claim 4, Saha discloses that the one or more geometrical parameters of the lattice structure comprises a lattice cell size, the lattice cell size decreasing along the radial direction (Paragraph 0066 describes that the honeycombs in 918 have a smaller width than the honeycombs in 916 and as such have a smaller cell size).
Regarding claim 6, Saha discloses that the one or more geometrical parameters of the lattice structure comprises a number of lattice rods per lattice node, wherein the number of lattice rods per lattice node increases along the radial direction (Paragraph 0066 describes that the honeycombs in 918 have a smaller width than the honeycombs in 916 and as such the rods are closer together and provide a larger density of lattice rods per node).
Regarding claim 7, Saha discloses that the one or more geometrical parameters of the lattice structure comprises an angle between adjacent lattice rods at a lattice node, wherein an angle between adjacent lattice rods at a lattice node decreases along the radial direction (Figure 17 shows that the lattice at 942b is angled relative to the angle at the top of 942b, which provides an angle between them. It can be seen in 942a and 918 that the angle is zero, so the angle going from positive to zero provides a reduction in angle).
Regarding claim 8, Saha discloses that the one or more geometrical parameters of the lattice structure comprises a ratio between filler volume and lattice rod volume, wherein the ratio between filler volume and lattice rod volume decreases along the radial direction. This limitation is not dependent on any claims describing the filler, as such, the void space is being considered the filler volume. Paragraph 0066 describes that the honeycombs in 918 have a smaller width than the honeycombs in 916 and as such the rods are closer together and provide a larger density of lattice rods per area and 918 having a smaller ratio of filler volume to lattice rod volume.
Regarding claim 9, Saha discloses that the lattice structure is formed by an additive manufacturing process. This is a product by process limitation so the structure is only limited by the structure imparted by the manufacturing process, of which there is none. However, Saha still discloses forming the structure with additive manufacturing in paragraph 0046.
Regarding claim 10, Saha discloses that the sealing arrangement comprises a support structure, the support structure having one or more protrusions configured to be received in one or more corresponding recesses of the casing structure. Figure 1, item 50. Paragraph 0038 describes that the systems described here can be located between a rotor blade tip and the casing. As such, the abradable system and sealing arrangement is applied at the blade outer seal radially outside the blade tip as shown in Annotated Figure 1, Annotated Figure 1 shows protrusions that fit into recesses of the casing structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
790
740
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 11, Saha discloses that the lattice density increases monotonically in the radial direction until the lattice structure merges with the support structure. Monotonically increasing just means that the density does not decrease along that portion. Figures 17 and 18 show the density being higher in 918 than 916 and never decreasing until it meets the support structure.
Regarding claim 12, Saha discloses that the lattice structure and the support structure are formed together by a continuous additive manufacturing process. This is a product by process limitation so the structure is only limited by the structure imparted by the manufacturing process, of which there is none. However, Saha still discloses forming the structure with additive manufacturing in paragraph 0046.
Regarding claim 15, Saha discloses A method of manufacturing a fluid flow machine, the method comprising:
producing a sealing arrangement comprising an abrasion portion (figure 17, item 986 which includes the layers 918 and 916. Paragraph 0064 describes that 986 is an abradable system), the abrasion portion including a lattice structure; and
coupling the sealing arrangement to a casing structure (figure 17, item 980) such that the abrasion portion is configured to provide a seal with a tip of a turbomachine blade disposed within the casing structure (Figure 1, item 50. Paragraph 0038 describes that the systems described here can be located between a rotor blade tip and the casing),
wherein producing the sealing arrangement includes forming the abrasion portion, wherein the lattice structure has a lattice density that increases along a radial direction of the machine (Figures 17 and 18 show that the density of 918 is greater than the density of 916, so the density of the lattice increases as the seal extends radially outwardly. Paragraph 0066 describes that the honeycombs in 918 have a smaller width than the honeycombs in 916 and as such have a higher density)
Regarding claim 16, Saha discloses that forming the abrasion portion includes constructing the lattice structure using an additive manufacturing process (Saha discloses forming the structure with additive manufacturing in paragraph 0046).
Regarding claim 18, Saha discloses that forming the abrasion portion includes causing a geometrical parameter of the lattice structure to vary along a radial direction of the fluid flow machine when the sealing arrangement is coupled to the casing structure (Figure 17 shows that both the shape and size of the lattice varies radially between 916 and 918).
Regarding claim 19, Saha discloses that the one or more geometrical parameters includes one or more selected from: a lattice rod thickness, a lattice cell size (Paragraph 0066 describes that the honeycombs in 918 have a smaller width than the honeycombs in 916 and as such have a smaller cell size), a ratio between a filler volume and a lattice rod volume (This limitation is not dependent on any claims describing the filler, as such, the void space is being considered the filler volume. Paragraph 0066 describes that the honeycombs in 918 have a smaller width than the honeycombs in 916 and as such the rods are closer together and provide a larger density of lattice rods per area and 918 having a smaller ratio of filler volume to lattice rod volume), a number of lattice rods per lattice node (Paragraph 0066 describes that the honeycombs in 918 have a smaller width than the honeycombs in 916 and as such the rods are closer together and provide a larger density of lattice rods per node), or an angle between adjacent lattice rods at a lattice node (Figure 17 shows that the lattice at 942b is angled relative to the angle at the top of 942b, which provides an angle between them. It can be seen in 942a and 918 that the angle is zero, so the angle going from positive to zero provides a reduction in angle).
Regarding claim 20, Saha discloses that the sealing arrangement comprises a support structure, the support structure having one or more protrusions configured to be received in one or more corresponding recesses of the casing structure, wherein the lattice structure and the support structure are formed together by a continuous additive manufacturing process. Figure 1, item 50. Paragraph 0038 describes that the systems described here can be located between a rotor blade tip and the casing. As such, the abradable system and sealing arrangement is applied at the blade outer seal radially outside the blade tip as shown in Annotated Figure 1, Annotated Figure 1 shows protrusions that fit into recesses of the casing structure.
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) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saha (US 20180087669) in view of Pabla (US 20220112815).
Regarding claim 14, Saha discloses the limitations of claim 1 above but does not explicitly disclose the fluid flow machine being in a vehicle. Saha and Pabla are analogous prior art because both describe gas turbine engines with blade sealing structures. Pabla teaches using the gas turbine engine in a vehicle (Par. 0031 describes that the engine can be used in an airplane). As both Saha and Pabla show similar turbine engines and it is known that turbine engines can be used to power aircraft, the turbine engine of Saha would provide predictable results as an aircraft engine as described in Pabla. 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 aircraft of Saha in an aircraft as described by Pabla because combining prior art elements according to known methods is obvious with predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5, 13, and 17 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: With regards to claims 2, 13, and 17, the prior art found does not include a filler with the abradable material. Specifically, as can be seen in Figure 7 of Saha, the honeycomb is intentionally left void to provide an ideal airflow through the labyrinth seal. While other prior art such as Mathew (US 20180355745) fills the abradable seal with a filler, this would disrupt the desired airflow of Saha and as such the modification would not have been obvious. No other prior art was found that provided the radial lattice density change along with having a filler in the lattice. Unton (US 12084977) provides a similar structure with a radially variable honeycomb density but it is unclear if it would be possible to manufacture the lattice of Unton with fillers included and the lattice of Unton does not appear to be in an abradable portion of the support structure.
With regards to claim 5, Saha does not show the thickness of the rods changing radially and instead shows the thickness of the shells changing. There was no other prior art found that provided that specific orientation and no reason found as to why one might want to provide the increased thickness.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
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