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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 08/03/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “the subject matter of all claims is sufficiently related that a thorough search for the subject matter of any one Group of claims would encompass a search for the subject matter of the remaining claims. Thus, the search and examination of the entire application could be made without serious burden.” This is not found persuasive because applicant has not provided any reason for their allegation that the subject matter of all claims is so related that the search and examination of the entire application could be made without serious burden. The examiner has provided several reasons in the restriction requirement mailed on 06/12/2026 (see page 3) to support that there is a search burden in searching all inventions and applicant has not provided any flaws in them or any arguments against any particular one. Applicant’s arguments are conclusory statements and they lack sufficient reasons to back their arguments.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 7 recite an open-ended group of alternatives. The claims are indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(h).
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the one or more geometrical parameters". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Any and all claims rejected herein under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, if rejected with art below under sections 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103, are rejected as best understood.
Claims 3, 5, 6, and 8 are rejected due to their dependency from a previously rejected 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bock (EP 3 290 649).
With regard to claim 1, Bock discloses a fluid flow machine comprising: a casing structure (inherent in a “turbomachines, such as thermal gas turbines or aircraft engines” disclosed by Bock. Also see Bock disclosing “a housing surrounding the rotor” and “circular component of a housing”. Also see “for sealing a gap between a rotor 12 and a stator (not shown) of the turbomachine”), a turbomachine blade (12) disposed within the casing structure, and a sealing arrangement (10) coupled to the casing structure; wherein: the sealing arrangement comprises a support structure (16) and an abrasion portion (14) including a lattice structure (18. See Fig. 2, abstract); the abrasion portion is formed on the support structure (Fig. 2-4); the abrasion portion is configured to provide a seal with a tip (28) of the turbomachine blade (Fig. 2-4); and the abrasion portion includes a filler (abstract, claims) within the lattice structure, the filler comprising one or more selected from: a polyester, a polyimide, a cyanate ester, a siloxane, a polysiloxane or a polyepoxide (see silicone in [0006], [0012], [0021]).
With regard to claim 5, Bock further discloses that a geometrical parameter of the abrasion portion varies along an axial direction or a radial direction of the fluid flow machine (Fig. 2-4).
With regard to claim 6, Bock further discloses that the geometrical parameter is one of a plurality of geometrical parameters of the abrasion portion which vary along the axial direction or the radial direction of the fluid flow machine (Fig. 2-4).
With regard to claim 8, Bock further discloses a vehicle comprising the fluid flow machine of claim 1 (see turbomachine and an aircraft engine in [0018], [0020]).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims 1, 4-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Eastman et al. (US 2016/0312897), referred to hereinafter as Eastman.
With regard to claim 1, Eastman discloses a fluid flow machine comprising: a casing structure (72), a turbomachine blade (70) disposed within the casing structure, and a sealing arrangement (76) coupled to the casing structure; wherein: the sealing arrangement comprises a support structure (outer backing sheet of 378. Moreover, note that the support structure can be a portion or segment of the sealing arrangement and the abrasion portion being another portion or segment) and an abrasion portion (378) including a lattice structure (392); the abrasion portion is formed on the support structure; the abrasion portion is configured to provide a seal with a tip (80) of the turbomachine blade; and the abrasion portion includes a filler within the lattice structure, the filler comprising one or more selected from: a polyester, a polyimide, a cyanate ester, a siloxane, a polysiloxane or a polyepoxide (see polyimide in [0046]).
With regard to claim 4, Eastman further discloses that the lattice structure includes one or more selected from: nickel, a nickel chromium alloy, stainless steel or an aluminum silicon alloy ([0047], [0052]).
With regard to claim 5, Eastman further discloses that a geometrical parameter of the abrasion portion varies along an axial direction or a radial direction of the fluid flow machine (Fig. 3).
With regard to claim 6, Eastman further discloses that the geometrical parameter is one of a plurality of geometrical parameters of the abrasion portion which vary along the axial direction or the radial direction of the fluid flow machine (Fig. 3).
With regard to claim 8, Eastman further discloses a vehicle comprising the fluid flow machine of claim 1 (Fig. 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bock (EP 3 290 649) in view of Mathew et al. (US 2018/355745), referred to hereinafter as Mathew.
With regard to claim 2:
Bock discloses the fluid flow machine of claim 1, as set forth above.
Bock does not appear to explicitly disclose that the filler further comprises one or more selected from: boron nitride, bentonite or silicate-based microspheres.
However, Mathew teaches a filler material that comprises one or more selected from: boron nitride, bentonite or silicate-based microspheres (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way and choose filler materials that comprise one or more selected from: boron nitride, bentonite or silicate-based microspheres.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bock (EP 3 290 649) in view of Muenchow et al. (US 11,939,871), referred to hereinafter as Muenchow.
With regard to claim 3:
Bock discloses the fluid flow machine of claim 1, as set forth above.
Bock does not appear to explicitly disclose that the filler further comprises borosilicate glass microspheres.
However, Muenchow teaches filler material that comprises borosilicate glass microspheres (Col. 5; lines 22-34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way and choose filler material that comprises borosilicate glass microspheres.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bock (EP 3 290 649) in view of Eastman et al. (US 2016/0312897), referred to hereinafter as Eastman.
With regard to claim 4:
Bock discloses the fluid flow machine of claim 1, as set forth above.
Bock does not appear to explicitly disclose that the lattice structure includes one or more selected from: nickel, a nickel chromium alloy, stainless steel or an aluminum silicon alloy.
However, Eastman teaches the lattice structure includes one or more selected from: nickel, a nickel chromium alloy, stainless steel or an aluminum silicon alloy ([0047], [0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way and choose the lattice structure to include one or more selected from: nickel, a nickel chromium alloy, stainless steel or an aluminum silicon alloy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bock (EP 3 290 649) in view of Pabla et al. (US 20220112815), referred to hereinafter as Pabla.
With regard to claim 7:
Bock discloses the fluid flow machine of claim 5, as set forth above.
Bock does not appear to explicitly disclose that the one or more geometrical parameters includes one or more selected from: a lattice rod thickness, a lattice cell size, a ratio between a filler volume and a lattice rod volume, a number of lattice rods per lattice node, or an angle between adjacent lattice rods at a lattice node.
However, Pabla teaches a sealing arrangement comprising an abrasion portion (100, [0038]) that includes a lattice structure (Fig. 6), and teaches that a geometrical parameter of the abrasion portion varies along an axial direction or a radial direction of the fluid flow machine, the one or more geometrical parameters includes one or more selected from: a lattice rod thickness, a lattice cell size, a ratio between a filler volume and a lattice rod volume, a number of lattice rods per lattice node, or an angle between adjacent lattice rods at a lattice node ([0054], [0055], [0058], Fig. 8-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way and make the one or more geometrical parameters to include one or more selected from: a lattice rod thickness, a lattice cell size, a ratio between a filler volume and a lattice rod volume, a number of lattice rods per lattice node, or an angle between adjacent lattice rods at a lattice node.
***************************************************************************************************
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eastman et al. (US 2016/0312897), referred to hereinafter as Eastman in view of Mathew et al. (US 2018/355745), referred to hereinafter as Mathew.
With regard to claim 2:
Eastman discloses the fluid flow machine of claim 1, as set forth above.
Eastman does not appear to explicitly disclose that the filler further comprises one or more selected from: boron nitride, bentonite or silicate-based microspheres.
However, Mathew teaches a filler material that comprises one or more selected from: boron nitride, bentonite or silicate-based microspheres (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way and choose filler materials that comprise one or more selected from: boron nitride, bentonite or silicate-based microspheres.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eastman et al. (US 2016/0312897), referred to hereinafter as Eastman in view of Muenchow et al. (US 11,939,871), referred to hereinafter as Muenchow.
With regard to claim 3:
Eastman discloses the fluid flow machine of claim 1, as set forth above.
Eastman does not appear to explicitly disclose that the filler further comprises borosilicate glass microspheres.
However, Muenchow teaches filler material that comprises borosilicate glass microspheres (Col. 5; lines 22-34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way and choose filler material that comprises borosilicate glass microspheres.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eastman et al. (US 2016/0312897), referred to hereinafter as Eastman in view of Shi et al. (US 2020/0277871), referred to hereinafter as Shi.
With regard to claim 7:
Eastman discloses the fluid flow machine of claim 5, as set forth above.
Eastman does not appear to explicitly disclose that the one or more geometrical parameters includes one or more selected from: a lattice rod thickness, a lattice cell size, a ratio between a filler volume and a lattice rod volume, a number of lattice rods per lattice node, or an angle between adjacent lattice rods at a lattice node.
However, Shi teaches a sealing arrangement comprising an abrasion portion (10) that includes a lattice structure (Fig. 1-4. 6A-6C), and teaches that a geometrical parameter of the abrasion portion varies along an axial direction or a radial direction of the fluid flow machine, the one or more geometrical parameters includes one or more selected from: a lattice rod thickness, a lattice cell size, a ratio between a filler volume and a lattice rod volume, a number of lattice rods per lattice node, or an angle between adjacent lattice rods at a lattice node ([0025]-[0029], [0035], [0036], [0043], Fig. 1-4. 6A-6C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way and make the one or more geometrical parameters to include one or more selected from: a lattice rod thickness, a lattice cell size, a ratio between a filler volume and a lattice rod volume, a number of lattice rods per lattice node, or an angle between adjacent lattice rods at a lattice node.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to the attached form PTO-892 for pertinent prior art disclosing similar abrasion portions such as US 20150354392 and US 12359582.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BEHNOUSH HAGHIGHIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7558. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:00am-15:00pm.
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, Courtney D Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. 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.
/BEHNOUSH HAGHIGHIAN/
Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights