DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 21 July 2026, with respect to the claim rejections under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim rejections under 35 USC 112 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 21 July 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-11 under 35 USC 102 and/or 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are partially persuasive.
The arguments were not persuasive with respect to Sippel not disclosing or suggesting “a ring support structure held in place by a turbine casing …”; as explained in the previous claim 1 rejection, Sippel clearly discloses in ¶29 and ¶32 specific details of the attaching lugs 24/26 and how these attaching lugs are configured to be coupled to structure surrounding the gas turbine engine and/or hang from brackets in a support structure. The examiner further explained that it is well-known in the art including radial flanges extending from a ring support structure to secure the attaching lugs. Although applicant has not challenged the “well-known” explanation/clarification in the rejection, the examiner submits previously and currently cited prior art (Jarrossay et al (US 20210164366 A1; also US 11,111,823 B2)) shows exactly the well-known features in Fig.3 (note attaching lugs 14/16 being attached to ring support structure 30 via flanges 32/36).
The arguments were persuasive with respect to all the limitations now combined and included in independent claim 1 and the amendment introducing the semi-cylindrical inter-segment groove limitation. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sippel et al (US 20160348521 A1; also US 9,759,079 B2), Boeck (US 20170241291 A1), Tanahashi et al (US 20120009071 A1; also US 8,926,262 B2) and/or Jarrossay et al (US 20210164366 A1; also US 11,111,823 B2).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites “semi-cylindrical … semicylindrical”; for purposes of claim terminology consistency purposes the examiner recommends reciting “semi-cylindrical” throughout claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sippel et al – hereafter Sippel – (US 20160348521 A1; also US 9,759,079 B2) in view of Boeck (US 20170241291 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sippel teaches a turbine ring assembly (Fig.1/2; ¶29, note components 20, 30 are blade track segments made from ceramic matrix materials that may be used with other blade track segments to provide a ring that extends around rotating turbine wheels used in gas turbine engines) comprising a plurality of ring segments (20/30) made of ceramic matrix composite material forming a turbine ring (¶29), defining an axial direction (along the direction of element 12), a radial direction (along the direction of 94/96) and a circumferential direction (along the direction of 22), and a ring support structure retained by a turbine casing (¶29, note first and the second hangers 24, 26 are configured to be coupled to structure surrounding the gas turbine engine assembly), each ring segment comprising a base (22) from which extend, radially outward, an upstream attaching lug (24) and a downstream attaching lug (26) axially spaced apart from one another, the ring support structure including an upstream radial flange and a downstream radial flange between which are retained the upstream attaching lug and the downstream attaching lug of each ring segment (¶32, note first and the second hangers 24, 26 have a generally L-shape adapted to hang from brackets in a support structure. In other embodiments, the first and the second hangers may be dovetail shaped, may have pin-receiving holes, or have any other suitable shape for coupling the assembly 50 with other structures; it is well known in the art that in the disclosed embodiments radial flanges extend from a ring support structure to secure both the upstream and downstream attaching lugs),
the ring assembly further comprising, at each join between two adjacent ring segments along the circumferential direction, a first sealing element (12) extending mainly along the axial direction and disposed between the bases of the two adjacent ring segments, a second sealing element (16) extending radially along the downstream attaching lug, and a third sealing element (14) extending radially along the upstream attaching lug,
wherein the first sealing element is a cylindrical seal (Fig.1/2; ¶62, note illustrative design configuration comprises a cylindrical rod to act as the sealing element between two components),
wherein, each ring segment comprises a first inter-segment face (65) and a second inter-segment face (66), each inter-segment face comprising an area of interaction with the first sealing element at the height of the base of the ring segment (Fig.1/2), said area of interaction being formed by a curved inter-segment groove (¶30, note chamfer surfaces 67, 68 may be generally flat or barreled (curved)) into which the cylindrical seal is partially inserted along the circumferential direction (Fig.2),
wherein, the first inter-segment face and the second inter-segment face of each ring segment comprise an upstream radial slot (94) extending from the base all the way to a part of the height of the upstream attaching lug (Fig.1), a downstream radial slot (96) extending from the base all the way to a part of the height of the downstream attaching lug (Fig.1),
wherein, the third sealing element is an upstream sealing tab (14) which is inserted into the upstream radial slots of the two adjacent ring segments (Fig.1/2), and the second sealing element is a downstream sealing tab (16) which is inserted into the downstream radial slots of the two adjacent ring segments (Fig.1/2),
wherein, the second sealing element extends radially from the cylindrical seal forming a sealed connection (Fig.1/2; note that in addition to locate first seal element, second seal element seals between adjacent upstream attaching lugs; ¶65, note strip seals), and the third sealing element extends radially from the cylindrical seal forming a sealed connection (Fig.1/2; note that in addition to locate first seal element, third seal element seals between adjacent downstream attaching lugs; ¶65, note strip seals),
wherein, the upstream and downstream sealing tabs being radially disposed outward of the cylindrical seal (Fig.1) and the upstream sealing tab comprise a notch (15) interacting with the seal to radially retain it in position (Fig.1, note seal 12 is radially retained by 14/15 when inserted in 94) and the downstream sealing tab interacting with the seal to radially retain it in position (Fig.1, note seal 12 is radially retained by 16 when inserted in 96).
Sippel does not explicitly teach the inter-segment grooves being semi-cylindrical, each semi-cylindrical inter-segment groove having a radius greater than a radius of the cylindrical seal, the downstream sealing tab comprise a notch interacting with the seal.
However, it is noted that applicant has not disclosed that having the downstream sealing tab comprise a notch interacting with the seal results in an unpredicted result not seen in the prior art and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the downstream sealing tab as taught by Sippel (Fig.1). Accordingly, absent persuasive evidence that the downstream sealing tab comprise a notch interacting with the seal is functionally significant, the limitations above constitute a matter of choice of changes in shape and fail to patentably distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(b).
Boeck teaches sealing arrangements between circumferentially adjacent ring segments (Fig.3/5, 22/22’), each ring segment including a first inter-segment face and a second inter-segment face (Fig.3/5, outward faces of 60b/b’), each of the first and second inter-segment faces having respective inter-segment grooves being semi-cylindrical (Fig.3/5, 52b/b’) with a cylindrical seal element between said adjacent semi-cylindrical inter-segment grooves, each semi-cylindrical inter-segment groove having a radius greater than a radius of the cylindrical seal (¶61, note radius or diameter of the cylindrical seal corresponding approximately to the radius of the recess, i.e., semi-cylindrical inter-segment groove, so that the cylindrical seal is accommodated with a close fit).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the assembly of Sippel by having the inter-segment grooves being semi-cylindrical, each semi-cylindrical inter-segment groove having a radius greater than a radius of the cylindrical seal based on the teachings of Boeck because this would allow a close fit between the cylindrical seal and each semi-cylindrical inter-segment groove, thereby properly sealing and separating the intended spaces/regions of the assembly.
Regarding claim 2, Sippel and Boeck teach all the limitations of claim 1, see above, however, do not explicitly teach the first sealing element comprises, in a section plane orthogonal to the axial direction, a section with a diameter between 0.5 mm and 5 mm.
However, it is noted that applicant has not disclosed that having the first sealing element comprising a section with a diameter between 0.5 mm and 5 mm results in an unpredicted result not seen in the prior art and it appears that the invention of Sippel and Boeck would perform equally well with the first sealing element comprising a section with a diameter between 0.5 mm and 5 mm. Accordingly, it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Regarding claim 11, Sippel and Boeck further teach a turbomachine (¶1) comprising an assembly as claimed in claim 1 (see claim 1 above).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sippel and Boeck as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanahashi – (US 20120009071 A1; also US 8,926,262 B2).
Regarding claim 8, Sippel and Boeck teach all the limitations of claim 1, see above, however, do not explicitly teach the first sealing element is made of a metallic material chosen from among A600®, Hastelloy X®, HA188®, and HS25®.
Tanahashi teaches a gas turbine engine assembly with circumferentially aligned components and a seal assembly between adjacent components (Fig.3-5). Tanahashi further teaches the seal assembly comprising a cylindrical seal (8; ¶53, note wire 8 is flexible, the wire fits for the shapes of the blade 2 and the band 5, and has a role of gas sealing as well as fixing) made of an Inconel® (i.e., family of A600®) material.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the seal of Sippel and Boeck by having the first sealing element made of an A600® family material based on the teachings of Tanahashi because this would require a simple substitution of one known element (seal of Sippel and Boeck) for another (seal of Tanahashi) to obtain predictable results (seal between adjacent components of a gas turbine engine).
Furthermore, It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the seal material of Sippel, Boeck and Tanahashi by having the seal being made of an A600® material because this would require choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (materials from the A600®/Inconel® family), with a reasonable expectation of success (providing a seal material that could provide sealing between adjacent gas turbine engine components while sustaining the operating temperatures of the components).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sippel and Boeck as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jarrossay et al – hereafter Jarrossay – (US 20210164366 A1; also US 11,111,823 B2).
Regarding claim 9, Sippel and Boeck teach all the limitations of claim 1, see above, and further teaches the downstream/upstream attaching lugs may have pin-receiving holes for coupling the assembly with other structures (Sippel ¶32; it is well known in the art that in the disclosed embodiments other structures are radial flanges extend from a ring support structure to secure both the upstream and downstream attaching lugs), however, does not explicitly teach at least one first/second pins traversing the downstream/upstream attaching lugs and the downstream/upstream radial flanges, respectively.
Jarrossay teaches a turbine ring assembly (Fig.1) including ring segments (10) with downstream/upstream attaching lugs (16/14) and downstream/upstream radial flanges (36/32). Jarrossay further teaches at least one first/second pins (51/50) traversing the downstream/upstream attaching lugs and the downstream/upstream radial flanges, respectively (Fig.1).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the turbine ring assembly of Sippel and Boeck by having at least one first/second pins traversing the downstream/upstream attaching lugs and the downstream/upstream radial flanges, respectively based on the teachings of Jarrossay because this would require a simple substitution of one known element configuration (attaching lugs/radial flanges of Sippel) for another (attaching lugs/radial flanges/pins of Jarrossay) to obtain predictable results (fastening ring segments to a gas turbine engine ring).
Regarding claim 10, Sippel, Boeck and Jarrossay further teach the at least one first pin (Jarrossay 51) and the at least one second pin (Jarrossay 50) are two transverse pins, each transverse pin traversing the upstream attaching lug and the downstream attaching lug of the ring segment and the ring support to retain the ring segment and the ring support secured to one another (Jarrossay Fig.1).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 JUAN G FLORES whose telephone number is (571)272-3486. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:30pm Pacific Time.
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 E 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.
/JUAN G FLORES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights