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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the radial cooling ducts (claim 35) and the inner casing split into first and second casing portions along a plane parallel to the rotation axis of the rotor (claim 47) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 41 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 41 recites the broad recitation “at least four”, and the claim also recites “at least six” and “at least eight” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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) 29-36 and 39-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3976399 to Schmoch.
(a) Regarding claim 29:
(i) Schmoch discloses a rotor for a power-generating turbomachine (see title), the rotor comprising:
a plurality of rotor disks (rotor discs 3, Fig 1);
wherein each rotor disk comprises a respective annular row of rotor blades (buckets 3a, Fig 1) of an expansion flow path of the power-generating turbomachine (turbine T, Fig 1);
a forward shaft portion (shaft part 4, Fig 1);
an aft shaft portion (shaft butt 6, Fig 1); and
at least one cooling duct adapted to feed a cooling fluid to the rotor disks (space within shaft part 4, Fig 1);
wherein:
a first set of rotor disks is formed integrally with a section of said forward shaft portion (rotors discs 3 nearest shaft part 4, Fig 1),
the forward shaft portion and the aft shaft portion are connected to one another by a tie rod arrangement (connecting rod 1, Fig 1).
(ii) Schmoch does not disclose wherein the first set of rotor disks is formed integrally with the section of said forward shaft portion; the first set of rotor disks and the section of forward shaft portion forming a monolithic component.
(iii) Merely making structural features integral supports a prima facie obviousness determination, see MPEP 2144.04(V).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first set of rotor disks and the section of said forward shaft portion to be integrally formed as an obvious matter of design choice, see MPEP 2144.04(V).
(b) Regarding claim 30:
(i) Schmoch teaches the rotor of claim 29.
(ii) Schmoch further discloses wherein an additional set of rotor disks is formed with the aft shaft portion (rotor discs 3 proximate shaft butt 6, Fig 1).
(iii) Schmoch does not disclose wherein an additional set of rotor disks is formed integrally with the aft shaft portion; and the aft shaft portion and the additional set of rotor disks form a monolithic component
(iv) Merely making structural features integral supports a prima facie obviousness determination, see MPEP 2144.04(V).
(v) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the additional set of rotor disks and the aft shaft portion to be integrally formed as an obvious matter of design choice, see MPEP 2144.04(V).
(c) Regarding claim 31:
(i) Schmoch teaches the rotor of claim 29.
(ii) Schmoch further discloses at least one additional rotor disk between the forward shaft portion and aft shaft portion (any one or more of rotor discs 3 between first and additional sets of rotor disks, Fig 1); wherein the forward shaft portion, the at least one additional rotor disk and the aft shaft portion are stacked to one another and connected to one another by the tie rod arrangement (Fig 1).
(d) Regarding claim 32:
(i) Schmoch teaches the rotor of claim 29.
(ii) Schmoch further discloses wherein a plurality of additional rotor disks is positioned between the forward shaft portion and the aft shaft portion (any two or more of rotor discs 3 between first and additional sets of rotor disks, Fig 1); and wherein the forward shaft portion, the plurality of rotor disks and the aft shaft portion are stacked to one another and connected to one another by the tie rod arrangement (Fig 1).
(e) Regarding claim 33:
(i) Schmoch teaches the rotor of claim 29.
(ii) Schmoch further discloses further providing a cooling chamber in the rotor (spaces 9, Fig 1), adapted to receive a cooling fluid from said cooling duct (Col 4 Lns 56-62).
(f) Regarding claim 34:
(i) Schmoch teaches the rotor of claim 3.
(ii) Schmoch further discloses wherein the cooling chamber is arranged between the forward shaft portion and the aft shaft portion (Fig 1).
(g) Regarding claim 35:
(i) Schmoch teaches the rotor of claim 29.
(ii) Schmoch further discloses wherein radial cooling ducts (radial channels 10, Fig 1) are fluidly coupled with annular spaces between pairs of sequentially arranged rotor disks (cooling air chambers 11, Fig 1).
(h) Regarding claim 36:
(i) Schmoch teaches the rotor of claim 29.
(ii) Schmoch further discloses wherein the tie rod arrangement comprises a central tie rod coaxial to the rotation axis of the rotor (connecting rod 1, Fig 1).
(i) Regarding claim 39:
(i) Schmoch teaches the rotor of claim 29.
(ii) Schmoch further discloses wherein at least one of said rotor disks includes frontal teeth adapted to rotationally engage said rotor disk to at least one of: an adjacent rotor disk, the forward shaft portion, and the aft shaft portion (each rotor disc 3, hollow shaft part 4, and shaft butt connected by ring gears 7 comprising “Hirth toothing”, Fig 1, Col 4 Lns 16-23).
(j) Regarding claim 40:
(i) Schmoch teaches the rotor of claim 29.
(ii) Schmoch further teaches wherein at least one cooling duct extends in the forward shaft portion (respective spaces 9 of the first set of rotor disks, Fig 1) and is fluidly coupled (via respective radial channels 10 of the first set of rotor disks, Fig 1) with annular spaces between rotor disks integrally formed with the forward shaft portion (respective cooling air chambers 11 of the first set of rotor disks, Fig 1).
(k) Regarding claim 41:
(i) Schmoch teaches the rotor of claim 29.
(ii) Schmoch further discloses at least four expansion stages (Fig 1).
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3976399 to Schmoch in view of US 20190170152 to Scarbolo.
(a) Regarding claim 37:
(i) Schmoch teaches the rotor of claim 36.
(ii) Schmoch does not disclose a balance drum wherein the balance drum is formed on one of said forward shaft portion and aft shaft portion, preferably on said forward shaft portion.
(iii) Scarbolo is also in the field of turbomachines (see title) and teaches a rotor comprising a balance drum (balancing body 320 of balancing system 300, Figs 3/5A-6B/8) wherein the balance drum is formed on an aft shaft portion (shaft 310, Figs 3/5A-6B/8).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rotor as taught by Schmoch with the above aforementioned balance drum as taught by Scarbolo for the purpose of reducing the thrust to be born by thrust bearings (Pars 0003-0004).
Claim(s) 42-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3976399 to Schmoch in view of US 10358927 to Okajima.
(a) Regarding claim 42:
(i) Schmoch teaches the rotor of claim 29.
(ii) Schmoch further a power-generating turbomachine (turbine T, Fig 1), comprising: a rotor according to claim 29 housed for rotation in the casing.
(iii) Schmoch does not disclose an outer casing; and the rotor housed for rotation in the casing.
(iv) Okajima is also in the field of turbomachines (see title) and teaches a rotor (turbine rotor 31, Fig 2) housed for rotation in an outer casing (gas turbine casing 5, Fig 2).
(v) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the turbomachine as disclosed by Schmoch with the above aforementioned outer casing as taught by Okajima for the purpose of covering the rotor (Col 7 Lns 12-13).
(b) Regarding claim 43:
(i) Schmoch as modified by Okajima teaches the turbomachine of claim 42.
(ii) Schmoch further discloses wherein the turbomachine is an expander (turbine T, Fig 1).
(c) Regarding claim 44:
(i) Schmoch as modified by Okajima teaches the turbomachine of claim 42.
(ii) Okajima further wherein the outer casing comprises a high-pressure casing (turbine casing 35, Fig 1) and a low-pressure exhaust casing (portion of gas turbine casing 5 downstream of turbine casing 35, Fig 1); wherein the high-pressure casing and the low-pressure exhaust casing are coupled along a plane orthogonal to the rotation axis (Fig 1).
(d) Regarding claim 45:
(i) Schmoch as modified by Okajima teaches the turbomachine of claim 44.
(ii) Schmoch as modified by Okajima does not explicitly teach wherein the high-pressure casing comprises a monolithic barrel body.
(iii) Merely making structural features integral supports a prima facie obviousness determination, see MPEP 2144.04(V).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the high-pressure casing as taught by the combined teachings of Schmoch as modified by Okajima to be integrally formed as an obvious matter of design choice, see MPEP 2144.04(V).
(e) Regarding claim 46:
(i) Schmoch as modified by Okajima teaches the turbomachine of claim 42.
(ii) Okajima further teaches at least one combustor housed in the outer casing (combustors 20, Figs 1-2).
(f) Regarding claim 47:
(i) Schmoch as modified by Okajima teaches the turbomachine of claim 44.
(ii) Okajima further teaches at least one inner casing (see annotated Fig 2 below), stationarily housed in the outer casing (Fig 2), and surrounding the rotor (Fig 2); wherein each inner casing is split into a first casing portion and a second casing portion (see annotated Fig 2 below) along a plane parallel to the rotation axis of the rotor (Fig 2); and wherein the inner casing contains annular rows of stationary blades (vane stages 34, Fig 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
374
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3976399 to Schmoch in view of US 10358927 to Okajima as applied to claim 44 above, and further in view of US 9631514 to Onoda.
(a) Regarding claim 48:
(i) Schmoch as modified by Okajima teaches the expander of claim 44.
(ii) Schmoch as modified by Okajima does not teach a supercritical carbon dioxide thermodynamic circuit comprising: an oxidant source; an expander with an inlet side and a discharge side, wherein the inlet side is fluidly coupled to the oxidant source; a flue gas recycling line, adapted to recycle flue gas from the discharge side of the expander to a combustor of the expander; in the flue gas recycling line, a cooler adapted to cool the flue gas from the discharge side of the expander and condense water contained in the flue gas; a regenerative heat exchanger, wherein flue gas from the expander flows in heat exchange with chilled flue gas from the cooler.
(iii) Onoda is also in the field of expanders (see title) and teaches a circuit comprising:
an oxidant source (oxygen producing apparatus 2, Fig 1);
an expander (axial flow turbine 10, Fig 1) with an inlet side and a discharge side (Fig 1),
wherein the inlet side is fluidly coupled to the oxidant source (Fig 1);
a flue gas recycling line (CO2 and steam line circuit downstream of turbine 10, Fig 1), adapted to recycle flue gas from the discharge side of the expander to a combustor of the expander (combustor 3, Figs 1/12);
in the flue gas recycling line, a cooler (cooler 6 and moisture separator 7, Fig 1) adapted to cool the flue gas from the discharge side of the expander and condense water contained in the flue gas (Col 4 Lns 9-12);
a regenerative heat exchanger (regenerative heat exchanger 5, Fig 1), wherein flue gas from the expander flows in heat exchange with chilled flue gas from the cooler (Fig 1).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the expander as taught by the combined teachings of Schmoch as modified by Okajima to be used in a circuit as taught by Onoda for the purpose of rotationally generating power (generator 4, Fig 1; Col 3 Lns 55-57).
(v) The Examiner notes that “supercritical carbon dioxide thermodynamic circuit” in the preamble is merely the intended use of the applicant which does not give meaning and purpose to the apparatus and does not constitute a limitation of the claim, see MPEP 2111.02(II).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 38 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: the closest prior art is Schmoch as modified by Scarbolo as described in the rejection of claim 37 above however the prior art does not disclose wherein the balance drum comprises a first balance drum portion and a second balance drum portion connected to one another through at least one tie rod and preferably through a plurality of tie rods arranged peripherally around the rotation axis of the rotor at a radial distance therefrom. While the splitting of one structure into multiple balance drum portions may be an obvious modification, the fastening of said drum portions through a plurality of tie rods arranged peripherally around the rotation axis of the rotor at a radial distance therefrom is not an obvious modification in view of the teachings of the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20190003339 to Kim teaches a first rotor disk integrally formed with a forward shaft portion (reasonably disclosed in Fig 32). US 10584614 to Auciello teaches a supercritical carbon dioxide thermodynamic circuit comprising an expander (Fig 1). US 7329086 to Wiebe teaches an expander comprising a first set of rotor discs integrally formed with a forward shaft portion comprising a cooling duct to deliver cooling fluid to a space between adjacent rotor disks (Fig 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin A Pruitt whose telephone number is (571)272-8383. The examiner can normally be reached T-F 8:30am - 6:30pm.
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, Nathaniel 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.
/JUSTIN A PRUITT/ Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights