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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/28/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 24 states that the scoop body has an axial length that extends from the first to the second axial end, while claim 1 from which it depends states that the ring extends between the two ends, meaning that it would have a length that extends between the two parts thus meaning the claims have the same scope. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1-4, 7, 9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wotzak (EP 2657463) in view of Kovaleski (4648485).
Regarding claim 1, Wotzak discloses an assembly for rotational equipment (gas turbine engine, as seen in fig 1), the assembly comprising: a scoop ring body (160, fig 5) rotatable about a rotational axis (Para 25), the scoop ring body extends radially between and to an inner radial side and an outer radial side (see annotated fig 5), the scoop ring body extends axially between and to a first axial end and a second axial end, the scoop ring body forms at least one scoop (see annotated figure 5), and the at least one scoop includes: a passage (between passage inlet and outlet, see annotated fig 5) extending through the scoop ring body from an inlet at the outer radial side to an outlet at the inner radial side; an inner channel (see annotated fig 5) extending circumferentially along the inner radial side between and to an upstream channel end and a downstream channel end (see annotated fig 5, please note, as per par. 0028, some embodiments have the oil fed in both directions from reservoir 92, the embodiment being used is the embodiment of fig 5 wherein the oil is being fed in both directions), and the upstream channel end is disposed at the outlet, and the inner channel extends radially into the scoop ring body to a radial channel boundary (inner wall shown at the end of the inner channel arrow, annotated fig below); and at least one axial passage (170, fig 5) extending through the scoop ring body from a passage inlet to a passage outlet in a passage direction (extending from the axially inner direction to the axial ends, fig 5), the passage direction includes an axial component, the passage inlet is disposed at the inner channel, and the passage outlet is disposed at the first axial side end or the second axial end, and the at least one axial passage extending from the radial channel boundary to the first axial end or the second axial end.
PNG
media_image1.png
896
951
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wotzak does not disclose wherein the plurality of axial passages extend in a passage direction including an axial component and a radial component.
Kovaleski teaches a bearing scoop ring similar to Wotzak with a plurality of axial passages (46, fig 7), wherein the passages have an axial component and a radial component (46, fig 7, the structure is slanted radially).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the axial flow passages of Wotzak have a radial component as taught by Kovaleski. Doing so would allow the level of the metered flow to be precisely controlled for different portions (col 3, lines 1-12), as suggested by Kovaleski.
Regarding claim 2, Wotzak discloses wherein the at least one scoop includes a plurality of scoops, and the plurality of scoops are arranged in the scoop ring body about the rotational axis as a circumferential array of scoops. (see figure 5)
Regarding claim 3, Wotzak discloses wherein the at least one axial passage includes a plurality of axial passages. (see figure 5)
Regarding claim 4, Wotzak discloses, wherein the plurality of axial passages includes a forward subset of the plurality of axial passages and an aft subset of the plurality of axial passages, the passage outlet of each axial passage of the forward subset of the plurality of axial passage is disposed at the first axial end, and the passage outlet of each axial passage of the aft subset of the plurality of axial passages is disposed at the second axial end. (see figure 5)
Regarding claim 7, Wotzak discloses wherein the at least one scoop further includes opposing axial channel sidewalls of the scoop ring body, and the inner channel axially extends between and to the opposing axial channel sidewalls. (walls that form the scoop, fig 5)
Regarding claim 9, Wotzak discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the concave shape is a V shape including a vertex extending circumferentially along the inner channel it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the inner channel of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. Examiner notes that applicants specification states that the radial boundary may be either V shaped or flat shaped (par. 0058 and par. 0059).
Regarding claim 11, Wotzak discloses wherein the at least one axial passage includes a groove formed by the scoop ring body, and the at least one axial passage is open to the inner radial side. (see fig 5)
Regarding claim 12, Wotzak discloses wherein the at least one scoop includes an outer channel extending circumferentially along the outer radial side between and to an outer upstream channel end and an outer downstream channel end, and the outer downstream channel end is disposed at the inlet. (see annotated figure 5)
Regarding claim 13, Wotzak discloses wherein the at least one scoop further includes outer opposing axial channel sidewalls of the scoop ring body, and the outer channel axially extends between and to the outer opposing axial channel sidewalls. (walls that form the scoop, fig 5)
Regarding claim 23, Wotzak discloses wherein the at least one axial passage includes a plurality of axial passages; the plurality of axial passages include a forward subset and an aft subset (see fig 5); the forward subset extends within the inner radial side from the inner channel to the first axial end; and the aft subset extends within the inner radial side from the inner channel to the second axial end (.
Regarding claim 24, Wotzak discloses wherein the scoop ring body has an axial length that extends from the first axial end to the second axial end. (see 112d rejection above)
Claim(s) 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wotzak as modified by Kovaleski in claim 1, further in view of Blais (9631508).
Regarding claim 5-6, Wotzak as modified by Kovaleski is silent to the flow rates being different in the forward axial passages than that of the flow rate in the rear axial passages. However, this is an apparatus claim, and Wotzak’s device is used in an airplane. Due to inertia forces, the flow rates of oil through the forward passages may be different than the flow rates through the rear passages due to acceleration and other inertia forces of the aircraft. However, a secondary reference is used to teach different sizing of oil passages. Please note that the other limitations of claims 21-22 are mapped in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Blais teaches that oil passages can be made of differing diameters, different numbers, different geometries to adjust fluid flow through an assembly. Col. 5 lines 48-60.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to adjust the number / sizes / shape of the passages of Wotzak to attain a desired oil flow therethrough based on mere optimization of the fluid flow as taught by Blais. Blais provides evidence in the passage cited that the size and shape impact the fluid flow and can be adjusted to attain a desired fluid flow. Thus, modifying the number of passages such that the number of forward passages includes a number of grooves greater than the rear, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would need more flow capacity to overcome the forces of engine acceleration, would have been an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 21-22 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wotzak in view of Kovaleski and Blais.
Regarding claim 21, Wotzak as modified by Kovaleski and Blais in claims 5/6 is mapped to the limitations of claim 21.
Regarding claim 25, Wotzak as modified by Kovaleski in claim 4 + Claim 21 above maps to the limitation of claim 25.
Regarding claim 22, Wotzak is silent to the axial passages extending axially and circumferentially in a passage direction. Please note that the other limitations of claim 22 are mapped in the rejection of claims 5/6 above.
Kovaleski teaches a bearing scoop ring similar to Wotzak with a plurality of axial passages (46, fig 7), wherein the passages have an axial component and a slanted non-axial component (col 3, lines 1-12), but does not explicitly disclose whether or not the slanted component can be circumferential.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the axial flow passages of Wotzak have a circumferential non-axial component, since applicant has not disclosed that having the non-axial component be circumferential solves any stated purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with a circumferential slant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/7/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Wotzak discloses weirs 66 and 68 which receive oil from inner reservoirs 92, and thus cannot disclose axial passage inlets disposed within the inner channel. This argument is not persuasive, as per the rejection above, those weirs form a part of the inner channel and thus the axial passage inlets are disposed within the inner channel. Stating that the passage inlet and a first portion of the passage is disposed within the inner channel will overcome this interpretation.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 7/28/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under Wotzak fig 4 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wotzak fig 5.
Conclusion
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at 571-272-7118. 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.
/SEAN V MEILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights