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 § 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).
In reference to claim 1, Wotzak provides an assembly for rotational equipment (gas turbine engine), the assembly comprising: a scoop ring body (60) 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 figure below), 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 (62), and the at least one scoop includes: a passage (see annotated figure below) 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 (combination of 66/68 and 92) extending circumferentially along the inner radial side between and to an upstream channel end and a downstream channel end, and the upstream channel end is disposed at the outlet; and at least one axial passage (170) extending through the scoop ring body from a passage inlet to a passage outlet in a passage direction, 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. Please note that the instant specification states in paragraph 52 that the axial passages can be grooves in the body.
PNG
media_image1.png
806
927
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.
In reference to claim 2, Wotzak provides 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 4)]
In reference to claim 3, Wotzak provides wherein the at least one axial passage includes a plurality of axial passages. (see figure 4)
In reference to claim 4, Wotzak provides, 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)
In reference to claim 7, Wotzak teaches 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. This feature is clearly seen in figures 4 and 5.
In reference to claim 8, Wotzak provides wherein the inner channel extends radially into the scoop ring body to a radial channel boundary, and the radial channel boundary has a concave shape.
In reference to claim 9, Wotzak provides wherein the concave shape is a V shape including a vertex extending circumferentially along the inner channel. Please note that the shape pointed to above can be considered a V-shape and does extend partially circumferentially. Applicant appears to be trying to claim features of figure 5, but enough details have not been presented to overcome the cited references.
In reference to claim 11, Wotzak teaches 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 figures 4 and 5)
In reference to claim 12, Wotzak teaches 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)
In reference to claim 13, Wotzak provides 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. This feature is clearly shown in the figures.
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).
IN re 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wotzak in view of Kovaleski and Blais.
IN re claim 21, Wotzak as modified by Kovaleski and Blais in claims 5/6 is mapped to the limitations of claim 21.
IN re 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 since Kovaleski discloses the radial section as an alternate embodiment to control oil levels, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify Wotzak with the angled flow passages of Kovaleski. This argument is not persuasive, as the fact that it was listed as an alternate embodiment would mean that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize it as structure that could be used instead of the purely axial structure, and although Wotzak does not disclose that there is a problem with control, having a structure which can self-meter would have obvious utility to one of ordinary skill in the art when looking at Wotzak. Regarding claims 21 and 22, Applicant argues that Wotzak doesn’t disclose a need to attain a desired oil flow therethrough as taught by Blais. This argument is not persuasive, as this is the teaching that is taught by Blais is that the fluid flow can be modified by modifying the fluid passage number, so the number of passages forming the forward subset and number of passages forming the aft subset can easily be modified by one of ordinary skill in the art and would represent a routine optimization of oil flow as taught by Blais.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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