DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 10/14/2025 in the pre-appeal brief have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that paragraph [0044] of the application explains that the recited radial spacing between the plurality of vanes and the plurality of scoops provides maximizing oil capture while preventing the accumulation of expelled oil and therefore, teaches criticality of the claimed range to be inventive.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The cited prior art Gallet (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0300255) sufficiently teaches there is a radial spacing between the plurality of vanes and the plurality of scoops as shown in figure 7 annotated below.
PNG
media_image1.png
332
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Gallet, in paragraphs [0045], teaches this arrangement is used for collecting the oil and adjusting the flow thereof. Gallet’s vanes are in form of rotating blades 42 act as a centrifugal ejector which allows the scoops (fixed blades 43) to collect the oil (paragraphs [0055], [0056]). Gallet also teaches the rotating blades prevents accumulation of the oil by Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art is a person familiar with the mechanics of a centrifugal rotary device for collecting particles or fluid. The person of ordinary skill in the art would understand a) when the radial spacing is zero between the rotating blades and fixed collector, i.e., the rotating blades contacting the fixed collector, it would cause severe damage due the rotating blades rubbing against the fixed collector and b) when the radial spacing is too large it would not be very effective to collect the oil droplets and it is easier to deliver the oil when the radial spacing between the vanes and the scoops are small than when the radial spacing is large as such concept only requires elemental level of physics to understand. Therefore, the radial distance between the vane and the scoop is a result effective variable that would be apparent to the person of ordinary skill in the art. The person of ordinary skill in the art is destined to come up with an appropriate radial spatial relationship between the rotating blades and the fixed collectors or the scoops when attempted to make/use Gallet’s device. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05) and therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Gallet’s radial distance between the plurality of vanes and the plurality of scoops is greater than zero and less than 0.5 inches (claim 1) or greater than zero and less than 0.25 inches (claim 23) in an effort to optimize the oil collection.
In the pre-appeal brief review arguments filed on 10/14/2025, page 2, Applicant asserts that paragraph [0044] of the application as filed explains that the recited radial spacings both provides for maximizing oil capture while preventing accumulation of expelled oil. While MPEP 2144.05 III. A. reveals applicants can rebut prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range, in such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. It also reveals that the unexpected result is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art. As taught in paragraph [0044] of the application, the claimed range achieves optimum oil capture. The prior art device, although it does not teach a specific dimension, also achieves oil capture and prevent accumulation of oil (paragraphs [0011], [0044], [0055], [0056]). Therefore, the difference between the claimed range and the prior art is only in the degree of the results rather than difference in kind. Therefore, the asserted criticality is not considered to be an unexpected result relative to the prior art.
Additionally, in Gardner v.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit 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 (see MPEP 2144.04). This applies to the current application because the only difference between the prior art, Gallet, and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions and the claimed device would not perform differently than the prior art device as the claimed device and the prior art both provide oil capture. Therefore the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Gallet’s radial distance between the plurality of vanes and the plurality of scoops is greater than zero and less than 0.5 inches (claim 1) or greater than zero and less than 0.25 inches (claim 23) as it only requires simple change in the relative dimensions of the device (see MPEP 2144.04).
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) 1-2, 6-11, 15-17 and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallet (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0300255).
As per claims 1 and 23, Gallet discloses a fan drive gear system for a turbine engine comprising: a sun gear (11; figure 4) configured to be driven by an engine shaft (2) rotatable about an axis (4); a plurality of intermediate gears (12) intermeshed with the sun gear (as shown; figures 4, 5); a ring gear assembly (14) engaged with the plurality of intermediate gears (as shown; figures 4, 5), the ring gear configured for attachment to a static structure (via support housing 22; paragraph [0032]); a carrier (13) supporting rotation of the plurality of intermediate gears (12), the carrier is configured for rotation about the axis (4); at least one auxiliary reservoir (40) disposed radially outward of the carrier (as shown; figure 9); an oil receiving surface (surface of fixed blades 43) that is configured to receive expelled oil and communicate the oil into the at least one auxiliary reservoir (collecting oil and adjusting flow to gutter 40; paragraphs [0045], [0046]); wherein the oil receiving surface comprises a plurality of scoops for directing expelled oil into the at least one auxiliary reservoir (fixed blades 43 are in the form of inwardly curved plates (scoops) to collect droplets of oil; paragraph [0046]); a plurality of vanes (rotating blades 42 (vanes); figures 7, 8) attached to the carrier for imparting a rotational flow direction into the expelled oil to drive the expelled oil tangentially against the oil receiving surface (rotating blades 42 (vanes) which is capable of imparting rotational flow in the tangential direction; paragraph [0044]); and a fan shaft (3; figure 4) coupled to the carrier (13).
Gallet does not explicitly teach wherein a radial spacing between the plurality of vanes and the plurality of scoops is greater than zero and less than 0.5 inches (claim 1) or greater than zero and less than 0.25 inches (claim 23).
However, Gallet’s drawing sufficiently teaches there is a radial spacing between the plurality of vanes and the plurality of scoops as shown in figure 7 annotated below.
PNG
media_image1.png
332
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Gallet, in paragraphs [0045], teaches this arrangement is used for collecting the oil and adjusting the flow thereof. Gallet’s vanes are in form of rotating blades 42 act as a centrifugal ejector which allows the scoops (fixed blades 43) to collect the oil (paragraphs [0055], [0056]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art is a person familiar with the mechanics of a centrifugal rotary device for collecting particles or fluid. The person of ordinary skill in the art would understand a) when the radial spacing is zero between the rotating blades and fixed collector, i.e., the rotating blades contacting the fixed collector, it would cause severe damage due the rotating blades rubbing against the fixed collector and b) when the radial spacing is too large it would not be very effective to collect the oil droplets and it is easier to deliver the oil when the radial spacing between the vanes and the scoops are small than when the radial spacing is large as such concept only requires elemental level of physics to understand. Therefore, the radial distance between the vane and the scoop is a result effective variable that would be apparent to the person of ordinary skill in the art. The person of ordinary skill in the art is destined to come up with an appropriate radial spatial relationship between the rotating blades and the fixed collectors or the scoops when attempted to make/use Gallet’s device. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05) and therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Gallet’s radial distance between the plurality of vanes and the plurality of scoops is greater than zero and less than 0.5 inches (claim 1) or greater than zero and less than 0.25 inches (claim 23) in an effort to optimize the oil collection.
In the pre-appeal brief review arguments filed on 10/14/2025, page 2, Applicant asserts that paragraph [0044] of the application as filed explains that the recited radial spacings both provides for maximizing oil capture while preventing accumulation of expelled oil. While MPEP 2144.05 III. A. reveals applicants can rebut prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range, in such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. It also reveals that the unexpected result is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art. As taught in paragraph [0044] of the application, the claimed range achieves optimum oil capture. The prior art device, although it does not teach a specific dimension, also achieves oil capture and prevent accumulation of oil (paragraphs [0011], [0044], [0055], [0056]). Therefore, the difference between the claimed range and the prior art is only in the degree of the results rather than difference in kind. Therefore, the asserted criticality is not considered to be an unexpected result relative to the prior art.
Additionally, in Gardner v.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit 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 (see MPEP 2144.04). This applies to the current application because the only difference between the prior art, Gallet, and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions and the claimed device would not perform differently than the prior art device as the claimed device and the prior art both provide oil capture. Therefore the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Gallet’s radial distance between the plurality of vanes and the plurality of scoops is greater than zero and less than 0.5 inches (claim 1) or greater than zero and less than 0.25 inches (claim 23) as it only requires simple change in the relative dimensions of the device (see MPEP 2144.04).
As per claim 2, Gallet discloses the fan drive gear system as recited in claim 1, and further discloses a static gutter for directing expelled oil expelled toward the at least one auxiliary reservoir (fixed blades (static gutter) to adjust flow toward gutter 40; paragraph [0045]).
As per claim 6, Gallet discloses the fan drive gear system as recited in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the at least one auxiliary reservoir comprises a forward auxiliary reservoir and an aft auxiliary reservoir (two gutters 40, i.e., forward gutter and aft gutter; figures 7, 9; paragraph [0047]).
As per claim 7, Gallet discloses the fan drive gear system as recited in claim 6, and further discloses a forward static gutter directing expelled oil toward the forward auxiliary reservoir (both gutters 40 having fixed blades 43 (static gutter); figure 7).
As per claim 8, Gallet discloses the fan drive gear system as recited in claim 7, and further discloses wherein the oil director comprises a forward oil director attached to a forward portion of the carrier and an aft oil director attached to an aft portion of the carrier (rotating blades 42 (oil director) is also in both forward portion of carrier 13 and aft portion of carrier 13; figure 7).
As per claim 9, Gallet discloses the fan drive gear system as recited in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the oil receiving surface comprises a forward oil receiving surface at least partially circumscribing the forward oil director and an aft oil receiving surface at least partially circumscribing the aft oil director (as shown, fixed blades 43 (oil receiving surfaces) are located in the forward and aft portions circumscribing both forward and aft portions of the rotating blades (oil directors); figure 7).
As per claims 10 and 21, Gallet discloses a turbine engine assembly comprising: a static engine structure (22; figure 3); a fan section including a fan shaft (3; figure 1) coupled to a hub (4) supporting a plurality of blades (S) rotatable about an axis (4); a fan drive gear system including a sun gear (11; figure 4) configured to be driven by an engine shaft (2) rotatable about the axis (4); a plurality of intermediate gears (12) intermeshed with the sun gear (as shown; figures 4, 5); a ring gear assembly (14) engaged with the plurality of intermediate gears (as shown; figures 4, 5), the ring gear configured for attachment to a static structure (via support housing 22; paragraph [0032]); a carrier (13) supporting rotation of the plurality of intermediate gears (12), the carrier is configured for rotation about the axis (4); at least one auxiliary reservoir (40) disposed radially outward of the carrier (as shown; figure 9); an oil receiving surface (surface of fixed blades 43) that is configured to receive expelled oil and communicate the oil into the at least one auxiliary reservoir (collecting oil and adjusting flow to gutter 40; paragraphs [0045], [0046]); wherein the oil receiving surface comprises a plurality of scoops for directing expelled oil into the at least one auxiliary reservoir (fixed blades 43 are in the form of inwardly curved plates (scoops) to collect droplets of oil; paragraph [0046]); a plurality of vanes (rotating blades 42 (vanes); figures 7, 8) attached to the carrier for imparting a rotational flow direction into the expelled oil to drive the expelled oil tangentially against the oil receiving surface (rotating blades 42 (vanes) which is capable of imparting rotational flow in the tangential direction; paragraph [0044]); and a fan shaft (3; figure 4) coupled to the carrier (13); a primary lubricant system communicating lubricant to the fan drive gear system (main reservoir of the engine; paragraph [0039] providing oil to the reduction gear 10; figure 4; paragraph [0039]); and an auxiliary lubricant system including the at least one auxiliary reservoir configured to receive lubricant expelled from the fan drive gear system (baffle 40 capable of receiving oil from the gear system; paragraph [0044]).
Gallet does not explicitly teach wherein a minimum radial spacing between the plurality of vanes and the plurality of scoops is greater than zero and less than 0.5 inches (claim 10) or greater than zero and less than 0.25 inches (claim 21).
However, Gallet’s drawing sufficiently teaches there is a radial spacing between the plurality of vanes and the plurality of scoops as shown in figure 7 annotated below.
PNG
media_image1.png
332
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Gallet, in paragraphs [0045], teaches this arrangement is used for collecting the oil and adjusting the flow thereof. Gallet’s vanes are in form of rotating blades 42 act as a centrifugal ejector which allows the scoops (fixed blades 43) to collect the oil (paragraphs [0055], [0056]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art is a person familiar with the mechanics of a centrifugal rotary device for collecting particles or fluid. The person of ordinary skill in the art would understand a) when the radial spacing is zero between the rotating blades and fixed collector, i.e., the rotating blades contacting the fixed collector, it would cause severe damage due the rotating blades rubbing against the fixed collector and b) when the radial spacing is too large it would not be very effective to collect the oil droplets and it is easier to deliver the oil when the radial spacing between the vanes and the scoops are small than when the radial spacing is large as such concept only requires elemental level of physics to understand. Therefore, the radial distance between the vane and the scoop is a result effective variable that would be apparent to the person of ordinary skill in the art. The person of ordinary skill in the art is destined to come up with an appropriate radial spatial relationship between the rotating blades and the fixed collectors or the scoops when attempted to make/use Gallet’s device. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05) and therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Gallet’s radial distance between the plurality of vanes and the plurality of scoops is greater than zero and less than 0.5 inches (claim 1) or greater than zero and less than 0.25 inches (claim 23) in an effort to optimize the oil collection.
In the pre-appeal brief review arguments filed on 10/14/2025, page 2, Applicant asserts that paragraph [0044] of the application as filed explains that the recited radial spacings both provides for maximizing oil capture while preventing accumulation of expelled oil. While MPEP 2144.05 III. A. reveals applicants can rebut prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range, in such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. It also reveals that the unexpected result is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art. As taught in paragraph [0044] of the application, the claimed range achieves optimum oil capture. The prior art device, although it does not teach a specific dimension, also achieves oil capture and prevent accumulation of oil (paragraphs [0011], [0044], [0055], [0056]). Therefore, the difference between the claimed range and the prior art is only in the degree of the results rather than difference in kind. Therefore, the asserted criticality is not considered to be an unexpected result relative to the prior art.
Additionally, in Gardner v.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit 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 (see MPEP 2144.04). This applies to the current application because the only difference between the prior art, Gallet, and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions and the claimed device would not perform differently than the prior art device as the claimed device and the prior art both provide oil capture. Therefore the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Gallet’s radial distance between the plurality of vanes and the plurality of scoops is greater than zero and less than 0.5 inches (claim 1) or greater than zero and less than 0.25 inches (claim 23) as it only requires simple change in the relative dimensions of the device (see MPEP 2144.04).
Claim 11 contains the same limitations of claim 2 and is also rejected as above.
Claim 15 contains the same limitations of claim 8 and is also rejected as above.
As per claim 15, Gallet discloses the turbine engine assembly as recited in claim 10, wherein the at least one auxiliary reservoir comprises a forward auxiliary reservoir and an aft auxiliary reservoir (two symmetrical gutters 40; paragraph [0043]); and the oil director comprises a forward oil director attached to a forward portion of the carrier and an aft oil director attached to an aft portion of the carrier (two symmetrical planet carriers on both side of the reduction gear, i.e., having forward and aft rotating blades 42 (oil directors); paragraph [0037]).
As per claim 16, Gallet discloses the turbine engine assembly as recited in claim 15, wherein a forward static gutter directing expelled oil toward the forward auxiliary reservoir (two symmetric gutters 40, i.e., having forward and aft fixed blades 43 (static gutter); paragraph [0043]).
As per claim 17, Gallet discloses the turbine engine assembly as recited in claim 16, wherein wherein the oil receiving surface comprises a forward oil receiving surface circumscribing the forward oil director and an aft oil receiving surface circumscribing the aft oil director (fixed blades having inwardly curved plates (oil receiving surfaces) on both gutters 40; figure 7).
As per claims 22 and 24, Gallet discloses the turbine engine assembly as recited in claim 10 and the fan drive gear system as recited in claim 1, and further discloses wherein each of the plurality of vanes extend radially straight outward from a periphery of the carrier (as shown, rotating blades 42 (vanes) extend radially straight outward from carrier 13; figure 7).
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallet in view of Lao (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0356306).
As per claims 5 and 14, Gallet discloses the fan drive gear system as recited in claim 1 and the turbine engine assembly of claim 10. Gallet does not explicitly teach a plurality of passages disposed through the ring gear for communicating oil to the at least one auxiliary reservoir.
Lao is related prior art in that it also deals with recovery of lubricating oil. Lao teaches a plurality of drain holes disposed through the ring gear for communicating oil to the at least one auxiliary reservoir (orifices 18 through outer annulus gear 15 and regularly distributed over the circumference for communicating oil to recovery device 17 (auxiliary reservoir); figure 4; paragraph [0051]). Lao teaches oil accumulation in the reduction gear decreases performance and it is necessary to prevent any oil buildup zones (paragraphs [0003]-[0005]). Lao’s drain holes allow recovery of oil at the ring gear at a high speed (paragraph [0056]). Therefore, in order to further improve oil recovery and prevent build-up at the ring gear, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Gallet’s ring gear to incorporate Lao’s drain holes as it would provide another passage for recovery and reduce build-up at the ring gear.
Conclusion
This action is made NON-FINAL as it contains a new rationale not presented in previous actions. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG K KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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 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.
/SANG K KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745