DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed 7/29/2025 wherein claims 2-3 and 7-8 are canceled, claims 12-20 are withdrawn, and claims 1, 4-6, and 9-11 are presented for examination.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/29/2025 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings (Figures 2A-2B) are objected to because the label “value” within the rectangular box of reference character 156 is believed to be in error for - - valve - - . 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 4 is 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "The method of claim 3" in line 1. However, claim 3 has been canceled and, therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chesneau (US 2021/0039802) in view of Suciu et al. (US 2014/0150440), Menheere et al. (US 2017/0211477), and Waddleton (US 2005/0135929) and Menasco et al. (US 2,284,473).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Chesneau teaches (Figures 1-14) a method of operating a hybrid aircraft power plant (see title and Figures 3-10) having a thermal engine (1, 2, 3, 4, 5; see Figure 3) coupled to a propeller (6; see Figure 3 and Paragraph 0021) via a clutch (29), an electric motor (23) coupled to (via 25) the propeller (6) via a geartrain (25), the method comprising:
operating the hybrid aircraft power plant (see title and Figures 3-10) in a first mode of operation (see Figures 7-8) in which the clutch (29) is in an engaged configuration (see Figures 7-8 and Paragraph 0028), including operating the thermal engine (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) to drive the propeller (6) via the clutch (29; see Paragraph 0028);
changing the configuration of the clutch (29) between the engaged configuration (the clutch being a transmitter of rotation movement from the low pressure shaft to the fan; see Paragraph 0028) and a disengaged configuration (releasing the clutch 29; see Paragraph 0025), the thermal engine (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) being decoupled from (Paragraph 0025) the load (6) when the clutch (29) is in the disengaged configuration (see Figure 5); and
operating the hybrid aircraft power plant (see title and Figures 3-10) in a second mode of operation (see Figure 5) in which the clutch (29) is in the disengaged configuration (releasing the clutch 29; see Paragraph 0025), including operating the electric motor (23) to drive the propeller (6).
Chesneau further teaches (Figures 1-14) that the thermal engine drives (via 25) the electric machine (23) in the first mode (see Figures 7-8).
Chesneau does not teach a first lubricant pump coupled to the thermal engine and a second lubricant pump coupled to the electric motor, wherein the first mode of operation includes the thermal engine driving the first lubricant pump, and the second mode of operation includes the electric motor driving the second lubricant pump, wherein the first mode further includes operating the thermal engine to drive the second lubricant pump, the first lubricant pump and the second lubricant pump both contributing to a total lubricant pressure in a lubricant circuit, wherein the first mode further includes the first lubricant pump circulating lubricant to the geartrain, wherein the second mode further includes the second lubricant pump circulating the lubricant to the geartrain, that the hybrid aircraft power plant further comprising a propeller control unit coupled to the geartrain, wherein the first mode includes circulating the lubricant to the propeller control unit via the lubricant circuit, and the second mode includes circulating the lubricant to the propeller control unit, or regulating the total pressure using a pressure regulation valve upstream of the propeller control unit, including recirculating a portion of a flow of lubricant upstream of the propeller control unit when the total lubricant pressure generated by both the first pump and the second pump is too high for the propeller control unit, thereby limiting a lubricant pressure at the propeller control unit and protecting the propeller control unit from excessive pressure.
Suciu teaches (Figures 1-4) a first lubricant pump (106) coupled to a thermal engine (at 102) and a second lubricant pump (144) coupled to an electric motor (146), wherein a first mode of operation (see Paragraph 0046) includes the thermal engine (via 102) driving the first lubricant pump (106) and a second mode of operation (Paragraph 0047) includes operating the electric motor (146) to drive the second lubricant pump (144). Suciu further teaches (Figures 1-4) wherein the first lubricant pump (106) and the second lubricant pump (144, driven by the electric motor 146) both contributing to a total lubricant pressure in a lubricant circuit (to 142; see Figure 4), wherein the first mode of operation (Paragraph 0046) includes a first lubricant pump (106) circulating lubricant (from 140) to engine components through supply lines (142) and a second mode of operation (Paragraph 0047) includes a second lubricant pump (144) circulating the lubricant (from 140) to the engine components through supply lines (142).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chesneau to include a first lubricant pump coupled to the thermal engine and a second lubricant pump coupled to the electric motor, wherein the first mode of operation includes the thermal engine driving the first lubricant pump, and the second mode of operation includes the electric motor driving the second lubricant pump, wherein the first lubricant pump and the second lubricant pump both contributing to a total lubricant pressure in a lubricant circuit, wherein the first mode of operation includes a first lubricant pump circulating lubricant to engine components through supply lines and a second mode of operation includes a second lubricant pump circulating the lubricant to the engine components through supply lines, as taught by Suciu, in order to deliver lubricant to engine components during first and second operating conditions (Paragraphs 0046-0047 of Suciu). Chesneau in view of Suciu does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the first mode includes operating the thermal engine to drive the second lubricant pump, or a propeller control unit coupled to the geartrain, wherein the first mode includes operating the thermal engine to drive the second lubricant pump, wherein the lubricant is circulated to the geartrain and the propeller control unit, or regulating the total pressure using a pressure regulation valve upstream of the propeller control unit, including recirculating a portion of a flow of lubricant upstream of the propeller control unit when the total lubricant pressure generated by both the first pump and the second pump is too high for the propeller control unit, thereby limiting a lubricant pressure at the propeller control unit and protecting the propeller control unit from excessive pressure.
Menheere teaches (Figures 1-2) an oil pump (44) that may be driven by a first source of motive power (such as a rotating/driven shaft; see Paragraph 0033) during a first mode of operation of the engine and driven by a second source of motive power (such as an electric motor; see Paragraph 0033) during a second mode of operation of the engine (see Paragraph 0033).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chesneau in view of Suciu to have the first mode include operating the thermal engine to drive the lubricant pump, wherein lubricant is circulated to the geartrain, as taught by Menheere, in order to supply oil to one or more lubrication loads irrespective of the operating speed of the high-pressure spool and/or of low-pressure spool (Paragraph 0033 of Menheere) and to achieve good bearing life and reliability; to lubricate, cool and clean bearings and/or gears of the turbine engine; and to supply oil to one or more lubrication loads during different modes of operation of the turbine engine (Paragraphs 0002 and 0032-0033 of Menheere). Chesneau in view of Suciu and Menheere does not teach a propeller control unit coupled to the geartrain, wherein the first mode includes operating the thermal engine to drive the second lubricant pump, wherein the lubricant is circulated to the geartrain and the propeller control unit, or regulating the total pressure using a pressure regulation valve upstream of the propeller control unit, including recirculating a portion of a flow of lubricant upstream of the propeller control unit when the total lubricant pressure generated by both the first pump and the second pump is too high for the propeller control unit, thereby limiting a lubricant pressure at the propeller control unit and protecting the propeller control unit from excessive pressure.
Waddleton teaches (Figures 1-3) an aircraft power plant (10) including a propeller control unit (30) coupled to (fluidly and mechanically; see Figures 1-2 and Paragraphs 0019-0021) a geartrain (14), wherein lubricant (see Figures 2-3) is circulated to the propeller control unit (30) via a lubricant circuit (31), wherein a portion of the lubricant (from 32) upstream of a propeller control unit (30) is recirculated (via 61), thereby limiting a lubricant pressure (the pressure to 67; see Figure 3) at the propeller control unit (30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chesneau in view of Suciu and Menheere to have the power plant include a propeller control unit coupled to the geartrain, wherein the lubricant is recirculated upstream of a propeller control unit, thereby limiting a lubricant pressure at the propeller control unit, as taught by Waddleton, in order to adjust the blade angle to maintain the propeller speed that is selected by the pilot (Paragraph 0018 of Waddleton). Chesneau in view of Suciu, Menheere, and Waddleton does not teach, as discussed so far, regulating the total pressure using a pressure regulation valve upstream of the propeller control unit, including recirculating a portion of a flow of lubricant upstream of the propeller control unit when the total lubricant pressure generated by both the first pump and the second pump is too high for the propeller control unit, thereby limiting a lubricant pressure at the propeller control unit and protecting the propeller control unit from excessive pressure.
Menasco teaches (Figures 1-9) the concept of regulating a total pressure using a pressure regulation valve (65 or 67) upstream of a propeller control unit (32, 33, 36, 38), including recirculating a portion of a flow of lubricant (via 66 or 68) upstream of the propeller control unit (32, 33, 36, 38) when the total lubricant pressure generated by the pump (27) is too high for the propeller control unit (32, 33, 36, 38), thereby limiting a lubricant pressure at the propeller control unit (32, 33, 36, 38) and protecting the propeller control unit (32, 33, 36, 38) from excessive pressure (Column 4, lines 40-52 of Menasco).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chesneau in view of Suciu, Menheere, and Waddleton to include regulating the total pressure using a pressure regulation valve upstream of the propeller control unit, including recirculating a portion of a flow of lubricant upstream of the propeller control unit when the total lubricant pressure generated by both the first pump and the second pump is too high for the propeller control unit, thereby limiting a lubricant pressure at the propeller control unit and protecting the propeller control unit from excessive pressure, as taught by Menasco, in order to permit the oil to pass through a bypass back to an intake side of the oil pump or back to the oil reservoir if the pressure developed in the oil duct becomes too high (Page 4, lines 40-52 of Menasco).
It is noted that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) (precedential) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed".
Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the step of “regulating the total lubricant pressure using a pressure regulation valve upstream of the PCU, including recirculating a portion of the lubricant upstream of the PCU, when the total lubricant pressure generated by both the first pump and the second pump is too high for the PCU, thereby limiting a lubricant pressure at the PCU and protecting the PCU from excessive pressure”, if the condition is not satisfied, the regulating step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed.
Regarding Claim 4, Chesneau in view of Suciu, Menheere, Waddleton, and Menasco teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. As discussed above, Chesneau teaches (Figures 1-14) changing the configuration of the clutch (29) between an engaged configuration (the clutch being a transmitter of rotation movement from the low pressure shaft to the fan; see Paragraph 0028) and a disengaged configuration (releasing the clutch 29; see Paragraph 0025), the thermal engine (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) being decoupled from (Paragraph 0025) the load (6) when the clutch (29) is in the disengaged configuration (see Figure 5). Chesneau in view of Suciu, Menheere, Waddleton, and Menasco does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein said changing the configuration includes interrupting said recirculating.
Waddleton teaches (Figures 1-3) wherein changing a configuration (between Figures 2-3) includes interrupting (see Figures 2-3) the recirculating (via 48).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chesneau in view of Suciu, Menheere, Waddleton, and Menasco to have the recirculating a portion of a flow of lubricant upstream of a pressure-sensitive component of an aircraft power plant, thereby limiting a lubricant pressure at the pressure-sensitive component, as taught by Waddleton, for the same reasons discussed above in claim 3.
Regarding Claim 5, Chesneau in view of Suciu, Menheere, Waddleton, and Menasco teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Chesneau further teaches (Figures 1-14) wherein the first mode (see Figures 7-8) further includes freewheeling (neither generating or receiving power during cruise; see Paragraph 0028 and Figures 7-8) the electric motor (23).
Regarding Claim 6, Chesneau in view of Suciu, Menheere, Waddleton, and Menasco teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Chesneau further teaches (Figures 1-14) wherein the second mode (see Figure 5) further includes maintaining the thermal engine (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) in an inoperative state (the part of the shaft 7 that is beyond the clutch 29 remains at rest to avoid any loss of power by making the low pressure shaft turn for no purpose at no load; see Paragraph 0025).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chesneau (US 2021/0039802) in view of Suciu et al. (US 2014/0150440), Menheere et al. (US 2017/0211477), Waddleton (US 2005/0135929), and Menasco et al. (US 2,284,473) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kupratis (US 2015/0121893).
Regarding Claim 9, Chesneau in view of Suciu, Menheere, Waddleton, and Menasco teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Chesneau in view of Suciu, Menheere, Waddleton, and Menasco does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the thermal engine of the hybrid aircraft power plant is coupled to the clutch via a reduction gearing, wherein the first mode further includes the first lubricant pump circulating lubricant to the thermal engine and to the reduction gearing, wherein the second mode further includes neither the first lubricant pump nor the second lubricant pump circulating the lubricant, neither to the thermal engine nor the reduction gearing.
Kupratis teaches (Figures 1-3) a thermal engine (14) that is coupled to the clutch (50) via a reduction gearing (46).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chesneau in view of Suciu, Menheere, Waddleton, and Menasco to have the thermal engine be coupled to the clutch via a reduction gearing, as taught by Kupratis, in order to drive the fan at a speed slower than the core turbine (Paragraphs 0032 and 0036 of Kupratis). Chesneau in view of Suciu, Menheere, Waddleton, Menasco, and Kupratis does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the first mode further includes the first lubricant pump circulating lubricant to the thermal engine and to the reduction gearing, wherein the second mode further includes neither the first lubricant pump nor the second lubricant pump circulating the lubricant, neither to the thermal engine nor the reduction gearing.
Waddleton teaches (Figures 1-3) the thermal engine (18, 16, 26, 20) of the aircraft power plant (10) is coupled to a reduction gearing (14), wherein a first mode (Figure 2) includes a first lubricant pump (the engine lubrication pump, not shown; see Paragraph 0019) circulating lubricant to the thermal engine and to the reduction gearing (from engine lubrication supply), and wherein the second mode (Figure 3) includes neither the first lubricant pump (the engine lubrication pump, not shown; see Paragraph 0019) nor a second lubricant pump (32) circulating the lubricant, neither to the thermal engine nor the reduction gearing (from the engine lubrication supply; see Paragraph 0019 and Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chesneau in view of Suciu, Menheere, Waddleton, Menasco, and Kupratis to have the thermal engine of the hybrid aircraft power plant be coupled to a reduction gearing, wherein the first mode further includes the first lubricant pump circulating lubricant to the thermal engine and to the reduction gearing, wherein the second mode further includes neither the first lubricant pump nor the second lubricant pump circulating the lubricant, neither to the thermal engine nor the reduction gearing, as taught by Waddleton, in order to adjust the blade angle to maintain the propeller speed that is selected by the pilot (Paragraph 0018 of Waddleton).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chesneau (US 2021/0039802) in view of Suciu et al. (US 2014/0150440), Menheere et al. (US 2017/0211477), Waddleton (US 2005/0135929), and Menasco et al. (US 2,284,473) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Caimano et al. (US 2021/0108568).
Regarding Claim 10, Chesneau in view of Suciu, Menheere, Waddleton, and Menasco teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. As discussed above, Chesneau teaches (Figures 1-14) a method of operating a hybrid aircraft power plant (see title and Figures 3-10) having a thermal engine (1, 2, 3, 4, 5; see Figure 3) coupled to a load (6) via a clutch (29). Chesneau in view of Suciu, Menheere, Waddleton, and Menasco does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the first mode further includes the first lubricant pump circulating a lubricant to the clutch, wherein the second mode further includes the second lubricant pump circulating the lubricant to the clutch.
Suciu teaches (Figures 1-4) wherein the first mode of operation (Paragraph 0046) includes a first lubricant pump (106) circulating lubricant (from 140) to engine components through supply lines (142) and a second mode of operation (Paragraph 0047) includes a second lubricant pump (144) circulating the lubricant (from 140) to the engine components through supply lines 142).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chesneau in view of Suciu, Menheere, Waddleton, and Menasco to have the first mode include the first lubricant pump circulating lubricant to the engine components and have the second mode include the second lubricant pump circulating the lubricant to the engine components, as taught by Suciu, for the same reasons discussed above in claim 1. Chesneau in view of Suciu, Menheere, Waddleton, and Menasco does not teach, as discussed so far, lubricant being circulated to the clutch.
Caimano teaches (Figures 1-9) an engine (10) having a lubricant oil system (paragraphs 0065-0067) circulating oil (via 236, 248; see Figure 5) to a clutch (220).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chesneau in view of Suciu, Menheere, Waddleton, and Menasco to include the lubricant being circulated to the clutch, as taught by Caimano, in order to ensure the plurality of bearings of the clutch are provided with a desired amount of lubrication oil during operation (Paragraph 0067 of Caimano).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chesneau (US 2021/0039802) in view of Suciu et al. (US 2014/0150440), Menheere et al. (US 2017/0211477), Waddleton (US 2005/0135929), and Menasco et al. (US 2,284,473) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fang et al. (US 2016/0341074).
Regarding Claim 11, Chesneau in view of Suciu, Menheere, Waddleton, and Menasco teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Chesneau in view of Suciu, Menheere, Waddleton, and Menasco does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the hybrid aircraft power plant further has at least one of a heat exchanger, an inverter and a controller associated to the electric motor, wherein the first mode further includes the first lubricant pump circulating lubricant to the at least one of the heat exchanger, the inverter and the controller, wherein the second mode further includes the second lubricant pump circulating lubricant to the at least of the heat exchanger, the inverter and the controller.
Suciu teaches (Figures 1-4) wherein the first mode of operation (Paragraph 0046) includes a first lubricant pump (106) circulating lubricant (from 140) to engine components through supply lines (142) and a second mode of operation (Paragraph 0047) includes a second lubricant pump (144) circulating the lubricant (from 140) to the engine components through supply lines 142).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chesneau in view of Suciu, Menheere, Waddleton, and Menasco to have the first mode include the first lubricant pump circulating lubricant to the engine components and have the second mode include the second lubricant pump circulating the lubricant to the engine components, as taught by Suciu, for the same reasons discussed above in claim 1. Chesneau in view of Suciu, Menheere, Waddleton, and Menasco does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the engine components include a heat exchanger, an inverter, and a controller associated to the electric motor, wherein the first and second lubricant pumps circulate lubricant to the heat exchanger, the inverter, and the controller.
Fang teaches (Figures 1-5) at least one heat exchanger (122, 152) included in the lubricant circulation system (100).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chesneau in view of Suciu, Menheere, Waddleton, and Menasco to have the at least one heat exchanger included in the lubricant circulation system, as taught by Fang, in order to remove an amount of heat from the flow of lubricant (Paragraphs 0031 and 0040 and Fang).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4-6, and 9-11 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references being applied in this office action. However, to the extent possible, Applicant’s arguments have been addressed in the body of the rejection above, at the appropriate locations.
It is further noted that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) (precedential) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed".
Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the step of “regulating the total lubricant pressure using a pressure regulation valve upstream of the PCU, including recirculating a portion of the lubricant upstream of the PCU, when the total lubricant pressure generated by both the first pump and the second pump is too high for the PCU, thereby limiting a lubricant pressure at the PCU and protecting the PCU from excessive pressure”, if the condition is not satisfied, the regulating step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS P BURKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5407. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 PM.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached on (571) 270-5426. 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.
/THOMAS P BURKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741