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 .
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.
Claims 16-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 16, the recitation of “ferromagnetic bar is composed of a foot…and a cap” is ambiguous as to whether the clause is open-ended (encompassing the ferromagnetic bar optionally having or “comprising” other components) or close-ended (encompassing the ferromagnetic bar being strictly limited to or “consisting of” foot and cap).
In claim 20, it is unclear whether “portions of cylinders” refers back to the same respective cylinder portions for each cap end introduced in claim 18, or encompasses cylinders additional to those recited in claim 18.
In claim 24, the meaning of “second bar arranged diametrically opposite to the first bar” is unclear (did the claim intend to recite the second bar being diametrically opposite to the first bar, with respect to the magnet, as illustrated in instant figure 7?).
In claim 25, “the or each bar” (singular or plural) is inconsistent with claim 16 from which it depends reciting a single “ferromagnetic bar”; and “arranged to the right of a pole” lacks antecedent basis and is indefinite, and since “to the right” is a relative and undefined expression.
In claim 26, it is unclear how recitation of the strainer being arranged coaxially with the magnet limits the relative orientation of strainer and magnet, (is the claim reciting each of the at least one cylindrical portions thereof being coaxial with the axis of the cylindrical shape of the magnet?).
In claim 27, the recitation of “ferromagnetic bar is composed of a foot…and a cap” is again ambiguous as to whether the clause is open-ended (encompassing the ferromagnetic bar optionally having or “comprising” other components) or close-ended (encompassing the ferromagnetic bar being strictly limited to or “consisting of” foot and cap).
In claim 29, each of “several pumps and filters” and “several oil inlets and outlets” are ambiguous as to the lower and upper limits of the respective ranges of how many pumps and filters are being claimed and as to the lower and upper limits of the respective ranges of how many oil inlets and oil outlets are being claimed, respectively;
the recitation of “ferromagnetic bar is composed of a foot…and a cap” is again ambiguous as to whether the clause is open-ended (encompassing the ferromagnetic bar optionally having or “comprising” other components) or close-ended (encompassing the ferromagnetic bar being strictly limited to or “consisting of” foot and cap); and,
in the last clause, it is unclear if “in an oil inlet upstream of the pumps and filters” refers back to one of the recited “oil inlets” previously recited in the claim, and meaning of “upstream of the pumps and filters” is unclear, as no flow path through the claim elements has been recited.
Claim Interpretation
In each of independent claims 16, 27 and 29, the clause of “a ferromagnetic bar composed of a foot…and a cap…” is interpreted as the equivalent of “a ferromagnetic bar comprising…” thus the clauses being open-ended and not excluding the ferromagnetic bar having additional non-recited features.
In claim 29, the clause “several pumps and filters, several oil inlets and outlets” is interpreted as the equivalent of a recitation of “a plurality of pumps and filters and inlets and outlets” (thus reading on any number of two or more of each of pumps, filters, inlets and outlets, respectively).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 16,17, 21-23 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patent publication EP 3363518 and the accompanying Escapenet English translation of ‘518 (publication ‘518) in view of Patent Publication FR 2598818 and the accompanying Escapenet English translation of ‘818 (publication ‘818) and Basso et al PGPUBS Document US 2020/0088350 (Basso). Paragraph numbers of the Escapenet English translations and the PGPUBS documents are each identified with “[ ]” symbols and respectfully identified with page and paragraph numbers .
For independent claim 16, publication ‘518 discloses: A module for attracting and detecting ferromagnetic debris in an oil flow of a turbomachine (expressly stated in [000 6 and 0038] regarding a “magnetic detection module”, the oil flow shown in figure 1),
the module comprising: a permanent magnet (first magnet 46, see figure 2 and [0059]);
a ferromagnetic element or bar foot touching or extending axially from and rising from the magnet (figure 2 and [0060] regarding magnetic element 48 touching and extending upstream of magnet 46), and
a ferromagnetic coil surrounding the ferromagnetic element or bar (figure 2 and [0059-0060] regarding electromagnetic coil 44) .
Claim 16 differs by requiring:
the permanent magnet to be of a cylindrical shape and,
the ferromagnetic bar composed of a foot rising radially from the magnet and a cap extending circumferentially from, or perpendicular to the foot; and
the coil as being wound around the foot.
Publication ‘818 teaches a module for magnetically detecting magnetic particles comprising: such cylindrically shaped magnet, and an attached ferromagnetic bar composed of a foot rising axially from the magnet and a cap extending circumferentially from, or perpendicular to the foot
(figures 1 and 2 illustrating magnet 20 having north and south poles and fitting inside a cylindrical housing, thus suggested as being cylindrical and electromagnet pole piece 22 of soft iron core extending axially away from magnet 22 magnetized by the magnet, as
illustrated in figures 1 and 2 as having a foot rising axially from the magnet with narrow cap ends extending oppositely away from the cap in opposite perpendicular directions near an end of the cylindrical housing distal from the magnet, and
described in [0006, the paragraph bridging pages 2/4 and 3/4 and the first full paragraph on page 3/4) ; and
a coil wound around the foot described in [0006, the 2nd full paragraph on page 3/4 regarding winding or “coil” 34] and shown in figures 1 and 2 as winding around foot of piece 22).
Publication ‘818 suggests such configuration of particle detection system of magnet, particle-detecting soft iron core and winding or coil enables sufficiently accurate detection of captured ferrous debris, i.e. “ferromagnetic debris” to enable diagnostic signal pulses to verify the working order of the circulating oil or other liquid in which the particle detection module is located ([0006 and 4th and 5th paragraphs of page 2/4).
Basso teaches a magnetic device for capturing and detecting metal particles in a flow of lubrication fluid such as for lubricating an engine (Abstract, and [0002 and 0014-0016]). Basso teaches such device comprising a permanent magnet and particle presence detecting electrically conductive bars or plates, which in some embodiments are oriented or situated radially from a magnet, and extend circumferentially with respect to the magnet (see especially figures 22-28 and paragraphs [0037, 0046, 0087 and 0122-0124] regarding magnet 30/101 and particle presence-detecting members or plates 105-107).
Basso suggests that such configuration of debris-detecting member(s) enable(s) attraction and collection of particles located or accumulating radially or transversely with respect to the magnetic device [0013-0017 and 0056].
Publication ‘818 and Basso thus together suggest to provide the magnet with a cylindrical shape and to construct the ferromagnetic soft core bar of ‘518 so as to radially, rather than axially, extend or be “rising” from the permanent magnet, and to be provided with a circumferentially extending cap.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of engineering modules for detecting ferromagnetic debris in oil flow to have modified the module of ‘518,
by providing the magnet to have a cylindrical shape and to configure the ferromagnetic bar to have a foot rising radially from the magnet and cap extending perpendicularly to the foot, and with the coil being wound around the foot of such ferromagnetic bar,
as cumulatively taught by ‘818 and Basso,
in order to facilitate attraction and collection of particles located or accumulating radially or transversely with respect to the magnetic device, and by attraction and collection of particles located or accumulating radially or transversely with respect to the magnetic device, thus more completely and reliably determine the extent of accumulation of debris particles.
For claim 17, publication ‘518 further suggests wherein the coil is wound around a winding support threaded onto the foot (figure 2 illustrating the coil 44 as woven into the foot 48 and [0060 concerning ferromagnetic frame for placing the electromagnetic coil 44]).
For claim 21, publication ‘518 (figure 2) and publication ‘818 (figures 1 and 2) each further suggest wherein the foot comprises a circumferential width which is of smaller circumferential width than the magnet diameter, however are silent regarding wherein the foot comprises a circumferential width which is between 25% and 50% of a diameter of the magnet.
(also see [0038 and 0048] of ‘518 regarding there being standard deviations of sizes and masses of debris needing to be reduced and detected, hence suggesting corresponding varied dimensions of debris detection components depending upon relative expected degree of contamination with debris anticipated for the turbomachine lubrication system). Publications ‘518 and ‘818, are however silent regarding the foot being approximately 50% of a diameter of the magnet.
The claimed parameter regarding proportion of magnet and bar or foot dimensions are deemed to be a results effective variable, for which it would have been obvious to optimize by routine experimentation in order to optimize collection and detection of anticipated relative expected degree of contamination with debris anticipated for the turbomachine lubrication system, while maintaining optimum flow through the lubrication circuit passage(s).
The MPEP Section 2144.05, parts I and II, cites Case Law which has established precedence that where the prior art teaches or suggests parameter values, ranges, proportions and amounts which overlap, approach or are similar to what is claimed, patentability of the subject matter is not supported, absent finding of unexpected results or verified criticality of what is claimed.
Thus, it would have been further obvious to have provided the foot of the module to be of a circumferential width which is between 25% and 50% of a diameter of the magnet in order to optimize collection and detection of anticipated relative expected degree of contamination with debris anticipated for the turbomachine lubrication system, while maintaining optimum flow through the lubrication circuit passage(s).
For claim 22, publication ‘518 (figure 2 illustrating proportions of foot 48 and magnet 46) further suggests wherein the foot comprises a radial height which is of approximately the same or less than a diameter of the magnet (also see [0038 and 0048] of ‘518 regarding there being standard deviations of sizes and masses of debris needing to be reduced and detected, hence suggesting corresponding varied dimensions of debris detection components depending upon relative expected degree of contamination with debris anticipated for the turbomachine lubrication system). Publication ‘518, however is silent regarding the foot being approximately 50% of a diameter of the magnet.
The claimed parameter regarding proportion of magnet and bar or foot dimensions are deemed to be a results effective variable, for which it would have been obvious to optimize by routine experimentation in order to optimize collection and detection of anticipated relative expected degree of contamination with debris anticipated for the turbomachine lubrication system, while maintaining optimum flow through the lubrication circuit passage(s).
The MPEP Section 2144.05, parts I and II, cites Case Law which has established precedence that where the prior art teaches or suggests parameter values, ranges, proportions and amounts which overlap, approach or are similar to what is claimed, patentability of the subject matter is not supported, absent finding of unexpected results or verified criticality of what is claimed.
Thus, it would have been further obvious to have provided the foot of the module to be of a circumferential width which is between 25% and 50% of a diameter of the magnet in order to optimize collection and detection of anticipated relative expected degree of contamination with debris anticipated for the turbomachine lubrication system, while maintaining optimum flow through the lubrication circuit passage(s).
For claim 23, publication ‘518 further suggests wherein the ferromagnetic bar comprises an axial length which is approximately equal to an axial length of the magnet (apparent from figure 2), however lacks an explicit recitation of such dimension proportionality. (also see [0038 and 0048] of ‘518 regarding there being standard deviations of sizes and masses of debris needing to be reduced and detected, hence suggesting corresponding varied dimensions of debris detection components depending upon relative expected degree of contamination with debris anticipated for the turbomachine lubrication system). Publication ‘518, however is silent regarding the foot being approximately 50% of a diameter of the magnet.
The claimed parameter regarding proportion of magnet and bar or foot dimensions are deemed to be a results effective variable, for which it would have been obvious to optimize by routine experimentation in order to optimize collection and detection of anticipated relative expected degree of contamination with debris anticipated for the turbomachine lubrication system, while maintaining optimum flow through the lubrication circuit passage(s).
The MPEP Section 2144.05, parts I and II, cites Case Law which has established precedence that where the prior art teaches or suggests parameter values, ranges, proportions and amounts which overlap, approach or are similar to what is claimed, patentability of the subject matter is not supported, absent finding of unexpected results or verified criticality of what is claimed.
Thus, it would have been further obvious to have provided the foot of the module to be of a circumferential width which is between 25% and 50% of a diameter of the magnet in order to optimize collection and detection of anticipated relative expected degree of contamination with debris anticipated for the turbomachine lubrication system, while maintaining optimum flow through the lubrication circuit passage(s).
For claim 25, publication ‘818 further suggests wherein the magnet comprises two diametrically opposed poles (page 3/4, 1st full paragraph regarding permanent magnet having a N-S (“pole”) oriented circuit.)
Also Basso teaches permanent magnets utilized in a magnetic debris or particle-detecting system being optionally multipolar, or having cylinder portions of different polarities, so as to exhibit a greater degree of magnetism and give greater particle-collection capacity to a debris detection module [0101-0106].
Thus further modification of the ‘518 system, to have multiple, diametrically opposed poles, as cumulatively suggested by ‘818 and “Basso, in combination, would have been obvious to advantageously result in the foot or bar of the ferromagnetic detection element being arranged to the right of one of multipoles, so as to exhibit a greater degree of magnetism and give greater particle-collection capacity to the debris detection module .
For claim 26, publication ‘518 further discloses wherein said module further comprises a strainer 60 describing at least one cylindrical portion and arranged coaxially with the magnet 46 (figure 2 and [0062 re upstream strainer 60 optionally being tubular and having a cross-passage for filtering]).
For independent claim 27, publication ‘518 discloses: A module for attracting and detecting ferromagnetic debris in an oil flow of a turbomachine (expressly stated in [000 6 and 0038] regarding a “magnetic detection module”, the oil flow shown in figure 1),
the system comprising a passage intended to be traversed by the flow [0055] regarding lubrication circuit 28 and [0059 regarding the detection system occupying a passage 39 crossed by the flow 42]; and
a module for attracting and detecting the ferromagnetic debris present in the flow (figures 1 and 2 and [0059 regarding magnetic detection module 38 for ferromagnetic debris 37), wherein
the module comprises: a permanent magnet (first magnet 46, see figure 2 and [0059]);
a ferromagnetic element or bar foot touching or extending axially from and rising from the magnet (figure 2 and [0060] regarding magnetic element 48 touching and extending upstream of magnet 46), and
a ferromagnetic coil surrounding the ferromagnetic element or bar (figure 2 and [0059-0060] regarding electromagnetic coil 44) .
Claim 27 differs by requiring:
the permanent magnet to be of a cylindrical shape and,
the ferromagnetic bar composed of a foot rising radially from the magnet and a cap extending circumferentially from, or perpendicular to the foot; and
the coil as being wound around the foot.
Publication ‘818 teaches a module for magnetically detecting magnetic particles comprising: such cylindrically shaped magnet, and an attached ferromagnetic bar composed of a foot rising axially from the magnet and a cap extending circumferentially from, or perpendicular to the foot
(figures 1 and 2 illustrating magnet 20 having north and south poles and fitting inside a cylindrical housing, thus suggested as being cylindrical and electromagnet pole piece 22 of soft iron core extending axially away from magnet 22 magnetized by the magnet, as
illustrated in figures 1 and 2 as having a foot rising axially from the magnet with narrow cap ends extending oppositely away from the cap in opposite perpendicular directions near an end of the cylindrical housing distal from the magnet, and
described in [0006, the paragraph bridging pages 2/4 and 3/4 and the first full paragraph on page 3/4) ; and
a coil wound around the foot described in [0006, the 2nd full paragraph on page 3/4 regarding winding or “coil” 34] and shown in figures 1 and 2 as winding around foot of piece 22).
Publication ‘818 suggests such configuration of particle detection system of magnet, particle-detecting soft iron core and winding or coil enables sufficiently accurate detection of captured ferrous debris, i.e. “ferromagnetic debris” to enable diagnostic signal pulses to verify the working order of the circulating oil or other liquid in which the particle detection module is located ([0006 and 4th and 5th paragraphs of page 2/4).
Basso teaches a magnetic device for capturing and detecting metal particles in a flow of lubrication fluid such as for lubricating an engine (Abstract, and [0002 and 0014-0016]). Basso teaches such device comprising a permanent magnet and particle presence detecting electrically conductive bars or plates, which in some embodiments are oriented or situated radially from a magnet, and extend circumferentially with respect to the magnet (see especially figures 22-28 and paragraphs [0037, 0046, 0087 and 0122-0124] regarding magnet 30/101 and particle presence-detecting members or plates 105-107).
Basso suggests that such configuration of debris-detecting member(s) enable(s) attraction and collection of particles located or accumulating radially or transversely with respect to the magnetic device [0013-0017 and 0056].
Publication ‘818 and Basso thus together suggest to provide the magnet with a cylindrical shape and to construct the ferromagnetic soft core bar of ‘518 so as to radially, rather than axially, extend or be “rising” from the permanent magnet, and to be provided with a circumferentially extending cap.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of engineering modules for detecting ferromagnetic debris in oil flow to have modified the module of ‘518,
by providing the magnet to have a cylindrical shape and to configure the ferromagnetic bar to have a foot rising radially from the magnet and cap extending perpendicularly to the foot, and with the coil being wound around the foot of such ferromagnetic bar,
as cumulatively taught by ‘818 and Basso,
in order to facilitate attraction and collection of particles located or accumulating radially or transversely with respect to the magnetic device, and by attraction and collection of particles located or accumulating radially or transversely with respect to the magnetic device, thus more completely and reliably determine the extent of accumulation of debris particles.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patent publication EP 3363518 and the accompanying Escapenet English translation of ‘518 (publication ‘518) in view of Patent Publication FR 2598818 and the accompanying Escapenet English translation of ‘818 (publication ‘818), Basso et al PGPUBS Document US 2020/0088350 (Basso), and Jacquerie et al PGPUBS Document US 20170036144 (Jacquerie). Paragraph numbers of the Escapenet English translations and of the USPGPUBS Document are each identified with “[ ]” symbols.
For independent claim 29, publication ‘518 discloses:
An aircraft turbojet engine [0001-0002 re aircraft turbojet and turbomachine engine of such turbojet] comprising:
a lubrication system or group [0006 re turbomachine lubrication circuit],
receiving or containing several (i.e. ‘plurality of) pumps [0032 and 0035 re several recovery pumps] and
several (i.e. ‘plurality of) filters [0011 re “first and second strainers”], and
a module for attracting and detecting ferromagnetic debris in an oil flow of a turbomachine (expressly stated in [0006, 0035 and 0038] regarding a “magnetic detection module”, the oil flow shown in figure 1, or concerning several detection systems upstream of each recovery pump),
the system comprising a passage intended to be traversed by the flow [0055] regarding lubrication circuit 28 and [0059 regarding the detection system occupying a passage 39 crossed by the flow 42]; and
a module for attracting and detecting the ferromagnetic debris present in the flow (figures 1 and 2 and [0059 regarding magnetic detection module 38 for ferromagnetic debris 37), wherein
the module comprises: a permanent magnet (first magnet 46, see figure 2 and [0059]);
a ferromagnetic element or bar foot touching or extending axially from and rising from the magnet (figure 2 and [0060] regarding magnetic element 48 touching and extending upstream of magnet 46), and
a ferromagnetic coil surrounding the ferromagnetic element or bar (figure 2 and [0059-0060] regarding electromagnetic coil 44).
Claim 29 firstly differs by requiring the engine or lubrication group being made of a one-piece body.
Jacquerie teaches a multi-flow turbojet engine having an oil circuit and a filtering portion comprising a magnet, all made by additive engineering thus producing a one-piece housing or body (Abstract, [0014, 0043-0045]).
Jacquerie teaches such engineering resulting in easier manufacturing and assembly as well as increased reliability of components and improved resistance to damage from vibrations inherent in a turbine engine [0043-0046].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of engineering modules for detecting ferromagnetic debris in oil flow to have modified the module of ‘518, by producing the engine and lubrication group to have a one-piece body, produced by additive manufacturing, as taught by Jacquerie, so as to result in easier manufacturing and assembly as well as increased reliability of components and improved resistance to damage from vibrations inherent in a turbine engine
Claim 29 also differs by requiring:
the permanent magnet to be of a cylindrical shape and,
the ferromagnetic bar composed of a foot rising radially from the magnet and a cap extending circumferentially from, or perpendicular to the foot; and
the coil as being wound around the foot.
Publication ‘818 teaches a module for magnetically detecting magnetic particles comprising: such cylindrically shaped magnet, and an attached ferromagnetic bar composed of a foot rising axially from the magnet and a cap extending circumferentially from, or perpendicular to the foot
(figures 1 and 2 illustrating magnet 20 having north and south poles and fitting inside a cylindrical housing, thus suggested as being cylindrical and electromagnet pole piece 22 of soft iron core extending axially away from magnet 22 magnetized by the magnet, as
illustrated in figures 1 and 2 as having a foot rising axially from the magnet with narrow cap ends extending oppositely away from the cap in opposite perpendicular directions near an end of the cylindrical housing distal from the magnet, and
described in [0006, the paragraph bridging pages 2/4 and 3/4 and the first full paragraph on page 3/4) ; and
a coil wound around the foot described in [0006, the 2nd full paragraph on page 3/4 regarding winding or “coil” 34] and shown in figures 1 and 2 as winding around foot of piece 22).
Publication ‘818 suggests such configuration of particle detection system of magnet, particle-detecting soft iron core and winding or coil enables sufficiently accurate detection of captured ferrous debris, i.e. “ferromagnetic debris” to enable diagnostic signal pulses to verify the working order of the circulating oil or other liquid in which the particle detection module is located ([0006 and 4th and 5th paragraphs of page 2/4).
Basso teaches a magnetic device for capturing and detecting metal particles in a flow of lubrication fluid such as for lubricating an engine (Abstract, and [0002 and 0014-0016]). Basso teaches such device comprising a permanent magnet and particle presence detecting electrically conductive bars or plates, which in some embodiments are oriented or situated radially from a magnet, and extend circumferentially with respect to the magnet (see especially figures 22-28 and paragraphs [0037, 0046, 0087 and 0122-0124] regarding magnet 30/101 and particle presence-detecting members or plates 105-107).
Basso suggests that such configuration of debris-detecting member(s) enable(s) attraction and collection of particles located or accumulating radially or transversely with respect to the magnetic device [0013-0017 and 0056].
Publication ‘818 and Basso thus together suggest to provide the magnet with a cylindrical shape and to construct the ferromagnetic soft core bar of ‘518 so as to radially, rather than axially, extend or be “rising” from the permanent magnet, and to be provided with a circumferentially extending cap.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of engineering modules for detecting ferromagnetic debris in oil flow to have modified the module of ‘518,
by providing the magnet to have a cylindrical shape and to configure the ferromagnetic bar to have a foot rising radially from the magnet and cap extending perpendicularly to the foot, and with the coil being wound around the foot of such ferromagnetic bar,
as cumulatively taught by ‘818 and Basso,
in order to facilitate attraction and collection of particles located or accumulating radially or transversely with respect to the magnetic device, and by attraction and collection of particles located or accumulating radially or transversely with respect to the magnetic device, thus more completely and reliably determine the extent of accumulation of debris particles.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20, 24 and 28 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 18 would distinguish and be non-obvious in view of further recitation of wherein the cap comprises two ends which are circumferentially opposite, and each formed of a cylindrical portion, with ‘818 only suggesting the cap having two ends extending in lateral, transverse opposite directions relative to a foot of a bar extending from a magnet.
Claims 19 and 20 would distinguish and be non-obvious in view of their dependence on claim 18 which is distinguished and non-obvious.
Neither publication ‘518, nor ‘818 over which claim 16 is rejected as being obvious, from which claim 18 depends, nor any other of the prior art now of record, suggests such configuration of the cap of a ferromagnetic bar, as instantly claimed.
Claim 24 would distinguish and be non-obvious in view of further recitation of the ferromagnetic bar being a first bar, with the module comprising a second bar arranged diametrically opposite to the first bar.
Neither publication ‘518, nor ‘818 over which claim 16 is rejected as being obvious, from which claim 24 depends, nor any other of the prior art now of record, suggests such combination of a first ferromagnetic bar with a 2nd bar arranged diametrically opposite to the 1st bar. The claim term “diametrically opposite” is interpreted as referring to opposite diameters of the cylindrical shape permanent magnet recited in claim 24.
Claim 28 would distinguish and be non-obvious in view of further recitation of wherein the module is positioned in the passage in such a way that an axis of the cylindrical shape is perpendicular to a direction of the oil flow in the passage, the cap being arranged upstream of the magnet.
None of the prior art applied against claim 26 from which claim 28 depends, nor any other prior art now made of record, teaches or suggests the orientation of cap of the ferromagnetic bar and cylindrical shape of the permanent magnet relative to the system passage.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional prior art references are made of record regarding the state of the art regarding design and configuration of magnetic debris-detecting equipment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner Joseph Drodge at his direct government formal facsimile phone number telephone number of 571-272-1140. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from approximately 8:00 AM to 1:00PM and 2:30 PM to 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Benjamin Lebron, of Technology Center Unit 1773, can reached at 571-272-0475.
The telephone number, for official, formal communications, for the examining group where this application is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from the Patent Examiner. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. Visit https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/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.
JWD
02/11/2026
/JOSEPH W DRODGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773