DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the reply filed on 12/08/2025. Claims 10-26 are pending. Claims 16-17 and 20-26 are withdrawn.
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 .
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 21-26 are directed to an invention that is distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
The invention originally claimed and the newly submitted claims are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j).
In the instant case, the inventions as claimed can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect (e.g., the newly submitted claims do not require a sensor as required by the invention originally claimed and the invention originally claimed does not require the separator be operable to separate gas and fluid from a gas-fluid mixture within the cavity or that the gas discharge path be “of the separator”). Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter (Invention originally claimed would not infringe newly submitted claims and newly submitted claims would not infringe invention originally claimed) and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants. Moreover, pursuant to MPEP § 808.02, there would be a serious burden on the examiner if restriction were not required. Specifically, the inventions require a different field of search. Each invention necessitates employing different search strategies, queries, and/or search terms that are customized to the distinct features of the invention discussed above, to cover the distinct inventions. A search for one of the inventions is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other. See MPEP § 808.02 (C). Further, even if all searches were coextensive, which is not the case, applying additional reference material and/or providing further discussion for each additional invention examined to cover the distinct features noted above, including prior art and non-prior art issues, would present a serious burden.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 21-26 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
Claim 19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As to Claim 19, the recitation “the gas discharge region” at lines 4-5 lacks sufficient antecedent basis and renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if the gas discharge region is part of the aforementioned gas discharge path or is another region. As a result of the indefiniteness, it is also unclear what the vent line is in fluid communication with.
Prior Art Relied Upon
This action references the following issued US Patents and/or Patent Application Publications:
US PATENT or PUBLICATION NUMBER
HEREINAFTER
US-20120315137-A1
“ALVAREZ”
US-20130177406-A1
“HEATON”
US-20140208759-A1
“EKANAYAKE”
US-4271797-A
“MCCARBERY”
US-6470666-B1
“PRZYTULSKI”
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.
Claims 10-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ALVAREZ in view of HEATON and EKANAYAKE.
Re Claim 10, ALVAREZ teaches a lubrication system for a gas turbine engine (Figure 1, ¶0036-0047), the lubrication system comprising:
a bleed air source (¶0045);
a bearing (“generic term for all types of rotating element that need oil for lubrication and cooling” ¶0002) comprising a cavity 5 (of 4) in fluid communication with the bleed air source to discharge a gas-fluid mixture (¶¶0036-0046);
a separator [inter alia 6, 7, 10, 12, 14] operable to separate gas [air] and fluid [oil] from the gas-fluid mixture (¶0016, 0042), the separator comprising:
an inlet port [fluid inlet of 4 at seal 7 and/or flow path 7a] fluidly communicating with the cavity to receive the gas-fluid mixture (¶0016, 0037-0041, 0045-0046);
a gas outlet port [outlet of 4 at entrance to 10] fluidly communicating with a gas discharge path [10, 14] for discharging gas separated from the gas-fluid mixture (¶0046); and
a fluid outlet port [outlet of 4 at entrance to 6] for discharging fluid separated from the gas-fluid mixture (¶0038);
an active pressure control subsystem comprising:
the system configured to measure a pressure within the cavity (¶¶0028, 0043, 0048);
a valve 20 disposed along the gas discharge path; and
a control system (including software and as a such “a controller” is necessarily a part thereof) operable to vary an open area of the valve based on the pressure measured (¶¶0028, 0043, 0048) to maintain a target pressure within the cavity (¶0044-0051, claims 1-4). However, ALVAREZ is silent to the bearing (which ALVAREZ gives the special definition of all types of rotating element needing lubrication and cooling, ¶0002) being a gearbox.
HEATON teaches a gearbox in fluid communication with the bleed air source to discharge a gas-fluid mixture (¶0051). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system such that the element in fluid communication with the bleed air source to discharge a gas-fluid mixture is a gearbox and the separator operable to separate gas and fluid from the gas-fluid mixture, in order to advantageously seal a ventilated gearbox with rotating gears (ALVAREZ ¶0002, HEATON ¶0051) while preventing oil leakage (ALVAREZ ¶0030). However, ALVAREZ in view of HEATON as discussed so far fails to teach the measuring is by a sensor (though implicit from “pressure measurement within the chamber” at ¶0048 of ALVAREZ).
Measuring of pressure via a sensor was well-known and predictable in the art. See EKANAYAKE (sensor of claims 13-15, sensor 200, ¶0019). See also ALVAREZ (at ¶0028, to one of ordinary skill pressure measurement used by software to control chamber pressure indicates a sensor measurement). Moreover, EKANAYAKE teaches an active pressure control subsystem comprising a sensor configured to measure a pressure within a cavity and a valve disposed along a gas discharge path; and a controller operable to vary an open area of the valve based on the pressure measured (¶0020, claims 13-15). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the pressure measuring of ALVAREZ by a sensor, such that the active pressure control subsystem comprises the sensor and is configured to measure the pressure within the cavity, and the controller is operable to vary the open area of the valve based on the pressure measured by the sensor, in order to advantageously provide active control that prevents oil leakage (ALVAREZ ¶0030, 0043; EKANAYAKE ¶0019). It has been held that [when] all the claimed elements were known in the prior art (in the instant case, a pressure sensor) and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (using the pressure sensor to measure pressure) with no change in their respective functions (providing a pressure measurement), and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (active control according to measured pressure in ALVAREZ), it would have been an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007); citing Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976). See MPEP § 2143 (I) A.
Re Claim 11, ALVAREZ in view of HEATON and EKANAYAKE teaches the lubrication system of claim 10. ALVAREZ further teaches wherein the controller causes the valve to vary the open area to maintain the target pressure within the cavity (¶0044-0051). ALVAREZ notes the discharge pressure may be at or higher than atmospheric (¶0005, 0027). However, ALVAREZ as discussed so far fails to teach the target pressure greater than an ambient pressure exterior to the system.
ALVAREZ further teaches wherein the target pressure is greater than an ambient pressure [25, 25a] exterior to the system (valve is opened such that fluid in the bearing chamber at a higher pressure flows through vent line 10 via bypass line 14, without restriction from the pump, to the lower atmospheric pressure at 25, 25a; ¶0049). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the controller causes the valve to vary the open area to maintain a target pressure within the cavity greater than an ambient pressure exterior to the system, in order to maintain appropriate differential pressure across the seal where the discharge pressure is at or higher than atmospheric and the engine is operating a higher power such that the surrounding pressure at the exterior of the bearing chamber is increased to be higher than the discharge pressure (¶¶0027, 0049).
Re Claims 12-14, ALVAREZ in view of HEATON and EKANAYAKE teaches the lubrication system of claim 11. ALVAREZ further teaches wherein the controller causes the valve to vary the open area to maintain the target pressure within the cavity less than a supply pressure of the bleed air source (¶0013) and wherein the target pressure is less than the supply pressure by at least a differential pressure (“positive pressure differential”, ¶¶0014) and wherein the controller varies the target pressure based on an operational state (according to power conditions) of the gas turbine engine (¶¶0013-0014, 0022-0030, 0047-0050).
Re Claim 18, ALVAREZ in view of HEATON and EKANAYAKE teaches the lubrication system of claim 10. ALVAREZ further teaches the system further comprising: a scavenge pump 8 in fluid communication with the cavity and the fluid outlet port (Fig. 1, ¶¶0037-0039); and wherein the controller varies the open area of the valve to increase the pressure within the cavity and at an inlet to the scavenge pump (¶¶0050, where bearing chamber is increased inlet to the scavenge pump 8 pressure is also increased, see Figure 1, ¶0050). Moreover, the recited limitation “to increase the pressure within the cavity and at an inlet to the scavenge pump” is a functional recitation of intended use and is accorded little patentable weight because it does not distinguish the claimed invention in terms of structure. See MPEP § 2114.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ALVAREZ in view of HEATON and EKANAYAKE as applied above, further in view of MCCARBERY.
Re Claim 15, ALVAREZ in view of HEATON and EKANAYAKE teaches the lubrication system of claim 10, wherein the sensor is configured to output to the controller a signal indicative of the pressure within the cavity (see Claim 10 above). However, ALVAREZ in view of HEATON and EKANAYAKE as discussed so far fails to teach wherein the sensor is an absolute pressure transducer.
MCCARBERY teaches a sensor is an absolute pressure transducer configured to output to the controller a signal indicative of the pressure within a cavity (3:26-45, 4:13-67). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the sensor so it is an absolute pressure transducer configured to output to the controller a signal indicative of the pressure within the cavity, in order to provide active control opening of the valve as taught of ALVAREZ using a well-known and predictable measurement device (ALVAREZ ¶0049; MCCARBERY 3:26-45). It has been held that [when] all the claimed elements were known in the prior art (in the instant case, an absolute pressure transducer) and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (using the pressure sensor to measure pressure) with no change in their respective functions (providing a pressure measurement), and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (active control according to measured pressure in ALVAREZ), it would have been an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007); citing Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976). See MPEP § 2143 (I) A.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ALVAREZ in view of HEATON and EKANAYAKE as applied above, further in view of PRZYTULSKI
Re Claim 19, ALVAREZ in view of HEATON and EKANAYAKE teaches the lubrication system of claim 18. ALVAREZ appears to show a sump (housing of 4) in fluid communication with the cavity (Figure 1), wherein the scavenge pump is in fluid communication with the sump. ALVAREZ further teaches a vent line 10 in fluid communication with an air region of the sump and the gas discharge region (Figure 1). However, ALVAREZ fails to expressly state what is shown is a sump.
PRZYTULSKI teaches an analogous sump 44 in fluid communication with a cavity wherein a scavenge pump is in fluid communication with the sump (Figure 2); and a vent line 70 in fluid communication with an air region of the sump and a gas discharge region. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system with a sump in fluid communication with the cavity of the gearbox, wherein the scavenge pump is in fluid communication with the sump; and a vent line in fluid communication with an air region of the sump and the gas discharge region, in order to advantageously provide active control that prevents oil leakage while returning oil to a scavenge system via a sump (ALVAREZ ¶0030, 0043; EKANAYAKE ¶0019).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/08/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s amendment overcame the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) except where repeated above.
Applicant’s arguments to the prior art rejections have been considered but are not persuasive.
As to Applicant arguments to ALVAREZ, examiner notes the claims do not require that a breather be upstream of the valve in order for the claim to met nor for the elements of ALVAREZ to form a separator. Notably, the claims recite a gas discharge “path” not a gas discharge ‘line’. In the rejections as articulated 10 & 14 form the gas discharge path. Thus, valve 20 is disposed along the gas discharge path. Both 10 and 14 discharge gas. Applicant’s arguments do not address HEATON. As to EKANAYAKE, it is not clear why Applicant does not consider a vapor extraction line a “gas discharge path”, particularly where the vapor will be separated from entrained oil. Nevertheless, the limitation at issue is taught in ALVAREZ as set forth in the rejections. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON H DUGER whose telephone number is (313) 446-6536. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30a to 4:30p EST Monday & Tuesday and 8:00a to 2:00p Wednesday, and is OFF Thursday and Friday.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JASON H DUGER
PRIMARY EXAMINER, ART UNIT 3741
PHONE (313) 446 6536
FAX (571) 270 9083
DATE
March 11, 2026
/JASON H DUGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741