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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/3/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 25 and 28-30 are 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 25 recites the limitation "the dome shape". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the stabilizing" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16-18 and 26-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lu et al. (US 2021/0170318 A1). Lu discloses an oil tank (fig. 4: 3) for a turbomachine lubrication system (the tank disclosed by Lu is able to be used in a turbomachine lubrication system), said oil tank comprising:
Re claim 16, an internal volume (17) with a bottom (bottom of 3), an oil outlet (7), and an oil inlet (1); a stabilizing wall (6) arranged in the internal volume facing the bottom and provided with at least one passage (6 is described as a grille therefore has many passages therethrough, including the one passage) for the oil through said stabilizing wall, so as to delimit a stabilized volume (volume below 6) of buffer oil; wherein the stabilizing wall is fixed to an internal face of a tank wall delimiting the internal volume (fig. 4 shows the outer perimeter of 6 is fixed to the inner wall of 3); wherein the stabilizing wall has a diameter defined by a diameter of a peripheral mounting face of the stabilizing wall contacting the inner face of the tank wall (diameter shown in fig. 4); and wherein a distance from the stabilizing wall to the bottom is measured parallel to a longitudinal axis of the internal volume between facing surfaces of the stabilizing wall and the bottom, and said distance is equal to or less than 60% of the diameter (fig. 4).
Re claim 17, wherein the at least one oil passage in the stabilizing wall forms a total passage section for the oil that is lower than 60% of a total section of the stabilizing wall (last three lines of par [0067]).
Re claim 18, wherein the at least one oil passage in the stabilizing wall forms a total passage section for oil greater than 1% of a total section of the stabilizing wall (last three lines of par [0067]).
Re claim 26, wherein the distance from the stabilizing wall to the bottom is equal to or less than 50% of the diameter of the wall stabilization (fig. 4).
Re claim 27, wherein at least 80% of the internal volume corresponds to a constant cross section extending in a longitudinal direction of the internal volume (fig. 4 shows 3 is cylindrical and has a constant cross section in at least 80% of the internal volume).
Re claim 28, an oil deaeration device (fig. 4), said oil deaeration device comprising: an oil tank (3) for a turbomachine lubrication system (the tank disclosed by Lu is able to be used in a turbomachine lubrication system), the oil tank comprising: an internal volume (17) with a bottom (bottom of 3), an oil outlet (7), and an oil inlet (1); a stabilizing wall (6) arranged in the internal volume facing the bottom and provided with at least one passage (6 is described as a grille therefore has many passages therethrough, including the one passage) for the oil through said stabilizing wall, so as to delimit a stabilized volume (volume below 6) of buffer oil; wherein the stabilizing wall is fixed to an internal face of a tank wall delimiting the internal volume (fig. 4 shows the outer perimeter of 6 is fixed to the inner wall of 3); wherein the stabilizing has a diameter defined by a diameter of a peripheral mounting face of the stabilizing wall contacting the inner face of the tank wall (diameter shown in fig. 4); and wherein a distance from the stabilizing wall to the bottom is measured parallel to a longitudinal axis of the internal volume between facing surfaces of the stabilizing wall and the bottom, and said distance is equal to or less than 60% of the diameter (fig. 4), and the oil deaeration device comprising an oil deaerator (4,5) at the oil inlet of the oil tank.
Re claim 29, wherein the oil deaerator is of the cyclonic type (claim 2) with a tubular wall (5) inserted longitudinally in the tank.
Re claim 30, wherein the internal volume is free of filter element between the oil deaerator and the stabilizing wall (fig. 4).
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.
Claim(s) 19 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US 2021/0170318 A1). Lu discloses the oil tank (as cited above):
Re claim 22, wherein the at least one passage for oil in the stabilizing wall comprises a high number of the at least one passage for oil (6 is described as a grille therefore has many passages therethrough), the oil passages being distributed homogeneously on the stabilizing wall or one or more parts of the stabilizing wall (fig. 4).
Lu does not disclose:
Re claim 19, wherein the at least one oil passage in the stabilizing wall comprises a limited number of the at least one passage for oil, at least one of greater than 2 and less than 10.
Re claim 22, wherein the at least one passage for oil in the stabilizing wall comprises greater than 30 passages.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the claimed number of passages to ensure proper flow rate through the stabilizing wall, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US 2021/0170318 A1) in view of Conrad et al. (US 6,231,645 B1). Lu discloses the oil tank (as cited above). Lu does not disclose:
Re claim 20, wherein the limited number of oil passages are arranged along a periphery of the stabilizing wall.
However, Conrad teaches separator (30) with a stabilizing wall (40):
Re claim 20, wherein the limited number of oil passages (52) are arranged along a periphery of the stabilizing wall (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the passages along the periphery, as taught by Conrad, to better receive the fluid because the cyclonic effect would drive the heavy fluid radially outward.
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US 2021/0170318 A1) in view of Szolomayer et al. (US 2010/0065374 A1). Lu discloses the oil tank (as cited above). Lu does not disclose:
Re claim 24, wherein the oil tank further comprising a strainer projecting from the bottom, forming the oil outlet.
Re claim 25, wherein the strainer is aligned with the dome shape of the stabilizing wall.
However, Szolomayer discloses a separator (fig. 3C):
Re claim 24, wherein the oil tank further comprising a strainer (fig. 3C: strainer is the perforations of 108’) projecting from the bottom, forming the oil outlet.
Re claim 25, wherein the strainer is aligned with the dome shape of the stabilizing wall (fig. 3C shows 108’ is aligned with the dome shape of stabilizing wall 104).
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a strainer at the outlet, as taught by Szolomayer, to prevent harmful debris from entering back into circulation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21 and 23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16-30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH D TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3014. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, Robert Hodge can be reached at (571) 272-2097. 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.
/Minh Truong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights