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 .
DETAILED ACTION
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The presence of claim limitations that are preceded by the phrases “wherein” often raises a question as to the limiting effect of the claim limitations (see MPEP §2111.04). The Examiner has interpreted the limitations following the phrase “wherein” as positively being claimed (i.e. the claim limitations are required and/or the claim limitations following the “wherein clause” limits the structure), where “wherein” is being used as a transitional phrase.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WOOD (U.S. Patent 6,030,191).
Regarding claim 1, WOOD discloses: a fluid pump (see Abstract) for an aircraft turbomachine (“for an aircraft turbomachine” is considered intended use, since an aircraft turbomachine is able to use a fluid pump, WOOD meets this limitation. Alternatively, since the aircraft turbomachine is not positively claimed, “a fluid pump for an aircraft turbomachine” is also not given weight, since this is in a preamble that the base of the claim does not give life to the elements in the preamble), comprising:
a ring (50) through which a duct passes along a central axis (see Figure 3), the ring being immobile and comprising a wall (see Figures 2, 3, and 5, Column 3, lines 37-53),
a rotor (54) driven in rotation relative to the ring along a main axis offset from the central axis (see Figure 3),
cavities (96a, 96b…96f) between the ring and the rotor (see Figure 3), a volume of the cavities varying according to an angular position of the rotor relative to the ring (see Figure 3, Column 4, line 45 – Column 5, line 9),
an inlet space (the inlet space is connected to the inlets (68, 70)) configured to admit a fluid into the cavities (see Figures 4 and 5, Column 4, lines 7-18), and a discharge space (the discharge space is connected to the outlets (78, 80 ) configured to discharge the fluid from the cavities (see Figure 5, Column 4, lines 19-26), a pressure in the discharge space being higher than a pressure in the inlet space (see Figures 2 and 3 Column 5, line 63 – Column 6, line 36), the discharge and inlet spaces being radial and passing through the wall (see Figures 3 and 5), and
a groove (104, 106) exposing the cavities to the pressure of the discharge space as the rotor rotates (see Figures 3 and 5), the groove passing radially through the wall and opening into the discharge space (see Figures 3 and 5).
Regarding claim 4, WOOD discloses: a sealing area between the fluid inlet space and the fluid discharge space (see Figures 3 and 5 that show a sealing area (i.e. an area that is not exposed to either the fluid inlet space or the fluid discharge space), Column 4, line 63 – Column 5, line 28), the groove extending over a portion of the sealing area (see Figures 3 and 5, Column 5, lines 5-28).
Regarding claim 5, WOOD discloses: the groove opens into the discharge space (see Figure 5), upstream or downstream of the discharge space, in a direction of rotation of the rotor (see Figure 5).
Regarding claim 6, WOOD discloses: the wall comprises a sealing area between the fluid inlet space and the fluid discharge space (see Figures 3 and 5, Column 5, lines 5-28), the groove extending over a portion of the sealing area (see Figures 3 and 5, Column 5, lines 5-28).
Regarding claim 8, WOOD discloses: the groove or grooves are formed by a milling, electro erosion, or a wire-cutting method (the claimed limitation directed to “the groove or grooves are formed by a milling, electro erosion, or a wire-cutting method” is considered as a product by process limitation. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 111 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113. Since the structure of WOOD appears to be capable of being formed by milling, WOOD meets the claimed limitation. The Examiner would like to note that there is no specific structure that is intended by using these methods, where WOOD has the claimed structure and therefore, meets the claimed limitation).
Regarding claim 9, WOOD discloses: pallets (58) movable on the rotor in a radial direction of the rotor (see Figure 3, see Abstract, Column 4, lines 45-62), and extending to the ring (see Figure 3), the pallets defining the cavities between them (see Figure 3).
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.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GOMANNE (U.S. Patent Publication US 2017/0009776 A1) in view of WOOD.
Regarding claim 10, GOMANNE discloses: a lubrication circuit for lubricating an aircraft turbomachine (see Figures 1 and 6, ¶0001, ¶0005, ¶0058), comprising at least one pump (see Figure 6), the pump comprising:
a ring (59) through which a duct passes along a central axis (see Figure 6), the ring being immobile and comprising a wall (59),
a rotor (see Figure 6 that shows a rotor with blades/pallets (57, 67)) driven in rotation relative to the ring along a main axis offset from the central axis (see Figure 6, ¶0058),
cavities between the ring and the rotor (see Figure 6 that shows varying cavities between the ring and the rotor), a volume of the cavities varying according to an angular position of the rotor relative to the ring (see Figure 6),
an inlet space (the inlet space is connected to (66) with the arrow going into the cavities) configured to admit a fluid into the cavities (see Figure 6, ¶0056) and a discharge space (the discharge space is connected to (66) with the arrow going out of the cavities) configured to discharge the fluid from the cavities (see Figure 6, ¶0056), a pressure in the discharge space being higher than a pressure in the inlet space (see Figure 6, ¶0043, ¶0056-¶0058), the discharge and inlet spaces being radial and passing through the wall (see Figure 6). GOMANNE does disclose that the pressure of the circuit downstream of the pump is exposed to the pressure of the discharge space due to the connection between the components.
GOMANNE fails to disclose a groove exposing the cavities to the pressure of the discharge space as the rotor rotates and to a pressure of the circuit downstream of the pump, the groove passing radially through the wall and opening into the discharge space.
Regarding claim 10, WOOD teaches: a blade/pallet pump with a ring (50) through which a duct passes along a central axis (see Figure 3), the ring being immobile and comprising a wall (see Figures 2, 3, and 5, Column 3, lines 37-53),
a rotor (54) driven in rotation relative to the ring along a main axis offset from the central axis (see Figure 3),
cavities (96a, 96b…96f) between the ring and the rotor (see Figure 3), a volume of the cavities varying according to an angular position of the rotor relative to the ring (see Figure 3, Column 4, line 45 – Column 5, line 9),
an inlet space (the inlet space is connected to the inlets (68, 70)) configured to admit a fluid into the cavities (see Figures 4 and 5, Column 4, lines 7-18), and a discharge space (the discharge space is connected to the outlets (78, 80 ) configured to discharge the fluid from the cavities (see Figure 5, Column 4, lines 19-26), a pressure in the discharge space being higher than a pressure in the inlet space (see Figures 2 and 3 Column 5, line 63 – Column 6, line 36), the discharge and inlet spaces being radial and passing through the wall (see Figures 3 and 5), and
a groove (104, 106) exposing the cavities to the pressure of the discharge space as the rotor rotates (see Figures 3 and 5) and to a pressure of the circuit downstream of the pump (see Figures 1 and 2 that disclose the discharge space is exposed to the pressure of the circuit downstream of the pump due to the connectivity of the discharge space to the downstream device), the groove passing radially through the wall and opening into the discharge space (see Figures 3 and 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have pump the vane pump of WOOD in the lubrication circuit for lubricating an aircraft turbomachine of GOMANNE, since a substitution of one known element (i.e. the vane pump of GOMANNE) for another known element (i.e. the vane pump of WOOD that has a groove exposing the cavities to the pressure of the discharge space as the rotor rotates and to a pressure of the circuit downstream of the pump, the groove passing radially through the wall and opening into the discharge space) requires only routine skill in the art and would have produced predictable results (i.e. the vane pump of WOOD provides the advantage of reduction of noise due to vapor bubbles being reduced (see Abstract of WOOD)).
Regarding claim 11, GOMANNE discloses: an aircraft turbomachine (see Figure 1 which discloses a turbine engine (1)), comprising a lubrication circuit having at least one pump, the pump comprising:
(see Figures 1 and 6, ¶0001, ¶0005, ¶0058), comprising at least one pump (see Figure 6), the pump comprising:
a ring (59) through which a duct passes along a central axis (see Figure 6), the ring being immobile and comprising a wall (59),
a rotor (see Figure 6 that shows a rotor with blades/pallets (57, 67)) driven in rotation relative to the ring along a main axis offset from the central axis (see Figure 6, ¶0058),
cavities between the ring and the rotor (see Figure 6 that shows varying cavities between the ring and the rotor), a volume of the cavities varying according to an angular position of the rotor relative to the ring (see Figure 6),
an inlet space (the inlet space is connected to (66) with the arrow going into the cavities) configured to admit a fluid into the cavities (see Figure 6, ¶0056) and a discharge space (the discharge space is connected to (66) with the arrow going out of the cavities) configured to discharge the fluid from the cavities (see Figure 6, ¶0056), a pressure in the discharge space being higher than a pressure in the inlet space (see Figure 6, ¶0043, ¶0056-¶0058), the discharge and inlet spaces being radial and passing through the wall (see Figure 6). GOMANNE does disclose that the pressure of the circuit downstream of the pump is exposed to the pressure of the discharge space due to the connection between the components.
GOMANNE fails to disclose a groove exposing the cavities to the pressure of the discharge space as the rotor rotates and to a pressure of the circuit downstream of the pump, the groove passing radially through the wall and opening into the discharge space.
Regarding claim 11, WOOD teaches: a blade/pallet pump with a ring (50) through which a duct passes along a central axis (see Figure 3), the ring being immobile and comprising a wall (see Figures 2, 3, and 5, Column 3, lines 37-53),
a rotor (54) driven in rotation relative to the ring along a main axis offset from the central axis (see Figure 3),
cavities (96a, 96b…96f) between the ring and the rotor (see Figure 3), a volume of the cavities varying according to an angular position of the rotor relative to the ring (see Figure 3, Column 4, line 45 – Column 5, line 9),
an inlet space (the inlet space is connected to the inlets (68, 70)) configured to admit a fluid into the cavities (see Figures 4 and 5, Column 4, lines 7-18), and a discharge space (the discharge space is connected to the outlets (78, 80 ) configured to discharge the fluid from the cavities (see Figure 5, Column 4, lines 19-26), a pressure in the discharge space being higher than a pressure in the inlet space (see Figures 2 and 3 Column 5, line 63 – Column 6, line 36), the discharge and inlet spaces being radial and passing through the wall (see Figures 3 and 5), and
a groove (104, 106) exposing the cavities to the pressure of the discharge space as the rotor rotates (see Figures 3 and 5) and to a pressure of the circuit downstream of the pump (see Figures 1 and 2 that disclose the discharge space is exposed to the pressure of the circuit downstream of the pump due to the connectivity of the discharge space to the downstream device), the groove passing radially through the wall and opening into the discharge space (see Figures 3 and 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have pump the vane pump of WOOD in the lubrication circuit for lubricating an aircraft turbomachine of GOMANNE, since a substitution of one known element (i.e. the vane pump of GOMANNE) for another known element (i.e. the vane pump of WOOD that has a groove exposing the cavities to the pressure of the discharge space as the rotor rotates and to a pressure of the circuit downstream of the pump, the groove passing radially through the wall and opening into the discharge space) requires only routine skill in the art and would have produced predictable results (i.e. the vane pump of WOOD provides the advantage of reduction of noise due to vapor bubbles being reduced (see Abstract of WOOD)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, and 7 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
The Specification amendments filed on February 5, 2026 are acceptable.
Applicant's arguments filed February 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that WOOD fails to disclose a groove exposing the cavities to the pressure of the discharge space as the rotor rotates, the groove passing radially through the wall and opening into the discharge space. Specifically, the Applicant does not consider (104, 106) as a groove since these are circular. This is not persuasive, since grooves are capable of being any shape or size including circular. Applicant has defined a groove as being a long and narrow hole, and therefore, a hole tends to be circular, so 104, 106 of WOOD can broadly be considered as a groove. Applicant further argues that (104, 106) are open to 102, which is true. 102 connects specifically to 78, which is part of the discharge space as shown in Figure 3, where fluid from the discharge space exposes the grooves (104, 106) to the pressure of the discharge space. The claim limitation recites that “a groove exposing the cavities to the pressure of the discharge space as the rotor rotates” this is clearly shown in Figures 3 and 5 that the discharge space has (78) connected to (102), which are all part of the discharge space. The groove passing radially through the wall (see Figure 5) and opening into the discharge space (the groove opens into the discharge space since the discharge fluid from (78) is in (102) thereby making the groove opening into the discharge space, thereby meeting the claimed limitation).
Applicant further argues that due to the distance between 78 and 104, 106 that they are not exposed to the discharge space. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, where Figure 3 shows the fluid connection between 78 and 104, 106 via 102. Applicant’s further arguments directed to “groove 15 ensures that the cavity of the duct 12 is gradually pressurized before the fluid is discharged” is not recited in the claims. In addition, the applicant has not claimed that the groove connects to the discharge space within the interior of the ring, which is the mechanism that the Applicant is claiming is inventive.
Applicant similarly argues these limitations for claims 10 and 11, which have been addressed above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-9965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am-4pm.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at (469) 295-9278. 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.
/Mary A Davis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746