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 .
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) 1-4, 6-7, 10-11 and 13, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cygnor et al., US Patent 4,631,009 in view of DIN32711, XP008090971 (see applicant provided non-patent literature).
PNG
media_image1.png
334
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Cygnor et al. discloses a lubrication assembly (see fig 1-2) for an aircraft turbomachine (see col. 1, line 23) comprising: a first pump (34) comprising a first shaft (45); and a second pump (32) comprising a second shaft (46), wherein the first shaft (45) and the second shaft (46) are mechanically coupled via a splined connection (see col. 6, lines 56-60) but does not specify the spline has a polygonal.
PNG
media_image2.png
172
562
media_image2.png
Greyscale
DIN32711 teaches a similar mechanical coupling defining a polygonal profile coupling (see page 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the polygonal profile coupling described by DIN32711 to the system disclosed by Cygnor et al. in order to create a stronger and more precise connection and eliminate common failure issues with splines and keys shaft attachments.
Regarding claim 2, Cygnor et al. in view of DIN32711 discloses the lubrication assembly according to claim 1, wherein the first shaft (45) and the second shaft (46) are coupled in rotation via said at least one polygonal profile coupling (DIN32711).
Regarding claim 3, Cygnor et al. in view of DIN32711 discloses the lubrication assembly according to claim 1, wherein the second shaft (46) is mechanically coupled to the first shaft (45) by a coupling element (detailed by DIN32711), and wherein the coupling element comprises a first end forming a male part (see “polygonal shaft profile” of P3G) of a first polygonal profile coupling and the first shaft (45) comprises a first end forming a female part (see “polygonal hub profile” of P3G) of said first polygonal profile coupling.
Regarding claim 4, Cygnor et al. in view of DIN32711 discloses the lubrication assembly according to claim 3, wherein said male part (as described above) and said female part (as described above) are separate from each other (incremental clearance in connection required for fit).
Regarding claim 6, Cygnor et al. in view of DIN32711 discloses the lubrication assembly according to claim 3, wherein the male part (as described above) and the female part (as described above) of the first polygonal profile coupling have three sides (best seen on page 12).
Regarding claim 7, Cygnor et al. in view of DIN32711 discloses the lubrication assembly according to claim 3, but does not specify the a gap of at least 10 um separates the male part and the female part of the first polygonal profile coupling. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to employ a gap of the specified size since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA). One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to employ a gap of the specified size in order to prevent damage to the coupling and connected equipment, ensuring smooth and efficient operation.
Regarding claim 10, Cygnor et al. in view of DIN32711 discloses the lubrication assembly according to claim 3, but does not specify that the coupling element is a different piece from the second shaft. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the coupling element as a separate piece from the shaft since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to construct the shaft separately from the connector in order to facilitate connector replacement in the event of wear.
Regarding claim 11, Cygnor et al. in view of DIN32711 discloses the lubrication assembly according to claim 10, wherein the coupling element (see DIN32711) comprises a second end (opposite first end) forming a male part (polygonal shaft profile) of a second polygonal profile coupling and the second shaft comprises a first end forming a female part (polygonal hub profile) of said second polygonal profile coupling.
Regarding claim 13, Cygnor et al. in view of DIN32711 discloses the lubrication assembly according to claim 1, wherein the first and second pumps are gear pumps. Cygnor et al. in view of DIN32711 does not specify that the pumps are vane pumps. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to employ vane pumps since the examiner takes Official Notice of the equivalence of gear and vane pumps for their use in the lubricant pumping art and the selection of any of these known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motived to employ vane pumps in order to reduce the noise associated with the system and promote system overall efficiency.
Regarding claim 15, Cygnor et al. in view of DIN32711 discloses an aircraft (see col. 1, lines 15-30) comprising the lubrication assembly according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Cygnor et al. in view of DIN32711 discloses the lubrication assembly according to claim 13, wherein the first (32) and second pumps a(34) are gerotor pumps (see fig 2,4).
Regarding claim 17, Cygnor et al. in view of DIN32711 discloses the lubrication assembly according to claim 11, wherein a gap (incremental clearance in connection required for fit) extends between said male and female parts (as described above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 7-8 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that in Cygnor bearings 62 axially clamp the joints – and DIN 32711 teaches away from using polygonal profile connections with joints that can be longitudinally displace under torque, therefore DIN 32711 teaches away from using these joints in Cygnor. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Rather than allowing for longitudinal displacement, the spring bearings 62 in Cygnor apply pressure on the side of the connecting shaft so as to prohibit longitudinal displacement. The bearing 62 are longitudinally displaceable under force, not torque as cautioned by DIN 32711. Therefore, DIN 32711 does not teach away from applying the specified joint in the system of Cygnor. Applicants arguments are therefore not persuasive.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A RIEGELMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7956. The examiner can normally be reached 8-6 EST Monday - 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, 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.
MICHAEL A. RIEGELMAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3654
/MICHAEL A RIEGELMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights