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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In p. 19, line 16, the reference “51” is referred to a pitch actuation pump. In line 19, the reference “51” is referred to as “step actuating pump”. It is required to use same terminology for consistency purposes.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 14 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14, line 11, change: “connected to [[the]] an auxiliary inlet and to [[the]] an auxiliary outlet.”
Claim 15, line 7, change: “providing lubrication [[of]] for the turbomachine and [[of]] for controlling…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretations
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do use the word “means,” and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a. Claim 1 - “drive means” read as a means for driving.
has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use generic placeholders:
a. Claim 1 – “means”
coupled with functional language:
a. “for driving”
without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
a. Corresponding structure is found in p. 12, lines 4-15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-3 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schweikl et al. (U.S. 4,545,791).
Regarding claim 1, Schweikl et al. discloses an oil tank (22) for an aircraft turbomachine (Col. 1, lines 5-10), comprising:
an enclosure (B’, Fig. 5) configured to contain oil (Col. 4, lines 58-60) and defining a main axis (i.e., axis 1’);
an oil inlet (i.e., inlet connected to line 25’ shown in Fig. 4) at an upper part of the enclosure (as shown in Fig. 4, the inlet of the tank 22 is an upper/upstream end of the enclosure);
an oil outlet (i.e., outlet connected to line 21 in Fig. 4) at a lower part of the enclosure (as shown in Fig. 4, the outlet is connected to a lower part of the oil tank enclosure);
a wheel (rotor 35 having blades 36 shown in Fig. 5, Col. 4, lines 60-68, which is analogous to bladed wheel 15 of Fig. 3, Col. 3, lines 54-65) arranged in the lower part of the enclosure (as shown in Fig. 5) and capable of being configured to be driven in rotation by drive means (rotor attached to shaft, Col. 4, lines 60-65, external power, Col. 4, lines 5-12, Col. 5, lines 30-40) so as to centrifuge the oil against a retaining wall (i.e., rotation of the bladed wheel/rotor centrifuges the oil against the wall of the enclosure B’, as analogously explained in Col. 3, lines 55-65, Col. 4, lines 47-56, the arrangement thereof generates pressure energy from the rotational energy of the oil imparted by the wheel, Col. 5, lines 49-54) of the enclosure (B’) and against the oil outlet (i.e., outlet connected to line 21 in Fig. 4), thereby maintaining an oil supply to said oil outlet (i.e., outlet connected to line 21 in Fig. 4) during flight phases of the aircraft in zero or negative gravity (Col. 1, lines 38-68 and Col. 2, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 2, Schweikl et al. discloses wherein the wheel (rotor 35 having blades 36 shown in Fig. 5, Col. 4, lines 60-68, which is analogous to bladed wheel 15 of Fig. 3, Col. 3, lines 54-65) has an axis of rotation (1’) parallel to the main axis (1’, i.e., the axis of rotation of the wheel is coincident with the main axis and is therein parallel to the main axis, as shown in Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 3, Schweikl et al. discloses wherein the wheel (rotor 35 having blades 36 shown in Fig. 5, Col. 4, lines 60-68, which is analogous to bladed wheel 15 of Fig. 3, Col. 3, lines 54-65) is adjacent to a bottom wall (i.e., rotor 35 is adjacent to bottom wall to the right of bearing 39 as shown in Fig. 5) of the enclosure (B’).
Regarding claim 9, Schweikl et al. discloses wherein the enclosure (B’) further comprises a transverse wall (40, Fig. 5) delimiting in said enclosure an upper compartment (i.e., compartment wherein 37 resides) comprising the oil inlet (inlet is connected to line 25’ in Fig. 4) and a lower compartment (lower compartment wherein 36 resides) comprising the wheel (35), the retaining wall (40) and the oil outlet (outlet connected to line 21 in Fig. 4), said transverse wall (40) comprises at least one passage (i.e., passage shown by F in Fig. 5) fluidly connecting the lower compartment with the upper compartment (i.e., the air/oil mixture from line 25’ enters the upper compartment as shown in Fig. 5, Col. 4, lines 20-26, and enters the lower compartment, via flowpath arrows F and G, Col. 4, lines 47-56).
Regarding claim 10, Schweikl et al. discloses wherein the at least one passage comprises a conduit (i.e., conduit shown by the passage of F through rotor 31, Fig. 5) extending from the transverse wall (40) into the wheel (35, as shown in Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 11, Schweikl et al. discloses wherein the conduit (conduit shown by the passage of F through rotor 31, Fig. 5) extends over at least 80% of a height of the wheel (35) along a main direction of said conduit (as shown in Fig. 5, the conduit extends the entire height of the wheel 35).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8 and 12-15 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.
Regarding claim 4, Schweikl et al. fails to disclose or suggest wherein the retaining wall (wall of the enclosure B’) is conical in shape with a smaller diameter section and a larger diameter section.
Claims 5-8 would be allowable due to their dependency on claim 4.
Regarding claim 12, Schweikl et al. fails to disclose or suggest that at the least one passage (passage shown by F in Fig. 5) comprises a valve adapted to allow a flow of oil from the upper compartment (compartment wherein 37 resides) to the lower compartment (lower compartment wherein 36 resides) and to block a flow of oil from the lower compartment to the upper compartment.
Regarding claim 13, Schweikl et al. fails to disclose or suggest wherein the oil outlet (outlet connected to line 21 in Fig. 4) on the lower compartment (lower compartment wherein 36 resides) is an auxiliary oil outlet, said oil tank (22) comprising an auxiliary oil inlet on said lower compartment.
Regarding claim 14, Schweikl et al. fails to disclose or suggest the hydraulic control circuit (i.e., circuit comprising pump 20, line 23, and gearbox 24, as shown in Fig. 4) being hydraulically connected to an auxiliary inlet and to an auxiliary outlet.
Claim 15 would be allowable due to its dependency on claim 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC J ZAMORA ALVAREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7928. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am- 5:00 pm EST alternating Fridays off.
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, COURTNEY HEINLE can be reached at (571)270-3508. 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.
/ERIC J ZAMORA ALVAREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745 07/13/2026
Prosecution Insights