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 Status
The amendment and/or arguments submitted on 09/30/2025 is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claims 1-20 are pending:
Claims 5, 7, 9-10, 12, 14, 16-20 are withdrawn
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15 are examined on the merits
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-16), Species A.1 (Fig2/3A), B.2.a (Fig5/6B) in the reply filed on 09/30/2025 is acknowledged.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 5, 7, 9-10, 12, 14, 16-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group/Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/30/2025.
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn by Applicant as being directed towards a non-elected Group
Claims 5, 7, 9-10, 12, 14, 16 are withdrawn due to being directed towards non-elected Species
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 10/16/2024 is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US 2012/0260669) in view of Minnich (US 4,245,951).
Claim 1
Davis discloses:
“A turbomachine (best seen Fig1/2, engine 20) comprising:
a rotating shaft extending along a centerline axis (best seen Fig1/2, inner shaft 40, Axis A) and a fixed engine housing positioned exterior to the rotating shaft in a radial direction relative to the centerline axis (best seen Fig2, frame portion 74 above Axis A); and
a bearing assembly (best seen Fig1/2, forward bearing 38A – See annotated Fig2 below) comprising:
a first race coupled to the rotating shaft that rotates along with the rotating shaft in a first rotational direction when the turbomachine is in an operational state (functional limitation. annotated Fig2, inner race);
a second race disposed between the first race and the fixed engine housing (annotated Fig2, outer race),
an annular bearing cage positioned between the first race and the second race (annotated Fig2, bearing cage), comprising a bearing slot (annotated Fig2, bearing slot in cage around ball element), and configured to rotate relative to the first race and the second race (functional limitation. Annotated Fig2 shown); and
at least one bearing element disposed in the bearing slot (annotated Fig2, bearing ball element in slot);
wherein the bearing cage comprises a first axial end portion (Fig2, left side of bearing cage), and a second axial end portion (Fig2, right side of bearing cage),
…”
The above noted limitations are considered functional language, and as the structure disclosed in the reference anticipates the claimed structure, the structure disclosed is capable of performing the recited function, see MPEP 2114.I,II. However, the functional language is disclosed as noted above.
PNG
media_image1.png
535
1079
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Davis further discloses (Para20, Fig2) that the lubrication of bearing 38A is an oil/air mixture.
Davis is silent to the particularly claimed bearing cage channels.
Minnich teaches (C3L60-63; Fig2/3, bearing 98, bearing cage 124, bearing cage lubrication ports 126 at 12/3/6/9 o’clock locations, oil nozzle 92) that it is known in the art to form transverse bearing cage lubrication channels aimed directly at the bearing rollers for the advantage of increased lubrication of the bearing rolling surface due to increased lubricant surface area contact.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bearing cage of Davis to add the transverse bearing cage lubrication channels aimed directly at the bearing elements of Davis as Minnich teaches that such a modification is known in the art and provides the advantage of increased lubrication of the bearing rolling surface due to increased lubricant surface area contact, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the arrangement of Davis with bearing cage lubrication ports / channels aimed at the bearing ball element from both the forward and aft sides of the cage to circulate Davis’ air/oil lubricant mixture.
Claim 2
The modified arrangement of Davis by the teachings of Minnich discloses: “The turbomachine of claim 1, wherein one of bearing cage, the first race, or the second race comprises a lubricant inlet configured to admit a lubricant to the bearing cage when the turbomachine is in the operational state (Davis: Fig2, inner race dotted lines for internal channel; limitation is within the scope of the combination in Claim 1 for the cage).”
Claim 3
The modified arrangement of Davis by the teachings of Minnich discloses: “The turbomachine of claim 1, wherein the first channel extends from the first axial end portion of the bearing cage to the bearing slot and the second channel extends from the bearing slot to the second axial end portion of the bearing cage (limitation is within the scope of the combination in Claim 1, the bearing cage has two lubrication ports/channels from the respective left/right sides each aimed at the bearing ball element).”
Claim 4
The modified arrangement of Davis by the teachings of Minnich discloses: “The turbomachine of claim 1, wherein the air from the first channel is mixed with a lubricant in the bearing slot to form the mixture of air and lubricant when the turbomachine is in an operational state (functional limitation. Limitation is within the scope of the combination in Claim 1).”
The above noted limitations are considered functional language, and as the structure disclosed in the reference anticipates the claimed structure, the structure disclosed is capable of performing the recited function, see MPEP 2114.I,II. However, the functional language is disclosed as noted above.
Claim 6
The modified arrangement of Davis by the teachings of Minnich discloses: “The turbomachine of claim 1, wherein the bearing assembly further comprises a radial gap between the first race and the bearing cage (Davis: Fig2, radial gap between cage and inner race), or between the second race and the bearing cage (Davis: Fig2, radial gap between cage and outer race).”
Claim 8
The modified arrangement of Davis by the teachings of Minnich discloses: “The turbomachine of claim 1, wherein when the turbomachine is in the operational state, the first channel directs air to the bearing slot (functional limitation. Limitation is within the scope of the combination in Claim 1).”
The above noted limitations are considered functional language, and as the structure disclosed in the reference anticipates the claimed structure, the structure disclosed is capable of performing the recited function, see MPEP 2114.I,II. However, the functional language is disclosed as noted above.
Claim 11
The modified arrangement of Davis by the teachings of Minnich discloses: “The turbomachine of claim 1, wherein the bearing cage comprises a plurality of second channels, circumferentially spaced along the bearing cage (limitation is within the scope of the combination in Claim 1. Minnich: Fig2, plurality of matching ports 126; Davis Fig2, plurality of bearing ball elements circumferentially).”
Claim 13
The modified arrangement of Davis by the teachings of Minnich discloses: “The turbomachine of claim 11, wherein the plurality of second channels is spaced circumferentially on the bearing cage (limitation is within the scope of the combination of Claim 1 and the discussion of Claim 11), and wherein each second channel extends from one of the first axial end portion or the second axial end portion of the bearing cage to the bearing slot (limitation is within the scope of the combination of Claim 1).”
Claim 15
The modified arrangement of Davis by the teachings of Minnich discloses: “The turbomachine of claim 1, wherein the first channel extends axially through the bearing cage from the first axial end portion to the bearing slot (limitation is within the scope of the combination of Claim 1), and the second channel extends axially through the bearing cage from the bearing slot to the second axial end portion (limitation is within the scope of the combination of Claim 1).”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN HUNTER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-5093. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-18.
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.
/JOHN S HUNTER, JR/Examiner, Art Unit 3745