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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
A screen (claims 18-19 and 30)
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 18-21 and 30-31 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.
In claims 18 and 30 line 2, the limitation “a screen” is vague and indefinite. In claim 10, lines 6-7, it is specified that lubricant Is pumped from the cooler to the PCN without being filtered. Then in claim 18 a filter is specified in this location. The screen filters particles – is it appears that the lubricant flowing between the cooler and PCN is filtered. Is the first portion of lubricant flow filtered or not? Is there a screen present or not? What structure is being claimed?
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.
Claim(s) 10, 13-17, and 22-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Williams et al., US PGPub 2003/0230274.
PNG
media_image1.png
572
414
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Williams et al. discloses a method of providing lubricant (see fig 1) to a bearing system (36-38) of an engine (see [0026]) and piston cooling nozzles (via 30,32,33) of the engine (see [0049]), comprising: pumping (via 12) a lubricant from a lubricant source (11) to a pump outlet (right side in fig 1); routing a first portion (via 13) of the pumped lubricant to the piston cooling nozzles (as described above) without being filtered (a configuration where only one of the filters and cooler is present in the main line is described ([0009]), therefore a configuration where filter is not present is described [0009]); and routing a second portion (via 22) of the pumped lubricant from an outlet of a filter (24) to the bearing system (36-38), wherein the first portion of the pumped lubricant is cooled by a cooler (25).
Regarding claim 25, Williams et al. discloses a method of providing lubricant (see fig 1) to a bearing system (36-38) of an engine (see [0026]) and piston cooling nozzles (via 30,32,33) of the engine (see [0049]), comprising: pumping (via 12) a lubricant from a lubricant source (11); cooling (via 25) a first portion (via 13) of the pumped lubricant with a cooler (25) and routing the first portion (as described above) of the cooled pumped lubricant to the piston cooling nozzles (as described above) without being filtered (a configuration where only one of the filters and cooler is present in the main line is described ([0009]); and filtering (via 24) a second portion (via 22) of the pumped lubricant with a filter (24) and routing the second portion (as described above) of the pumped lubricant to the bearing system (36-38).
Regarding claim 13, Williams et al. discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the first portion (as described above) of the pumped lubricant is cooled by the cooler (25) and routed to the piston cooling nozzles (as described above) from an outlet (top if 25 in fig 1) of the cooler (25).
Regarding claims 14 and 26, Williams et al. discloses the method of claims 10 and 25, further comprising: routing the first portion (as described above) of the pumped lubricant from the piston cooling nozzles (as described above) along a return path (see downward arrow entering 11) to the lubricant source (11); and routing the second portion (lubricant exiting bearings) of the pumped lubricant from the bearing system (36-38) along the return path (as described above) to the lubricant source (11).
Regarding claims 15 and 27, Williams et al. discloses the method of claims 10 and 25, further comprising regulating flow (via 14) of the first portion (as described above) of the pumped lubricant through the piston cooling nozzles (as described above).
Regarding claims 16 and 28, Williams et al. discloses the method of claims 15 and 27, wherein regulating flow of the first portion of the pumped lubricant is based on thermal load (see [0043]).
Regarding claims 17, 22 and 29, Williams et al. discloses the method of claims 10 and 25, wherein the lubricant is pumped with a variable flow pump (see [0027]).
Regarding claim 23, Williams et al. discloses the method of claim 22, wherein the cooler (25) has an inlet (from 13) in fluid communication with an outlet (right side of 12 in fig 1) of the variable flow pump (as disclosed above).
Regarding claim 24, Williams et al. discloses the method of claim 23, wherein the filter (24) has an inlet (bottom of 24 in fig 1) in fluid communication (via 18 when turned 90 degrees from the position shown) with the outlet (as described above) of the variable flow pump (12).
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) 18-21 and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. in view of Ulrey, US PGPub 2012/0138010.
Regarding claims 18-21 and 30-31, Williams et al. discloses the method of claims 10 and 25 but does not specify a screen located in the specified position.
PNG
media_image2.png
456
718
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ulrey teaches a similar lubrication system comprising routing the first portion (205) of the pumped (via 216) lubricant through a screen (220) (claims 18 and 30)
wherein the screen (220) is configured to inhibit passage of large particles (see [0032]). (claims 19 and 31)
wherein the screen (220) when incorporated into Williams et al. is disposed between the cooler and the piston cooling nozzles (claim 21)
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 screen described by Ulrey to the system disclosed by Williams et al. prevent large particles from contaminating the PCNs and to promote system durability and efficiency.
Regarding claim 20, Williams et al. in view of Ulrey discloses the lubrication system of claim 19, but does not specify that the screen is the specified size. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to employ a screen 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 screen of the specified size in order to optimize the filtration properties for the specified system and enhance the system efficiency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 7/27/2026 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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