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) 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brigman, US Patent 5,089,129 in view of Belhabib, US PGPub 2021/0070474.
PNG
media_image1.png
260
390
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
254
202
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
200
274
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Brigman discloses a mechanical system (178) comprising moving mechanical elements (within 180) to be lubricated or cooled in a housing (see fig 17), the mechanical system (178) having a lubrication system (see fig 19) provided with a tank (204) containing a lubricating fluid (202), the lubrication system (as described above) having a main fluid circuit (connected with 200) extending from the tank (204) to a fluid spray circuit (at 206), the main fluid circuit (as described above) having a flow generator (200) and a mechanical filter (214) provided with a cartridge having a porous casing (conventional filter described in column 1), the lubrication system (as described above) comprising a magnetic plug (see col. 13, lines 44-47), wherein the main fluid circuit (as described above) comprises a magnetic filter (208 -see col. 13, lines 43-47) through which the lubricating fluid (202) passes between the tank (204) and the fluid spray circuit (at 206), the magnetic filter (208) comprising at least one magnetized wall (98, see fig. 9, lower wall). Brigman does not specify that the magnetic plug is connected to a warning system.
PNG
media_image4.png
426
554
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Belhabib teaches a similar lubrication system (10) including a magnetic plug (18) being connected to a warning system (26) for generating an alert (see [0135]) when metal is captured by this magnetic plug (18). 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 warning system described by Belhabib to the system disclosed by Brigman in order to alert the operator of when maintenance operations are required and avoid system degradation due to particle buildup.
Regarding claims 2 and 19, Brigman in view of Belhabib discloses the mechanical system (178) according to claims 1 and 18, wherein the magnetic filter (employing embodiment shown in fig 2) comprises a retarder (14) that reduces a movement speed (due to reduced diameter compared to chamber 18) of the lubricating fluid (202) within the magnetic filter (as described above) with respect to a movement speed (unrestricted speed) reached at the inlet (see arrows in fig 2) of the magnetic filter (as described above).
Regarding claim 3, Brigman in view of Belhabib discloses the mechanical system (178) according to claim 1, wherein the magnetic filter (see fig 2) comprises an external vessel (10) and a tube (20), that is arranged at least partly in (see fig 2) the external vessel (10), an external volume (within 18) being included between the external vessel (10) and the tube (20), an internal volume (within 20) being defined by the tube (20) and being in communication (see arrows in fig 2) with the external volume (as described above), the main fluid circuit (as described above) comprising an upstream hydraulic connection (216) from the tank (204) to an inlet (see arrows in fig 19) of the magnetic filter (as described above), the inlet (as described above) being hydraulically connected (through 14) to an inlet volume (volume in 18) formed by the external volume (as described above), the main fluid circuit (as described above) comprising a downstream hydraulic connection (see tube connected between 208 and 204 in fig 19) hydraulically connecting an outlet volume (volume in hydraulic connection tube) to the fluid spray circuit (via 200,202), the outlet volume (as described above) being the other one of the external volume and the internal volume (as described above), whichever does not form the inlet volume (as described above) and the magnetized wall (lower wall from 28) comprising the external vessel (10).
Regarding claim 4, Brigman in view of Belhabib discloses the mechanical system according to claims 2 and 3, wherein the inlet (as described above) has an inlet passage surface (surface containing 14) through which the lubricating fluid passes (see arrows in fig 2), the external volume (as described above) has an external passage surface (area between 10 and 10) having an area greater than an area of the inlet passage surface (as described above) in order to form the retarder (see fig 2).
Regarding claim 5, Brigman in view of Belhabib discloses the mechanical system according to claim 3, wherein the tube (20) comprises at least one open (see holes in fig 2) intermediate passage surface (see col. 6, lines 12-28) that places the external volume (as described above) and the internal volume (as described above) in communication (see arrows in fig 2).
Regarding claim 6, Brigman in view of Belhabib discloses the mechanical system according to claim 3 where the outer wall is magnetized (via 28 - see fig 2) rather than the tube. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to create a system with a magnetized inner wall since applicant has not disclosed that inner wall magnetization solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with collecting ferromagnetic particles in either configuration. If it is Applicants position that the magnetizing the tube is not an obvious variant of a system with outer wall magnetization Applicant is encouraged to state so on record. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to magnetize the tube wall in order to collect the particles in a centralized location and more easily clear the filter of contamination when maintenance is required.
Regarding claim 8, Brigman in view of Belhabib discloses the mechanical system according to claim 1, wherein the magnetized wall (as described above) comprises a wall made of aluminum alloy (see col.8 line 61), the magnetized wall comprising a support (outer wall) that is attached to the aluminum alloy or plastics material wall and provided with at least one permanent magnet (28).
Regarding claim 9, Brigman in view of Belhabib discloses the mechanical system according to claim 1, wherein the magnetized wall (as described above) comprises a metal wall (see claim 7) contiguous with at least one permanent magnet (28).
Regarding claim 10, Brigman in view of Belhabib discloses the mechanical system according to claim 1, Brigman does not specify a heater, a cooler, the mechanical filter downstream of the magnetic filter. Belhabib teaches a similar lubrication system including a cooler (13) downsteam of the capture device (15). 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 cooler described by Belhabib to the system disclosed by Brigman in order to promote system efficiency and cooling.
Regarding claim 11, Brigman in view of Belhabib discloses the mechanical system according to claim 1 but does not specift that the magnetic filter is arranged outside the housing. 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 provide the filter in the specified manner since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to locate the filter in the specified manner in order to facilitate maintenance operations.
Regarding claim 12, Brigman in view of Belhabib discloses the mechanical system according to claim 1, wherein the mechanical system is a gearbox (6 – Belhabib).
Regarding claims 13 and 20, Brigman in view of Belhabib discloses an aircraft (see col. 12, lines 50-55), wherein the aircraft comprises the mechanical system according to claims 1 and 18.
Regarding claim 15, Brigman in view of Belhabib discloses the mechanical system according to claim 1, wherein the magnetic filter (208) is configured to capture metal magnetic powder suspended in the lubricating fluid and resulting from manufacture, assembly, or normal operation of the mechanical system (due to rare earth magnet trap / 98), and wherein the magnetic plug (see fig 16) is configured to capture metal magnetic particles (from trap 161, see fig 16) resulting from abnormal degradation of at least one of the moving mechanical elements.
Regarding claim 16, Brigman in view of Belhabib discloses the mechanical system according to claim 15, wherein the magnetic filter (208) is positioned and configured to reduce accumulation, on the magnetic plug (as described above), of the metal magnetic powder resulting from manufacture, assembly, or normal operation of the mechanical system (see fig 16,19).
Regarding claim 17, Brigman in view of Belhabib discloses the mechanical system according to claim 1, wherein the magnetic plug (see fig 16) is positioned upstream of both the mechanical filter (214) and the magnetic filter (208) with respect to a movement direction (see arrows in fig 19) of the lubricating fluid from the tank (204) to the fluid spray circuit (at 206).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 10-13 of the Remarks, as best understood, Applicant argues that Brigman in view of Belhabib does not disclose the manner in which the magnetic filter and magnetic plug cooperate, so as to reduce false alerts from the magnetic plug warning system. Applicants argument is not commensurate with the claims. Claim 1 merely requires the lubrication circuit to contain both a magnetic filter and magnetic plug with warning system. Brigman discloses such a lubrication system (fig 19) containing a magnetic filter (208) and a magnetic plug (fig 16, see col. 13, lines 44-47 which details how the plug and filter my be used in parallel). The magnetic filter (208) is configured to capture metal magnetic powder suspended in the lubricating fluid and resulting from manufacture, assembly, or normal operation of the mechanical system (due to rare earth magnet trap / 98), and wherein the magnetic plug (see fig 16) is configured to capture metal magnetic particles (from trap 161, see fig 16) resulting from abnormal degradation of at least one of the moving mechanical elements. Both the plug and filter will capture these ferromagnetic particles via their associated magnet. The claims do not require that certain sized particles are captured by each trap, merely that the particles are configured to be captured by these trap as they are. No cooperative agreement is being claimed. Therefore Applicants argument is not persuasive.
On page 13, Applicant argues that the combination would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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 warning system described by Belhabib to the system disclosed by Brigman in order to alert the operator of when maintenance operations are required and avoid system degradation due to particle buildup. Therefore the combination would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and Applicants argument is not persuasive.
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