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 § 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) 1-6, 8, 12-15, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Maguire, US PGPub 2004/0179935.
PNG
media_image1.png
270
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Maguire discloses a lubrication system (see fig 2) for a gas turbine engine (10), comprising: a first rotating shaft (23) having a first outer surface (top of 23 in fig 2), the first rotating shaft (23) configured to rotate about a central axis (see [0022]);a second rotating shaft (22) having a second inner surface (bottom of 22, along 46 in fig 2) and a second outer surface (top of 22 in fig 2), the second rotating shaft (22) disposed radially outward (see fig 2) of the first rotating shaft (23), the second rotating shaft (22) configured to rotate about the central axis (see [0022]), the second inner surface (as described above) including a recess (35), the recess (35) having a depth radially outward (see fig 2) of the second inner surface (bottom of 22 at 46, as described above) and inward (see fig 2) into a thickness of the second rotating shaft (22); a flowpath (see arrows in fig 2) between the first outer surface (as described above) and the second inner surface (as described above); a lubricant (39) directed into the flowpath (as described above), the lubricant (39) in contact with the first outer surface (as described above); wherein the lubricant (39) separates from the first outer surface (as described above) through the flowpath (as described above) and into the recess (35).
Regarding claim 2, Maguire disclosesd the lubrication system according to claim 1, wherein the first outer surface (as described above) includes a protrusion (32), the protrusion (32) spaced from the second inner surface (as described above) by the flowpath (see fig 2), the protrusion (32) positioned radially along the first outer surface (as described above) between a first end (left end of 35 in fig 2) of the recess (35) and a second end (right side of 35 in fig 2) of the recess (35).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Maguire discloses the lubrication system according to claims 2 and 12, wherein the recess (35) includes an outlet (37) proximal to the second end (as described above) of the recess (35).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Maguire discloses the lubrication system according to claims 3 and 12, wherein the protrusion (32) includes a plateau (flat top of 32 shown in fig 2), the plateau (as described above) extending along the first outer surface (as described above) and is radially proximal to the outlet (37) on the second inner surface (as described above).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Maguire discloses the lubrication system according to claims 2 and 12, wherein the first outer surface (as described above) includes a depression (region between protrusion above label of 23 in fig 2 and 32) disposed upstream of the protrusion (32).
Regarding claim 6, Maguire discloses the lubrication system according to claim 2, further comprising a nozzle (34) disposed upstream of the protrusion (32).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Maguire discloses the lubrication system according to claims 1 and 12, wherein the first rotating shaft (23) and the second rotating shaft (22) rotate in a same rotational direction (co-rotating).
Regarding claim 12, Maguire discloses a lubrication system (see fig 2) for a gas turbine engine (10), comprising: a first rotating shaft (23) having a first outer surface (as described above), the first rotating shaft (23) extending along a central axis (see [0022]), the first rotating shaft (23) configured to rotate about the central axis (as described above), the first outer surface (as described above) including a protrusion (32) extending radially outward; a second rotating shaft (22) having a second inner surface (as described above) and a second outer surface (as described above), the second rotating shaft (22) extending along the central axis (as described above), the second rotating shaft (22) disposed radially outward (see fig 2) of the first rotating shaft (23), the second rotating shaft (22) configured to rotate about the central axis (as described above), the second inner surface (as described above) including a recess (35), the recess (35) having a depth radially outward (see fig 2) of the second inner surface (bottom of 22 at 46, as described above) and inward (see fig 2) into a thickness of the second rotating shaft (22); a flowpath (see arrows in fig 2) between the first outer surface (as described above) and the second inner surface (as described above); a lubricant (39) directed into the flowpath (as described above), the lubricant (39) in contact with the first outer surface (as described above); wherein the lubricant (39) separates from the first outer surface (as described above) through the flowpath (as described above) and into the recess (35); and wherein the protrusion (32) is spaced from the second inner surface (as described above) by the flowpath (as described above), the protrusion (32) positioned radially along the first outer surface (as described above) between a first end (left side in fig 2) of the recess (35) and a second end (right side in fig 2) of the recess (35).
Regarding claim 20, Maguire discloses the lubrication system according to claim 1, wherein the recess (35) is formed by a basin (bottom of 35) and a wall portion (40); and the recess (35) includes an outlet (37) having a mouth (end of 37 accessible in 25) located in the basin (35).
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) 7, 9-11, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maguire in view of Kildea et al., US Patent 4,453,784.
Regarding claims 7, 9-11, 17 and 19, Maguire discloses the lubrication system of claims 1 and 12 but does not specify that the shafts are counter-rotating at varied speeds.
PNG
media_image2.png
448
646
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kildea et al. teaches a similar lubrication system for a turbine engine (see fig 1) wherein the first rotating shaft (12) rotates in a first rotational direction, and the second rotating shaft rotates (10) in a second rotational direction opposite to the first rotational direction (counter-rotating). (claims 7, 17)
wherein the first rotating shaft (12) rotates at a first angular velocity (high speed), and the second rotating shaft (10) rotates at a second angular velocity (low speed) that is different than the first velocity (see col. 4-5). (claim 9-11, 19)
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 lubrication system disclosed by Maguire to the counter-rotating shafts described by Kildea et al. in order to enhance lubrication to the shaft bearings and components and promote system efficiency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 8-9 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Maguire does not disclose a second rotating shaft having a second inner surface and a second outer surface, the second rotating shaft disposed radially outward of the first rotating shaft, the second rotating shaft configured to rotate about the central axis, the second inner surface including a recess, the recess having a depth radially outward of the second inner surface and inward into a thickness of the second rotating shaft
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Maguire does disclose this feature. Specifically, Maguire discloses a second rotating shaft (22) having a second inner surface(bottom of 22, along 46 in fig 2) and a second outer surface (top of 22 shown in fig 2), the second rotating shaft (22) disposed radially outward (see fig 2) of the first rotating shaft (23), the second rotating shaft (22) configured to rotate about the central axis (see [0022]), the second inner surface (as described above) including a recess (35), the recess (35) having a depth radially outward (see fig 2) of the second inner surface (as described above) and inward into a thickness of the second rotating shaft (22)" as recited in claims 1 and 12. Even though the projection 32 extends into 35, does not mean that 22 is not radially outward from 23. Applicants argument is therefore not persuasive.
On page 10 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that modifying the system of Maguire so as to allow the shafts to counter-rotate at varied speeds, in the manner described by Kildea et al. would require substantial modification and change the basic operating principle of Maguire. Examiner respectfully disagrees. It the system of Maguire, during flight mode 22 and 23 will co-rotate, however though not explicitly detailed, shafts 22 and 23 are not prohibited from counterrotating at varied velocities – and these motions would occur during start-up, shut-down or windmilling conditions. If the shaft always co-rotated as suggested by Applicant, seal 21 would be a rigid connecter rather than a dynamic seal. Kildea et al. was used to explicitly teach these features, common in gas turbine engines. Significant modification to Maguire would not be required since no structure of Maguire would be necessarily need to change. Therefore Maguire in view of Kildea et al. discloses the disputed limitation 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