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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 5, 11-13, and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,244,204. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present application recites the same inventive concept as ‘204 – a magnetic clutch with inner and outer rings achieving engagement through prior alignment via a spring-based mechanism – but in systemically broader form, wrapping the physical clutch structurer in generic computer components (such as a processor, memory, machine-readable instructions) and omitting structural specifics required by ‘204. Claims 1 and 11 of the instant application map onto claims 1 and 19 of ‘204 with the same method steps in apparatus/medium form with the instant claims being directed to broader subject matter (of fluid phase, generic rings); claims 2 and 12 map onto claims 1 and 11 of ‘204 with the same outer/inner ring polar alignment structure; claims 3 and 13 map onto claim 19 of ‘204 with a determination whether to engage/disengage the clutch, and deciding to disengage from an engaged state is an extension of the same structure without patentable distinction; claims 5 and 15 map onto claim 19 include the same fluid phase limitation.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parsons (US 10670021) in view of England (US 8876487), and further in view of Fournier (US 9850905).
Regarding claims 1 and 11;
Parsons discloses an apparatus/non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising: memory (39b); machine-readable instructions (stored in the memory); and processor circuitry (39) to at least one of instantiate or execute the machine-readable instructions to: determine whether a clutch in a pump system is engaged (clutch 30, control system commands distinct engagement states of clutch via motor 32; Col. 6, Lines 2-22, Figures 5A-6A).
Parsons fails to teach based on a determination that the clutch is not engaged, determine a status of the clutch, wherein the status of the clutch is used to determine whether to engage the clutch; and based on a determination to engage the clutch, provide a force to a spring to move a first ring into alignment with a second ring to engage the clutch.
Parsons further discloses the control system drives the tang (78) between positions that correspond to engaged and disengaged states, thereby determining the engagement state of the clutch (Col. 6, Lines 42-59).
England teaches a water pump with a clutch-controlled failure protection system including based on a determination that the clutch (108) is not engaged, determine a status of the clutch (control module 340 evaluates water presence sensor 226), wherein the status of the clutch is used to determine whether to engage the clutch (if water present engage, if water absent then don’t engage; see Col. 6, Lines 31-53).
Fournier teaches a pump engagement whereby it provides a force to a spring to move a first ring into alignment with a second ring to engage the clutch (Col. 8, Lines 49-67).
Parsons, England, and Fournier are directed to clutch-controlled pump systems; England teaches a control module that evaluates pump status before deciding engagement and providing conditions based engagement decision making; Fournier teaches a spring-biased permanent magnet clutch mechanism where the magnet force overcomes pretension spring to achieve engagement and an electromagnet that can oppose the force to achieve disengagement; thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus/non-transitory machine-readable medium of Parsons such that based on a determination that the clutch is not engaged, determine a status of the clutch, wherein the status of the clutch is used to determine whether to engage the clutch as taught by England and based on a determination to engage the clutch, provide a force to a spring to move a first ring into alignment with a second ring to engage the clutch as taught by Fournier for the purposes of providing conditions-based engagement control that prevents operation under adverse conditions and a controllable fail-safe clutch actuation mechanism.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Parsons as modified by England and Fournier teaches the apparatus and non-transitory machine-readable medium according to claims 1 and 11 above. Parsons as modified by England further teaches wherein in response to a determination that the clutch is engaged, determine whether to disengage the clutch (Parsons teaches the controller can command disengagement from the engaged state (Parsons Col. 2, Lines 6-18) and as modified by England teaches the controller determines to disengage an engaged clutch when conditions change (England, Col. 5, Lines 30-47).
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parsons (US 10670021) in view of England (US 8876487) and Fournier (US 9850905), and further in view of Englert (US 9059627).
Parsons as modified by England and Fournier teaches the apparatus and non-transitory machine-readable medium according to claims 1 and 11 above. Parsons as modified further teaches a permanent magnet clutch engagement mechanism (Fournier PM 54 overcoming pretension spring 53).
Parsons as modified fails to teach the first ring is an outer ring and the second ring is an inner ring, and wherein the force moves the outer ring into polar alignment with the inner ring to engage the clutch.
Englert teaches a permanent magnet coupling with a coaxial inner rotor/outer rotor configuration. Englert’s inner rotor (1) carries permanent magnet arrays (4a, 4b) in alternating angular positions and the outer rotor (2) interacts magnetically across the radial air gap (3) to transmit torque. This coaxial permanent magnet ring configuration directly teaches an outer ring (outer rotor 2) in polar alignment with the inner ring (inner rotor 1) for torque transmission through magnetic coupling (Col. 3, Lines 43-67).
Parsons as modified by Fournier teaches a permanent magnetic coupling for torque transmission without the specified geometry; Englert teaches a permanent magnetic coupling for torque transmission but with the coaxial inner/outer ring geometry with polar alignment; thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Parsons-England-Fournier coupling such that the first ring is an outer ring and the second ring is an inner ring, and wherein the force moves the outer ring into polar alignment with the inner ring to engage the clutch as taught by Englert for the purposes of providing a non-contact torque transmission geometry that enables hermetic separation between driving and driven sides while maintaining reliable magnetic coupling.
Claims 4-10 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parsons (US 10670021) in view of England (US 8876487) and Fournier (US 9850905), and further in view of Niergarth (US 11261792).
Regarding claims 4 and 14;
Parsons as modified by England and Fournier teaches the apparatus and non-transitory machine-readable medium according to claims 1 and 11 above.
Parsons as modified by England teaches the clutch status determination based on conditions of the pump, but fails to teach the pump is a thermal bus transport pump.
Niergarth is directed to a thermal management system for a gas turbine engine and teaches a thermal bus transport pump (Col. 2, Lines 7-9 and Col. 4, Lines 7-13).
Niergarth teaches thermal management systems for gas turbine engines and aircraft, with thermal bus transport pumps circulating heat exchange fluid; Parsons as modified by England and Fournier teaches a pump failure detection and protective clutch responses; the pumps of all of these system then face analogous risks from adverse operating conditions; England’s failure detecton logic with Fournier’s engagement prohibition mechanism are modular features applicable to any clutch-controlled pump system, and applying the concepts to Niergarth would yield predictable results for safety purposes; thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus and non-transitory machine-readable medium of Parsons as modified by England and Fournier such that the clutch status determination based on conditions of the pump, but fails to teach the pump is a thermal bus transport pump as taught by Niergarth for the purposes of preventing thermal bus pump damage from adverse operating conditions by applying established pump protection principles to aircraft thermal management context.
Regarding claims 5 and 15;
Parsons as modified by England, Fournier, and Niergarth teaches the apparatus and non-transitory machine-readable medium according to claims 4 and 14 above. Parsons as modified by England, Fournier, and Niergarth teaches the thermal bus transport pump (pump 110 in thermal transport bus 102 from Niergarth), the fluid within the pump is hjeat exchange fluid defined by supercritical CO2 (Niergarth), and the phase of the fluid implicates the status of clutch engagement (England, presence or absence of liquid fluid at pump with dry state being gas phase, and the control module evaluates the fluid presence before engaging).
Parsons as modified by England, Fournier, and Niergarth fails to teach explicitly monitoring the phase of the specific thermal bus working fluid to determine clutch engagement.
Niergarth teaches that the thermal bus transport pump may use supercritical CO2 as its working fluid and explicitly identifies phase change fluids as suitable (Col. 4, Lines 28-35). England teaches the clutch engagement is determined based on the phase of the fluid at the pump (Col. 3, lines 39-41 and Col. 6, Lines 37-39).
It is then known from Niergarth that thermal bus systems use phase-change fluids and supercritical CO2 (“a phase change fluid configured to change between e.g., liquid and gas phases across the anticipated operating temperature ranges” as suitable heat exchange fluid which confirms fluid phase is a relevant parameter in thermal bus systems) and England teaches fluid phase-based engagement logic in the clutch. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus and non-transitory machine-readable medium of Parsons such that the status of the thermal bus transport pump is used to determine to engage the clutch based on a phase of a fluid within the thermal bus transport pump as taught by Niergarth and England for the purposes of ensuring the pump is not engaged when the working fluid is unsuitable phase, thereby preventing cavitation and damage to the pump.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Parsons as modified by England, Fournier, and Niergarth teaches the apparatus and non-transitory machine-readable medium according to claims 4 and 14 above. Parsons as modified by England, Fournier, and Niergarth further teaches the processor circuitry includes machine-readable instructions to determine a failure of the thermal bus transport pump (England teaches that the controller detects pump failure condition, specifically dry operations that will cause impeller destruction, see Col. 3, Lines 48-55; Niergarth for the thermal bus transport pump, and thus the combination teaches the failure applying to the thermal bus transport pump context).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Parsons as modified by England, Fournier, and Niergarth teaches the apparatus and non-transitory machine-readable medium according to claims 6 and 16 above. Parsons as modified by England, Fournier, and Niergarth further teaches in response to the determination of the failure of the thermal bus transport pump, determine whether the clutch is engaged (England teaches that in response to failure detection (no water at pump inlet), the system commands the clutch into deactivation mode, and the relay transitioning from activation to deactivation mode requires awareness of the instant state of the clutch, thereby removing power from the clutch causes disengagement if the clutch is engaged and prevents engagement if it is already disengaged; see England, Col. 5, lines 30-47; as above, the combination applies to the context of the thermal bus transport pump of Niergarth).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Parsons as modified by England, Fournier, and Niergarth teaches the apparatus and non-transitory machine-readable medium according to claims 7 and 17 above. Parsons as modified by England, Fournier, and Niergarth further teaches in response to a determination that the clutch is engaged, determine to disengage the clutch (England teaches that upon detecting a failure condition, the system prevents power to the clutch, causing it to mechanically decouple the driving portion of the pump; if the clutch is engaged, the removal of power disengages it and is in response to pump failure; see England, Col. 2, Lines 11-17 and Col. 8, Lines 39-42).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Parsons as modified by England, Fournier, and Niergarth teaches the apparatus and non-transitory machine-readable medium according to claims 7 and 17 above. Parsons as modified by England, Fournier, and Niergarth further teaches in response to a determination that the clutch is disengaged, prohibit engagement of the clutch (England teaches the deactivation mode persists for as long as the failure condition continues; power is prevented from reaching and activating the clutch, and if the clutch is already disengaged when the failure is detected, it remains disengaged and cannot be reengaged until the failure condition stops; see England, Col. 2, Lines 11-17 and Col. 7, Lines 52-62).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Parsons as modified by England, Fournier, and Niergarth teaches the apparatus and non-transitory machine-readable medium according to claims 9 and 19 above. Parsons as modified by England, Fournier, and Niergarth further teaches the prohibition of the engagement of the clutch includes prohibiting the providing of the force to the spring (the combination of Parsons and Fournier teaches the prohibiting engagement is accomplished by eliminating the force that would move the spring-biased element into engagement; Fournier teaches an electromagnet generating opposing polarization to reduce the permanent magnet force below the spring threshold causing the spring to maintain the disengaged position, and Parsons teaches the removing current from the motor removes current from the motor removes the driving force to tang, resulting in the spring has no engagement; the combination of both allows for the prohibition achieved by preventing the force to/from the spring).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN D SEABE whose telephone number is (571)272-4961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00-5:30.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at 571-272-8648. 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.
/JUSTIN D SEABE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745