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 outlet “positioned obliquely” of claim 7 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. The term oblique is defined as “neither perpendicular nor parallel” by https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oblique. However, the drawings show the outlet is right-angle, or perpendicular, to the inlet.
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 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites “a flow of lubricant” in line 4, it is unclear if this is the same flow as that already recited in lines 2-3. Claims 8 and 10 have a similar issue.
Claim 4 recites “at least in respect of size and quantity”, it is unclear what these traits are directed to. The particles or flow of lubricant?
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, 4, 5, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Worthen (US 2020/0325806 A1). Worthen discloses:
Re claim 1, a system (160) for detecting the presence of as well as for analysing particles (par [0038]) in a flow of lubricant (flow of lubricant indicated by the arrows in fig. 2), comprising a housing (housing of 160) with a channel (158) that guides a flow of lubricant and that fluidically connects a lubricant inlet (upstream end of 212) and a lubricant outlet (downstream end of 214), further comprising a particle sensor (212,404) which is configured to detect and to analyse particles present in the flow of lubricant (par [0038]), as well as a chip detector (216) which is arranged downstream of the particle sensor and configured to locate and magnetically retain magnetisable particles present in the flow of lubricant (par [0039]).
Re claim 4, wherein the particle sensor is configured to analyse electrically conductive particles present in the flow of lubricant, at least in respect of size and quantity (par [0047-48]: size and quantity would be derived by the voltage feedback or current induced in the coil 404).
Re claim 5, wherein the particle sensor comprises a channel section which is integrated into the channel, wherein the channel section is arranged coaxially with respect to the lubricant inlet (fig. 4A shows 404 is coaxial to the channel 158).
Re claim 8, a method for detecting the presence of as well as for analysing particles (par [0038]) in a flow of lubricant (flow of lubricant indicated by the arrows in fig. 2) by means of a system (160) for detecting the presence as well as for analysing particles in the flow of lubricant, comprising a housing (housing of 160) with a channel (158) that guides a flow of lubricant and that fluidically connects a lubricant inlet (upstream end of 212) and a lubricant outlet (downstream end of 214), wherein particles present in the flow of lubricant are detected and analysed by means of a particle sensor (212,404), and wherein magnetisable particles present in the flow of lubricant are located and magnetically retained by means of a chip detector (216) arranged downstream of the particle sensor.
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) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worthen (US 2020/0325806 A1) in view of Weiser (US 10,254,210 B2). Worthen discloses the system (as cited above). Worthen does not disclose:
Re claim 2, wherein the chip detector is releasably attachable to the housing by interlocking and/or force-fitting engagement.
Re claim 3, wherein the chip detector is screwed into the housing.
However, Weiser teaches a system (fig. 1)
Re claim 2, wherein the chip detector (40) is releasably attachable to the housing by interlocking and/or force-fitting engagement (col 3 ln 61-65 describes a threaded engagement at 40B).
Re claim 3, wherein the chip detector is screwed into the housing (col 3 ln 61-65 describes a threaded engagement at 40B).
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a force-fitting engagement, as taught by Weiser, to easily attach and detach the chip detector during maintenance.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worthen (US 2020/0325806 A1) in view of Long (US 2007/0241043 A1). Worthen discloses the system (as cited above). Worthen does not disclose:
Re claim 6, wherein the longitudinal extension of the chip detector is arranged coaxially with respect to the lubricant inlet.
Re claim 7, wherein the lubricant outlet is positioned obliquely with respect to the lubricant inlet.
However, Long teaches a system housing (10):
Re claim 6, wherein the longitudinal extension of the chip detector (20) is arranged coaxially with respect to the lubricant inlet (figs. 1-3 show the channel along the longitudinal axis of the housing 10 and fig. 1 shows the inlet is at the left end of the housing, fig. 3 shows the chip detector 20 at the right end of the housing is coaxial to the inlet).
Re claim 7, wherein the lubricant outlet (22) is positioned obliquely with respect to the lubricant inlet (figs. 1-3).
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the inlet and outlet as claimed, as taught by Long, to enable the momentum of the flow to push the large particles towards the chip detector. Because the large particles are heavier than the fluid, the particles have a greater momentum and would tend to keep flowing straight towards the chip detector while the fluid turns towards the outlet.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worthen (US 2020/0325806 A1) in view of Aufreiter et al. (US 2024/0310267 A1). Worthen discloses the system (as cited above):
Re claim 10, a lubricant supply (flow of lubricant indicated by the arrows in fig. 3) with a lubricant supply line (332) for supplying a flow of lubricant (flow of lubricant indicated by the arrows in fig. 3) to at least one gearbox component to be lubricated and a lubricant return line (334) for returning a flow of lubricant, wherein a system (160) for detecting the presence of as well as for analysing particles in a flow of lubricant according to claim 1 (see claim 1) is arranged in the lubricant return line (fig. 3).
Worthen does not disclose:
Re claim 9, use of a system for detecting the presence of as well as for analysing particles in a flow of lubricant according to claim 1 in a gearbox for an aircraft.
Re claim 10, a gearbox for an aircraft, in particular for a helicopter gearbox.
However, Aufreiter teaches:
Re claim 9, use of a system (figs. 1-2) for detecting the presence of as well as for analysing particles in a flow of lubricant according to claim 1 (see claim 1) in a gearbox for an aircraft (par [0002]: helicopters).
Re claim 10, a gearbox (fig. 1) for an aircraft (par [0002]: helicopters), in particular for a helicopter gearbox (par [0002]: helicopters).
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention employ the system in an aircraft, as taught by Aufreiter, to remove impurities and prevent damages to the drive components.
Conclusion
The cited prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH D TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3014. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 pm.
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, Anna Momper can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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.
/Minh Truong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654