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 “region” of the deflection point must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 22 recites the chip detector configured to indicate a threshold, which is clearly disclosed in the original disclosure. Paragraph [0035] states the monitoring unit 10 outputs a signal that a threshold value is exceeded.
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, 4, 8, 9, 10, 21, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al. (US 20070241043 A1) in view of Aufreiter et al. (US 20240310267 A1). Long discloses a system (10) for detecting the presence of as well as for analysing particles in a flow of lubricant (fig. 1), comprising
Re claim 1, a housing (16) with a channel that guides the flow of lubricant and that fluidically connects a lubricant inlet (inlet at upstream end of 16) and a lubricant outlet (22) that is positioned perpendicular with respect to the lubricant inlet via a deflection point (point where flow direction coming from the inlet is deflected and guided to change direction toward the outlet), further comprising a chip detector (20) which is arranged downstream of the particle sensor (taught below), releasably attachable to the housing by interlocking and/or force-fitting engagement (20 is locked in the cavity 18 due to its larger width, 20 is releasably attached via wall 26), and configured to locate and magnetically retain magnetisable particles present in the flow of lubricant (fig. 3), wherein the chip detector comprises a longitudinal extension (fig. 2: vertical direction of 20) that is arranged coaxially with respect to the lubricant inlet (fig. 2) and a magnetic section (20 is described as a magnet) that is arranged in a region of the deflection point of the channel (fig. 3).
Re claim 8, a method for detecting the presence of as well as for analysing particles in a flow of lubricant by means of a system (10) for detecting the presence as well as for analysing particles in the flow of lubricant, comprising a housing (16) with a channel that guides the flow of lubricant and that fluidically connects a lubricant inlet (inlet at upstream end of 16) and a lubricant outlet (22) that is positioned perpendicular with respect to the lubricant inlet via a deflection point (point where flow direction coming from the inlet is deflected and guided to change direction toward the outlet), and wherein magnetisable particles present in the flow of lubricant are located and magnetically retained by means of a chip detector (20) that is arranged downstream of the particle sensor (taught below) and releasably attachable to the housing by interlocking and/or force-fitting engagement (20 is locked in the cavity 18 due to its larger width, 20 is releasably attached via wall 26), wherein the chip detector comprises a longitudinal extension (fig. 2: vertical direction of 20) that is arranged coaxially with respect to the lubricant inlet (fig. 2) and a magnetic section (20 is described as a magnet) that is arranged in a region of the deflection point of the channel (fig. 3).
Re claim 9, a gearbox (taught below) comprising a lubricant return line and the system according to claim 1 (see claim 1) arranged in the lubricant return line (par [0009] describes 12 may be a transmission, fig. 1 shows 10 is downstream of 12 therefore is construed as part of the return line).
Re claim 10, a gearbox (taught below), comprising a lubricant supply with a lubricant supply line for supplying a flow of lubricant to at least one gearbox component to be lubricated (Examiner takes Official Notice that supply line to the gearbox is known in the art) and a lubricant return line for returning the flow of lubricant, wherein a system for detecting the presence of as well as for analysing particles in the flow of lubricant according to claim 1 (see claim 1) is arranged in the lubricant return line (par [0009] describes 12 may be a transmission, fig. 1 shows 10 is downstream of 12 therefore is construed as part of the return line).
Re claim 21, a system (10) for detecting the presence of, and for analysing, particles in a flow of lubricant, comprising: a housing (16) with a channel to guide the flow of lubricant and fluidically connect a lubricant inlet (inlet at upstream end of 16) and a lubricant outlet (22), wherein the channel includes a deflection point (point where flow direction coming from the inlet is deflected and guided to change direction toward the outlet) between the lubricant inlet and the lubricant outlet; and a chip detector (20) arranged downstream of the particle sensor (as taught below) to magnetically retain magnetisable particles present in the flow of lubricant, wherein the chip detector comprises a magnetic section (20 is described as a magnet) arranged in a region of the deflection point of the channel (fig. 3).
Long does not disclose:
Re claims 1, 8, 21, a particle sensor which is configured to detect and to analyse particles present in the flow of lubricant.
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 of the conductive particles.
Re claim 9, a gearbox for an aircraft.
Re claim 10, a gearbox for an aircraft, in particular for a helicopter gearbox.
Re claim 22, wherein the chip detector is configured to indicate when a quantity of magnetisable particles retained at the magnetic section exceeds a threshold.
However, Aufreiter teaches a sensor device comprising:
Re claims 1, 8, 21, a particle sensor (100) which is configured to detect and to analyse particles present in the flow of lubricant (Aureiter teaches the particle sensor 100 upstream of a particle trapping device 17, which would be equivalent to the chip detector of Long).
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 of the conductive particles (Aufreiter: par [0012] describes counting particles and par [0015] describes additional feature of determining chip size).
Re claim 9, a gearbox for an aircraft (par [0002]: helicopters).
Re claim 10, a gearbox for an aircraft, in particular for a helicopter gearbox (par [0002]: helicopters).
Re claim 22, wherein the chip detector is configured to indicate when a quantity of magnetisable particles retained at the magnetic section exceeds a threshold (par [0012] the count is evaluated to differentiate the wear into critical wear indications; the critical moment is construed as the threashold).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, 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 particle sensor, as taught by Aufreiter, for detecting damaging particles in the oil system for monitoring wear.
Regarding claim 10, Examiner takes Official Notice that supply line to the gearbox is known in the art. 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 supply line to introduce oil into the rotating components.
Claim(s) 3, 11, 13, 14, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al. (US 20070241043 A1) in view of Aufreiter et al. (US 20240310267 A1) and Botstiber et al. (US 4,657,671 A). Long discloses the system (as cited above):
Re claims 11, 14, 19, 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 of the conductive particles (Aufreiter: par [0012] describes counting particles and par [0015] describes additional feature of determining chip size).
Long does not disclose:
Re claims 3, 13, 18, wherein the chip detector is screwed into the housing.
However, Botstiber teaches a particle sensor (fig. 8):
Re claims 3, 13, 18, wherein the chip detector (60,64,66) is screwed into the housing (24; screwed via the threads adjacent to 103A).
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ screw threads, as taught by Botstiber, to provide a tighter fit and prevent the magnet from wobbling as it receives the flow.
Claim(s) 5, 15, 20, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al. (US 20070241043 A1) in view of Aufreiter et al. (US 20240310267 A1) and Whittington et al. (US 5811664). Long discloses the system (as cited above). Long does not disclose:
Re claims 5, 15, 20, 23, 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.
However, Whittington teaches a particle sensor (fig. 3):
Re claims 5, 15, 20, 23, wherein the particle sensor comprises a channel section (channel defined within 2,14) which is integrated into the channel (11), wherein the channel section is arranged coaxially with respect to the lubricant inlet (fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the channel section integrated into the channel of the housing, as taught by Whittington, to provide symmetry and better detect damaging particles flowing therethrough.
Claim(s) 12, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al. (US 20070241043 A1) in view of Aufreiter et al. (US 20240310267 A1), Botstiber et al. (US 4,657,671 A), and Whittington et al. (US 5811664). Long as modified discloses the system (as cited above). Long as modified does not disclose:
Re claims 12, 16, 17, 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.
However, Whittington teaches a particle sensor (fig. 3):
Re claims 12, 16, 17, wherein the particle sensor comprises a channel section (channel defined within 2,14) which is integrated into the channel (11), wherein the channel section is arranged coaxially with respect to the lubricant inlet (fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the channel section integrated into the channel of the housing, as taught by Whittington, to provide symmetry and better detect damaging particles flowing therethrough.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8-23 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.
On pages 11-12 of the Remarks, Applicant argues Long does not describe a chip detector releasably attachable to the housing by interlocking and/or force-fitting engagement. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Long par [0010] describes the magnet 20 is held within the cavity 18 due to its larger width compared to the width of the passage 16. The interference between the sizes allows for the magnet 20 to stay in place. As such, this arrangement meets the claimed “releasably attachable to the housing by interlocking and/or force-fitting engagement.” Boststiber further teaches this configuration via a threaded engagement.
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 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, 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.
/Minh Truong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights