DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final rejection in response to application filed 6/18/25. Claims 1-11 are currently pending.
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 1-11 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 the limitation "the method comprising, after a period A following the electrical machine stopping, the following steps: a) stopping, for a period T1, of the electrical machine”. It is unclear if the stopping event is positively recited. It is unclear if “the electrical machine stopping” refers to the stopping event in step a) or to a prior event.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein the first electrical machine being stopped, the method comprising a reconfiguration”. It is unclear if “the electrical machine being stopped” is positively recited, as there is no action of the stopping occurring.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “each step of stopping the electrical machine”. It is unclear if this limitation presumes repeated performance of steps a-c of claim 1.
All subsequent dependent claims are further rejected.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Bouiller et al. (2006/0138888) in view of Veronesi et al. (US 5041856) and further in view of Newman et al. (US 4100491).
Regarding independent claims 1 and 10, Bouiller teaches a method for monitoring a turbomachine, the turbomachine comprising:
- at least one rotating shaft 16 supported by at least one bearing 18 [0024];
- at least one electrical machine 22,24 configured to supply electrical power to the turbomachine, the electrical machine comprising at least one roller bearing 18 [0027]; the electrical machine and the bearing being arranged in a lubrication enclosure [0025];
- a lubrication system configured for lubricating the bearing and the roller bearing and configured for recovering the oil present in the enclosure, the lubrication system comprising a particle detector [0030-0031,0042, 0045];
c) triggering a maintenance alert of the electrical machine when the number of particles counted is greater than a threshold [0046].
Additionally, Bouiller further teaches a processing unit 36 connected to the particle detector [0044].
Bouiller is silent to the lubrication system suitable for counting particles present in the lubrication system and
the method comprising, after a period A following the electrical machine stopping, the following steps:
a) stopping, for a period T1, of the electrical machine so as to release particles originating from the roller bearing in order that they circulate in the lubrication system;
b) counting particles circulating in the lubrication system for a period T2.
Veronesi teaches a particle detector suitable for counting discrete particles in gas-turbine lubricating oil. Probe member 12 surrounds passage 11, forming a tank circuit with capacitor arrangement 16 at gap 15, such that "the character of any metallic particle then present in the passage is determined from variations in the alternating electric current" (claim 4). Individual particles are detected as each passes the probe, as distinguished from Bouiller's continuous density signal.
Newman teaches releasing particles originating from the roller bearing in order that they circulate in the lubrication system (col. 6, ll. 1-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the turbomachine of Bouiller by substituting or supplementing detector 36 with a particle counting detector as taught by Veronesi, and to further modify the combination by periodically stopping the electrical machine of Bouiller so that particles previously captured near the generator's magnetic circuit are released to circulate to the counter for a counting period T2, as taught by Veronesi, with the existing threshold-based alert of Bouiller then triggered on the resulting count. Furthermore, Newman supplies a known technique, in an analogous fluid-particle-detection context, for releasing magnetically captured debris so it can be measured (col. 6, ll. 1–11; claim 8); and Veronesi supplies a known, art-recognized particle-counting detector for gas-turbine lubricating-oil systems suitable for quantifying the released particles. Combining known elements according to their known functions, periodic magnetic release of Newman, followed by discrete counting of Veronesi within an already magnet-equipped generator of Bouiller yields the predictable result of a workable stop, release, count, and alert cycle. KSR; MPEP 2141 III A.
Regarding dependent claim 6, Bouiller in view of Veronesi and further in view of Newman teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Bouiller in view of Veronesi and further in view of Newman is silent to wherein each step of stopping the electrical machine is implemented at the end of the period A, between a period equivalent to 1 flight and 50 flights of the turbomachine.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the turbomachine of Bouiller in view of Veronesi and further in view of Newman such that wherein each step of stopping the electrical machine is implemented at the end of the period A, between a period equivalent to 1 flight and 50 flights of the turbomachine. Bouiller teaches the urgency of maintenance [0046], confirming the prior art recognizes flight-based intervals for monitoring when maintenance events should occur.
In view of the prior art teachings, selecting a period A between 1 and 50 flights is a result effective variable, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the number of flights between maintenance, since it has been held that optimizing a result effective variable was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955),“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05 I and II.
Regarding dependent claim 7, Bouiller in view of Veronesi and further in view of Newman teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Newman further teaches comprising authorizing the take up of the torque by the electrical machine after the period T2 has elapsed (col. 6, l. 9-11).
Regarding dependent claim 8, Bouiller in view of Veronesi and further in view of Newman teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Bouiller in view of Veronesi and further in view of Newman is silent wherein the period T1 is between 0.1 seconds and 90 seconds, inclusive.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the turbomachine of Bouiller in view of Veronesi and further in view of Newman such that wherein the period T1 is between 0.1 seconds and 90 seconds, inclusive. Newman teaches stopping the electrical machine for a period so as to release particles from the roller bearing (col. 6, l. 9-11).
In view of the prior art teachings that wherein the period T1 is between 0.1 seconds and 90 seconds, inclusive is a result effective variable, as it is a variable governed by ordinary, predictable physical parameters recognized in the art, such as, oil flow rate through the enclosure, viscosity of the lubricant, the physical distance the released particles must travel, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the length of the period needed to complete the task, since it has been held that optimizing a result effective variable was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955),“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05 I and II.
Regarding dependent claim 9, Bouiller in view of Veronesi and further in view of Newman teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Bouiller in view of Veronesi and further in view of Newman is silent wherein the period T2 is between 1 second and 10 minutes, inclusive.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the turbomachine of Bouiller in view of Veronesi and further in view of Newman such that wherein the period T2 is between 1 second and 10 minutes, inclusive. Veronesi teaches a probe circuit arrangement that determines the character of any metallic particle present in the passage from variations in the alternating electric current (claim 4).
In view of the prior art teachings that wherein the period T2 is between 1 second and 10 minutes, inclusive is a result effective variable, as it is a variable governed by ordinary statistical and practical considerations already inherent, a longer counting window yields a more statistically reliable count. Bouillier also teaches a detector operating and reporting continuously and in real time [0046]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the period needed to obtain an optimum sample, since it has been held that optimizing a result effective variable was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955),“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05 I and II.
Regarding dependent claim 11, Bouiller in view of Veronesi and further in view of Newman teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Bouiller further teaches an aircraft comprising a turbomachine of claim 10 [0046].
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Bouiller in view of Veronesi and Newman, further in view of Parnin et al. (US 2016/0017747).
Regarding dependent claim 2, Bouiller in view of Veronesi and Newman teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Bouiller in view of Veronesi and Newman is silent to wherein the steps a), b) and c) are implemented when a flow rate of oil circulating in the lubrication system is greater than a given threshold.
Parnin teaches that reliable oil debris detection in a gas turbine lubrication system is directly goverende by oil flow rate through the sensor [0043]. Parnin uses a debris monitor sensor with a first passage, second, bypass passage that splits and rejoins the first passage such that excess lubricant flow bypasses the sensor passage section to minimize pressure drop and minimize the proportion of wear particles that bypass the oil debris monitor [0048].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Bouiller in view of Veronesi and Newman to have reliable particle detection in an oil system that depends on adequate, managed oil flow reaching the sensor region [0043,0048] in order to gate the cycle on a minimum oil flow rate, ensuring particles released during the stopping step reach and pass the counter in sufficient quantity to produce a meaningful, reliable count.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Bouiller in view of Veronesi and Newman, further in view of Edwards (US 2014/0333127).
Regarding dependent claim 3, Bouiller in view of Veronesi and Newman teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Bouiller in view of Veronesi and Newman is silent to the turbomachine comprising a first electrical machine and a second electrical machine, wherein the first electrical machine being stopped, the method comprising reconfiguration of the second electrical machine so that the second electrical machine supplies electrical power instead of the stopped first electrical machine.
Edwards teaches a turbomachine electrical architecture with a first starter generator 52 and a further starter generator 54, under network controller 76 [0036-0037, 0042]. Edwards further teaches if there is a problem with the first generator that the second generator can be used to power electrical loads [0050]. Edwards further teaches controller managed reallocation of supply duties [0045-0046].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Bouiller in view of Veronesi and Newman to have the second electrical machine supply electrical power when the first electrical machine is stopped, as taught by Edwards. As Edwards teaches a second electrical machine taking over supply duties when the first electrical machine is stopped for particle release is using a known technique for its known purpose in a closely related application, yielding a predictable result. In this case providing continuity of electrical power to the turbomachine when the first electrical machine is stopped It is noted that the use of a known, to improve a similar device was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, MPEP 2141 III C.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Additionally, all 112 rejections would need to be addressed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CRAIG SANG KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1418. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 AM - 3:00 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, Devon Kramer can be reached at 571-272-7118. 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.
/CRAIG KIM/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3741
