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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Drawings
The drawings filed 13 March 2026 are accepted and entered.
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 11 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.
Regarding claim 11, the recitations of “direct fluid communication” between the fuel tank and the bearings and between the outlet of the bearing and the combustor, are not supported by the original disclosure. None of the figures depict the details of fluid communication conduits between the tank, bearings, and combustor. The only mention of direct fluid communication in the Specification is in reference to a nonelected embodiment (by original presentation) where the fuel-lubricant mixture is split at some point to direct some of the mixture to the bearings and the rest of the mixture to the combustor ([0022]).
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 1-2, 10, 12-13, 21-23, and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorem 2841244 in view of Conboy (Bearing Lubrication with Additive Fuel, by 1962 as evidenced by citation in Proceedings of the Air Force-Navy-Industry Propulsion Systems Lubricants Conference, Technical Document Report No. ASD-TDR-62-465 on May 1962 by Beane and Berkey, from the Naval Material Center) and Morreale FR3045719A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Sorem teaches a gas turbine engine (col.1 ll.14-18) comprising:
a static structure (“bearing outer race housing” in the sole figure);
a bearing (“radial ball bearing” in sole figure) disposed along an axial length of the rotatable shaft (“drive shaft” in sole figure) to provide rotational support between the static structure and the rotatable shaft (sole figure); and
a fuel system (including “lubricant supply jet” of sole figure, which is operable to supply a mixture including JP-3 and JP-4 fuels; col.3 ll.49-56 and Table II in col.4, items 4-14) operable to deliver a mixture of fuel and lubricant (the lubricant being a mixture including a mixture of fuels, per definition of JP-3 and JP-4, and the fuel being used for lubrication) to the bearing so that during operation of the gas turbine engine, at least the lubricant within the mixture is in a liquid phase prior to being received by the at least one of the plurality of bearings (JP-3 and JP-4 are liquid fuels), and in a vapor phase once the lubricant is delivered to the at least one of the plurality of bearings (col.4 ll.8-24). Specifically, the lubricant may be vaporized “at any convenient location” and make contact with the bearing as either a gas or a liquid depending on the temperature of the bearing and other machine parts being above or below the boiling point of the lubricant (col.4 ll.18-25).
Sorem does not teach the lubricant being in the vapor phase once the lubricant comes in contact with the at least one of the plurality of bearings; the gas turbine engine comprising an inlet; a compressor fluidly downstream of the inlet and secured to a rotatable shaft; a combustor fluidly downstream of the compressor; a turbine fluidly downstream of the combustor and secured to the rotatable shaft; an exhaust fluidly downstream of the turbine; a plurality of the bearing for supporting the rotatable shaft; and the fuel system delivering the fuel/lubricant sequentially first to at least one of the plurality of bearings and then to the combustor, such that the mixture exits the at least one of the plurality of bearings before entering the combustor.
However, Conboy teaches it was known to use fuel/lubricant systems that deliver a fuel and lubricant mixture to at least one jet engine bearing in a liquid phase, where the lubricant vaporizes on contact with the bearing to provide additional cooling while keeping the bearing from seizing (Introduction, ll.7-11).
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 vaporization location of Sorem to be at the bearing as taught by Conboy, in order to provide additional cooling and anti-seizing functionality (Introduction, ll.7-11).
Sorem in view of Conboy still does not teach the gas turbine engine comprising an inlet; a compressor fluidly downstream of the inlet and secured to a rotatable shaft; a combustor fluidly downstream of the compressor; a turbine fluidly downstream of the combustor and secured to the rotatable shaft; an exhaust fluidly downstream of the turbine; a plurality of the bearing for supporting the rotatable shaft; and the fuel system delivering the fuel/lubricant sequentially first to at least one of the plurality of bearings and then to the combustor, such that the mixture exits the at least one of the plurality of bearings before entering the combustor.
However, Morreale teaches a gas turbine engine (Fig 1) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
796
636
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a static structure (Fig 1 above);
an inlet (Fig 1 above);
a compressor (6, 8) fluidly downstream of the inlet and secured to a rotatable shaft (to transmit power from turbine(s) 12, 14 to the compressor(s));
a combustor (10) fluidly downstream of the compressor (Fig 1);
a turbine (12, 14) fluidly downstream of the combustor and secured to the rotatable shaft (to transmit power to the compressor(s) 6, 8);
an exhaust (Fig 1 above) fluidly downstream of the turbine (Fig 1);
a plurality of bearings (16; [0003], p.3) disposed along an axial length (from inlet to exhaust, Fig 1) of the rotatable shaft (at least the rotatable shaft connecting 6 to 14) to provide rotational support to at least one of the compressor and the turbine (via rotatable shaft); and
a fuel system (100) operable to deliver a fuel lubricant (from 108) sequentially first to at least one of the plurality of bearings (16) and then to the combustor (102 inject into 10), such that the mixture exits the at least one of the plurality of bearings before entering the combustor (Fig 1; fuel lubricant travels in order through: 108, 106, 110, 112, 114, bearings 16, 120, 118, 122, 126, 128, 110, 112, 114, 102).
Morreale further teaches using a buffer tank to separate air from the fuel lubricant in order to supply the fuel lubricant to the combustor for combustion (Fig 1; [0003], p.4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the specific bearing lubrication arrangement of Sorem in view of Conboy in a fuel lubrication system and gas turbine engine as taught by Morreale, in order to make use of the expended fuel downstream of the bearing for combustion, and using the waste heat from the bearing to benefit the combustion process ([0003]; bottom of p.3 to p.4).
Regarding claim 2, Sorem in view of Conboy and Morreale teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Sorem in view of Conboy and Morreale as discussed so far does not teach the fuel system comprises: a fuel tank configured to store the mixture; a conduit fluidically connecting the fuel tank, the at least one of the plurality of bearings, and the combustor; a fuel pump; and a control circuitry operable to control delivery of the mixture from the fuel tank to the at least one of the plurality of bearings and the combustor via the conduit.
However, Morreale further teaches the fuel system comprises: a fuel tank (108) configured to store the mixture (Fig 1);
a conduit (incl. lines between 108, 106, 110, 112, 116, 16, 120, 118, 122, 128, 102, 104) fluidically connecting the fuel tank, the at least one of the plurality of bearings, and the combustor (102 inject into 10; Fig 1);
a fuel pump (106, 112); and
a control circuitry (to control servo system 114) operable to control delivery of the mixture from the fuel tank to the at least one of the plurality of bearings and the combustor via the conduit (114 in Fig 1; [003] on p.3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sorem in view of Conboy and Morreale in view of Morreale for the same reason above. That is, it was obvious to use the specific bearing lubrication arrangement of Sorem (in view of Conboy and Morreale) in a fuel lubrication system and gas turbine engine as taught by Morreale, in order to make use of the expended fuel lubricant downstream of the bearing for combustion, and using the waste heat from the bearing to benefit the combustion process ([0003]; bottom of p.3 to p.4).
Regarding claim 10, Sorem in view of Conboy and Morreale teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Sorem in view of Conboy and Morreale as discussed so far, does not teach the mixture is delivered to the at least one of the plurality of bearings and then to the combustor through a conduit that defines at least a portion of a flowpath for the mixture within the fuel system, wherein the mixture passes through the at least one of the plurality of bearings before reaching the combustor.
However, Morreale further teaches the fuel lubricant is delivered to the at least one of the plurality of bearings and then to the combustor through a conduit (any one or more of the lines between 108, 106, 110, 112, 116, 16, 120, 118, 122, 128, 102, 104) that defines at least a portion of a flowpath (through 106, 110, 112, 116, 16, 120, 118, 122, 128, 102, 104) for the mixture within the fuel system (Fig 1), wherein the mixture passes through the at least one of the plurality of bearings before reaching the combustor (at least some portion of the fuel lubricant passes to the bearings before passing to the combustor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sorem in view of Conboy and Morreale in view of Morreale for the same reason above. That is, it was obvious to use the specific bearing lubrication arrangement of Sorem (in view of Conboy and Morreale) in a fuel lubrication system and gas turbine engine as taught by Morreale, in order to make use of the expended fuel lubricant downstream of the bearing for combustion, and using the waste heat from the bearing to benefit the combustion process ([0003]; bottom of p.3 to p.4).
Regarding claim 12, Sorem in view of Conboy and Morreale teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Sorem in view of Conboy and Morreale as discussed so far, does not teach the at least one of the plurality of bearings is disposed within a hot section of the gas turbine engine.
However, Morreale further teaches the at least one of the plurality of bearings is disposed within a hot section of the gas turbine engine (16 in E2 is located at the high pressure compressor, and 16 in E3 is located at the turbine exhaust, which are all hot sections compared to the engine inlet).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sorem in view of Conboy and Morreale in view of Morreale for the same reason above. That is, it was obvious to use the specific bearing lubrication arrangement of Sorem (in view of Conboy and Morreale) in a fuel lubrication system and gas turbine engine as taught by Morreale, in order to make use of the expended fuel lubricant downstream of the bearing for combustion, and using the waste heat from the bearing to benefit the combustion process ([0003]; bottom of p.3 to p.4).
Regarding claim 13, Sorem in view of Conboy and Morreale teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Sorem further teaches the at least one of the plurality of bearings is a ball bearing (sole figure).
Regarding claim 21, Sorem in view of Conboy and Morreale teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Sorem further teaches the lubricant is configured to vaporize at any convenient location when the bearings are operating at or above the boiling temperature of the lubricant (col.4 ll.18-25).
Sorem in view of Conboy and Morreale as discussed so far, also teaches the lubricant being configured to vaporize when the lubricant comes in contact with hot surface of components of the at least one of the plurality of bearings.
That is, Conboy teaches the lubricant of a fuel-lubricant mixture being configured to vaporize when the lubricant comes in contact with hot surface of components of bearings in order to provide additional cooling while keeping the bearing from seizing (Introduction, ll.7-11).
And 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 vaporization location of Sorem (in view of Conboy and Morreale) to be at the bearing as taught by Conboy, in order to provide additional cooling and anti-seizing functionality (Introduction, ll.7-11).
Regarding claim 22, Sorem in view of Conboy and Morreale teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Sorem further teaches the bearing operating at temperatures between about 225°C and about 550°C during operation of the gas turbine engine (bearing is operating at above 450°F ≈ 232°C; col.3 ll.11-21).
Sorem in view of Conboy and Morreale as discussed so far, does not teach the at least one bearing disposed within the hot section.
However, Morreale teaches the at least one bearing may be disposed in a hot section (between low pressure compressor and exhaust of the engine).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sorem in view of Conboy and Morreale in view of Morreale for the same reason above. That is, it was obvious to use the specific bearing lubrication arrangement of Sorem (in view of Conboy and Morreale) in a fuel lubrication system and gas turbine engine as taught by Morreale, in order to make use of the expended fuel lubricant downstream of the bearing for combustion, and using the waste heat from the bearing to benefit the combustion process ([0003]; bottom of p.3 to p.4).
Regarding claim 23, Sorem in view of Conboy and Morreale teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above (including a portion of the lubricant vaporizing from the mixture within the bearing; Conboy, Introduction, ll.7-11). Sorem further teaches the lubricant reacting with the bearing to form protective films on the bearing surfaces (col.2 ll.4-11, 32-50).
Sorem in view of Conboy and Morreale as discussed so far, does not teach the fuel system is configured such that an entirety of the mixture is first routed to a region containing the at least one of the plurality of bearings (where the portion of the lubricant vaporizes from the mixture and reacts within the at least one of the plurality of bearings) while any remaining portion of the mixture is directed to the combustor.
However, Morreale further teaches the fuel system is configured such that an entirety of the mixture (in this case, the portion of the fuel lubricant in Morreale that passes first to the bearings and then to the combustor is considered the entirety of the mixture) is first routed to a region containing the at least one of the plurality of bearings (about 16), while any remaining portion of the mixture is directed to the combustor (after passing through 120, 118, 122, 128, 102).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sorem in view of Conboy and Morreale in view of Morreale for the same reason above. That is, it was obvious to use the specific bearing lubrication arrangement of Sorem (in view of Conboy and Morreale) in a fuel lubrication system and gas turbine engine as taught by Morreale, in order to make use of the expended fuel lubricant downstream of the bearing for combustion, and using the waste heat from the bearing to benefit the combustion process ([0003]; bottom of p.3 to p.4).
Regarding claim 25, Sorem in view of Conboy and Morreale teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Sorem in view of Conboy and Morreale also teaches the fuel system is configured to operate as a lubrication system for the least one of the plurality of bearings.
That is, Morreale teaches the fuel system is configured to operate as a lubrication system for the least one of the plurality of bearings (Fig 1).
And it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sorem in view of Conboy and Morreale in view of Morreale for the same reason above. That is, it was obvious to use the specific bearing lubrication arrangement of Sorem (in view of Conboy and Morreale) in a fuel lubrication system and gas turbine engine as taught by Morreale, in order to make use of the expended fuel lubricant downstream of the bearing for combustion, and using the waste heat from the bearing to benefit the combustion process ([0003]; bottom of p.3 to p.4).
Regarding claim 26, Sorem in view of Conboy and Morreale teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Sorem in view of Conboy and Morreale as discussed so far, does not teach the gas turbine engine is configured to power a limited-life airborne vehicle.
However, Morreale further teaches the gas turbine engine is configured to power a limited-life airborne vehicle ([0001], such as drones).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sorem in view of Conboy and Morreale in view of Morreale for the same reason above. That is, it was obvious to use the specific bearing lubrication arrangement of Sorem (in view of Conboy and Morreale) in a fuel lubrication system and gas turbine engine as taught by Morreale, in order to make use of the expended fuel lubricant downstream of the bearing for combustion, and using the waste heat from the bearing to benefit the combustion process ([0003]; bottom of p.3 to p.4).
Claims 3-9, 14 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorem in view of Conboy and Morreale, and further in view of Lighty 9915203.
Regarding claims 3-9, Sorem in view of Conboy and Morreale teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Sorem further teaches using a JP-4 fuel with up to 11.5% by volume of aromatics (col.5, Table III) and from 0.01-5% by volume (in the claimed range of at least 0.1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5%) of a phosphate such as an aryl phosphate or triethyl phosphate (col.2 ll.32 – end; and cl.5, 8, 11) in order to form a protective film on the bearing in situ (col.2 ll.4-27; col.4 ll.8-13).
Sorem in view of Conboy and Morreale as discussed so far does not teach (claim 3) the lubricant comprises an alkylated triphenyl phosphate ester; the mixture containing at least (claim 4) 5%, (claim 5) 4%, (claim 6) 3%, (claim 7) 2%, (claim 8) 1%, (claim 9) 0.1% of the alkylated triphenyl phosphate ester.
However, Lighty teaches using an alkylated triphenyl phosphate ester (tertiary-butyl phenyl phosphate, TBPP; col.1 l.55 – col.2 l.5) as the lubricant (i.e. at 100% by volume) for a gas turbine engine (col.1 ll.17-20) where the lubricant is supplied, as a mist, with air into the bearing compartment to be vaporized and adsorbed to the bearing surface to form a lubricious surface on the bearing (col.5 ll.4-30).
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 lubricant fuel additive of Sorem in view of Conboy and Morreale to be an alkylated triphenyl phosphate ester as taught by Lighty, because Lighty teaches alkylated triphenyl phosphate esters as suitable for reacting with the steel material of a bearing to form a lubricious coating as desired by Sorem and particularly for single-use gas turbine engine applications (Sorem col.2 ll.4-end, col.4 ll.8-13, cl.5, 8, 11; Lighty col.1 ll.17-20 and 43-49, col.5 ll.4-30) and because MPEP2144.07 provides it was an obvious extension of prior art teachings to select a known material (an alkylated triphenyl phosphate ester; Lighty col.1 l.55 – col.2 l.5) based on its suitability for its intended use (to react with steel bearings to form a lubricious coating, Lighty, col.5 ll.4-30).
Regarding claim 14, Sorem in view of Conboy and Morreale teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Sorem further teaches using a JP-4 fuel with up to 11.5% by volume of aromatics (col.5, Table III) and from 0.01-5% by volume of phosphate such as an aryl phosphate or triethyl phosphate (col.2 ll.32 – end; and cl.5, 8, 11) in order to form a protective film on the bearing in situ (col.2 ll.4-27; col.4 ll.8-13).
Sorem in view of Conboy and Morreale as discussed so far, does not teach the contact surfaces of the ball bearing are made of steel wherein a majority percentage of an alloying element is iron.
However, Lighty teaches using an alkylated triphenyl phosphate ester (tertiary-butyl phenyl phosphate, TBPP; col.1 l.55 – col.2 l.5) as the lubricant (i.e. at 100% by volume) for a gas turbine engine (col.1 ll.17-20) when the bearing comprises steel contact surface (col.5 ll.12-30, col.6 ll.14-20) comprising majority iron (by definition of steel), where the lubricant is supplied, as a mist, with air into the bearing compartment to be vaporized and adsorbed to the bearing surface to form a lubricious surface on the bearing (col.5 ll.4-30).
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 lubricant fuel additive and bearing material of Sorem in view of Conboy and Morreale to be an alkylated triphenyl phosphate ester and steel as taught by Lighty, because Lighty teaches alkylated triphenyl phosphate esters as suitable for reacting with the steel material of a bearing to form a lubricious coating as desired by Sorem and particularly for single-use gas turbine engine applications (Sorem col.2 ll.4-end, col.4 ll.8-13, cl.5, 8, 11; Lighty col.1 ll.17-20 and 43-49, col.5 ll.4-30) and because MPEP2144.07 provides it was an obvious extension of prior art teachings to select a known material (an alkylated triphenyl phosphate ester; Lighty col.1 l.55 – col.2 l.5) based on its suitability for its intended use (to react with steel bearings to form a lubricious coating, Lighty, col.5 ll.4-30).
Regarding claim 24, Sorem in view of Conboy and Morreale teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Sorem further teaches the lubricant reacts with the contact surfaces of the ball bearing at temperatures between about 225 °C and about 550 °C to form a tribo-film (col.2 ll.4-11, 32-50; ball bearing is operating at above 450°F ≈ 232°C; col.3 ll.11-21, sole figure).
Sorem further teaches various chemical options for the lubricant including “phosphoric acid or a phosphate salt, e. g., tribasic sodium phosphate, or mixtures thereof…an organic acid phosphate or phosphite, such as an aryl or alkyl acid phosphate, e. g., triethyl phosphate, diphenyl phosphoric acid, dilauryl phosphoric acid, or an alkyl phosphite, such as tributyl phosphite, and/or…trichlorophosphonates” (col.2 ll.51-65).
Sorem in view of Conboy and Morreale as discussed so far, does not teach the resulting film containing at least one of iron (III) phosphate (FePO4), iron (II) phosphide (Fe2P), or iron (I) phosphide (Fe3P).
However, Lighty teaches using an alkylated triphenyl phosphate ester (tertiary-butyl phenyl phosphate, TBPP; col.1 l.55 – col.2 l.5) as the lubricant (i.e. at 100% by volume) for a gas turbine engine (col.1 ll.17-20) when the bearing comprises steel contact surface (col.5 ll.12-30, col.6 ll.14-20) comprising majority iron (by definition of steel), where the lubricant is supplied, as a mist, with air into the bearing compartment to be vaporized and adsorbed to the bearing surface to form a lubricious surface on the bearing (col.5 ll.4-30). Although Lighty is not explicitly stating the resulting film comprises the same substances (iron (III) phosphate (FePO4), iron (II) phosphide (Fe2P), or iron (I) phosphide (Fe3P) as Applicant, Lighty is using the same reactants (alkylated triphenyl phosphate ester and majority iron alloy) as Applicant (see Applicant’s Specification at [0008, 0024]), under the same conditions as Applicant (high pressure and temperature of gas turbine engine bearing), for the same purpose as Applicant (to form tribo-film by adsorption), thus it was reasonable to expect the resulting film of Lighty includes at least some of the same substances achieved by Applicant.
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 lubricant fuel additive and bearing material of Sorem in view of Conboy and Morreale to be an alkylated triphenyl phosphate ester and steel as taught by Lighty, because Lighty teaches alkylated triphenyl phosphate esters as suitable for reacting with the steel material of a bearing to form a lubricious coating as desired by Sorem and particularly for single-use gas turbine engine applications (Sorem col.2 ll.4-end, col.4 ll.8-13, cl.5, 8, 11; Lighty col.1 ll.17-20 and 43-49, col.5 ll.4-30) and because MPEP2144.07 provides it was an obvious extension of prior art teachings to select a known material (an alkylated triphenyl phosphate ester; Lighty col.1 l.55 – col.2 l.5) based on its suitability for its intended use (to react with steel bearings to form a lubricious coating, Lighty, col.5 ll.4-30).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive or are moot for the cases where 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.
Applicant argues that the lubrication in Sorem occurs without the ability to recover any of the used hydrocarbon lubricant for subsequent use while citing to Sorem’s sole figure having an element labeled “Drain to Lubricant Sump”.
However, Sorem discusses both misting liquid lubricant-fuel operation and vaporized lubricant-fuel operation (col.4 ll.18-25). The presence of a drain to sump does not preclude “the ability to recover any of the used hydrocarbon lubricant for subsequent use” and if anything, it explicitly teaches the ability to recover used lubricant-fuel for subsequent use. Note that Sorem’s fuel-lubricant comprises a liquid JP fuel with lubricating additives (col.3 ll.49-56; col.2 ll.4-end). Furthermore, when a substance such as JP fuel (which is a mixture) can be used as both a lubricant and a fuel, it (in and of itself) reads on the limitation “a mixture of fuel and lubricant”. Furthermore, because Sorem’s system can operate across a range of temperatures and phases of fuel-lubricant, it is reasonable that during at least some operating conditions, the fuel-lubricant is a mixed phase fluid (including both liquid and gaseous phases).
Applicant argues that Morreale relates to lubrication and cooling using liquid fuel with the objective of eliminating a separate oil system such that Morreale “expressly eliminates oil and avoids vapor-phase lubrication altogether”. Applicant combines this argument with the previous argument to conclude that the two references are incompatible.
However, elimination of a separate oil system is not the same as teaching away from including lubricating components in the lubricating fuel, as this does not require any separate oil system. Furthermore, Morreale’s silence as to whether any of the lubricating fuel vaporizes does not teach away from some amount or component of the lubricating fuel vaporizing in the system. Note, that the recovery pumps of Morreale are specifically designed to recover air/fuel mixtures (i.e. including at least the gaseous phase of air). Thus there does not appear to be any issues with modifying the system of Morreale to handle the physical state(s) of the fluids in Sorem, in order to benefit from the advantages from Sorem; particularly in light of the teachings of Sorem, which can handle a range of lubricant-fuel phases.
Applicant argues that Sorem does not describe a lubricant-fuel mixture.
However, as discussed above, Sorem teaches a JP fuel with lubricating additives. Furthermore, JP fuel itself being usable as both a lubricant and a fuel, is considered a mixture of fuel and lubricant.
Applicant argues that Sorem’s fuel-lubricant is vaporized before reaching the bearings.
However, Sorem actually teaches vaporizing the fuel-lubricant at any convenient location (col.4 ll.18-20) and that the system is capable of operating with both liquid and gaseous fuel-lubricant (col.4 ll.21-25). Then, new reference Conboy explicitly teaches the advantages of vaporizing fuel-lubricant at the bearing itself (for enhanced cooling while preventing seizing; Introduction)
Applicant argues Morreale’s fuel is only a fuel and does not comprise lubricant.
However, the fuel in Morreale is being used as both a lubricant and a fuel, thus it satisfies the requirements of both the lubricant component and the fuel component of the claimed mixture. Furthermore, as taught by Sorem and new reference Conboy, the typical liquid fuels in jet engines that could be used as both fuel and lubricant are, themselves, mixtures.
Applicant further asserts that Morreale’s system cannot handle the oxygen-containing gas/hydrocarbon mixture in Sorem.
However, Morreale explicitly teaches a deaerator and various scavenge components that are capable of handling (and are explicitly taught as handling) the air/hydrocarbon mixture leaving the bearings.
Applicant further argues that the fuel-lubricant of Sorem is chemically altered at the bearing rather than maintained as a recoverable fuel stream. Applicant cites to Sorem teaching the avoidance of complete combustion, avoidance of excessive oxidation, and avoidance of excessive carbon formation (col.1 ll.35-end).
It is true that some chemical alteration of the fuel-lubricant occurs at the bearing in Sorem. Chemical alteration of the fuel-lubricant also occurs at the bearing in Applicant’s disclosure. However, Sorem explicitly teaches that not all the fuel-lubricant is chemically altered (not complete combustion). And Sorem explicitly teaches limiting chemical alteration by oxidation and limiting particulate formation (carbon formation). The major oxidation product is carbon monoxide, a gas. Although Sorem does not teach processing a fuel-lubricant downstream of the bearings for further combustion downstream, Morreale teaches scavenge pumps (capable of processing air-fuel mixtures), filters (for filtering out particulate matter), and deaerators for separating the scavenged fuel into a liquid fuel and gaseous air components (and this teaching/modification is present in both the previous and current office actions).
Applicant alleges various alterations that would be required to modify Sorem and Morreale together including: eliminating Sorem’s oxygen control considerations, and “adding” Morreale’s closed loop recovery and conditioning infrastructure.
However, as discussed above, there does not appear to be any reason to modify Sorem’s oxygen control considerations and the modification is to use the bearing and fuel lubrication concept of Sorem in the system of Morreale. Combining teachings in prior art is the bases of 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections and is explicitly supported by KSR. Applicant has not pointed to any nonobvious modification that would be needed to combine Sorem and Morreale. There is no change in the principle of operation of either reference. The resulting system provides a lubricant-fuel to bearings and to a combustor.
Applicant’s arguments about Lighty not curing the alleged deficiencies of Sorem and Morreale are addressed by the above discussion rebutting all the alleged deficiencies of Sorem and Morreale.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE SEBASCO CHENG whose telephone number is (469) 295-9153. The examiner can normally be reached on 0600-0900 AM ET M-F and 1-2PM T/R.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEPHANIE SEBASCO CHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights