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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 05/08/2026 is acknowledged.
As applicant has elected to cancel claims 17-20, directed towards the nonelected invention, no claims are withdrawn in light of the election.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8, 10-11, 14, & 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eriksen (US20180283209A1), Saenz (US20200131928A1), and Munoz (US20160169107A1).
As to claims 1-2, Erikson disclose an engine cleaning system for a gas turbine engine via foam (abstract) comprising: first and second tank module (ref 22, see [0026] indicating plurality of tank modules) containing a detergent [0033 & 0035], thereby reading on a foam cartridge; a foam generating assembly (ref 26) coupled to the tank to generate and supply foam [0026 & 0063], wherein the generated foam can be supplied to different ports (see [0046-0049] & Figs.6-8 showcasing a manifold with multiple valves that allows for selective flow to a desired port). Erikson does not discloses first and second foam generating assemblies, rather Erikson only shows the instance of a single foam generator for a single tank. Thus, it is unclear from Erikson alone whether each detergent has its own foam generator. However, the use of separate foam generators for each individual component or a single foam generator are known alternatives in the art, as seen by Saenz.
Saenz discloses an art related cleaning method for a jet engine (abstract), wherein it is known that a providing a foaming element as a separate element is a known alternative to providing a foaming element as part of a combined element [0110]. Saenz also indicates that the multiple different chemicals can be utilized for cleaning of the engine (e.g., see figures “Chem A” vs “Chem B”). However, assuming arguendo that Saenz does not specifically indicate that the chemicals are different, it is well-known that different chemicals are utilized in the cleaning process, as seen by Munoz.
Munoz discloses an art related system for cleaning of a gas turbine engine (abstract), wherein it is known that the fluids utilized for cleaning of the engine can be different or same [0017].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Erikson to provide a foam generating assembly for each detergent cartridge as such is a known variant in the art (Saenze [0110]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one know foam generating assembly configuration in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success. A skilled artisan would also find it obvious to utilize different or same chemicals for cleaning of the engine as such is known in the art (Munoz [0017]).
As to claim 8, Modified Erikson teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first cleaning foam is capable of being supplied to the first before the second cleaning foam is supplied to the second cleaning port via the valving (Erikson [0046-0049]). It is also noted that such a limitation is merely intended use of the system, and since the system is capable of performing such a task, it reads on the limitation.
As to claim 10, Modified Erikson teaches the system of claim 1, but does not disclose the presence of a heaters for heating the detergents. However, Saenz indicates that it is known to provide a heater for heating of detergent including in the foam generating device [0020-0021]. It is understood that heating of the detergent can promote cleaning effectiveness [0169]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to further modify Erikson to incorporate heaters in the foam generating assembly in order heat the foam to promote cleaning effectiveness (Saenz [0020-0021 & 0169]).
As to claim 11, Modified Erikson teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the foam generating assembly has a foam generator (Erikson ref 160). Since Saenz indicates the presence of separate foam generating assemblies for each detergents, a skilled artisan would reasonably expect the modification would also entail a foam generator for each detergent tank.
As to claim 14, Modified Erikson teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the distribution manifold (Erikson refs 164/56) reads on a first cartridge adaptor as it receives at least some part of the overall foam generating assembly. Modified Erikson also showcases a first foam supply hose (Erikson Fig.6 ref 58) extending from the first cartridge adapter for directing the first cleaning foam, wherein the hose terminates at a borescope port adapter (see Erikson Fig.6 refs 74/76/146) configured for receipt within the first cleaning port of the gas turbine engine.
As to claim 21, Modified Erikson teaches the system of claim 1 further comprising a sensing device (Erikson ref 166) to detect foam characteristics including density, volume, bubble size [0066].
As to claim 22, Modified Erikson teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the foam generating assembly has a control unit configured to pressurize a flow of the detergent (Erikson [0007, 0040-0043 & 0063]).
As to claim 23, Modified Erikson teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the foam generating assembly comprises a plurality of aeration devices in series to refine bubble size [0064].
Claim(s) 3 & 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eriksen (US20180283209A1) and Saenz (US20200131928A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McCormick (US20160258318A1).
As to claims 3 & 5, Modified Erikson teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the detergents can be the same or different (Munoz [0017]). Modified Erikson does not disclose the concentration of pH being different. However, such a feature is known in the art, as seen by McCormick.
McCormick discloses an art relate turbine engine washing system (abstract), wherein it is known the different tanks can be utilized to store different agents or the tanks can be utilized to store the same agent but at different concentrations [0041] to accommodate for different cleaning operations. Solutions with different concentrations would have a different pH, even if only by a miniscule amount.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Erikson to provide different detergents in the cartridges, or utilize a similar detergent at different concentrations in each cartridge in order to accommodate desired washing operations (Munoz [0017] & McCormick [0041]). A skilled artisan recognizes that detergent with different concentrations would have a different pH.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eriksen (US20180283209A1) and Saenz (US20200131928A1), Munoz (US20160169107A1), and McCormick (US20160258318A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Metropoulous (US20170191768A1) and Conchran (US10052666B1).
As to claim 4, Modified Erikson teaches the system of claim 3, but does not disclose the foam generating assembly adjusting the concentration of the foam. However, adjustment of foam concentration via air supplied to a foam generating element is known in the art, as seen by Metrepoulous and Conchran.
Metrepoulous discloses an art related foam cleaning apparatus (abstract), wherein it is understood that it is desirable to allow for generation of different foam consistencies [0057].
Conchran discloses an art related foam cleaning apparatus (abstract), wherein it is known that pressurized air is utilized in order to control foam characteristics as desired (Col.6 lines 20-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Erikson to allow for adjustment of the foam concentration via the amount of air supplied in order to obtain a foam with the desired characteristics for cleaning (Conchran Col.6 lines 20-25 & Metropoulous [0057]).
Claim(s) 5 & 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eriksen (US20180283209A1) and Saenz (US20200131928A1), and Munoz (US20160169107A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Foster (US6478033B1). The following rejection is an alternative rejection to the rejection of claim 5 set forth above.
As to claims 5 & 7, Modified Erikson teaches the system of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the detergents having a different pH. However, such a feature would have been obvious in view of Foster.
Foster discloses an art related turbine engine cleaning method (abstract), wherein it is known that a second foam pumped through the turbine is an acidic foam (abstract). Foster further indicates that such a harsh acidic foam can damage components of the compressor section, and thus the compressor section should be isolated a by supplying a first surfactant foam while the harsh acidic foam is supplied to the turbine and combustion section (Col.12 lines 35-60). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a detergent with a different pH is utilized for the first and second detergents for cleaning the different portions of the engine and the different soils found therein. Foster also indicates that a corrosion inhibitor is provided with the second foamed solution (abstract & Col.12 lines 18-35) to prevent corrosion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Erikson to utilize detergents having a different pH in order to effectively clean different portions of the engine (Foster Col.12 lines 35-60). A skilled artisan would also find it obvious include a corrosion inhibitor in order to prevent corrosion (Foster Col.12 lines 18-35).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eriksen (US20180283209A1) and Saenz (US20200131928A1), and Munoz (US20160169107A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Varanasi (DE102010038270A1), Gonzales (US20170145345A1), and Debreczeni (US20180369875A1).
As to claim 6, Modified Erikson teaches the system of claim 1, but does not disclose the detergent containing a flocculating agent. However, the use of a flocculating agent with a detergent is known in the art, as seen by Varanasi, Gonzales, and Debreczeni.
Varanasi discloses an art related method for cleaning a turbine engine surface [0001], wherein it is known that an additive for a cleaning agent can include flocculants [0027].
Gonzales discloses a cleaning composition for removing stains from surfaces (abstract), wherein it is known that a flocculating agent is a known optional additive for cleaning compositions that can be added [0143]. Gonzales and Erikson are related in the field of cleaning an item using a cleaning composition.
Debreczeni discloses a method of demonstrating effectiveness of a cleaning composition (abstract), wherein it is known that a cleaning composition may have a flocculating additive [0097]. Debreczeni and Erikson are related in the field of cleaning an item using a cleaning composition.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Erikson to utilize a flocculating additive with one of the detergents as such is known in the art (Debreczeni [0097], Gonzales [0143], & Varanasi [0027]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eriksen (US20180283209A1) and Saenz (US20200131928A1), and Munoz (US20160169107A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sales (US20080149141A1), Kulkarni (US20170167290A1), and Scipio (US20220389863A1). The following rejection is an alternative rejection that the rejection of claim 7 set forth above.
As to claim 7, Modified Erikson teaches the system of claim 1, but does not disclose the presence of a corrosion inhibitor. However, such an additive is known in the art, as seen by Sales, Kulkarni, and Scipio.
Sales discloses an art related turboengine washing system (abstract), wherein it is known that a corrosion resistant additive may be provided with a cleaning medium, especially in cases where the engine will not be utilized for a period of time [0021, 0044, 0061].
Kulkarni discloses an art related gas turbine engine cleaning system using foam (abstract), wherein it is known that detergent may be provided with a corrosion inhibitor [0029 & 0032].
Scipio discloses an art related cleaning system to reduce turbine corrosion (abstract), wherein it is known that chromium and silicon additive can inhibit corrosion [0091].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Erikson to utilize a corrosion inhibiting additive in the detergent in order to prevent corrosion, especially when the engine will not be used for a period of time (Sales [0021, 0044, 0061], Kulkarni [0029 & 0032], & Scipio [0091]).
Claim(s) 9 & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eriksen (US20180283209A1) and Saenz (US20200131928A1), and Munoz (US20160169107A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ivakitch (US20210087974A1) and Tassone (US20090039182A1).
As to claim 9, Modified Erikson teaches the system of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the generating assemblies being provided removably in the cartridges. However, a skilled artisan recognizes that the placement of the foam generating assembly would not provide unexpected results with respect to the operation of producing foam. Thus, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to locate the foam generating assembly at any location, including the claimed position, with a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP 2144.04). Further, the feature of provided something as removable is well-known in the art, as seen by Ivakitch and Tassone.
Ivakitch discloses an art related washing device for a gas turbine engine (abstract), wherein it is known to allow for an element to be made removable in order to service or replace the element [0028].
Tassone discloses an art related gas turbine cleaning system (abstract & [0002]), wherein it is known to make elements removal for maintenance [0008].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to further modify Erikson to provide the foam generating assembly as a removable element in order to allow for servicing, repairing, and maintenance of the assembly (Ivakitch [0028] & Tassone [0008]).
As to claim 15, Modified Erikson teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the outer walls of the cartridge define a cartridge housing. Erikson also indicates that a heater can be provided within the tank (Erikson [0026]). Further, Saenz indicates that a heater can be provided within a foam generating assembly [0020-0021]. Thus, a skilled artisan would find the placement of the heater in one location over the other to be an obvious rearrangement of parts (see MPEP 2144.04), as both locations are known for success in heating of the detergent.
Modified Erikson does not teach the heater being removably provided, however such a feature of providing an element as removable is well-known in the art, as seen by Ivakitch and Tassone.
Ivakitch discloses an art related washing device for a gas turbine engine (abstract), wherein it is known to allow for an element to be made removable in order to service or replace the element [0028].
Tassone discloses an art related gas turbine cleaning system (abstract & [0002]), wherein it is known to make elements removal for maintenance [0008].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to further modify Erikson to provide the heater as a removable element in order to allow for servicing, repairing, and maintenance of the heater (Ivakitch [0028] & Tassone [0008]).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eriksen (US20180283209A1) and Saenz (US20200131928A1), and Munoz (US20160169107A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lynn (US11274053B1), Slone (US20080271279A1), and Beshears (US20120125384A1).
As to claim 12, Modified Erikson teaches the system of claim 1, but does not disclose a docking station to receive the first and second cartridges and power cords from the docking station to the first and second foam generating assemblies. However, the use of docking stations for detergent cartridges is well known in the field of cleaning as seen by Lynn, Slone, and Beshears. Further, the use of power cables from docking stations to power elements is known in the field of cleaning, as seen by Beshears.
Lynn discloses a cart for cleaning purposes (abstract) having a docking station in order to receive fluid containers (see Figs.1A-3), the docking station also supplies power to said containers via power cables and a power strip (Col.13 lines 1-18). Lynn and Erikson are related in the field of detergent supplying, and one of ordinary skill in the art would look towards other detergent supplying systems when attempting to improve on a detergent supplying configuration.
Slone discloses an art related foam producing system (abstract), wherein a docking station allows for receipt of first and second reservoirs [0006-0009 & 0072-0074].
Beshears discloses a cleaning appliance (abstract), wherein multiple detergent tanks are provided as cartridges [0039] along with other additives tanks also provided as cartridges (see Fig.1) and provided within a docking station (ref 12). Beshears further indicates that a battery [0027] within the docking station acts as a power source and electrical power cables for a pump [0029] are also provided from the docking station. Beshears and Erikson are related in the field of detergent supplying, and one of ordinary skill in the art would look towards other detergent supplying systems when attempting to improve on a detergent supplying configuration.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Erikson to provide the detergents tanks as part of a cartridge and docking system, as such systems are known in the art for the handling of multiple reservoirs having multiple agents (Lynn Figs.1A-3, Slone [0006-0009 & 0072-0074], & Beshears [0027 & 0029]). Such a modification merely provides one known manner of organizing and managing multiple detergent reservoirs in place of another known configuration. It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known detergent reservoir management configuration in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 13, Modified Erikson teaches the system of claim 1, wherein a battery mounted to the docking station (Beshears [0027 & 0029]) supplies power to the foam generating assemblies (e.g. pumps and associated components) through the electrical power cables (see also Erikson [0031]).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eriksen (US20180283209A1) and Saenz (US20200131928A1), and Munoz (US20160169107A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Giljohann (US20160333732A1).
As to claim 16, Modified Erikson teaches the system of claim 1, but does not disclose the capacity of the detergent cartridge. However, a skilled artisan would find it readily obvious to size the detergent cartridges such that the capacity of the cartridge is sufficient to hold enough fluid to clean a single engine. Such a difference merely amounts to an obvious change in size (see MPEP 2144.04). Further, such a capacity is within a known range for the cleaning of an engine, as seen by Giljohann.
Giljohann discloses an art related jet engine cleaning device, wherein it is known that the required amount of liquid to clean the engine is about 12 liters (see claim 36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Erikson to size the detergent tanks such that enough fluid can be provided for the cleaning of an engine, such as 12 liter tanks (Giljohann claim 36).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eriksen (US20180283209A1) and Saenz (US20200131928A1), and Munoz (US20160169107A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ekanayake (US20160076458A1).
As to claim 24, Modified Erikson teaches the system of claim 1 having a collection module (Erikson ref 28), which is utilized to collection and/or recycle waste wash fluid (Erikson [0026]). Modified Erikson does not disclose the presence of an ultraviolet light source to direct UV light toward foam exiting the turbine engine. However, the use of UV light is known in the art to treat fluid, as seen by Ekanayake.
Ekanayake discloses an art related system for treating of a turbine (abstract), wherein it is known to utilize UV light to treat fluid in order to remove contaminants [0024].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Erikson to utilize a UV light source in order to treat waste water to remove contaminants (Ekanayake [0024]) received by the collection module. Such a modification would allow for recycling the fluid, as desired, while reducing the contamination of the fluid.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAIR CHAUDHRI whose telephone number is (571)272-4773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am to 5:00pm EST.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at (571)272-1414. 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.
/OMAIR CHAUDHRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights