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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-37 are cancelled. Claims 38-45 are pending and examined on the merits.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
10.2, 16, 21, 23, 24, 25, 29, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 80
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. 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. See MPEP § 2181.I. Such claim limitations are:
“effluent collector” in claim 38. The word “collector” means a device that collects (see Merriam-Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collector), so “effluent collector” means a device that collects effluent.
“foaming system” in claim 38.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
“foaming system” is interpreted as requiring the structure(s) of a chamber (see Spec. at ¶¶ 0007, 0062, 0089), and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 38-45 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 limitation “effluent collector” (as recited in Claim 38) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). But the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure to the function. The specification does not describe the actual structures of the “effluent collector,” and the drawings do not illustrate what “effluent collector” looks like. Thus, the metes and bounds of “effluent collector” are unclear, thereby rendering the claims indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding the 112(b) rejection of the 112(f) term, Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure performs the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 39-45 are rejected because they depend on a claim rejected herein.
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 38-40 and 43-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GRIFFITHS et al. (US PGPUB 20160010497, hereinafter “GRIFFITHS-497”), in view of PETTER et al. (US PGPUB 20130087175) and PLESSIS (US PGPUB 20110005554).
Regarding Claim 38, GRIFFITHS-497 teaches a method of cleaning a turbofan engine (e.g., engine 110) installed on an aircraft (see, e.g., abstract, ¶¶ 0002, 0007, 0010-11, 0013-14, 0031, 0036, Figs. 1-4). GRIFFITHS-497 teaches the turbofan engine having a fan (blade 119, see Figs. 2-4, ¶ 0024); a compressor (compressor 134, see Figs. 2-4, ¶ 0025); and a gas path (see Figs. 2-4, empty space within the engine).
GRIFFITHS-497 teaches:
providing a foam discharge spout (injector 166, see Figs. 2-4, ¶¶ 0031, 0033-36);
creating a foam (see ¶¶ 0011, 0032, 0034, 0036-37, a foamed cleaning agent);
placing the discharge spout (injector 166) in the gas path in front of the compressor and behind the fan (see Figs. 2-4, in front of compressor 134 and behind fan 119);
injecting the foam from the discharge spout (injector 166) into the compressor (compressor 134) of the turbofan engine (see Figs. 2-4, ¶¶ 0011, 0031-32, 0034, 0036-37, injecting the foamed cleaning agent into the engine core, which includes the compressor);
expelling the injected foam from the turbofan engine (see Figs. 2-4, ¶¶ 0022, the rotating components of the engine are rotated under external power (dry motored) to cause the cleaning agent to move through the engine).
GRIFFITHS-497 teaches or reasonably suggests the foam discharge spout (injector 166) is non-atomizing. That’s because several components (e.g., connector 160, conduit 162, tube 164, injector 166, valve 168) receive the cleaning agent that is already foamed (see ¶ 0036, Figs. 2-4), which means or reasonably suggests that the foam discharge spout (injector 166) does not atomize the cleaning agent.
GRIFFITHS-497 does not explicitly teach:
the foam is created “with a foaming system using a supply of pressurized gas, water, and cleaning chemicals”;
providing an “effluent collector” and “collecting the expelled foam onto the effluent collector.”
PETTER teaches cleaning an engine installed on an aircraft (see ¶¶ 0077-81) using foam that’s created with a foaming system (power unit 28) using a supply of pressurized gas, water, and cleaning chemicals (see Figs. 1, 16, ¶¶ 0034, 0037, 0043, 0046-47, 0058, 0067).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify GRIFFITHS-497 to incorporate creating the foam with a foaming system using a supply of pressurized gas, water, and cleaning chemicals, with reasonable expectation of creating foam. It’s already known in the prior art to create foam with a foaming system using a supply of pressurized gas, water, and cleaning chemicals (see PETTER). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could've combined the elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007); MPEP § 2143, A.
The combination of GRIFFITHS-497 and PETTER does not explicitly teach:
providing an “effluent collector” and “collecting the expelled foam onto the effluent collector.”
PLESSIS teaches cleaning an engine installed on an aircraft (see Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0033, 0037, 0044). PLESSIS teaches providing an effluent collector (waste fluid collection cart 50, see Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0037, 0039-40) and collecting the expelled effluent onto the effluent collector (see Fig. 1, ¶ 0037). By collecting the expelled effluent, harmful contaminants in the effluent can be collected and treated (see ¶ 0037).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of GRIFFITHS-497 and PETTER to incorporate an effluent collector and incorporate collecting the expelled effluent onto the effluent collector, with reasonable expectation of collecting the expelled foam. First, the effluent collector allows the expelled effluent to be collected for treatment; given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate an effluent collector and use it to collect the expelled effluent/foam. Second, it’s already known in the prior art to use an effluent collector to collect expelled effluent onto the effluent collector (see PLESSIS). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined the elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
In the resulting combination of GRIFFITHS-497, PETTER, and PLESSIS: the foam would be created with a foaming system using a supply of pressurized gas, water, and cleaning chemicals; and an effluent collector would be provided to collect the expelled foam onto the effluent collector.
Regarding Claim 39, the combination of GRIFFITHS-497, PETTER, and PLESSIS teaches the method of claim 38.
PNG
media_image1.png
692
1455
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The combination teaches wherein the foam discharge spout includes an inlet (the upstream end of GRIFFITHS-497’s tube 164, see GRIFFITHS-497 at Fig. 4, ¶¶ 0031, 0033, 0036) for receiving the created foam (see id.) and a hooked end having a nozzle (GRIFFITHS-497’s J-shaped hook has an aperture 167, see GRIFFITHS-497 at Fig. 4, ¶¶ 0031, 0034). As explained above, the nozzle/spout is non-atomizing because it receives a cleaning agent already foamed.
Regarding Claim 40, the combination of GRIFFITHS-497, PETTER, and PLESSIS teaches the method of claim 39. The combination teaches wherein the gas path of the turbofan engine includes a splitter (splitter 146 of GRIFFITHS-497) downstream of the fan (see Figs. 2-4 of GRIFFITHS-497), and the hooked end of the foam discharge spout couples to the splitter (see id. at Figs. 2-4, ¶¶ 0011, 0033).
Regarding Claim 43, the combination of GRIFFITHS-497, PETTER, and PLESSIS teaches the method of claim 38. The combination teaches wherein the turbofan engine includes a combustor (GRIFFITHS-497’s combustor 136, see GRIFFITHS-497 at Fig. 2, ¶¶ 0006, 0012, 0025) and said cleaning includes cleaning of the combustor (see id. at Fig. 2, ¶ 0026).
Regarding Claim 44, the combination of GRIFFITHS-497, PETTER, and PLESSIS teaches the method of claim 38. The combination teaches wherein the foam discharge spout (GRIFFITHS-497’s injector 166) has a hooked end (see GRIFFITHS-497 at Fig. 4, injector 166 has a J-shaped hook).
PNG
media_image1.png
692
1455
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 45, the combination of GRIFFITHS-497, PETTER, and PLESSIS teaches the method of claim 44. The combination teaches wherein the foam discharge spout (GRIFFITHS-497’s injector 166) flows the created foam toward the hooked end in a first direction (see GRIFFITHS-497 at Fig. 4, the foamed cleaning agent first flows from the engine’s rear towards the engine’s front), and the hooked end flows the foam toward the compressor (GRIFFITHS-497’s compressor 134) in a second direction substantially opposite of the first direction (see GRIFFITHS-497 at Fig. 4, the foamed cleaning agent changes flow direction through the J-shaped hook).
Claims 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of GRIFFITHS-497, PETTER, and PLESSIS (as applied to Claim 38), in view of GRIFFITHS et al. (US PGPUB 20160067750, hereinafter “GRIFFITHS-750”).
Regarding Claim 41, the combination of GRIFFITHS-497, PETTER, and PLESSIS teaches the method of claim 38. The combination teaches injecting the foam into the turbofan engine (as explained above), as well as rotating the turbofan engine to move the foam through the engine (see GRIFFITHS-497 at ¶ 0022).
Although the combination does not explicitly teach that the turbofan engine is rotated “during” said injecting, this is already taught by the prior art. GRIFFITHS-750 teaches cleaning the engine of an aircraft using foam injected into the engine (see ¶¶ 0006-08, 0033), wherein the turbofan engine is rotated during said injecting (see ¶ 0033).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of GRIFFITHS-497, PETTER, and PLESSIS to rotate the turbofan engine “during” said injecting, with reasonable expectation of cleaning the engine. It’s already known in the prior art to rotate the turbofan engine to move the foam through the engine (see GRIFFITHS-497; see GRIFFITHS-750), wherein the turbofan engine is rotated during the injection of the foam (see GRIFFITHS-750). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined the elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
Regarding Claim 42, the combination of GRIFFITHS-497, PETTER, PLESSIS, and GRIFFITHS-750 teaches the method of claim 41. As explained above, the combination teaches injecting the foam into the compressor (GRIFFITHS-497’s compressor 134) of the turbofan engine at a location (see GRIFFITHS-497 at ¶ 0033, inject around the engine’s circumference) and rotating the engine during said injection (see GRIFFITHS-750).
PNG
media_image2.png
452
685
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Due to the engine’s rotation, the foam injected into the rotating engine also acquires rotational movement; this means the injected foam would be lifted upward (see figure above) within the gas path (the space within the engine). In other words, the combination teaches or reasonably suggests: “wherein said injecting the foam is into the compressor at a location such that the injected foam is lifted upward within the gas path.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 09:00-17:00 Eastern.
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, KAJ OLSEN can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/RICHARD Z. ZHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights