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 .
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 1: “an ignition means” is being defined as a spark plug.
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.
Claim 6 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the annular ring" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that claim 6 should be dependent from claim 5 rather than 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lockwood (3462955).
Regarding claim 1, Lockwood discloses a pulse combustor for increasing operational performance, comprising: A. an inlet pipe (13) having a first length (NL) and first central axis (along NL), and an open first end (15) with a first diameter (Ni) and an open second end (at 14) with a second diameter (No), and the second diameter is greater than the first diameter; B. a combustion chamber (12) in fluid communication with the inlet pipe having a second length (Cl) and a second central axis (along the same line as NL extended upward) that is aligned with the first central axis of the inlet pipe, and a third diameter (Ci), the combustion chamber having a first end (at 14) and a second end (at 16), with the first end of the combustion chamber sealably connecting to the second end of the inlet pipe (the pipe is a solid pipe, meaning that it would be sealably connected); C. a fuel supply system (21) connected to the combustion chamber for injecting fuel into the combustion chamber for mixing with air from the inlet pipe to form a combustible mixture for ignition within the combustion chamber; D. an ignition means (20) for igniting fuel air mixtures in the combustion chamber on a predetermined basis; E. an exhaust pipe (Ti to 19) in fluid communication with the combustion chamber having a third length (T4) greater than a combined length of the inlet pipe and combustion chamber (T4 extends far past the length of Nl and Cl), with the exhaust pipe having a first end (Ti) and a second end (19), and the first end of the exhaust pipe has a fourth diameter (Ti) that is less than the third diameter of the combustion chamber and the second end of the exhaust pipe having a fifth diameter (To) that is greater than the fourth diameter, with a third central axis (Along T4 at Ti) of the exhaust pipe at the first end being aligned with the first and second central axes of the inlet pipe and combustion chamber (the entire first half of the pipe till the bend 17 is aligned, therefore, the central axis’ will all be centrally aligned as well), respectively, and with the first end of the exhaust pipe sealably connecting to the second end of the combustion chamber (it is a continuous pipe thus they would be sealably connected); and F. a turbulator (14) disposed within the inlet pipe substantially near the second end of the inlet pipe (col 4, lines 54-65, the transitions of 14 are described as intentionally sharp to produce increased turbulence, and since a turbulator is something in a flow which increases turbulence those edges would meet the definition), with the turbulator disrupting the laminar air flow within the inlet pipe to cause increased levels of turbulence in air in the combustion chamber, fuel/air mixing, and recirculating flames (these are all outcomes produced by the increase in turbulence thus the turbulators would meet these limitations).
Regarding claim 2, Lockwood discloses wherein the pulse combustor includes a U-shape (17).
Regarding claim 3, Lockwood discloses wherein the turbulator causes air turbulence in a recirculating zone (a combustion chamber will naturally have recirculation zones due to the flow therein) of the combustion chamber (col 4, lines 55-67, the front part of the combustion chamber receives turbulent air particularly on the edges as that’s where the turbulence is generated, as per the claim below that is where the recirculating zones are formed).
Regarding claim 4, Lockwood discloses wherein the recirculating zone of the combustion chamber includes an area within the combustion chamber adjacent to a wall formed where the second end of the inlet pipe connects to the first end of the combustion chamber (the recirculating zones are formed based on the shape of the combustion chamber, since the prior art has the same shape as applicants invention it would have similarly shaped recirculating zones in the same locations).
Regarding claim 10, Lockwood discloses wherein use of the turbulator during pulse combustor operation increases pressure within the combustor chamber (this is caused by the turbulence created by the turbulator, thus Lockwood would increase operational pressure).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lockwood in view of Ito (5575153).
Regarding claim 5, Lockwood does not disclose wherein the turbulator includes being in a form of an annular ring with a predetermined thickness and width to control a level of turbulence in the recirculating zone.
Ito teaches a combustor which uses a turbulator (12, fig 7) in a form of an annular ring (see ring 12, fig 7) with a predetermined thickness and width to control a level of turbulence in the recirculating zone (this happens during the design and manufacturing process, as the rings cannot change size during manufacture its dimensions would be predetermined).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combustion inlet section disclosed by Lockwood by Having a ring shaped turbulence promotor located on it based on the teachings of Ito. Doing so would allow for greater control over the mixing process (col 3, lines 18-20) and stabilize combustion (col 3, lines 48-55), as suggested by Ito.
Regarding claim 6, Lockwood as modified by Ito discloses wherein the annular ring includes a central axis aligned with the central axis of the inlet pipe (in the combination the turbulator would be added in a ring to the wall of Lockwood, and thus the ring would have the same central axis as the pipe).
Regarding claim 7, Lockwood as modified by Ito discloses wherein the annular ring includes having sharp edges presented to the laminar air flow in the inlet pipe (fig 6, Ito, the rings are rectangular shape and the corners are sharp).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lockwood in view of Althaus (5593302).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Lockwood does not disclose wherein the turbulator includes a plurality of triangular shaped projections within the inlet pipe substantially near the second end of the inlet pipe extending toward the first central axis of the inlet pipe.
Althaus teaches adding a plurality of triangular shaped projections (100, fig 1) within the inlet pipe as turbulators (col 2, lines 3-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the inlet pipe disclosed by Lockwood by using triangular turbulators projecting into the inlet pipe based on the teachings of Althaus. Doing so would swirl would reach towards the interior of the chamber towards where the fuel lance actually is (col 2, lines 3-10), as suggested by Althaus.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN V MEILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-9229. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-5pm.
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.
/SEAN V MEILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3741 /DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
