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 .
Claims 1-8 are currently being examined.
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 7 is 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 7 recites “the first contact angle is 45 degrees or less, exclusive of 30 degrees or more” which is unclear as to what range of contact angle is being claimed which renders the claim indefinite. For current examination purposes, the recitation is interpreted as the first contact angle is 45 degrees or less.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiromitsu 20210115856 in view of Varanasi et al. 20090255266 and Ukropec et al. 20150021417.
Regarding independent claim 1, Hiromitsu teaches an aircraft engine ([0041] describes gas turbine engines for aircraft) combustor ([0002] describes a combustor of a gas turbine engine) comprising:
a tubular member (124 Fig. 1) that has a tubular shape (124 has a tubular shape in Fig. 1) and defines an internal space (internal space within 124) extending along an axis (axis C in Fig. 1); and
a fuel nozzle (fuel nozzle formed by 124 and orifice wall 126 in Figs. 1 and 2A-2C; fuel flows through orifices 126o per [0029]); that is disposed such that at least a portion of the fuel nozzle is located within the internal space (at least a portion of fuel nozzle is formed within internal space of 124), the fuel nozzle having a jetting hole (126o) from which liquid fuel is jetted toward an inner peripheral surface (inner surface of 124 in Fig. 2A; per [0025] inner surface of the outer wall 124 forms the outer wall, fuel passage outer wall, PFE of the liquid fuel passage PF) of the tubular member,
wherein the tubular member is configured such that an entire distal end surface (tip end surface of 124 at downstream end with respect to fuel flow arrows FF in Fig. 1) in a circumferential direction (tip end surface of 124 extends circumferentially) extending from an outlet end of the inner peripheral surface (outlet end of 124 at tip in Fig. 1) toward an outside in a radial direction (tip end surface extends from outlet end of 124 radially outward with respect to axis C, i.e., toward an outside in a radial direction).
Hiromitsu does not explicitly teach the entire distal end surface has a first contact angle smaller than 90 degrees with respect to the liquid fuel, and wherein the distal end surface is coated with a lipophilic film, the lipophilic film being a glass coating or a photocatalytic titanium oxide coating.
Varanasi ‘266 teaches different surface materials for an article, such as a fuel nozzle, with a surface 120 shown in Fig. 5 are listed in [0043] which also describes the material is selected based on the desired contact angle, the fabrication technique used, and the end-use application of the article; surface 120 further comprises a texture comprising a plurality of features 160 and by providing a surface 120, comprising a material of comparatively high nominal wettability, with a specific texture, the resulting textured surface can have significantly lower wettability than that inherent to the material from which the surface is made. In particular, surface 120 has an effective wettability (that is, wettability of the textured surface) for the reference liquid sufficient to generate an effective contact angle greater than the nominal contact angle.
Varanasi ‘266 also teaches various ways to modify the surface including a method of rendering the surface of an article as anti-coking including providing an article comprising a coking-prone substrate; disposing a plurality of features on the substrate to form a surface, such that coking of the surface is reduced and the substrate comprises a material having a nominal liquid wettability sufficient to generate, with reference to an oil, a nominal contact angle; the features have a size, shape, and orientation selected such that the surface has an effective wettability sufficient to generate, with reference to an oil, an effective contact angle of greater than the nominal contact angle; the features comprise a height dimension (h), a width dimension (a), a spacing dimension (b) such that ratio b/a is less than about 2, and ratio h/a is less than about 10 such that the surface has an effective contact angle, with reference to an oil, greater than about 30 degrees per [0064], such that 30 degrees to 90 degrees is within the claimed range of a first contact angle smaller than 90 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the entire distal end surface of Hiromitsu by using or applying a particular material and/or providing a plurality of features disposed on the surface as taught by Varanasi ‘266 to optimize the desired contact angle to reduce coking, which results in the entire distal end surface having a first contact angle smaller than 90 degrees with respect to the liquid fuel as claimed.
Hiromitsu is silent regarding the distal end surface is coated with a lipophilic film, the lipophilic film being a glass coating or a photocatalytic titanium oxide coating. Varanasi ‘266 does teach in [0041] that surface 120 can include the substrate, the features, or the surface modification layer disposed over the substrate, depending on the specific configuration of the article and in [0043] surface 120 in Fig. 5 may be titania, i.e., titanium oxide, but Varanasi ‘266 does not explicitly describe surface 120 is a photocatalytic titanium oxide coating.
Ukropec teaches a fuel injector for an internal combustion engine has a surface of the fuel injector coated around an injection hole with photocatalytic titanium oxide to prevent deposits from forming on the fuel injector per [0013].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hiromitsu in view of Varanasi ‘266 to have the distal end surface coated with a lipophilic film, the lipophilic film being a glass coating or a photocatalytic titanium oxide coating as taught by Ukropec to use the photocatalytic titanium oxide coating to prevent deposits from forming on the distal end.
Regarding claim 2, Hiromitsu in view of Varanasi ‘266 and Ukropec teaches all that is claimed above and further teaches an outlet end portion of the inner peripheral surface including the outlet end is configured to have a second contact angle smaller than 90 degrees with respect to the liquid fuel.
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify an outlet end portion of the inner peripheral surface including the outlet end of Hiromitsu by using or applying a particular material and/or providing a plurality of features disposed on the surface as taught by Varanasi ‘266 to optimize the desired contact angle to reduce coking, which results in the outlet end portion of the inner peripheral surface including the outlet end is configured to have a second contact angle smaller than 90 degrees with respect to the liquid fuel as claimed.
Regarding claim 3, Hiromitsu in view of Varanasi ‘266 and Ukropec teaches all that is claimed above but is silent as discussed so far regarding the first contact angle is smaller than the second contact angle.
Varanasi ‘266 further teaches in [0044] by providing a texture comprising a plurality of features on surface 120, the effective contact angle may be greater than the nominal contact angle by at least about 5 degrees, specifically greater than the nominal contact angle by at least about 10 degrees, more specifically greater than the nominal contact angle by at least about 20 degrees, and even more specifically greater than the nominal contact angle by at least about 30 degrees and the effective contact angle depends, in part, on the feature shape, dimensions, and spacings such that those variables are result effective variables, as also described in [0050]-[0051], which affect the contact angle and the contact angle is a result effective variable affecting wettability and coking.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hiromitsu in view of Varanasi ‘266 and Ukropec by optimizing the surface texture and the first contact angle and the second contact angle to reduce wettability and coking in each area of the fuel nozzle resulting in the first contact angle being equal to the second contact angle, the first contact angle being smaller than the second contact angle, as claimed, or the first contact angle being larger than the second contact angle. It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Arriving at the first contact angle being smaller than the second contact angle would have been a matter of routine experimentation in determining the optimum surface texture and corresponding contact angle at each surface.
Regarding claim 4, Hiromitsu in view of Varanasi ‘266 and Ukropec teaches all that is claimed above and Hiromitsu further teaches
a second tubular member (130 Fig. 1) that has a tubular shape (130 has a tubular shape), surrounds the outlet end of the inner peripheral surface from the outside in the radial direction (130 surrounds the outlet end of the inner peripheral surface of 124 radially outward of 124, i.e., the outside in the radial direction, in Fig. 1), and has a second inner peripheral surface (130 has a second inner peripheral surface in Fig. 1) including a second outlet end (labeled in annotated Fig. 1) positioned on a side opposite to an internal space side across the outlet end of the inner peripheral surface in a direction in which the axis extends (second outlet end extends axially with respect to axis C axially opposite internal space side across outlet end of inner peripheral surface of 124 in Fig. 1, i.e., second outlet end extends axially downstream of outlet end of 124),
wherein the second tubular member is configured such that an entire second distal end surface (tip end surface of 130 at downstream end of 130 with respect to fuel flow arrows FF in Fig. 1) in the circumferential direction (tip end surface of 130 extends circumferentially) extending from the second outlet end of the second inner peripheral surface toward the outside in the radial direction (tip surface of 130 extends from the second outlet end of the second inner peripheral surface radially outward with respect to axis C, i.e., toward the outside in the radial direction) and
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hiromitsu in view of Varanasi ‘266 and Ukropec to have the entire second distal end surface have a third contact angle smaller than 90 degrees with respect to the liquid fuel for reasons similar to the entire distal end surface has a first contact angle smaller than 90 degrees with respect to the liquid fuel as discussed above in claim 1 in view of Varansi. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the entire second distal end surface of Hiromitsu by using or applying a particular material and/or providing a plurality of features disposed on the surface as taught by Varanasi ‘266 to optimize the desired contact angle to reduce coking, which results in the entire second distal end surface having a third contact angle smaller than 90 degrees with respect to the liquid fuel as claimed.
Regarding claim 5, Hiromitsu in view of Varanasi ‘266 and Ukropec teaches all that is claimed above and teaches a second outlet end portion of the second inner peripheral surface including the second outlet end is configured to have a fourth contact angle smaller than 90 degrees with the liquid fuel.
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a second outlet end portion of the second inner peripheral surface including the second outlet end of Hiromitsu by using or applying a particular material and/or providing a plurality of features disposed on the surface as taught by Varanasi ‘266 to optimize the desired contact angle to reduce coking, which results in the second outlet end portion of the second inner peripheral surface including the second outlet end is configured to have a fourth contact angle smaller than 90 degrees with respect to the liquid fuel as claimed.
Regarding claim 6, Hiromitsu in view of Varanasi ‘266 and Ukropec teaches all that is claimed above but is silent as discussed so far regarding the third contact angle is smaller than the first contact angle.
Varanasi ‘266 further teaches in [0044] by providing a texture comprising a plurality of features on surface 120, the effective contact angle may be greater than the nominal contact angle by at least about 5 degrees, specifically greater than the nominal contact angle by at least about 10 degrees, more specifically greater than the nominal contact angle by at least about 20 degrees, and even more specifically greater than the nominal contact angle by at least about 30 degrees and the effective contact angle depends, in part, on the feature shape, dimensions, and spacings such that those variables are result effective variables, as also described in [0050]-[0051], which in turn affect the contact angle and the contact angle is a result effective variable affecting wettability and coking.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hiromitsu in view of Varanasi ‘266 and Ukropec by optimizing the surface texture and the first contact angle and the third contact angle to reduce wettability and coking in each area of the fuel nozzle resulting in the third contact angle being equal to the first contact angle, the third contact angle being smaller than the first contact angle, as claimed, or the third contact angle being larger than the first contact angle. It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Arriving at the third contact angle being smaller than the first contact angle would have been a matter of routine experimentation in determining the optimum surface texture and corresponding contact angle at each surface.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Hiromitsu in view of Varanasi ‘266 and Ukropec teaches all that is claimed above and further teaches the first contact angle is 45 degrees or less, exclusive of 30 degrees or more (see 112(b): interpreted as 45 degrees or less: as discussed above in claim 1, Varanasi ‘266 teaches in [0064] an effective contact angle, with reference to an oil, greater than about 30 degrees such that 30 degrees to 45 degrees is in the claimed range of 45 degrees or less).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiromitsu 20210115856 in view of Varanasi et al. 20090255266 and Ukropec et al. 20150021417 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Varanasi et al. 20090283611.
Regarding claim 8, Hiromitsu in view of Varanasi ‘266 and Ukropec teaches all that is claimed above but is silent as discussed so far regarding the first contact angle is 10 degrees or less.
Varanasi ‘611 teaches articles having surfaces engineered to promote selective wetting of the surfaces by liquids as relates to enhancing atomization see [0001]. Depending on the application of the atomizer, article surface 110 in Fig. 3 can comprise titanium oxide see [0049]. Specific ranges and combinations of the surface feature parameters described above see [0045]-[0048] can provide a regime in which the effective wettability of surface 110 may be driven to generate an effective contact angle of less than about 10 degrees with a drop of the reference liquid which provides an ultra thin liquid film to form on the surface which will result in finer mean drop size and enhanced atomization see [0050].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hiromitsu in view of Varanasi ‘266 and Ukropec such that the first contact angle is 10 degrees or less as taught by Varanasi ‘611 to provide an ultra thin liquid film to form on the surface which will result in finer mean drop size and enhanced atomization.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that since Varanasi ‘266 teaches “oleophobicity” in regards to preventing coking which is a different problem than improving atomization, that one of ordinary skill in the art would not apply the lipophilic film as claimed to the distal end surface because it would defeat the primary objective of anti-coking performance. However, as discussed above in the 103 rejection of amended claim 1, Varanasi ‘266 does teach in [0041] that surface 120 can include the substrate, the features, or the surface modification layer disposed over the substrate, depending on the specific configuration of the article and in [0043] surface 120 in Fig. 5 may be titania, i.e., titanium oxide, but Varanasi ‘266 does not explicitly describe surface 120 is a photocatalytic titanium oxide coating. The current 103 rejection relies on newly cited prior art Ukropec which does teach a photocatalytic titanium oxide coating to prevent deposits from forming on a fuel injector per [0013]. Although Ukropec does not describe the photocatalytic titanium oxide coating as being a lipophilic coating and Ukropec uses the coating to prevent deposits, photocatalytic titanium oxide still is lipophilic. In addition, the teachings of surface modifications by Varanasi ‘266 result in contact angles in the claimed range which Applicant states promotes atomization.
Applicant does not argue the dependent claims.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSON JOAN HARRINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2359. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5 pm 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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at (571) 270-5426. 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.
/A.J.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/GERALD L SUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights