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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “of longitudinal axis (X)” should be having a longitudinal axis X. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12, the limitation “the first groove and the second groove” should be “the at least a first groove and the at least a second groove”. Claims 13-14 contains the same issue.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the spiral shape of claim 10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 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 2-6, 8-17 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 2, the limitation “said at least one zone of the second type” renders the claim indefinite because its unclear if this is referring to the previously claimed “the zone of the second type” and how many zones are being claimed. Claim 4 also recites the same limitation.
Claim 3, the limitation “preferably between 135-160 degrees” renders the claim indefinite because its unclear whether the limitation is positively recite or not.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “a first single flare angle (alpha1)” and “a second single flare angle (alpha2)” renders the claim indefinite because its unclear if these are referring to the previously claimed flare angles or not.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “the zone of the first type” renders the claim indefinite because its unclear whether this is referring to the at least one zone of the first type or not and if not, how many zones are being claimed. Claim 6 raises the same issue.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “the shape of an arc of a circle” renders the claim indefinite because its unclear whether the circle is the same circle for each arc or not. The grooves shown in fig. 3 for example shows circular arc segments but not of the same circle have the same radius.
Regarding claim 8, “the direction of rotation” at lines 9, 12 renders the claim indefinite because its unclear whether this is the first direction of rotation or not.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “the direction of rotation” renders the claim indefinite because its unclear whether this is the first direction of rotation or not and whether the recitation is necessary in two forms.
Regarding claim 10, the limitations “at least a first groove”, “a second groove”, “a first zone of the second type” and “a second zone of the second type” render the claim indefinite because its unclear if this is referring to the at least one groove and the zone of the second type previously claimed or not and thus how many grooves and zones are being claimed.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “each zone of the first type” renders the claim indefinite because its unclear how many zones are being claimed. The claim previously recites “at least one zone of the first type”.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “at least a third groove and a fourth groove” render the claims indefinite because its unclear how many grooves are being claimed. The previously claimed require “at least one groove” where its unclear if a second groove is required. Furthermore, its unclear if at least a third groove and a fourth groove require more grooves or not. Additionally, “the first zone of the second type” renders the claim indefinite because its unclear if this is referring to the zone of the second type. The second zone of the second type lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation ‘said at least one zone of the second type” renders the claim indefinite because its unclear how many zones of the second type are being claimed. The previously recitation claims a zone of the second type.
Claims dependent thereon are rejection for the same reasons.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10-14, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Danis US 2018/0058696.
PNG
media_image1.png
440
548
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Danis discloses an annular combustion chamber 40 of an aircraft turbine engine of longitudinal axis X 36, comprising an annular row of injection systems 52, at least one injection system comprising: a fuel injector 52 shown at fig. 3; at least one swirler 66 configured to produce an air flow downstream of the fuel injector, see para. [0032]; a bowl 60 positioned downstream of the swirler, the bowl comprising a flared wall that widens in the downstream direction and extends around a bowl axis B so as to produce a layer of air/fuel mixture that is substantially frustoconical around the bowl axis B, see fig. 3, para. [0027], the flared wall comprising: at least one zone of a first type at which the opening of the flared wall is flared in the downstream direction by at least a first flare angle (alpha1), see zone 1 labeled above, the side wall 68 is flared as shown in fig. 5, has a first flare angle; and at least one groove extending along the bowl axis B and being open at least downstream of the flared wall, the groove is the portion of the flared cone that deviates from a circle, the groove is open at the distal portion of the flared cone 68 which is downstream of the flared wall at the say axial location as the flared wall, at which the opening of the flared wall is flared in the downstream direction by at least a second flare angle (alpha2) which is greater than the first flare angle (alpha1), see zone 2, the flared wall in the second zone is at a larger angle that the flared wall in zone 1, the zone of the second type being positioned circumferentially around the bowl axis B so that the layer of air/fuel mixture coming from the bowl has at least one local widening capable of circumferentially intercepting an adjacent layer of fuel, the flared angle of the second zone is substantially similar to the stepped groove of the application to produce a wider spray angle that is capable of circumferentially intercepting an adjacent layer of fuel.
Regarding claim 2, Danis discloses wherein each cross-section of said at least one zone of the second type relative to the bowl axis B extends angularly about the bowl axis in an angular sector between 10 and 90 degrees. The cross section of the zone of the second type occupies the 45-90 degree sector.
Regarding claim 3, Danis discloses each cross section of said at least one zone of the first type relative to the bowl axis extends angularly about the bowl axis in an angular sector of between 90-170 degrees. The first zone occupies 135-180 degree zone. It is further noted that the claims do not require a particular reference frame from which the angular sector is taken from and thus the sectors can be drawn from an alternate of 0 degrees at the 12 o’clock position to meet the claimed recitation.
Regarding claim 4, Danis discloses the opening of the flared wall is flared in the downstream direction at said at least one zone of the first type by at least a first single flare angle and/or at said at least one zone of the second type by at least a second single flare angle. The flared angles at the downstream end of the flared walls are at least the first and second flare angles.
Regarding claim 5, Danis wherein the zone of the first type and/or the zone of the second type form a conical surface element. As seen in fig. 3, Danis shows the first and second zones form at least a portion of the conical flared bowl and thus from a conical surface element.
Regarding claim 6, Danis discloses each cross section of the zone of the first type and/or the zone of the second type relative to the bowl axis has the shape of an arc of a circle around the bowl axis. As seen in figs. 3 and 4, the segments for the shape of an arc of a circle around the bowl axis.
Regarding claim 7, Danis discloses the zone of the second type is positioned, angularly around the bowl axis, at an angular position of 3 o’clock, or at an angular position of 9 o’clock. As shown in fig. 4, the second type zone is positions at 3 and 9 o’clock.
Regarding claim 10, Danis discloses the flared wall comprises at least a first groove and a second groove respectively defining a first zone of the second type and a second zone of the second type. As best understood, Danis shows two zone 2 labeled above each having a groove, the eccentric portions of the swirler flared cone.
PNG
media_image2.png
440
548
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, referring to the annotated figure above, Danis discloses each zone of the first type is positioned, circumferentially around the bowl axis B, between two grooves. See zone 1 labeled at 12 and 9 o’clock.
Regarding claim 12, Danis discloses the first groove and the second groove are such that the flared wall has a rotational symmetry of order 2 around the bowl axis B. See fig. 4, the flared wall is identical in two positions about 180 degrees.
Regarding claim 13, Danis discloses the first groove and the second groove are positioned one on either side of a first midplane 78 which comprises the longitudinal axis X and the bowl axis B. See fig. 4.
Regarding claim 14, Danis discloses the first groove and the second groove are such that the flared wall is symmetrical relative to the first plane. See claim 12, the system is symmetry order of 2.
Regarding claim 16, Danis discloses each cross section of said at least one zone of the second type relative to the bowl axis B extends angularly around the bowl axis B in an angular sector of between 20 to 45 degrees. For the purposes of claim 16, the reference frame from which 20-45 degrees is taken is interpreted such that zero is at the 45 degree mark on fig. 4, and therefore the at least one zone of the second type is between 20-45 degrees.
Regarding claim 17, Danis discloses each cross section of said at least one zone of the first type relative to the bowl axis B extends angularly around the bowl axis B in an angular sector of between 135-160 degrees. The zone of the first type extends from 135 degrees to about 225 degrees and thus extends in the claimed range.
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danis in view of Graves US 2003/0177769.
Regarding claim 8, Danis discloses all elements except for the injection system is adapted so that a flow of the air/fuel mixture within the flared wall rotates around the bowl axis B in a first direction of rotation (S1) which is coincident with a clockwise direction or a counterclockwise direction.
Graves teaches that swirl from a swirler 71 may be arranged in anticyclonic in the counter clockwise direction. See para. [0048]. The counter clockwise direction enhances mixing. See para. [0047].
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled worker to provide the injection system Danis so as to impart a counter clockwise direction, as taught by Graves, in order to enhance mixing. Id. When including a counter clockwise swirl, Danis discloses the zone of the second type is positioned, angularly around the bowl axis B, between the angular position at 9 o’clock and the angular position at 12 o’clock, or between the angular position at 3 o’clock and the angular position at 6 0’clock, when the direction of rotation is coincident with the counterclockwise direction. The second zone at least occupies from 3-4:30 o’clock position and from 9-11:30 o’clock positions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and correction of any issues identified above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not disclose at least one groove has the shape of a spiral as claimed in claim 9 in combination with the remaining elements.
The prior art does not teach or fairly suggest a third and fourth group as claimed and arranged angularly as claimed in combination with the remaining elements of claim 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERALD LUTHER SUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3765. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 PST.
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.
/GERALD L SUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
