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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/9/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
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 1-11, 13-14, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barber (PG Pub U.S 2010/0043438).
Regarding claim 1, Barber teaches a method of cleaning coke from an engine component (abstract), the method comprising: providing the engine component including a flow passage having coke formed within the flow passage (abstract, para 0025-0026 and 0050); performing a hot-fluid step including exposing the engine component to a hot fluid (para 0100-0102); performing a cold-fluid step including exposing the engine component to a cold fluid (para 0099-0100), the cold fluid being colder than the hot fluid by a temperature differential to remove the coke from the engine component (para 0101-0102; implicitly taught); and rinsing the engine component with a rinsing fluid (para 0116).
However, the temperature differential between the cold fluid and the hot fluid is a result effective variable (para 0100-0109). The temperature differential affects the removal of deposits from the engine component (para 0107-0109). Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate temperature differential between the cold fluid and the hot fluid for the predictable result of effectively cleaning the engine component. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the temperature differential between the cold fluid and the hot fluid such that temperature differential is from ninety (90) degrees C to five hundred fifty-six (556) degrees C in order to effectively clean the engine component. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding the limitation “rinsing the engine component with a rinsing fluid to remove coke from the engine component”, the process steps taught by Barber are similar to those instantly claimed. Therefore, it is reasonably expected by one of ordinary skill in the art that the end result is the same as the claimed limitation such that the coke from the engine component will also be removed by rinsing step.
Regarding claim 2, Barber teaches repeating the hot-fluid step and the cold-fluid step at least once (para 0100-0100; one or more reads on repeating).
Regarding claim 3, Barber teaches repeating the hot-fluid step and the cold-fluid step from two (2) times to ten (10) times (one or more reads on repeating two or more times).
Regarding claim 4, Barber teaches wherein the hot fluid is from 300 degrees F – 600 degrees F (para 0101) (reads on 40 degrees C to 285 degrees C). A prima facie case of obviousness exists because the range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 5, Barber fails to teach wherein the cold fluid is from negative fifty (-50) degrees C to negative two hundred seventy-one (-271) degrees C. However, Barber teaches the cleaning temperature is a result effective variable (para 0100-0109). The cleaning temperature affects the removal of deposits from the engine component (para 0107-0109). Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate temperature of the cold fluid for the predictable result of effectively cleaning the engine component. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the cold fluid temperature such that it is from negative fifty (-50) degrees C to negative two hundred seventy-one (-271) degrees C in order to effectively clean the engine component. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 6, Barber teaches wherein the rinsing fluid is a mixture including distilled water (para 0115-0116).
Regarding claim 7, Barber teaches wherein the rinsing fluid is directed into a flow passage of the engine component (para 0115-0116).
Regarding claim 8, Barber teaches performing the hot-fluid step and the cold-fluid step multiple times in two or more cycles (para 0100-0101 and 0117). Regarding “wherein the hot-fluid step is performed before the cold-fluid step in each cycle of the two or more cycles,” it has been held that the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. MPEP 2144.04 IV C.
Regarding claim 9, Barber teaches wherein at most sixty (60) seconds elapse between (b) ending exposure of the engine component to the cold fluid and exposing the engine component to the hot fluid (para 0100, 0103, 0105, and 0117; continue right after implicitly reads on at most sixty (60) seconds elapse).
Regarding claim 10, Barber teaches wherein the hot fluid is sprayed onto a coked surface of the engine component during the hot-fluid step (para 0100 and 0103-0108), and the cold fluid is sprayed onto the coked surface of the engine component during the cold-fluid step (para 0100 and 0103-0108).
Regarding claim 11, Barber teaches wherein the engine component is a fuel nozzle (claim 13 and para 0114; gas inlet of gas turbine reads on fuel nozzle), and the hot fluid is sprayed onto a coked surface of the fuel nozzle through orifices of the fuel nozzle during the hot- fluid step (para 0100 and 0102-0103), and the cold fluid is sprayed onto the coked surface of the fuel nozzle through the orifices of the fuel nozzle during the cold-fluid step (para 0100 and 0102-0103).
Regarding claim 13, Barber teaches wherein the cold fluid is a cold gas (para 0100).
Regarding claim 14, Barber teaches wherein the cold fluid includes oxygen (para 0100).
Regarding claim 16, Barber teaches further comprising performing a first cold-fluid step before a first hot-fluid step (para 0101).
Regarding claim 17, Barber teaches wherein the cold fluid is a cold liquid (para 0108 and 0110-0112; aerosol cleaning agent without nitrogen gas reads on cold liquid).
Regarding claim 19, Barber teaches wherein the hot fluid is a solvent (para 0108 and 0110-0112; aerosol cleaning agent with nitrogen gas reads on fluid also being solvent).
Regarding claim 20, Barber teaches wherein the hot fluid is water (para 0108 and 0110-0112).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barber (PG Pub U.S 2010/0043438) and further in view of Rosing et al. (PG Pub U.S 2013/0174869).
Regarding claim 12, Barber fails to teach wherein the cold fluid is gaseous fluid including cold solid pellets therein, the cold solid pellets ranging from negative fifty (-50) degrees C to negative two hundred and seventy-three (-273) degrees C. However, Rosing also teaches cleaning of an engine component wherein the cold fluid is gaseous fluid including cold solid pellets therein, the cold solid pellets are -78 degrees C (para 0011) (reads on ranging from negative fifty (-50) degrees C to negative two hundred and seventy-three (-273) degrees C) in order to effectively clean the engine component without contaminating the environment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Barber such that wherein the cold fluid is gaseous fluid including cold solid pellets therein, the cold solid pellets ranging from negative fifty (-50) degrees C to negative two hundred and seventy-three (-273) degrees C as taught by Rosing in order to effectively clean the engine component without contaminating the environment.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barber (PG Pub U.S 2010/0043438) and further in view of Uemura et al. (PG Pub U.S 2018/0236503).
Regarding claim 15, Barber fails to teach wherein the engine component is immersed in a sonication bath including the rinsing fluid for rinsing the engine component. However, Uemura also teaches cleaning an engine component wherein the engine component is immersed in a sonication bath including the rinsing fluid for rinsing the engine component (abstract) as a pre-rinse in order to effectively clean the component and to prepare the component for further thermal treatment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Barber such that the engine component is immersed in a sonication bath including the rinsing fluid for rinsing the engine component as taught by Uemura in order to effectively clean the component and to prepare the component for further thermal treatment.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barber (PG Pub U.S 2010/0043438) and further in view of Graham et al. (PG Pub U.S 2022/0135254).
Regarding claim 18, Barber teaches the cold fluid being a cold liquid (para 0108 and 0110-0112; aerosol cleaning agent without nitrogen gas reads on cold liquid) but fails to teach and the cold liquid is from ninety (90) percent liquid nitrogen to one hundred (100) percent liquid nitrogen. However, Graham also teaches using a coolant such as 100% liquid nitrogen in order to cool the engine component for thermal treatment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Barber such that the cold liquid is (90) percent liquid nitrogen to one hundred (100) percent liquid nitrogen as taught by Graham in order to cool the engine component for thermal treatment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRADHUMAN PARIHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-1633. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached on 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.
/P.P/Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights