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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 13-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sheppard (US 4,685,404), which shows all of the claimed limitations. Sheppard shows:
1. An apparatus, comprising: a main body 10 comprising at least one gas inlet 12; a pintle 110 coupled to the main body, wherein the pintle comprises at least one slurry inlet 24 and at least one slurry outlet 6, wherein the pintle defines a pintle axis (fig. 4); and a swirler 40,44 coupled to the main body, wherein the swirler imparts to a gas from the at least one gas inlet of the main body a circular motion around the pintle axis (fig. 2-4).
2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the swirler surrounds the pintle axis (fig. 2).
3. The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the pintle comprises a pintle post that includes the at least one slurry intake (inherent) and an injector tip connected to the pintle post (fig. 7,8), wherein the injector tip includes the at least one slurry outlet 116.
4. The apparatus of claim 3, wherein the swirler surrounds the post of the pintle (fig. 2).
13. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the main body comprises a mounting flange 26 (fig. 1).
14. A method of operating a pintle injector, comprising: providing a slurry from a pintle of the pintle injector, wherein the pintle defines a pintle axis, wherein the slurry comprises a combustible phase and a liquid phase; providing an oxidizer gas to a main body of the pintle injector; then conveying the oxidizer gas through a swirler of the pintle injector to impart to the oxidizer gas a circular motion around the pintle axis, wherein the swirler surrounds the pintle axis; and then reacting the slurry from the pintle with the oxidizer gas (see previous claims).
15. The method of claim 14, further comprising conveying the oxidizer gas through a distribution plate before conveying the oxidizer gas through the swirler (see previous claims).
16. The method of claim 14, wherein the oxidizer gas comprises preheated air (col. 11, lines 30-38).
18. The method of claim 14, wherein the swirler increases reduces a deviation from theoretical with regard to total momentum ratio compared to a control pintle injector without the swirler (inherent).
19. The method of claim 14, wherein the swirler reduces a jet breakup length compared to a control pintle injector without the swirler (inherent).
20. The method of claim 14, wherein the swirler reduces a mean equivalent diameter compared to a control pintle injector without the swirler (inherent).
Claims 1-5, 7, 13-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schindler (US 2,777,407), which shows all of the claimed limitations. Schindler shows:
1. An apparatus, comprising: a main body 2 comprising at least one gas inlet 19; a pintle 21 coupled to the main body, wherein the pintle comprises at least one slurry inlet 12 and at least one slurry outlet 16 (col. 1, lines 25-35; col. 2, lines 40-60), wherein the pintle defines a pintle axis (fig. 1); and a swirler 35,36 coupled to the main body, wherein the swirler imparts to a gas from the at least one gas inlet of the main body a circular motion around the pintle axis (fig. 1,2; col. 3, lines 20-28).
2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the swirler surrounds the pintle axis (fig. 1,2).
3. The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the pintle comprises a pintle post that includes the at least one slurry intake and an injector tip 22 connected to the pintle post, wherein the injector tip includes the at least one slurry outlet 23 (fig. 1).
4. The apparatus of claim 3, wherein the swirler surrounds the post of the pintle (fig. 1,2).
5. The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a distribution plate 3 connected between the main body and the swirler, wherein the distribution plate comprises a plurality of distribution orifices 36.
7. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the swirler includes a plurality of vanes 36 that impart to the gas from the at least one gas inlet of the main body the circular motion around the pintle axis (fig. 1,2; col. 3, lines 20-28).
13. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the main body comprises a mounting flange (fig. 1 – main body 2 includes flanges on both left and right sides).
14. A method of operating a pintle injector, comprising: providing a slurry from a pintle of the pintle injector, wherein the pintle defines a pintle axis, wherein the slurry comprises a combustible phase and a liquid phase; providing an oxidizer gas to a main body of the pintle injector; then conveying the oxidizer gas through a swirler of the pintle injector to impart to the oxidizer gas a circular motion around the pintle axis, wherein the swirler surrounds the pintle axis; and then reacting the slurry from the pintle with the oxidizer gas (see previous claims).
15. The method of claim 14, further comprising conveying the oxidizer gas through a distribution plate 3,4 before conveying the oxidizer gas through the swirler 36.
18. The method of claim 14, wherein the swirler increases reduces a deviation from theoretical with regard to total momentum ratio compared to a control pintle injector without the swirler (inherent).
19. The method of claim 14, wherein the swirler reduces a jet breakup length compared to a control pintle injector without the swirler (inherent).
20. The method of claim 14, wherein the swirler reduces a mean equivalent diameter compared to a control pintle injector without the swirler (inherent).
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.
Claims 9, 10, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schindler (US 2,777,407), which discloses substantially all of the claimed limitations.
Nevertheless, Schindler fails to specifically recite the claimed range.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Schindler, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable values or ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; In re Swain, 156 F.2d 239. See also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 8, 11, 12 and 17 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.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. These references disclose devices with many of the claimed components. Nevertheless, in order to avoid overburdening the applicant with redundant rejections, these references were not applied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFRED BASICHAS whose telephone number is 571 272 4871. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday during regular business hours.
To contact the examiner’s supervisor please call MICHAEL HOANG whose telephone number is 571 272 6460.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Tech Center telephone number is 571 272 3700.
January 8, 2026
/ALFRED BASICHAS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762