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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/10/2026 has been entered.
Drawings
Applicant’s amendment to independent claims 1 and 19 overcome the drawing objection issued in Office Action mailed 03/04/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 19, 21, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1 and its dependents, recitation “wherein the cavity defines an axial length along the centerline axis that is greater than a diameter of the cavity” is not supported by the specification because:
i) the specification only discloses, at [0037] and Fig. 3, “… the axial length, with respect to the centerline axis 130, or volume of the cavity 128 can be sized with respect to the acoustic oscillation of the fuel (F), such that the acoustic oscillation of the fuel (F) within the cavity 128 and downstream of the first set of fuel orifices 122 can offset or counteract the acoustic pressure oscillations of the compressed air (C), which can ultimately reduce or otherwise control the overall combustion dynamics in the combustion chamber 86 (FIG. 2). As a non-limiting example, the axial length of the cavity 128 can be a quarter of the wavelength of the acoustic oscillation of the fuel (F)”, and the drawings are schematic drawings that are NOT to scale,
ii) therefore, specification does not support limitation, “wherein the cavity defines an axial length along the centerline axis that is greater than a diameter of the cavity”, and said limitation is rejected as new matter.
The same rejection is also applied to limitation “wherein the cavity defines an axial length along the centerline axis that is greater than a diameter the cavity” of claim 19 and its dependent.
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.
Claims 1, 19, 21, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Widener 20060191268 in view of Morford 6178752 and Green 20090188255.
Regarding claim 1, Widener teaches the invention as claimed: A turbine engine (10 in Fig. 1) comprising:
a compressor section (12), a combustion section (having a plurality of combustors 14s), and a turbine section (represented by a single blade 16) serial flow arrangement (see Fig. 1 and [0021]);
a combustor (14), provided within the combustion section, defining a combustion chamber (the chamber per [0037]); and
a fuel injector (120, in Fig. 4), including:
a fuel channel (144, Figs. 4-5; a diffusion gas fuel 174 flows through channel 144 per [0028 and 0039]), wherein the fuel channel (144) defines a centerline axis (annotated Fig. 4), terminates at a distal end (see annotated Fig. 5), and is fluidly coupled to a fuel (174, [0028]);
a wall (162, Figs. 4-5) provided within the fuel channel (144) spaced from the distal end (the portion of the wall 162 is axially spaced from the distal end, see annotated Fig. 5), the wall (162) including a first set of fuel orifices (160s), with the first set of fuel orifices (160s) fluidly coupling the fuel channel (144) to the combustion chamber (the chamber per [0037]); and
a flow restrictor (impingement baffle plate 170) provided within the fuel channel (144) upstream of the wall (162) relative to a flow direction of the fuel (the flow direction of fuel 174, see dashed line in Fig. 4) through the fuel channel (144) to define a cavity (annotated Fig. 5) within the fuel channel (144) that extends along the centerline axis (annotated Fig. 4) between the flow restrictor (impingement baffle plate 170) and the wall (162), with the flow restrictor (170) intersecting the centerline axis (see annotated Fig. 4) and having a second set of fuel orifices (172s) fluidly coupled to the first set of fuel orifices (160s) by the cavity (annotated Fig. 5),
wherein the fuel injector is configured such that a first pressure drop of the fuel across the second set of fuel orifices (172) is formed (an upstream pressure drop occurs when fuel passing through 170) and a second pressure drop of the fuel across the first set of fuel orifices (160s) is formed (a downstream pressure drop occurs when the fuel passing through the wall 162), and
wherein the cavity (annotated Fig. 5) defines an axial length (annotated Fig. 5) along the centerline axis (annotated Fig. 4) and a diameter (a diameter of the cavity, see annotated Fig. 5).
Widener further teaches the flow restrictor is an impingement baffle plate (170, [0041]) to provide impingement cooling to the wall (150) by impinging the fuel (174) on the wall (150) after said fuel (174) passing through the second set of fuel orifices (172s; see [0041-0042]).
PNG
media_image1.png
715
1105
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
734
711
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Widener does not teach wherein said fuel injector is configured such that said first pressure drop of the fuel across said second set of fuel orifices (the upstream pressure drop) is different from said second pressure drop of the fuel across said first set of fuel orifices (the downstream pressure drop).
However, Morford teaches a fuel injector (10, Fig. 1), including:
a center gaseous fluid channel (comprising 84, 87, and 108, see Fig. 3), wherein the center gaseous fluid channel defines a centerline axis (12, Fig. 3);
a wall (104) provided within the center gaseous fluid channel (see Fig. 3), the wall (104) including a first set of gaseous orifices (106s), with the first set of gaseous orifices (106s) fluidly coupling the center gaseous fluid channel (comprising 84, 87, and 108) to a combustion chamber (30; see Figs. 1 and 3); and
a flow restrictor (impingement plate 74) provided within the center gaseous fluid channel (comprising 84, 87, and 108) upstream of the wall (104) relative to a flow direction of a gaseous fluid through the center gaseous fluid channel (a flow of cooling air passing through 84, 87, and 108, see col. 5, ll. 8-20) to define a cavity (108) within the center gaseous fluid channel (comprising 84, 87, and 108, see Fig. 3) that extends along the centerline axis (12) between the flow restrictor (74) and the wall (104), with the flow restrictor (impingement plate 74) intersecting the centerline axis (12) and having a second set of gaseous orifices (76s) fluidly coupled to the first set of orifices (106s, see Fig. 3) by the cavity (108),
wherein the fuel injector (10) is configured such that a first pressure drop of the gaseous fluid across the second set of gaseous orifices (an upstream pressure drop occurs when the cooling air passing through orifices 76s of the impingement plate 74) is different from (greater than, see col. 5, ll. 8-30) a second pressure drop of the gaseous fluid across the first set of gaseous orifices (a downstream pressure drop occurs when the cooling air passing through orifices 106s of the wall 104; see Fig. 3 and col. 5, ll. 8-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide Widener with Morford’s first pressure drop (the upstream pressure drop) that is different from (greater than) the second pressure drop (downstream pressure drop) in order to provide sufficient impingement cooling to the wall and prevent aero-thermal acoustic resonance and flash back from occurring at downstream of the fuel injector (Morford, col. 5, ll. 8-30 and ll. 50-62).
Widener in view of Morford does not teach said cavity defines an axial length along said centerline axis that is greater than a diameter of said cavity.
However, Green teaches a flow restrictor (impingement plate 104) provided upstream of the wall (102) relative to a flow direction of a gaseous fluid (a flow direction of a cooling fluid passing through 104 and 102, see Fig. 6 and [0034-0035]) to define a cavity (a space between 104 and 102 having an axial length D1, see Fig. 6) between the flow restrictor (104) and the wall (102), wherein the cavity (the space between 104 and 102 having an axial length D1, see Fig. 6) defines an axial length (D1) that is determined by the desired impinging effect of the gaseous fluid directed on the wall (102, see [0035]).
A particular parameter is a result-effective variable when the variable is known to achieve a recognized result. See In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618,
620, 195 USPQ 6,8 (CCPA 1977). Therefore, an ordinary skilled worker would recognize that an axial length is a results-effective variable that controls impinging effect of the gaseous fluid. Thus, the claimed limitation of the axial length along the centerline axis being greater than the diameter of the cavity is found to be an obvious optimization of the prior art obtainable by an ordinary skilled worker through routine experimentation.
Further, it appears that one of ordinary skills in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the axial length of the cavity of Widener in view of Morford to have the axial length along the centerline axis being greater than the diameter of the cavity as it involves only adjusting an axial location of the flow restrictor of Widener in view of Morford as taught by Green to require adjustment.
"[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). The presence of a known result-effective variable would be a motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process, MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Widener in view of Morford wherein the cavity defines an axial length along the centerline axis that is greater than a diameter of the cavity in order to optimize impinging effect of the gaseous fluid directed on the wall (Green, [0035]).
Regarding claim 21, Widener further teaches the fuel is a gaseous fuel (a diffusion gas fuel 174 flows through channel 144 per [0028 and 0039]).
Widener in view of Morford and Green does not teach said gaseous fuel is a hydrogen containing fuel.
However, it is noted, “inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims”, MPEP 2115 [R-2]. In this case, the gaseous fuel is considered the material or article worked upon and does not impart patentability to the claim.
Regarding claim 23, Widener further teaches wherein the fuel injector (120) includes a converging area (annotated Fig. 4) upstream of the flow restrictor (170).
PNG
media_image3.png
699
1094
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 24, Widener further teaches wherein a diameter of the fuel channel at the wall (annotated Fig. 5) is the same as (having the same value/dimension) a diameter of the fuel channel at the flow restrictor (annotated Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image4.png
785
646
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Widener teaches the invention as claimed: A combustor (14, Fig. 1) comprising:
a combustion chamber (the chamber per [0037]); and
a fuel injector (120, in Fig. 4), including:
a fuel channel (144, Figs. 4-5; a diffusion gas fuel 174 flows through channel 144 per [0028 and 0039]), wherein the fuel channel (144) defines a centerline axis (annotated Fig. 4 in claim 1), terminates at a distal end (see annotated Fig. 5 in claim 1), and is fluidly coupled to a fuel (174, [0028]);
a wall (162, Figs. 4-5) provided in the fuel channel (144), spaced from the distal end (the portion of the wall 162 is axially spaced from the distal end, see annotated Fig. 5 in claim 1), having a first set of fuel orifices (160s) extending through the wall (162, see Fig. 5) and fluidly coupling the fuel channel (144) to the combustion chamber (the chamber per [0037]); and
a flow restrictor (impingement baffle plate 170), located within the fuel channel (144), intersecting the centerline axis (see annotated Fig. 4 in claim 1), and positioned upstream of and spaced from the wall (162, see Figs. 4-5) to define a cavity (annotated Fig. 5 in claim 1) within the fuel channel (144) that extends along the centerline axis (annotated Fig. 4 in claim 1) between the flow restrictor (impingement baffle plate 170) and the wall (162), with the flow restrictor (170) having a second set of fuel orifices (172s) fluidly coupled to the first set of fuel orifices (160s, see Fig. 4) by the cavity (annotated Fig. 5 in claim 1),
wherein the fuel injector is configured such that a first pressure drop of the fuel across the second set of fuel orifices (172) is formed (an upstream pressure drop occurs when fuel passing through 170) and a second pressure drop of the fuel across the first set of fuel orifices (160s) is formed (a downstream pressure drop occurs when the fuel passing through the wall 162), and
wherein the cavity (annotated Fig. 5 in claim 1) defines an axial length (annotated Fig. 5 in claim 1) along the centerline axis (annotated Fig. 4) and a diameter (a diameter of the cavity, see annotated Fig. 5 in claim 1).
Widener further teaches the flow restrictor is an impingement baffle plate (170, [0041]) to provide impingement cooling to the wall (150) by impinging the fuel (174) on the wall (150) after said fuel (174) passing through the second set of fuel orifices (172s; see [0041-0042]).
Widener does not teach wherein said fuel injector is configured such that said first pressure drop of the fuel across said second set of fuel orifices (the upstream pressure drop) is different from said second pressure drop of the fuel across said first set of fuel orifices (the downstream pressure drop).
However, Morford teaches a fuel injector (10, Fig. 1), including:
a center gaseous fluid channel (comprising 84, 87, and 108, see Fig. 3), wherein the center gaseous fluid channel defines a centerline axis (12, Fig. 3);
a wall (104) provided in the center gaseous fluid channel (see Fig. 3) having a first set of gaseous orifices (106s) extending through the wall (104) and fluidly coupling the center gaseous fluid channel (comprising 84, 87, and 108) to a combustion chamber (30; see Figs. 1 and 3); and
a flow restrictor (impingement plate 74) located within the center gaseous fluid channel (comprising 84, 87, and 108) and positioned upstream of and spaced from the wall (104) to define a cavity (108) within the center gaseous fluid channel between the flow restrictor (74) and the wall (104), with the flow restrictor (impingement plate 74) having a second set of gaseous orifices (76s) fluidly coupled to the first set of orifices (106s, see Fig. 3) by the cavity (108),
wherein the fuel injector (10) is configured such that a first pressure drop of the gaseous fluid across the second set of gaseous orifices (an upstream pressure drop occurs when the cooling air passing through orifices 76s of the impingement plate 74) is different from (greater than, see col. 5, ll. 8-30) a second pressure drop of the gaseous fluid across the first set of gaseous orifices (a downstream pressure drop occurs when the cooling air passing through orifices 106s of the wall 104; see Fig. 3 and col. 5, ll. 8-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide Widener with Morford’s first pressure drop (the upstream pressure drop) that is different from (greater than) the second pressure drop (downstream pressure drop) in order to provide sufficient impingement cooling to the wall and prevent aero-thermal acoustic resonance and flash back from occurring at downstream of the fuel injector (Morford, col. 5, ll. 8-30 and ll. 50-62).
Widener in view of Morford does not teach said cavity defines an axial length along said centerline axis that is greater than a diameter of said cavity.
However, Green teaches a flow restrictor (impingement plate 104) provided upstream of the wall (102) relative to a flow direction of a gaseous fluid (a flow direction of a cooling fluid passing through 104 and 102, see Fig. 6 and [0034-0035]) to define a cavity (a space between 104 and 102 having an axial length D1, see Fig. 6) between the flow restrictor (104) and the wall (102), wherein the cavity (the space between 104 and 102 having an axial length D1, see Fig. 6) defines an axial length (D1) that is determined by the desired impinging effect of the gaseous fluid directed on the wall (102, see [0035]).
A particular parameter is a result-effective variable when the variable is known to achieve a recognized result. See In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618,
620, 195 USPQ 6,8 (CCPA 1977). Therefore, an ordinary skilled worker would recognize that an axial length is a results-effective variable that controls impinging effect of the gaseous fluid. Thus, the claimed limitation of the axial length along the centerline axis being greater than the diameter of the cavity is found to be an obvious optimization of the prior art obtainable by an ordinary skilled worker through routine experimentation.
Further, it appears that one of ordinary skills in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the axial length of the cavity of Widener in view of Morford to have the axial length along the centerline axis being greater than the diameter of the cavity as it involves only adjusting an axial location of the flow restrictor of Widener in view of Morford as taught by Green to require adjustment.
"[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). The presence of a known result-effective variable would be a motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process, MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Widener in view of Morford wherein the cavity defines an axial length along the centerline axis that is greater than a diameter of the cavity in order to optimize impinging effect of the gaseous fluid directed on the wall (Green, [0035]).
Regarding claim 25, Widener further teaches wherein a diameter of the fuel channel at the wall (see annotated Fig. 5 in claim 24) is the same as (having the same value/dimension) a diameter of the fuel channel at the flow restrictor (see annotated Fig. 5 in claim 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are moot because said arguments do not apply to the new combination of the previously applied referenced and the new reference being used in the current office action, necessitated by amendment. However, to the extent possible, Applicant’s arguments have been addressed above, at the appropriate locations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bailey 8528839 teaches a fuel injector, including: a fuel channel, wherein the fuel channel defines a centerline axis, terminates at a distal end, and is fluidly coupled to a fuel; a wall provided in the fuel channel, spaced from the distal end, having a first set of fuel orifices extending through the wall and fluidly coupling the fuel channel to the combustion chamber in order to provide a flow of gaseous fuel to the combustion chamber.
Abu-Irshaid 20180094815 teaches a damping assembly provided at inlet of a combustion chamber and comprising a gaseous fluid channel, a wall provided in the gaseous fluid channel having a first set of gaseous fluid orifices fluidly coupling the gaseous fluid channel to the combustion chamber, and a flow restrictor located with the gaseous fluid channel and positioned upstream of and spaced from the wall to define a cavity between the flow restrictor and the wall, wherein the flow restrictor having a second set of gaseous fluid orifices coupled to the first set of gaseous fluid orifices by the cavity, and the cavity defines an axial length according to the damping frequency.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JINGCHEN LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-6639. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-4:30.
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.
/JINGCHEN LIU/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights