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 .
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 structure(s) of the second set of fuel orifices and the structure(s) of the first set of fuel orifices that perform the claimed function “a first pressure drop of the fuel across the second set of fuel orifices is greater than a second pressure drop of the fuel across the first set of fuel orifices” in claims 1 and 19 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s), i.e., Fig. 3 is required to show what are the structural difference of the second set of fuel orifices and the structural difference of the first set of fuel orifices resulting the two opposite claimed functions, which are i) the first pressure drop is greater than the second pressure drop in the claims filed 02/06/2026 and ii) the second pressure drop is greater than the first pressure drop in the claims filed 02/22/2022. 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.
Specification
The amendment filed 02/06/2026 is NOT entered and is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the amended specification of para. [0036, 0059, and 0075] erases the embodiment as claimed and disclosed in the original disclosure filed 02/22/2022, i.e., “the second pressure drop is larger than the first pressure drop”, and thus introduces new matter.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The 112a written description rejection issued in the Office Action mailed 11/21/2025 is withdraw because:
i) Applicant’s argument, on pp. 9-10, “… the functional relationship between these pressure drops detailed at paragraph [0036] of the application as-filed reinforces the disclosure of an upstream pressure drop across the second set of fuel orifices 126 that is greater than a downstream pressure drop across the first set of fuel orifices 122, providing that, as a result of this configuration, “combustion dynamics occurring in the combustion chamber 86 can propagate upstream of the first set of fuel orifices 122 and into the cavity 128, but not through the flow restrictor 124. In other words, the two pressure drops can be used to locate or isolate combustion dynamics in the fuel injector 140 or the fuel inlet that the fuel injector is a coupled to (e.g., the fuel inlet 96 of FIG. 2) from the combustion dynamics within the combustion chamber downstream of the fuel injector 140” is persuasive because in order for combustion dynamics occurring in chamber 86 to propagate upstream into the cavity 128 without through the flow restrictor 124, it is required that the pressure in chamber 86 is larger than the pressure in cavity 128 and the pressure upstream from the flow restrictor 124 is larger than or equal to the pressure in chamber 86, i.e., the first pressure drop at the flow restrictor 124 can be either larger than or smaller than the second pressure drop at the wall 150; and
ii) moreover, para. [0053] discloses the first pressure drop at the flow restrictor 124 is larger than the second pressure drop at the wall 150 in order to provide a small pressure drop at wall 150 comparing to a fuel injector that does not include the flow restrictor and para. [0059 and 0075] discloses the first pressure drop is smaller than the second pressure drop;
iii) therefore, the specification supports two embodiments of the fuel injector, which are the fuel injector configured such that a first pressure drop of the fuel across the second set of fuel orifices is greater than a second pressure drop of the fuel across the first set of fuel orifices as claimed in claims filed 02/06/2026 and the fuel injector configured such that the second pressure drop is larger than the first pressure drop as claimed in claims filed 02/22/2022.
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.
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) defining a centerline axis (annotated Fig. 4), terminates at a distal end (see annotated Fig. 5), and 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), 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),
wherein the fuel injector is configured such that an upstream pressure drop of the fuel is formed (inherits by the fuel passing through the flow restrictor 170) across the second set of fuel orifices (172s) and a downstream pressure drop of the fuel is formed (inherits by the fuel passing through the wall 162) across the first set of fuel orifices (160s).
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 upstream pressure drop of the fuel across said second set of fuel orifices is greater than said downstream pressure drop of the fuel across said first set of fuel orifices.
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), 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),
wherein the fuel injector (10) is configured such that an upstream 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 greater than a downstream 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 skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide Widener with Morford’s upstream pressure drop that is greater than the 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).
Regarding claim 21, Widener in view of Morford teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above.
As discussed above, the combination teaches the fuel is a gaseous fuel, see demonstration in the rejection for claim 1 above.
Widener in view of Morford 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), 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),
wherein the fuel injector is configured such that an upstream pressure drop of the fuel is formed (inherits by the fuel passing through the flow restrictor 170) across the second set of fuel orifices (172s) and a downstream pressure drop of the fuel is formed (inherits by the fuel passing through the wall 162) across the first set of fuel orifices (160s).
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 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 upstream pressure drop of the fuel across said second set of fuel orifices is greater than said downstream pressure drop of the fuel across said first set of fuel orifices.
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), 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),
wherein the fuel injector (10) is configured such that an upstream 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 greater than a downstream 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 skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide Widener with Morford’s upstream pressure drop that is greater than the 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).
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 argument regarding the 103 rejection over Widener in view of Morford on pp. 12-14 has been fully considered but it is not persuasive because:
i) the base reference Widener teaches a flow restrictor 170 provided within the fuel channel 144 upstream of the wall 162 relative to a flow direction of the fuel 174 through the fuel channel 144 (see Fig. 4), with the flow restrictor 170 intersecting the centerline axis of the fuel channel 144 (see Fig. 4) and having a second set of fuel orifices 172s fluidly coupled to the first set of fuel orifices 160s (see Figs. 4-5), wherein Widener’s flow restrictor 170 is an impingement cooling plate in order to provide the fuel 174 as impingement jet to cool the wall 162, and the fuel 174 is a gaseous fuel (see [0041 and 0042]);
ii) moreover, Morford teaches a flow restrictor 74 is an impingement cooling plate configured to provide a gaseous fluid as impingement jet to cool the wall 104 (see col. 5, ll. 8-30), wherein an upstream pressure drop, i.e., the claimed first pressure drop, of the gaseous fluid across the second set of orifices 76s of the flow restrictor 74 is greater than a downstream pressure drop, i.e., the claimed second pressure drop, of the gaseous fluid across the first set of orifices 106s of the wall 104 in order to provide sufficient impingement cooling to the wall (by providing a greater pressure drop at the flow restrictor to achieve a higher velocity impingement jets as taught at col. 5, ll. 8-30) and prevent aero-thermal acoustic resonance and flash back from occurring at downstream of the fuel injector (by providing a smaller pressure drop at the wall to achieve a lower velocity discharge gaseous fluid as taught at col. 5, ll. 8-30 and ll. 50-62);
iii) it is noted, “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review.”); and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973) (“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.”)”, MPEP 2145 III. In this case, even though Morford’s flow restrictor is placed in an air passage, it is obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the flow restrictor and the wall of Widener with Morford’s teaching of configuring the flow restrictor and the wall such that the first pressure drop at the flow restrictor is larger than the second pressure drop at the wall in order to provide sufficient impingement cooling to the wall (by providing a greater pressure drop at the flow restrictor to achieve a higher velocity impingement jets as taught by Morford’s col. 5, ll. 8-30) and prevent aero-thermal acoustic resonance and flash back from occurring at downstream of the fuel injector (by providing a smaller pressure drop at the wall to achieve a lower velocity discharge gaseous fluid as taught by Morford’s col. 5, ll. 8-30 and ll. 50-62).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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 /DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741