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 .
This is in response to the correspondence received on 3/3/2026.
Applicant elected without traverse Species A, Species 1 Species I and Species a in the reply filed on 5/8/2024. However, upon further consideration, the Restriction Requirement of the Office Action dated 3/8/2024 was withdrawn.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/11/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-9, 12, 14, 16-18, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis 7185485 in view of Rideau 20150089921
Regarding claim 1, Lewis teaches:
A system for an aircraft, comprising:
a propulsor rotor (inter alia, 16, 17 and connected shaft, Fig 1, image below); and
a powerplant configured to drive rotation of the propulsor rotor (24), the powerplant including a turbine section (inter alia, 36), a flowpath (image below),
a first fuel system including a first fuel circuit (52, Fig 2)
a second fuel system including a second fuel circuit (54, Fig 2)
the turbine section comprising a turbine rotor (Image below),
the flowpath extending from an inlet (14) to a first combustion zone (in 30), the turbine section (34, 36), to an exhaust (Image below),
the first fuel system configured to direct a first fuel into the first combustion zone (52 directs fuel into the gas generator 24, Fig 2 and Fig 1; Col 5 ll 1-15, Col 4 ll. 28-37),
Lewis is silent about the first fuel circuit and second fuel circuit being coupled to the fuel injectors and being fluidly independent as claimed.
a first fuel system including a first fuel circuit that is fluidly coupled to one or more primary fuel injectors, and
a second fuel system including a second fuel circuit that is fluidly coupled to one or more secondary fuel injectors,
the second fuel system is fluidly independent of the first fuel system,
the flowpath extending to a first combustion zone, from the first combustion zone to a second combustion zone,
the first combustion zone and the second combustion zone comprising discrete combustion volumes arranged in series along the flowpath upstream of the turbine section,
the first fuel system configured to direct a first fuel through the one or more primary fuel injectors into the first combustion zone
the second fuel system configured to direct a second fuel through the one or more secondary fuel injectors into the second combustion zone and discrete from the one or more primary fuel injectors.
However, Rideau teaches a fuel supply system (Fig. 1) for a gas turbine (turbojets, turboprops, turbo-engines, non propulsive power generators [0002]), and:
a first fuel system including a first fuel circuit (inter alia, 3) that is fluidly coupled (Fig. 1) to one or more primary fuel injectors (22), and
a second fuel system including a second fuel circuit (inter alia, 5) that is fluidly coupled to one or more secondary fuel injectors (28),
the second fuel system is fluidly independent of the first fuel system (Fig. 1 shows independent fuel systems as mentioned above),
the flowpath extending to a first combustion zone (image below), from the first combustion zone to a second combustion zone (image below, shows the two combustion zones, one downstream from the other),
the first combustion zone and the second combustion zone comprising discrete combustion volumes arranged in series (2 discrete combustion volumes are highlighted in the image below) along the flowpath upstream of the turbine section (upstream of turbine section, inter alia, 23),
the first fuel system configured to direct a first fuel (4) through the one or more primary fuel injectors into the first combustion zone (image below)
the second fuel system configured to direct a second fuel (6) through the one or more secondary fuel injectors into the second combustion zone (image below shows fuel injected through 28 into se second combustion zone) and discrete from the one or more primary fuel injectors (Fig. 1 shows discrete fuel injectors).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Lewis with Rideau's structure discussed above in order to provide “an emergency tank, a specific primary conduct for emergency fuel circulation and secondary conducts for injecting emergency fuel into the combustion chambers through appropriate injectors” (abstract) so that “in an emergency mode, the emergency fuel can be injected […] separately from the common fuel injection in the primary mode” as taught by Rideau [0011].
PNG
media_image1.png
928
1559
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lewis Fig. 1
PNG
media_image2.png
648
961
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Lewis in view of Rideau teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Lewis further teaches:
further comprising:
a first controller (inter alia, 52, 71, 58) configured to control operation of the first fuel system (inter alia, 52, 62, Fig 2; Abstract); and
a second controller (inter alia, 54, 66) configured to control operation of the second fuel system (inter alia, 52, Fig 2; Abstract); the second controller discrete from the first (Fig 2; Abstract).
Regarding claim 3 Lewis in view of Rideau teaches the invention as discussed for claim 2. Lewis further teaches:
wherein the first controller is further configured to control operation of the second fuel system (FADEC 71 closes main fuel shutoff valve 60, opens diverter valve 88 by moving first augmentor metering valve 76 […] FADEC 71 also controls valve 80 in augmentor fuel control 66 to prevent it, Col 6 ll. 5-50).
Regarding claim 6 Lewis in view of Rideau teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Lewis further teaches:
further comprising:
a first controller (inter alia, 52, 71, 58) configured to control operation of the first fuel system during a first mode of operation (Fig 2; Abstract), and the first controller configured to control operation of the first fuel system (FADEC 71 closes main fuel shutoff valve 60, Col 6 ll. 5-30) and the second fuel system (FADEC 71 also controls valve 80 in augmentor fuel control 66 to prevent it Col 6 ll. 5-50) during a second mode of operation (Col 6 ll. 5-50); and
a second controller (54) configured, as a backup to the first controller (in the event of a malfunction of the main fuel metering valve 58, as taught in Col 6 ll. 5-50), to control operation of the second fuel system during the second mode of operation (elements in 54, such as 64, 66, 88 operate during the second mode of operation, fuel is supplied from 54 to the gas generator 24, Col 6 ll. 5-50).
Regarding claim 7 Lewis in view of Rideau teaches the invention as discussed for claim 6. Lewis further teaches:
wherein the second fuel system is non-operational during the first mode of operation (During other times, the augmentor fuel system 54 remains unused. Col 5 ll. 22-34; examiners notes that the augmentor is only operated as needed, and is primarily off during normal operations)
Regarding claim 8 Lewis in view of Rideau teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Lewis further teaches:
further comprising:
a fuel reservoir (50);
the first fuel system and the second fuel system fluidly coupled to the fuel reservoir in parallel (52 and 54 are parallel, connected to the fuel supply via 56 and 64, Fig 2).
Regarding claim 12 Lewis in view of Rideau teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Lewis further teaches
wherein the powerplant comprises a heat engine (Fig 1) with a combustor (30); and
the first combustion zone is located within the combustor (Col 4 ll. 28-35).
Regarding claim 14 Lewis in view of Rideau teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Lewis further teaches:
wherein the powerplant comprises a gas turbine engine (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 16 Lewis in view of Rideau teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Lewis further teaches:
wherein the propulsor rotor is a ducted propulsor rotor (inter alia,17 is ducted, Fig 1).
Regarding claim 17, Lewis teaches:
A system for an aircraft, comprising:
a propulsor rotor (image below);
a powerplant configured to drive rotation of the propulsor rotor (image below), the powerplant including a turbine section (inter alia, 36), a flowpath (image below), a first fuel system including a first fuel circuit (52, Fig 2)
a second fuel system including a second fuel circuit (54, Fig 2)
the turbine section comprising a turbine rotor (image below), the flowpath extending through the turbine section (image below), the flowpath including a first combustion zone (within 30)
a first controller (inter alia, 52, 71, 58) configured to control operation of the first fuel system (inter alia, 52, 62, Fig 2; Abstract); and a second controller (inter alia, 52, 62, Fig 2; Abstract) configured to control operation of the second fuel system independent of the first controller (Fig 2; Abstract).
Lewis in view of Rideau is silent about:
a first fuel system including a first fuel circuit that is fluidly coupled to one or more primary fuel injectors, and
a second fuel system including a second fuel circuit that is fluidly coupled to one or more secondary fuel injectors,
a second combustion zone between the first combustion zone and the turbine section,
the first combustion zone and the second combustion zone comprising discrete combustion volumes arranged in series along the flowpath upstream of the turbine section
the first fuel system configured to deliver a first fuel through the one or more primary fuel injectors to the first combustion zone, and
the second fuel system configured to deliver through the one or more secondary fuel injectors a second fuel to the second combustion zone that is discrete from the first combustion zone;
However, Rideau teaches:
a first fuel system including a first fuel circuit (3) that is fluidly coupled to one or more primary fuel injectors (22), and
a second fuel system including a second fuel circuit (5) that is fluidly coupled to one or more secondary fuel injectors (28),
a second combustion zone (adjacent to 28) between the first combustion zone (adjacent to 22) and the turbine section (inter alia, 23),
the first combustion zone and the second combustion zone comprising discrete combustion volumes arranged in series (2 discrete combustion volumes are highlighted in the image below) along the flowpath upstream of the turbine section (upstream of turbine section, inter alia, 23),
the first fuel system configured to deliver a first fuel (4) through the one or more primary fuel injectors to the first combustion zone (adjacent to 22), and
the second fuel system configured to deliver through the one or more secondary fuel injectors a second fuel (6) to the second combustion zone (adjacent to 28) that is discrete from the first combustion zone (Fig. 1);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Lewis with Rideau's structure discussed above in order to provide “an emergency tank, a specific primary conduct for emergency fuel circulation and secondary conducts for injecting emergency fuel into the combustion chambers through appropriate injectors” (abstract) so that “in an emergency mode, the emergency fuel can be injected […] separately from the common fuel injection in the primary mode” [0011].
PNG
media_image1.png
928
1559
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Image from Lewis Fig. 1
PNG
media_image3.png
648
961
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Lewis in view of Rideau teaches the invention as discussed for claim 17. Lewis further teaches:
wherein the first controller is configured to control operation of the first fuel system independent of the second controller (52 and 54 are independent as seen in Fig 2; Abstract).
Regarding claim 21, Lewis in view of Rideau teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Lewis in view of Rideau, as discussed so far, is silent about the fuel reservoirs as claimed.
However, Rideau teaches:
wherein the first fuel system is fluidly coupled to a first fuel reservoir (31);
wherein the second fuel system is fluidly coupled to a second fuel reservoir (51);
wherein the first fuel reservoir is fluidly discrete from the second fuel reservoir (Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 4-5, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis 7185485 in view of Rideau 20150089921 and Rogers 3232053.
Regarding claim 4 Lewis in view of Rideau teaches the invention as discussed for claim 2. Lewis in view of Rideau is silent about:
further comprising a user interface configured to control operation of the second fuel system independent of at least one of the first controller or the second controller.
However, Rogers teaches a fuel control apparatus (Title):
further comprising a user interface (a manual request Col 21 ll 5-30) configured to control operation of the fuel system independent of at least one of the controllers (Col 21 ll 5-30).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Lewis in view of Rideau with Rogers’ structure discussed above, further comprising a user interface configured to control operation of the second fuel system independent of at least one of the first controller or the second controller so that “in the event of a malfunction of the […] fuel control apparatus […] the emergency fuel control apparatus is brought into operation by means of a manual request”, as taught by Rogers Col 21 ll. 5-30, thus allowing for the fuel to be controlled.
Regarding claim 5 Lewis in view of Rideau teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Lewis further teaches:
further comprising:
a controller (inter alia, 52, 71, 58) configured to control operation of the fuel system (inter alia, 52, 62, Fig 2; Abstract);
Lewis in view of Rideau is silent about:
and a user interface configured to control operation of the second fuel system independent of the controller.
However, Rogers teaches a fuel control apparatus (Title):
and a user interface (a manual request Col 21 ll 5-30) configured to control operation of the fuel system independent of the controller (Col 21 ll 5-30).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Lewis in view of McCambridge with Rogers’ structure discussed above, providing a user interface configured to control operation of the second fuel system independent of the controller so that “in the event of a malfunction of the […] fuel control apparatus […] the emergency fuel control apparatus is brought into operation by means of a manual request”, as taught by Rogers Col 21 ll. 5-30, thus allowing for the fuel to be controlled.
Regarding claim 19, Lewis in view of Rideau teaches the invention as discussed for claim 17. Lewis in view of Rideau is silent about:
further comprising a user interface configured to control operation of the second fuel system independent of the second controller.
However, Rogers teaches a fuel control apparatus (Title), and:
further comprising a user interface (a manual request Col 21 ll 5-30) configured to control operation of the fuel system independent of the controller (Col 21 ll 5-30).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Lewis in view of Rideau with Rogers’ structure discussed above, comprising a user interface configured to control operation of the second fuel system independent of the second controller so that “in the event of a malfunction of the […] fuel control apparatus […] the emergency fuel control apparatus is brought into operation by means of a manual request”, as taught by Rogers Col 21 ll. 5-30, thus allowing for the fuel to be controlled.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis 7185485 in view of Rideau 20150089921 and Thomassin 20200108915.
Regarding claim 13 Lewis in view of Rideau teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Lewis in view of Rideau is silent about:
wherein the powerplant comprises a turbo-compounded intermittent internal combustion engine.
However, Thomassin teaches:
wherein the powerplant comprises a turbo-compounded intermittent internal combustion engine (an engine assembly, comprising: a turbo-compounded engine including a rotary internal combustion engine having an housing and an engine shaft, the intermittent internal combustion engine [0005]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Lewis in view of Rideau with Thomassin's structure discussed above “for compressing the air before it is fed to an air inlet 12c of the internal combustion engine 12” (Thomassin [0020]) “because the disclosed turbo-compounded engine might be more efficient than the gas turbine engines used for propelling the aircraft” [0050]
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis 7185485 in view of Rideau 20150089921 and Wood 20190161167.
Regarding claim 15 Lewis in view of Rideau teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Lewis in view of Rideau is silent about:
wherein the propulsor rotor is an un-ducted propulsor rotor.
However, Wood teaches:
wherein the propulsor rotor is an un-ducted propulsor rotor (Fig 1)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Lewis in view of Rideau with Wood's structure discussed above because “The propeller assembly has a propeller configuration that is at least one of sized or shaped to optimize performance of the propeller assembly based on an interaction between the propeller assembly and the intake” (abstract)
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis 7185485 in view of Rideau 20150089921 and Rogers 3232053.
Regarding claim 20, Lewis teaches:
A system for an aircraft, comprising:
a propulsor rotor (image below);
a powerplant configured to drive rotation of the propulsor rotor (image below), the powerplant including a turbine section (inter alia 36), a flowpath (image below), a first fuel system (52, Fig 2) and a second fuel system (54, Fig 2), the turbine section comprising a turbine rotor (image below), the flowpath extending through the turbine section (image below), the flowpath including a first combustion zone (within 30), the first fuel system configured to deliver first fuel to the first combustion zone (52 directs fuel into the gas generator 24, Fig 2 and Fig 1; Col 5 ll 1-15, Col 4 ll. 28-37), and the second fuel system configured to deliver second fuel to the second combustion zone (54 directs fuel into a second combustion zone 40, Fig 2);
a first controller configured to control operation of the first fuel system (inter alia, 52, 62, Fig 2; Abstract)
Lewis is silent about:
a first fuel system including a first fuel circuit that is fluidly coupled to one or more primary fuel injectors, and
a second fuel system including a second fuel circuit that is fluidly coupled to one or more secondary fuel injectors,
a second combustion zone between the first combustion zone and the turbine section,
the first combustion zone and the second combustion zone comprising discrete combustion volumes arranged in series along the flowpath upstream of the turbine section,
the first fuel system configured to deliver through the one or more primary fuel injectors a first fuel to the first combustion zone, and
the second fuel system configured to deliver through the one or more secondary fuel injectors a second fuel to the second combustion zone that is discrete from the first combustion zone;
However, Rideau teaches:
a first fuel system including a first fuel circuit (3) that is fluidly coupled to one or more primary fuel injectors (22), and
a second fuel system including a second fuel circuit (5) that is fluidly coupled to one or more secondary fuel injectors (28),
a second combustion zone (adjacent to 28) between the first combustion zone (adjacent to 22) and the turbine section (23),
the first combustion zone and the second combustion zone comprising discrete combustion volumes arranged in series (2 discrete combustion volumes are highlighted in the image below) along the flowpath upstream of the turbine section (upstream of turbine section, inter alia, 23),
the first fuel system configured to deliver through the one or more primary fuel injectors a first fuel (4) to the first combustion zone, and
the second fuel system configured to deliver through the one or more secondary fuel injectors a second fuel (6) to the second combustion zone that is discrete from the first combustion zone (Fig. 1);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Lewis with Rideau's structure discussed above in order to provide “an emergency tank, a specific primary conduct for emergency fuel circulation and secondary conducts for injecting emergency fuel into the combustion chambers through appropriate injectors” (abstract) so that “in an emergency mode, the emergency fuel can be injected […] separately from the common fuel injection in the primary mode” [0011].
Lewis in view of Rideau is silent about:
a user interface configured to control operation of the second fuel system independent of the first controller.
However, Rogers teaches a fuel control apparatus (Title), and:
a user interface (a manual request Col 21 ll 5-30) configured to control operation of the fuel system independent of the controller (Col 21 ll 5-30).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Lewis in view of Rideau with Rogers’ structure discussed above, providing a user interface configured to control operation of the second fuel system independent of the first controller in order to provide “the emergency fuel control apparatus” in the event of a fuel control apparatus malfunction, as taught by Rogers Col 21 ll. 5-30.
PNG
media_image1.png
928
1559
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Image from Lewis Fig. 1
PNG
media_image4.png
648
961
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1, 9-10, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis 7185485 in view of Hepner 5704205.
(Rejection of claim 10; Second rejection of claims 1, 9, 12)
Regarding claim 1, Lewis teaches:
A system for an aircraft, comprising:
a propulsor rotor (inter alia, 16, 17 and connected shaft, Fig 1, image below); and
a powerplant configured to drive rotation of the propulsor rotor (24),
the powerplant including a turbine section (inter alia, 36), a flowpath (image below),
a first fuel system including a first fuel circuit (52, Fig 2)
a second fuel system including a second fuel circuit (54, Fig 2)
the turbine section comprising a turbine rotor (inter alia, Image below),
the flowpath extending from an inlet (14) into the flowpath to a first combustion zone (in 30), the turbine section (34, 36), to an exhaust (Image below),
the first fuel system configured to direct fuel into the first combustion zone (52 directs fuel into the gas generator 24, Fig 2 and Fig 1; Col 5 ll 1-15, Col 4 ll. 28-37),
Lewis is silent about the first fuel circuit and second fuel circuit being coupled to the fuel injectors and being fluidly independent as claimed.
However, Hepner teaches a gas turbine (Fig. 2) provided with Fuel 45A and 45B (Fig. 2, Col 4 ll. 10-18), with a turbine section 41B and a second combustor along a common flowpath, and:
the powerplant including a turbine section (inter alia, 41B)
a first fuel system including a first fuel circuit that is fluidly coupled to one or more primary fuel injectors (“first combustion chamber 43A. Fuel 45A is fed there” Col 4 ll. 5-23), and
a second fuel system including a second fuel circuit that is fluidly coupled to one or more secondary fuel injectors (“second combustion chamber 43B, where fuel 45B is fed in” Col 4 ll. 5-23),
the second fuel system is fluidly independent of the first fuel system (Fig. 2, 43B and 43A are separate),
the flowpath extending to a first combustion zone (43A), from the first combustion zone to a second combustion zone (Fig. 2, 43A through 41A to a second combustion zone 43B)
the first fuel system configured to direct a first fuel through the one or more primary fuel injectors into the first combustion zone (fuel is fed into 43A)
the first combustion zone and the second combustion zone comprising discrete combustion volumes arranged in series (43A and 43B are discrete combustion volumes, see Fig. 2) along the flowpath (flowpath including 43A to 41A to 43B to 41B) upstream of the turbine section (upstream of turbine section 41B)
the second fuel system configured to direct a second fuel through the one or more secondary fuel injectors (fuel is fed into 43B) into the second combustion zone (Fig. 2) and discrete of the one or more primary fuel injectors (Fig.2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Lewis with Hepner's structure discussed above in order to efficiently make use of partially expanded gases from a first combustor providing “a gas turbine group with sequential combustion, first the output capacity of the first power temperature cascade 9A is advantageously utilized by means of an overflow principle. A TIT measured value 12A is brought to the maximum TIT by means of a fuel mass-flow setting 14A. Then the output potential of the second power temperature cascade 9B and subsequently that of the power pressure cascade 18 are utilized” as taught by Hepner (Col 4 ll. 5-40).
PNG
media_image1.png
928
1559
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lewis Fig. 1
Regarding claim 10 Lewis in view of Hepner teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1.
Lewis further teaches:
wherein the powerplant comprises a heat engine (24, Abstract).
Lewis in view of Hepner, as discussed, teaches 2 combustors. Hepner further teaches:
and an inter-burner outside of the heat engine (43B);
the first combustion zone (43A) is located within the heat engine (Fig. 2);
and the second combustion zone is located within the inter-burner (43B, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12 Lewis in view of Hepner teaches the invention as discussed for claim 9.
Lewis further teaches
wherein the powerplant comprises a heat engine (24, abstract) with a combustor (30); and
the first combustion zone is located within the combustor (Col 4 ll. 28-35).
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but they are not persuasive because they do not apply to the new combination of references, that was necessitated by applicant’s amendment. However, to the extent possible, applicant’s arguments have been addressed in the body of the rejections above, at the appropriate location.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Roberto T. Igue whose telephone number is (303)297-4389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached on (571) 270-5426. 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.
/ROBERTO TOSHIHARU IGUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/PHUTTHIWAT WONGWIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights