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 filed on 5/14/2025.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/13/2025 has been entered.
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 22 and 23, and dependent claims, 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.
Claim 22: the limitation “crosses” in “the flow from the at least one through hole crosses the flow within the duct” does not appear to be supported by the specification and is considered new matter. It is noted the verb “cross” is defined as “to move, pass, or extend across something”
Claim 22: the limitation “introduces fuel without flow disturbance to prevent flame stabilization within the duct” does not appear to be supported by the specification and is considered new matter.
Claim 23: the limitation “fuels injected via the at least one discharge nozzle are highly reactive fuels and fuels introduced via the at least one through hole are less reactive fuels” does not appear to be supported by the specification and is considered new matter.
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, 13-14, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuo 20110083439 in view of Baumann 10712009.
Regarding 1, Zuo teaches:
A burner (Zuo Fig 1 and 2) comprising
a first, upstream front wall (Fig 1, indicated in Image below),
second downstream front wall (Fig 1, indicated in Image below),
a general airflow direction being from the first, upstream front wall to the second, downstream front walls (Fig 2, “Air” is indicated on the left side of the figure; 101 in Fig 1)
wherein at least one partition wall (Fig 1, indicated in Image below) extends across the general airflow direction and between the first upstream, front wall and second, downstream, front walls (Fig 1 and image below),
whereby the at least one partition wall divides a space between the first, upstream, front wall and the second, downstream, front wall into at least two separate fluid plenums (first gas chamber 126, upstream chamber 110 and a downstream chamber 112 of a second gas chamber 128 Col 3 ll 22-28) stacked along the general airflow direction,
the burner further comprising at least one peripheral wall (Fig 1, indicated in Image below) extending between at least one of: the front walls, one or more of the at least one partition walls (Fig 1 and 2), and one or more of a first, upstream, front wall, second, downstream, front wall and at least one partition wall (Fig 1 and 2), wherein a multitude of passages (Fig 1, indicated in Image below) are provided through the first, upstream, front wall and second, downstream front walls and the at least one partition wall (Fig 1, 2 and seen in the Image below),
wherein a multitude of ducts (Fig 1, indicated in Image below) are provided, the ducts, each comprising a ducat wall, extending through at least some of the passages and the ducts extending through the fluid plenums (Fig 1, indicated in Image below) wherein the duct walls are leak-proof connected to the first, upstream, front wall, the second, downstream, front wall and the at least one partition wall (Fig 1 shows the ducts starting at the first front wall, extending through the partition and being connected to the second downstream front wall, and not allowing leakage), so as to provide fluid communication between an upstream side of the burner adjacent the first, upstream, front wall and a downstream side of the burner adjacent the second, downstream, front wall (Fig 1, 2 and image below), and
wherein each duct has a first, upstream end adjacent the first, upstream front wall and a second, downstream end adjacent the second, downstream front wall (Fig 1, 2 and image below),
wherein the burner comprises discharge means (inlets 118, Col 3 ll 27-27) for providing fluid communication between at least one of the fluid
plenums and the interior of at least one duct out of the multitude of ducts (inlets 118 communicative between the first gas chamber 126 and an inner surface of the mixing tubes 114, Col 3 ll 27-27) and each discharge means being configured for discharging a fluid from a fluid plenum into a duct out of the multitude of ducts (Fig 1 and 2),
wherein at least one of the discharge means is a wall opening type discharge means (118 is shown in Fig 1 and 2 as a wall opening) which is provided as at least one through hole through the duct wall (118 is a hole through wall of 114 as seen in Fig. 1), allowing fluid to be drawn in to the duct (“118 communicative between the first gas chamber 126 and an inner surface of the mixing tubes 114” [0015])
wherein at least one duct (Fig 1 and 2) out of the multitude of ducts is provided with at least two discharge means (Fig 1 and 2, discharge means 116 and 118), and
wherein the at least two discharge means are provided to discharge a fluid from inside the respective fluid plenum at different positions along a longitudinal direction of the at least one duct (116 and 118 discharge from two separate plenums, Fig 1 and Fig 2).
Zuo is silent about:
and wherein at least one of the discharge means is a nozzle type discharge means (61, 61a, 61b, 61c, 62, 65, 162) which is provided as a discharge nozzle for injecting fluid into the duct which is suspended in a duct by a tube (132) extending from a fluid plenum to the discharge nozzle and providing fluid communication between said fluid plenum and the discharge nozzle
However, Baumann teaches a burner head (Title) with pilot nozzle 10 and main sage 12, and:
wherein at least one of the discharge means is a nozzle type discharge means (Baumann Fig 11-13B) which is provided as a discharge nozzle for injecting fluid into the duct (“for injecting fluid into the duct” Col 12 ll. 47-52) which is suspended in a duct by a tube (Baumann Fig 11-13B) extending from a fluid plenum to the discharge nozzle (Baumann Fig 11-13B, indicated in the image below extracted from Baumann Fig 13B) and providing fluid communication between said fluid plenum and the discharge nozzle (Baumann Fig 11-13B, indicated in the image below extracted from Baumann Fig 13B).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Zuo with the teachings of Baumann in order to provide a structure that “leads to positioning of the fuel nozzle on the longitudinal axis or at least sufficiently close to the latter […] at least substantially central injection of fuel can be achieved, which can promote a clean mixture formation” as taught by Baumann Col 2 ll 49-51.
PNG
media_image1.png
784
1116
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
406
743
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Zuo in view of Baumann teaches the invention of as discussed for claim 1. Zuo further teaches:
wherein at least one duct out of the multitude of ducts is fluidly connected to at least two fluid plenums (ducts are connected to two plenums via 118 and 116 as seen in Fig 1 and 2) by at least one of the discharge means (118 and 116), wherein at least one first discharge means is provided for providing fluid communication with a first one of said at least two fluid plenums (116) and at least one second discharge means is provided for providing fluid communication with a second one of said at least two fluid plenums (118).
Regarding claim 3, Zuo in view of Baumann teaches the invention of as discussed for claim 1. Zuo further teaches:
wherein at least one duct out of the multitude of ducts is configured with at least one of the first discharge means which is a wall-opening type discharge means (Zuo 116 and 118)
and further with at least one of the second discharge means which is a nozzle type discharge means (as already discussed in claim 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 Zuo with Baumann’s structure discussed above in order to facilitate an “at least substantially central injection of fuel can be achieved, which can promote a clean mixture formation” as taught by Baumann Col 2 ll 49-51.
Regarding claim 13, Zuo in view of Baumann teaches the invention of as discussed for claim 1. Zuo further teaches:
wherein each cross-section taken along the longitudinal extent of each duct out of the multitude of ducts has one of a circular or polygonal shape (Zuo Fig 1 shows the ducts’ cross sections have a circular shape).
Regarding claim 14, Zuo in view of Baumann teaches the invention of as discussed for claim 1. Zuo further teaches:
wherein the burner comprises at least one supply connector for fluid supply of at least some of the fluid plenums (103 and 105 in Zuo Fig 1), wherein at least two of the fluid plenums are fluidly connected to a respective individual supply connector (126 and 112, Fig 1), wherein at least two supply connectors (311, 321) of different fluid plenums are arranged concentrically and coaxially (103 and 105 are concentric, Fig 1).
Regarding claim 22, Zuo in view of Baumann teaches the invention of as discussed for claim 1. Zuo further teaches:
The burner according to claim 1, wherein the flow from the at least one through hole (118) crosses the flow within the duct (Fig. 1), to cause turbulence sufficient to mix the fuels therein (“The first gas enters the inlets 118 and flows into the mixing tubes 114” [0016], where 114 is called a “mixing” tube).
Zuo in view of Baumann, as already discussed, teaches and the fuel injected from the at least one discharge nozzle (as already discussed above)
Zuo in view of Baumann, as discussed so far, is silent about the fuel injected from the at least one discharge nozzle, injected along a longitudinal axis of the duct, introduces fuel without flow disturbance.
However, Baumann teaches:
and the fuel injected from the at least one discharge nozzle (as already discussed above), injected along a longitudinal axis of the duct, introduces fuel without flow disturbance (“leads to positioning of the fuel nozzle on the longitudinal axis or at least sufficiently close to the latter […] at least substantially central injection of fuel can be achieved, which can promote a clean mixture formation” as taught by Baumann Col 2 ll 49-51)
Regarding the limitation “to prevent flame stabilization within the duct”, this is recognized as an intended purpose and the prior art meets the limitation.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuo 20110083439 in view of Baumann 10712009 and further in view of Johnson 20120055167.
Regarding claim 4, Zuo in view of Baumann teaches the invention of as discussed for claim 1. Zuo further teaches:
wherein the first discharge means (Zuo 116) is in fluid communication with a first fluid plenum (Fig 1 and 2, and indicated in the image below) and the second discharge means (118) is in fluid communication with a second fluid plenum (Fig 1 and 2, and indicated in the image below),
wherein the first fluid plenum is arranged downstream from the second fluid plenum along the general airflow direction (Fig 1 and 2, and indicated in the image below) and a discharge position of the discharge nozzle of the second discharge means (118) providing fluid communication between the duct (image below) and the second fluid plenum (118 connects second plenum to the duct , as seen in image below).
Zuo in view of Baumann is silent about:
[discharge nozzle] is positioned downstream of the discharge position (s2) of the first discharge means (152).
However, Johnson teaches a burner (Johnson Fig 2), and:
wherein the first fluid plenum (Johnson, 48 [0024], Fig 2) is arranged downstream from the second fluid plenum (44) along the general airflow direction (Fig 2, flow from top to bottom of the page) and a discharge position of the discharge nozzle of the second discharge means (Fig 2, indicated in the image below) providing fluid communication between the duct (32, Fig 2) and the second fluid plenum (44) is positioned downstream of the discharge position (s2) of the first discharge means (56; in the Image below it is clear the discharge nozzle is downstream of 56).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Zuo in view of Baumann with Johnson’s structure discussed above in order to properly mix the fluids, if “the fuel and air are not evenly mixed prior to combustion, localized hot spots may exist in the combustor near the nozzle exits” because “the localized hot spots increase the chance for flame flash back and flame holding to occur which may damage the nozzles” as taught by Johnson [0004].
PNG
media_image3.png
779
1109
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
884
993
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuo 20110083439 in view of Baumann 10712009 and further in view of Boardman 20180128489.
Regarding claim 5, Zuo in view of Baumann teaches the invention of as discussed for claim 1. Zuo in view of Baumann is silent about:
wherein a discharge position of any of the nozzle-type discharge means (61, 61a, 61b, 61c, 62, 65, 162) is positioned at a longitudinal position of the duct inside which the nozzle-type discharge means is arranged which corresponds to a maximum 20 minimum hydraulic diameters of the respective duct when measured from a downstream end of the duct and along the longitudinal direction of the duct.
However, Boardman teaches a burner (Boardman Fig 2), and:
a discharge position of a discharge means (Boardman 148, Fig 3) is positioned at a longitudinal position of the duct (mixing length 101, Fig 3, [0041]) inside which the discharge means is arranged which corresponds to a maximum 20 minimum hydraulic diameters of the respective duct when measured from a downstream end of the duct and along the longitudinal direction of the duct (“the premix passage 102 defines a ratio of the mixing length 101 over the annular hydraulic diameter 103 of about 3.5 or less” [0041]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Zuo in view of Baumann with Boardman’s structured discussed above and place the nozzle-type discharge means at a distance that facilitates an adequate mixing length based on a ratio to the hydraulic diameter, as taught by Boardman [0041], in order to have proper mixing and also taking the engine size and weight into consideration.
Claim(s) 6, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuo 20110083439 in view of Baumann 10712009 and further in view of Bruhwiler 4408461.
Regarding claim 6, Zuo in view of Baumann teaches the invention of as discussed for claim 1. Zuo in view of Baumann is silent about:
wherein at least a subset of the multitude of passages (40b, 40c) are arranged in at least one concentric hexagonal ring around a midpoint of the at least one concentric hexagonal ring, wherein the passages arranged in the at least one concentric hexagonal ring are oriented such that fluid discharged at the downstream side of the burner form the passages in the concentric hexagonal ring has a velocity component which is tangential to a circle defined around the midpoint of the hexagonal ring.
However, Bruhwiler teaches a combustion chamber (Title), and:
wherein at least a subset of the multitude of passages (Bruhwiler Fig 2, shows multiple subsets of passage) are arranged in at least one concentric hexagonal ring around a midpoint of the at least one concentric hexagonal ring (in Fig 2, the 6 white passages surrounding the center stripped passage form a hexagon around the hashed passage; indicated in the image below), wherein the passages arranged in the at least one concentric hexagonal ring are oriented such that fluid discharged at the downstream side of the burner form the passages in the concentric hexagonal ring has a velocity component which is tangential to a circle defined around the midpoint of the hexagonal ring (Fig 7 and 8, and “the holes or openings 31 and the flame baffle 3, with the exception of the central hole, also can be arranged at an inclination in tangential planes of the related flame baffle 3” Col 6 ll 56-63).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Zuo in view of Baumann with Bruhwiler’s structure discussed above in order to facilitate part of Bruhwiler’s steps to “counteract[] any backfiring of the flames of the combustion space or chamber” as taught by Bruhwiler Col 7 ll 3-4.
PNG
media_image5.png
597
732
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Zuo in view of Baumann teaches the invention of as discussed for claim 1. Zuo in view of Baumann, is silent about:
wherein a multitude of piloting ducts (49) are provided and each piloting duct is arranged in the centre of adjacent non-piloting ducts arranged on a concentric hexagon around the piloting duct.
However Bruhwiler teaches:
wherein a multitude of piloting ducts (Bruhwiler Fig 2, element 17, col 8 ll 13) are provided and each piloting duct is arranged in the centre of adjacent non-piloting ducts arranged on a concentric hexagon around the piloting duct (Bruhwiler Fig 2, where 17 are the pilot elements).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Zuo in view of Baumann with Bruhwiler’s structure discussed above such that “with load increase the flames jump from the pilot elements 17 to the surrounding elements which have just been placed into operation” as taught by Bruhwiler Col 8 ll 17-19.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuo 20110083439 in view of Baumann 10712009 and further in view of Berry 9435540.
Regarding claim 7, Zuo in view of Baumann teaches the invention of as discussed for claim 1. Zuo in view of Baumann is silent about:
wherein at least one passage is provided with a cartridge (60) through the passage.
However, Berry teaches a fuel injector with premix pilot nozzle (Title), and:
wherein at least one passage is provided with a cartridge through the passage (a cylindrical fuel cartridge 36 defining a central fuel passage 37 through which an actively controlled supply of fuel flows in the downstream direction Col 9 ll 38-41). convective cooling to the tubes 34. The working fluid 14 may then flow through one or more diluent passages 58 between the tubes 34 and the downstream surface 30 and into the combustion chamber 24.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Zuo in view of Baumann with Berry’s structure discussed above in order to facilitate “an actively controlled supply of fuel flows in the downstream direction” as taught by Berry Col 9 ll 38-41.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuo 20110083439 in view of Baumann 10712009 and further in view of Melton 20170254539 and Stoia 9004912.
Regarding claim 8, Zuo in view of Baumann teaches the invention of as discussed for claim 1. Zuo in view of Baumann is silent about:
wherein the second fluid plenum (35), when counted from the downstream side of the burner, is in fluid communication with the fluid surrounding the burner on its lateral sides, and wherein a most downstream fluid plenum (33) is in fluid communication with said second fluid plenum (35) when counted from the downstream side of the burner through the partition wall (23) delimiting the most downstream fluid plenum (33) from the second fluid plenum (35) when counted from the downstream side of the burner and further is in fluid communication with the downstream side (3) of the burner through the downstream front wall (12).
However, Melton teaches a fuel nozzle (title) and:
wherein the second fluid plenum (Melton Fig 6, plenum 120), when counted from the downstream side of the burner, is in fluid communication with the fluid surrounding the burner on its lateral sides (gas 206 flows through inlet port 160, Fig 2, [0030]), and wherein a most downstream fluid plenum (128, Fig 2 [0030]) is in fluid communication with said second fluid plenum (Fig 2) when counted from the downstream side of the burner through the partition wall (wall between 120 and 126 in Fig 2, indicated in the image below) delimiting the most downstream fluid plenum (128) from the second fluid plenum (120) when counted from the downstream side of the burner.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Zuo in view of Baumann with Melton’s structure discussed above, in order to facilitate “providing impingement, convection and/or conductive cooling of the aft plate 112 and/or the portion of tubes 130 disposed within the cooling air plenum 128” as taught by Melton [0031].
Zuo in view of Baumann and Melton is silent about:
further is in fluid communication with the downstream side (3) of the burner through the downstream front wall (12).
However, Stoia teaches a combustor (title), and:
further is in fluid communication with the downstream side (Stoia 30, Fig 1) of the burner through the downstream front wall (through 58, Fig 1, Col 5 ll 36).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Zuo in view of Baumann and Melton with Stoia’s structure discussed above to facilitate “ convective cooling to the tubes 34” and “working fluid 14 may then flow through one or more diluent passages 58 between the tubes 34 and the downstream surface 30 and into the combustion chamber 24” as taught by Stoia Col 5 ll 32-37.
PNG
media_image6.png
950
906
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuo 20110083439 in view of Baumann 10712009 and further in view of Uhm 8438851.
Regarding claim 9, Zuo in view of Baumann teaches the invention of as discussed for claim 1. Zuo in view of Baumann is silent about:
wherein the most downstream fluid plenum (33) is in fluid communication with at least one duct through wall-opening type discharge means (53) provided as through holes in the duct walls.
However, Uhm teaches a combustor (title), and:
wherein the most downstream fluid plenum (106 in Fig 4, col 5 ll 1) is in fluid communication with at least one duct through wall-opening type discharge means provided as through holes in the duct walls (150 in Fig 4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Zuo in view of Baumann with Uhm’s structure discussed above in order to provide cooling: “Cooling fluid aperture 150 extends through mixing tube inner surface 134 to couple cooling fluid plenum 106 to flow channel 136” as taught by Uhm Col 6 ll 7-9.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuo 20110083439 in view of Baumann 10712009 and further in view of Bruhwiler 4408461 and Johnson 20120055167 with the teachings of Boardman 20180128489.
Regarding claim 10, Zuo in view of Baumann teaches the invention of as discussed for claim 1. Zuo in view of Baumann, is silent about:
wherein at least one duct out of the multitude of ducts is configured as a piloting duct (49).
However, Bruhwiler teaches
wherein at least one duct out of the multitude of ducts is configured as a piloting duct (Bruhwiler Fig 2, element 17, col 8 ll 13).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Zuo in view of Baumann with Bruhwiler’s structure discussed above such that “with load increase the flames jump from the pilot elements 17 to the surrounding elements which have just been placed into operation” as taught by Bruhwiler Col 8 ll 17-19.
Zuo in view of Baumann and Bruhwiler is silent about:
[pilot] is in fluid communication with a fluid plenum (32) different from the most downstream fluid plenum through discharge means (65) configured to discharge into the piloting duct at a longitudinal distance, when measured from the downstream end of the duct and along a longitudinal extent of the duct, corresponding to at maximum five times the minimum hydraulic diameter of the duct.
However, Johnson teaches:
Central ducts (32 Johnson Fig 2) in fluid communication with a fluid plenum (44 in Fig 2) different from the most downstream fluid plenum (48 is most downstream fluid plenum) through discharge means (Fig 2, indicated in image below) configured to discharge into the duct at a longitudinal distance (indicated as D in the image below).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Zuo in view of Baumann and Bruhwiler with Johnson’s structure discussed above in order to properly mix the fluids, if “the fuel and air are not evenly mixed prior to combustion, localized hot spots may exist in the combustor near the nozzle exits” because “the localized hot spots increase the chance for flame flash back and flame holding to occur which may damage the nozzles” as taught by Johnson [0004].
Zuo in view of Baumann, Bruhwiler and Johnson is silent about:
longitudinal distance when measured from the downstream end of the duct and along a longitudinal extent of the duct, corresponding to at maximum five times the minimum hydraulic diameter of the duct.
However, Boardman teaches:
longitudinal distance when measured from the downstream end of the duct and along a longitudinal extent of the duct (mixing length 101, Fig 3, [0041]), corresponding to at maximum five times the minimum hydraulic diameter of the duct (“the premix passage 102 defines a ratio of the mixing length 101 over the annular hydraulic diameter 103 of about 3.5 or less” [0041]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Zuo in view of Baumann, Bruhwiler and Johnson with Boardman’s structure discussed above and place the discharge means at a longitudinal distance that facilitates an adequate mixing length based on a ratio to the hydraulic diameter, as taught by Boardman [0041], in order to have proper mixing and also taking the engine size and weight into consideration.
PNG
media_image7.png
991
980
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuo 20110083439 in view of Baumann 10712009 and further in view of Bruhwiler 4408461 and Johnson 20120055167.
Regarding claim 12, Zuo in view of Baumann teaches the invention of as discussed for claim 1. Zuo in view of Baumann, is silent about:
wherein at least a subset of the multitude of passages (40c; 40b, 40c) are arranged as outer passages on a concentric hexagonal ring around and adjacent at least one inner passage (40a; 40a, 40b), wherein at least one inner duct is provided in the at least one inner passage and at least one outer duct is provided in the outer passages, wherein the at least one inner duct has a most downstream discharge position at which a discharge means in fluid communication with a fluid plenum different from the most downstream fluid plenum is configured to discharge into the at least one inner duct which is positioned at a first longitudinal distance from the downstream end of the at least one inner duct, and wherein the at least one outer duct has a most downstream discharge position at which a discharge means in fluid communication with a fluid plenum different from the most downstream fluid plenum is configured to discharge into the at least one outer duct which is positioned at a second longitudinal distance from the downstream end of the at least one outer duct, wherein the second longitudinal distance is larger than the first longitudinal distance.
However, Bruhwiler teaches:
wherein at least a subset of the multitude of passages (Bruhwiler Fig 2, shows multiple subsets of passage) are arranged as outer passages on a concentric hexagonal ring around and adjacent at least one inner passage (in Fig 2, the 6 white passages surrounding the center stripped passage form a hexagon around the hashed passage; indicated in the image below),
wherein at least one inner duct is provided in the at least one inner passage and at least one outer duct is provided in the outer passages (Fig 1 and 2, image below).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Zuo in view of Baumann with Bruhwiler’s structure discussed above such that “with load increase the flames jump from the pilot elements 17 to the surrounding elements which have just been placed into operation” as taught by Bruhwiler Col 8 ll 17-19.
Zuo in view of Baumann and Bruhwiler is silent about:
wherein the at least one inner duct has a most downstream discharge position at which a discharge means in fluid communication with a fluid plenum different from the most downstream fluid plenum is configured to discharge into the at least one inner duct which is positioned at a first longitudinal distance from the downstream end of the at least one inner duct, and wherein the at least one outer duct has a most downstream discharge position at which a discharge means in fluid communication with a fluid plenum different from the most downstream fluid plenum is configured to discharge into the at least one outer duct which is positioned at a second longitudinal distance from the downstream end of the at least one outer duct, wherein the second longitudinal distance is larger than the first longitudinal distance.
However, Johnson teaches:
wherein the at least one inner duct (Johnson 32 in Fig 2) has a most downstream discharge position at which a discharge means (Fig 2, indicated in image below) in fluid communication with a fluid plenum (44 in Fig 2) different from the most downstream fluid plenum (48 is most downstream fluid plenum) is configured to discharge into the at least one inner duct which is positioned (indicated in image below, position correspondent to the “discharge means”) at a first longitudinal distance from the downstream end of the at least one inner duct (indicated as D1 in the image below), and wherein the at least one outer duct has a most downstream discharge position at which a discharge means (62 in Fig 2) in fluid communication with a fluid plenum (44) different from the most downstream fluid plenum (48 is most downstream fluid plenum) is configured to discharge into the at least one outer duct (34 in Fig 2) which is positioned at a second longitudinal distance from the downstream end of the at least one outer duct (indicated as D2 in the image below), wherein the second longitudinal distance is larger than the first longitudinal distance (D2 is larger than D1, see image below).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Zuo in view of Baumann and Bruhwiler with Johnson’s structure discussed above in order to properly mix the fluids, if “the fuel and air are not evenly mixed prior to combustion, localized hot spots may exist in the combustor near the nozzle exits” because “the localized hot spots increase the chance for flame flash back and flame holding to occur which may damage the nozzles” as taught by Johnson [0004].
Bruhwiler Figure 2:
PNG
media_image5.png
597
732
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Johnson Figure 2:
PNG
media_image8.png
814
804
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuo 20110083439 in view of Berry 20130074510 (Berry ‘510).
Regarding claim 15, Zuo in view of Baumann teaches the invention of as discussed for claim 1. Zuo in view of Baumann is silent about:
wherein at least one of the through holes (52a) arranged in the wall of a duct (142) out of the multitude of ducts for providing fluid communication with a fluid plenum (32) has an elliptically shaped cross-section, wherein in particular the long axis (528) of the ellipse includes an angle of at maximum 30 degrees with one of a longitudinal axis of the duct (451), the general airflow direction or a burner axis, and wherein further in particular the ratio of the length (a) of the long ellipse axis (528) to the length (b) of the short ellipse axis (529) is 1.25 or more.
However, Berry ‘510 teaches:
wherein at least one of the through holes (Berry510 Fig 7) arranged in the wall of a duct (24 in Fig 7) out of the multitude of ducts for providing fluid communication with a fluid plenum (52 in Fig 7) has an elliptically shaped cross-section (Fig 7, and indicated in the image below), wherein in particular the long axis (528) of the ellipse (the vertical axis of the elliptically shaped through hole indicated in the image below) includes an angle of at maximum 30 degrees with one of a longitudinal axis of the duct, the general airflow direction or a burner axis (the angle is zero degrees, therefore below the maximum 30 degrees), and wherein further in particular the ratio of the length (a) of the long ellipse axis (528) to the length (b) of the short ellipse axis (529) is 1.25 or more (Fig 7 clearly shows an ellipse with axis that are greater than 1.25 times the size of each other).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Zuo in view of Baumann with Berry510 structure discussed above to include “include one or more fluid passages 60 that provide fluid communication from the second plenum 52 through each tube 24” as taught by Berry ‘510 [0027].
PNG
media_image9.png
539
716
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 16, 17, 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuo 20110083439 in view of Baumann 10712009 and Camponovo 20190011132.
Regarding claim 16, Zuo in view of Baumann teaches the invention of as discussed for claim 1.
As already discussed Zuo teaches: wherein at least one of the through holes arranged in the wall of a duct out of the multitude of ducts for providing fluid communication with a fluid plenum.
Zuo in view of Baumann is silent about:
[wherein at least one of the through holes] has a polygonal shaped cross-section having a polygonal shaped boundary, the polygonal shaped boundary comprising straight boundary segments (521, 522, 523, 524, 525), wherein said polygonal shaped boundary comprises an upstream boundary section (526) and a downstream boundary section (527), wherein at least one of the upstream boundary section and the downstream boundary section is shaped such that an angle (6,F) included between each straight segment of the respective boundary section and one of a longitudinal axis (451) of the duct, the general airflow direction or a burner axis is smaller than or equal to 45 degrees.
However, Camponovo teaches:
wherein at least one of the through holes (Camponovo Fig 9, fuel port 110 [0036]) arranged in the wall of a duct (114) out of the multitude of ducts has a polygonal shaped cross-section having a polygonal shaped boundary (Camponovo Fig 9, fuel port 110), the polygonal shaped boundary comprising straight boundary segments (110 is a square with straight boundaries, Fig 9), wherein said polygonal shaped boundary comprises an upstream boundary section (two sides of 110 on the upper side of Fig 9) and a downstream boundary section (two sides of 110 on the lower side of Fig 9), wherein at least one of the upstream boundary section and the downstream boundary section is shaped such that an angle included between each straight segment of the respective boundary section and one of a longitudinal axis (115, Fig 9) of the duct, the general airflow direction or a burner axis is smaller than or equal to 45 degrees (“the fuel port 110 are oriented oblique to the centerline 115 of the mixing channel 114 at an angle θ of about forty-five degrees (45°)” [0036]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Zuo in view of Baumann with Camponovo’s structure discussed above such that the “fuel port includes an outlet configured to inject fuel into the mixing channel such that a shear flow is induced” as taught by Camponovo [0005] in order to promote better fluid mixing.
Regarding claim 17, Zuo in view of Baumann teaches the invention of as discussed for claim 1. Zuo in view of Baumann is silent about:
wherein at least a subset of ducts out of the multitude of ducts are provided with the nozzle type discharge means inside the respective duct, whereby an outer boundary of a respective discharge nozzle provided inside a duct defines a closest residual flow cross-section between the discharge nozzle and the inner wall of the duct, wherein at least two ducts (44a, 44b, 44c) out of the subset of ducts are provided with different residual flow cross-sections.
However, Camponovo teaches:
wherein at least a subset of ducts out of the multitude of ducts are provided with the nozzle type discharge means inside the respective duct (Camponovo Fig 20, Col 16 ll 53-58), whereby an outer boundary of a respective discharge nozzle provided inside a duct defines a closest residual flow cross-section between the discharge nozzle and the inner wall of the duct (Fig 20 shows different closest residual flows between the two elements 42 in their respective channels and also between the left and right side of the square shaped 42 on the left side of the figure), wherein at least two ducts out of the subset of ducts are provided with different residual flow cross-sections (“ FIG. 20, a burner head with at least two or more oxidant ducts 42 is used, it is possible, alternatively or in addition to the embodiment as per FIG. 19, for in each case one fuel duct body 42 to be provided in at least two oxidant ducts 3, which fuel duct bodies are of mutually different geometry and/or arrangement” Col 16 ll 53-58).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to Zuo in view of Baumann with Camponovo’s structure discussed above in order to yield “in each case at least two vortex streets 50 with mutually different vortex characteristics, such that, as is already the case for example in FIG. 19, the flows of oxidant and injected fuel that propagate into the adjoining combustion chamber of the burner form, or merge to form, a mixture of vortices of different frequencies, separation tendencies and/or amplitudes. In this way, too, the formation of a dominant frequency in the gas cloud of the combustion space or combustion chamber is prevented in an effective manner” as taught by Camponovo Col 16 ll 58-67.
Regarding claim 20, Zuo in view of Baumann and Camponovo teaches the invention of as discussed for claim 17. Zuo further teaches:
A combustor comprising a combustion space (a combustor portion [0007]; 122 in Fig 1) and further comprising at least one burner according to claim 17 (as already discussed), wherein the second, downstream, front wall (Fig 1, as already discussed) of the burner faces the combustion space (122, Fig 1) and the most downstream of the fluid plenums (112 in Fig 1) adjacent the second, downstream front wall is provided as a coolant plenum (“The flow of the second gas around the surface of the mixing tubes 114 in the downstream chamber 112 cools the mixing tubes 114 and helps to prevent the ignition or sustained burning of the fuel-air mixture inside the mixing tubes 114” [0017]).
Regarding claim 21, Zuo in view of Baumann and Camponovo teaches the invention of as discussed for claim 20. Zuo further teaches:
A gas turbine engine comprising a combustor according to claim 20 (Zuo: “gas turbine engine” [0007]).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuo 20110083439 in view of Baumann 10712009 and Lucas 7416571.
Regarding claim 18, Zuo in view of Baumann teaches the invention of as discussed for claim 1. Zuo in view of Baumann, as already discussed, teaches:
a discharge nozzle is provided within said at least one duct (as already discussed).
Zuo in view of Baumann is silent about:
wherein at least one duct (44 a, 44b, 44c) out of the multitude of ducts comprises at least one tapering cross-section longitudinal portion, wherein within a tapering cross-section longitudinal portion the cross-sectional area of the at least one duct tapers downstream the general airflow direction from a first cross-sectional area to a second cross-sectional area smaller than the first cross-sectional area, and wherein a discharge nozzle (61a, 61b, 61c) is provided within said at least one duct with a downstream end of said discharge nozzle positioned within a tapering cross-section longitudinal portion, wherein in particular said tapering cross-section longitudinal portion in which the downstream end of said discharge nozzle is provided is configured such that the hydraulic diameter of the duct at the position where the duct has the first cross- sectional area is 1.12 times or more and 2.5 times or less the hydraulic diameter of the duct at the position where the duct has the second cross-sectional area.
However, Lucas teaches:
wherein at least one duct (Lucas, Fig 9) out of the multitude of ducts comprises at least one tapering cross-section longitudinal portion (Fig 9, portion labeled as 46), wherein within a tapering cross-section longitudinal portion the cross-sectional area of the at least one duct tapers downstream the general airflow direction (air flows from top to the bottom of Fig 9) from a first cross-sectional area (top of Fig 9) to a second cross-sectional area smaller than the first cross-sectional area (the area indicated by 46 in Fig 9 is smaller than the area at the top of Fig 9), and wherein a discharge (50 in Fig 9) is provided within said at least one duct with a downstream end of said discharge nozzle positioned within a tapering cross-section longitudinal portion (50 is within the tapering cross-section, as seen in Fig 9), wherein in particular said tapering cross-section longitudinal portion in which the downstream end of said discharge nozzle is provided is configured such that the hydraulic diameter of the duct at the position where the duct has the first cross- sectional area is 1.12 times or more and 2.5 times or less the hydraulic diameter of the duct at the position where the duct has the second cross-sectional area (“the ratio of the internal cross-sectional area of mixing portion 46 to that of first injection portion 42 is between about 0.4 and about 0.65, or between about 0.5 and about 0.6” Col 8 ll 41-45, where 1/0.4=2.5 and 1/0.65=1.54).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to Zuo in view of Baumann with the Lucas’ structure as discussed above such that the “mixing portion of each channel may have a reduced cross-sectional area so as to increase the total velocity of the feedgases while they mix” as taught by Lucas (Abstract).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over Zuo 20110083439 in view of Baumann 10712009, Camponovo 20190011132 and Lucas 7416571
Regarding claim 19, Zuo in view of Baumann and Camponovo teaches the invention of as discussed for claim 17. Zuo in view of Baumann and Camponovo, as discussed above, teaches:
wherein at least some of the subset of ducts (44a, 44b, 44c) are provided with a discharge means (61a, 61b, 61c) provided as a discharge nozzle inside the respective duct (as discussed above).
Zuo in view of Baumann and Camponovo, as discussed so far, is silent about:
and each of said discharge nozzles longitudinally extending, in relation to the general airflow direction.
Baumann further teaches:
and each of said discharge nozzles longitudinally extending, in relation to the general airflow direction (Baumann 42 in Fig 13B shows a nozzle that is longitudinally extending from top to bottom of the figure, the same direction as the airflow).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Zuo in view of Baumann and Camponovo with Baumann’s structure discussed above in order to facilitate an “at least substantially central injection of fuel can be achieved, which can promote a clean mixture formation” as taught by Baumann Col 2 ll 49-51
Zuo in view of Baumann and Camponovo is silent about:
[nozzle] upstream of a tapering cross-section longitudinal portion, inside the tapering cross-section longitudinal portion, or both,
However, Lucas teaches:
A discharge means inside the tapering cross-section longitudinal portion (Fig 9, portion labeled as 46).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to Zuo in view of Baumann and Camponovo with Lucas’ structure discussed above such that the “mixing portion of each channel may have a reduced cross-sectional area so as to increase the total velocity of the feedgases while they mix” as taught by Lucas (Abstract).
Zuo in view of Baumann, Camponovo and Lucas, as discussed so far, is silent about:
wherein at least one first of the discharge nozzles extends further downstream into the respective tapering cross-section longitudinal portion than a second one of said discharge nozzles.
However, Baumann teaches:
wherein at least one first of the discharge nozzles extends further downstream into the respective longitudinal portion than a second one of said discharge nozzles (Baumann Fig 18 shows a fuel duct body 42 and 42’, and “Here, the at least one further bluff body may however alternatively also be a further fuel duct body 42′ “ Col 16 ll 15-16; the discharge nozzle 42 extends further downstream than the discharge nozzle 42’ as seen in Fig 18).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to Zuo in view of Baumann, Camponovo and Lucas with Baumann’s structure discussed above in order to facilitate “a further alternative or additional possible means of reducing the effects that the vortex formation on the fuel duct body 42 has on the combustion chamber adjoining the burner head 35” as taught by Baumann Col 16 ll 18-21.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuo 20110083439 in view of Baumann 10712009 and Boardman 20200263873.
Regarding claim 23, Zuo in view of Baumann teaches the invention of as discussed for claim 22. Zuo in view of Baumann is silent about:
The burner according to claim 22, wherein fuels injected via the at least one discharge nozzle are highly reactive fuels and fuels introduced via the at least one through hole are less reactive fuels, the respective method of fuel introduction based on reactivity thereby stabilizing the flame produced downstream.
However, Farhangi teaches method and apparatus for injecting fuel into a combustor:
fuels injected via the at least one discharge nozzle are highly reactive fuels (“the equivalence ratio of the injector plate 52 is between about 0.50 and about 0.60” Col 13 ll. 1-3) and fuels introduced via the at least one through hole are less reactive fuels (“the premix section may be between about 0.20 and 0.30”, Col 13 ll. 1-3), the respective method of fuel introduction based on reactivity (fuel injected via premix versus “fuel injector ports 60 are formed in the injector plate 52” Col 6 ll. 57-59).
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 Zuo in view of Baumann with Farhangi's teachings discussed above so “there is never an excessive amount of fuel that is not combusted” “the lean mixture helps to lower temperatures of the air to more easily control side reactions. It will be understood that different fuel ratios may be used to produce different temperatures” Col 13 ll. 6-11
Regarding the limitation “thereby stabilizing the flame produced downstream”, this is recognized as an intended purpose and the prior art meets the limitation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but they are not persuasive. However, to the extent possible, applicant’s arguments have been addressed in the body of the rejections above, at the appropriate location.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image10.png
280
528
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s response: Zou fuel being introduced from different types of fuel providing devices (inter alia, size, location) and Baumann teaches two different devices, a fuel nozzle 19 and fuel nozzle 4, both part of the same burner head. Therefore, a combination of different types of fuel providing devices in a same system was known.
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