DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the application filed on December 31, 2023. Claims 1-15 are pending. Claims 11-15 are withdrawn.
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 .
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I (Claims 1-10) in the reply filed on September 19, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is allegedly “no appreciable search or examination burden”. This is not found persuasive because the inventions as claimed have been shown to be distinct based on their mutually exclusive configurations pursuant to MPEP § 806.05(j) and search and examination burden has been established pursuant to MPEP § 808.02 (See pp. 2-3 of prior Office Action). Each invention requires searching different classes/subclasses and employing a different field of search (e.g., employing different search strategies and search queries) as set forth in the requirement. Applicant has not specifically pointed out any supposed errors in the established burden. Moreover, Applicant has not stated on the record or submitted evidence that the inventions are not patentably distinct.
Notably, Invention I requires searching significant additional features of the air supply system beyond the bundled tube fuel nozzle assembly such as a flow conditioner partially defining the head end air plenum and Invention II is directed to additional features of the bundled tube fuel nozzle assembly, which resulted in separate classification thereof. Further, the inventions do not encompass overlapping subject matter because Invention I would not infringe Invention II and Invention II would not infringe Invention I. See MPEP 806.05. It is additionally pointed out that, examination burden is not limited exclusively to a prior art search but also includes that effort required to apply the art by making and discussing all appropriate grounds of rejection. Multiple inventions, such as those in the present application, normally require additional reference material and further discussion for each additional invention examined. Concurrent examination of multiple inventions would thus typically involve a significant burden even if all searches were coextensive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
The propriety of the restriction requirement will be reconsidered if all the claims directed to the elected invention (Invention I) are in condition for allowance, and the nonelected invention (Invention II) will be considered for rejoinder. See “Allowable Subject Matter” section at conclusion of this Action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 522.
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. 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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: reference numeral 17 is used to designate “compressor discharge casing” and “compressor discharge plenum” in ¶0090. It is believed “compressor discharge casing 17” should be – compressor discharge plenum 19 – and “compressor discharge plenum 17” should be – compressor discharge plenum 19 – (two instances). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a compressor discharge plenum” is believed in error for – the compressor discharge plenum. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As to Claim 1, the recitation “in fluid communication with a combustion chamber” at lines 15-16 renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if “a combustion chamber” refers to: (i) the aforementioned combustion chamber (line 5); or (ii) another combustion chamber. Note, the specification at ¶0059 indicates that the term ‘combustion chamber’ can refer to “e.g., primary combustion zone 120”. Thus, the term combustion chamber as used in the specification can refer to any such combustion zone. The specification further notes that there can be a secondary combustion zone and a tertiary combustion zone (¶0083). As such, the language of the claim is ambiguous and raises question if “in fluid communication with a combustion chamber” at lines 15-16 requires fluid communication with the aforementioned combustion chamber of line 5 (that the aft plate faces) or if it requires or permits fluid communication with another combustion chamber of the combustor head end section (such as a secondary or tertiary combustion zone).
As to Claim 7, “the head end plenum” lacks sufficient antecedent basis and renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if the recitation refers to: (i) the aforementioned “head end air plenum” set forth in Claim 1 or another plenum that need not be an air plenum.
As to Claim 8, it is not clear if “the combustion chamber” refers to: (i) the aforementioned combustion chamber set forth in Claim 1 at line 5; or (ii) the aforementioned combustion chamber set forth in Claim 1 at lines 15-16.
As to Claim 9, it is not clear if “the combustion chamber” refers to: (i) the aforementioned combustion chamber set forth in Claim 1 at line 5; or (ii) the aforementioned combustion chamber set forth in Claim 1 at lines 15-16.
Claims 2-6 and 10 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, at least one indefinite claim.
Claim Interpretation
Claim term “surrounding” (e.g., Claim 1) has been given its plain meaning consonant with the instant specification. See Figures 3B, 4 and 9. As evidenced by the same, the instant application construes surrounding a portion of an assembly as reading on surrounding the assembly. See Figures 3B, 4 and 9 with respect to the first inlet flow conditioner (109) which is said to surround the bundled tube fuel nozzle assembly (200).
Claim term “inlet flow conditioner” (e.g., Claim 1) is an art recognized term and has been construed as a -- structure in which fluid contacts or passes through so as to modify flow of the fluid to an inlet – consonant with the instant specification.
Claim term “aligned” (Claim 4) has been construed as – overlapping at least in part along a direction, such as an axial, radial or circumferential direction --.
Prior Art Relied Upon
This action references the following issued US Patents and/or Patent Application Publications:
US PATENT or PUBLICATION NUMBER
HEREINAFTER
US-20180106482-A1
“BERRY ‘482”
US-20130074510-A1
“BERRY ‘510”
US-20100275601-A1
“BERRY ‘601”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BERRY ‘482 in view of BERRY ‘510.
PNG
media_image1.png
1309
802
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 1, BERRY ‘482 teaches a combustor head end section with an air supply system (Figures 2, 8-9; ¶¶0042-0045), the combustor head end section comprising:
a bundled tube fuel nozzle assembly 52 for a gas turbine combustor 14 (Figures 2, 9 ¶¶0030-0031), the bundled tube fuel nozzle assembly comprising: a forward plate [“forward or upstream plate”] facing a head end air plenum 66 (See Figures 2, 9 ¶¶0031, 0051), an aft plate [“aft or downstream plate”] facing a combustion chamber 36 (Ibid.), a first plurality of premixing tubes [“tube bundle comprising a plurality of tubes”] extending from the forward plate to the aft plate (Ibid.), and a side wall [“outer band or sleeve”] extending around the first plurality of premixing tubes and extending axially from the forward plate to the aft plate (Ibid.);
wherein the forward plate, the aft plate, and the side wall define a fuel plenum [“fuel plenum”] (Ibid.), and each premixing tube of the first plurality of premixing tubes in fluid communication with the fuel plenum (Ibid.);
wherein the air supply system comprises the head end air plenum (Figures 8-9, ¶0043), a first inlet flow conditioner 134 partially defining the head end air plenum (¶0043), and a second inlet flow conditioner 136 (¶0043); and
wherein the head end air plenum is in fluid communication with a combustion chamber (Figures 8-9, ¶¶0043, 0051), via the first plurality of premixing tubes, the first inlet flow conditioner surrounds the bundled tube fuel nozzle assembly (Figure 9; ¶0043), and the second inlet flow conditioner surrounds the first inlet flow conditioner (Figures 8-9; ¶¶0042, 0045). The forward plate, aft plate and side wall of BERRY ‘482 are also annotated in Image 1 above. However, BERRY ‘482 fails to teach the sidewall extending circumferentially around the first plurality of premixing tubes and that each premixing tube of the first plurality of premixing tubes includes at least one fuel injection hole therethrough in fluid communication with the fuel plenum.
BERRY ‘510 teaches a sidewall 34 extending circumferentially around a first plurality of premixing tubes (24) (¶¶0023-0024), wherein each premixing tube of the first plurality of premixing tubes includes at least one fuel injection hole 60 therethrough in fluid communication with a fuel plenum (¶0027). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the combustor head end section wherein the sidewall extends circumferentially around the first plurality of premixing tubes in order to provide a combustor arrangement that facilitates six tube-groups surrounding a single group as shown in Figure 3 (BERRY ‘510 ¶0024) and to provide each premixing tube of the first plurality of premixing tubes so it includes at least one fuel injection hole therethrough in fluid communication with the fuel plenum in order to fluidly connect the fuel plenum with the premix tube to project and/or impart swirl to the fuel prior to flow into the combustion chamber (BERRY ‘510 ¶¶0027-0028).
Re Claim 2, BERRY ‘482 in view of BERRY ‘510 teaches the combustor head end section of claim 1. BERRY ‘482 further teaches wherein the first inlet flow conditioner is perforated with a first plurality of perforations 140, such that an air supply from a compressor discharge plenum is in fluid communication with the head end air plenum (BERRY ‘482 Figs. 8, 9; ¶¶0043, 0051).
Re Claim 3, BERRY ‘482 in view of BERRY ‘510 teaches the combustor head end section of claim 2. BERRY ‘482 further teaches the second inlet flow conditioner is perforated with a second plurality of perforations 148, such that the air supply from a compressor discharge plenum is in fluid communication with the head end air plenum via the second inlet flow conditioner and the first inlet flow conditioner (BERRY ‘482 Figs. 8, 9; ¶¶0043, 0051); and wherein the air supply to the head end air plenum experiences a head end pressure drop from flowing through the second inlet flow conditioner and the first inlet flow conditioner (where compressed air flow passes though orifices such as 148, 140 as described in BERRY ‘482 at ¶¶0043, 0051 it will necessarily undergo a pressure drop due to Bernoulli’s principle as would be understood by those of ordinary skill).
Further as to the limitation “wherein the air supply to the head end air plenum experiences a head end pressure drop from flowing through the second inlet flow conditioner and the first inlet flow conditioner”, though this is necessarily the case in BERRY ‘482 it is further noted that it has been held that “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original) and “While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP § 2114.
[continued on next page]
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BERRY ‘482 in view of BERRY ‘510 as applied in Claim 3 above, further in view of BERRY ‘601.
PNG
media_image2.png
1721
1029
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
1284
1054
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 4, BERRY ‘482 in view of BERRY ‘510 teaches the combustor head end section of claim 3 as discussed above. However, BERRY ‘482 in view of BERRY ‘510 as discussed so far fails to teach wherein the first plurality of perforations in the first inlet flow conditioner are aligned with the second plurality of perforations in the second inlet flow conditioner.
BERRY ‘482 in Figure 8 would have suggested to one of ordinary skill that the first plurality of perforations 140 in the first inlet flow conditioner are aligned in the axial direction with the second plurality of perforations 148 in the second inlet flow conditioner since they are shown as being spaced from the ring including vanes 146 by a same axial distance (See Image 2 above; a same “AXIAL DISTANCE A” is annotated for each). BERRY ‘601 teaches a first plurality of perforations [annotated “first perforations” in Image 3] in a first inlet flow conditioner 82 that are aligned with a second plurality of perforations [annotated “second perforations” in Image 3] in a second inlet flow conditioner 72 along a line [annotated “LINE A” in Image 3] that is perpendicular to central longitudinal axis 46 (See BERRY ‘601 Figure 4, Image 3 above and ¶0039). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first plurality of perforations in the first inlet flow conditioner so they are aligned with the second plurality of perforations in the second inlet flow conditioner, in order to produce a uniform distribution of compressed air between fuel nozzles (BERRY ‘601 ¶0055) and/or to enhance flow of compressed air (BERRY ‘601 ¶0038-0039).
Re Claim 5, BERRY ‘482 in view of BERRY ‘510 teaches the combustor head end section of claim 3. However, BERRY ‘482 in view of BERRY ‘510 as discussed so far fails to teach wherein perforations in the second plurality of perforations in the second inlet flow conditioner have a larger diameter than perforations in the first plurality of perforations in the first inlet flow conditioner.
BERRY ‘482 illustrates in Figure 8 that flow conditioner 100 includes perforations in the second plurality of perforations of the second inlet flow conditioner 138 having a similar diameter to that of perforations in the first plurality of perforations in the first inlet flow conditioner 134. See BERRY ‘482 Figure 8. BERRY ‘482 further teaches that embodiments of the flow conditioner 100 may include providing subsets of the perforations having larger diameters D1 and smaller diameters D2, D3 (BERRY ‘482 ¶¶0049-0050) results in a more uniform flow at the inlets of the premix passages (BERRY ‘482 ¶0051). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide BERRY ‘482 in view of BERRY ‘510 (with reference to the Figure 8 embodiment of BERRY ‘482’s flow conditioner 100) such that the perforations of the inner sleeve 134 and/or sleeve 136 include subsets of diameters (such as diameters D1, D2, and D3 as discussed in ¶¶0049-0050 of BERRY ‘482 wherein D1 is approximately 5 times that of D2 & D3) resulting in perforations (perforations of respective diameter D1) in the second plurality of perforations in the second inlet flow conditioner having a larger diameter than perforations (perforations of respective diameter D3) in the first plurality of perforations in the first inlet flow conditioner, in order to more uniform flow at the inlets of the premix passages (BERRY ‘482 ¶0051). Notably, since perforations shown in Figure 8 are of approximately the same diameter in Figure 8, this modification suggested by BERRY ‘482 would result in a subset of perforations in the second plurality of perforations having diameters about 5 times the diameter of a subset of perforations in the first plurality of perforations.
Claim 5 is obvious for the reasons above and BERRY ‘482 in view of BERRY ‘510 discloses the general conditions of the claim as discussed above. Additionally, the diameter of such perforations an inlet flow conditioner was known to be a result effect variable that achieves a recognized result (in the instant case, enhanced or modified air flow for a flow conditioner which may be tuned to particular requirements of a fuel nozzle). See BERRY ‘601 at ¶¶0038-0040,0047 and 0054-0055. See also BERRY ‘482 at ¶¶0049-0050. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the combustor head end section of BERRY ‘482 in view of BERRY ‘510 such that perforations in the second plurality of perforations in the second inlet flow conditioner have a larger diameter than perforations in the first plurality of perforations in the first inlet flow conditioner in order to enhanced or modified air flow for a flow conditioner which may be tuned to particular requirements of a fuel nozzle, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges [of a result effective variable] by routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), MPEP § 2144.05 II (B), and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP § 2144.05 II (A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Dependent Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim 1 and to overcome the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action (e.g., by amending “a combustion chamber” at lines 15-16 to recite – the combustion chamber --).
Dependent Claim 7 and its dependents would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim(s) and to overcome the respective rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action (e.g.., for Claim 7: in Claim 1 by amending “a combustion chamber” at lines 15-16 to recite – the combustion chamber – and in Claim 7 by amending “the head end plenum” to recite – the head end air plenum --).
The propriety of the restriction requirement will be reconsidered if all the claims directed to the elected invention (Invention I) are in condition for allowance, and the nonelected invention (Invention II) will be considered for rejoinder.
In order to be eligible for rejoinder, a claim to a nonelected invention must depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable claim. A withdrawn claim that does not require all the limitations of an allowable claim will not be rejoined.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Prior art fails to teach or suggest, in combination with the other limitations of claim 6, the second inlet flow conditioner surrounds the first inlet flow conditioner and the first inlet flow conditioner extends axially forward from the bundled tube fuel nozzle assembly to a mounting flange and an inner support barrel extends axially from the first inlet flow conditioner to an end cover disposed opposite the bundled tube fuel nozzle assembly.
Prior art fails to teach or suggest, in combination with the other limitations of claim 7, the second inlet flow conditioner surrounds the first inlet flow conditioner and wherein the air supply system further comprises an annular air plenum defined between the exterior side wall and the side wall (of the bundled tube fuel nozzle assembly) and a circumferential array of openings defined through the forward plate around a perimeter of the bundled tube fuel nozzle assembly, the circumferential array of openings being configured for fluid communication from the head end plenum into the annular air plenum.
Conclusion
With respect to dependent Claim 6, BERRY ‘482 is considered the most relevant art of record. BERRY ‘482 teaches the second inlet flow conditioner 136 surrounds the first inlet flow conditioner 134 and the first inlet flow conditioner 134 extends axially forward from the bundled tube fuel nozzle assembly to a mounting flange 142. However, it is this mounting flange 142 that is connected to the end plate 142 and no inner support barrel extends axially from the first inlet flow conditioner to the end cover.
With respect to dependent Claim 7, BERRY ‘482 in view of BERRY ‘510 as modified in Claim 1 further in view of JOHNSON (US 2016/0033133 A1) is considered the most relevant combination of record. BERRY ‘482 in view of BERRY ‘510 teaches the aspects of Claim 1 and JOHNSON teaches an annular air plenum 54 that is defined between an exterior side wall 58 and a side wall 57. However, this annular air plenum 54 of JOHNSON fails to include a circumferential array of openings configured for fluid communication from head end plenum into the annular air plenum 54.
The following additional prior art made of record on the attached PTO-892 but not relied upon in rejections is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
REFERENCE
PERTINENCE
US-20160033133-A1
Arrangement of bundled tube fuel nozzles
US-20180238239-A1
Multiple inlet flow conditioners; similar to BERRY ‘482
US-20130019602-A1
Radial and circumferential inlet flow conditioners for a bundled tube fuel nozzle assembly
US-20180163968-A1
Radial and circumferential inlet flow conditioners for a bundled tube fuel nozzle assembly; perforation shapes
US-20180202661-A1
Intel flow conditioner and placement with respect to locations in head end of a combustor
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON H DUGER whose telephone number is (313) 446-6536. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30a to 4:30p Monday through Friday.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JASON H DUGER
PRIMARY EXAMINER, ART UNIT 3741
PHONE (313) 446 6536
FAX (571) 270 9083
DATE
December 21, 2025
/JASON H DUGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741