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 .
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.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/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.
Claim 1 recites “or both.” It is unclear what the limitation “or both” is referring to or what “or both” would be an alternative to.
All other claims are rejected due to their dependence on one of the above rejected claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1, and the limitation “the fuel cell is positioned aft of the combustor of the turbomachine” of claim 2 is already recited in claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-5 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinwandel (hereafter Steinwandel – US 20140047814) in view of Milcarek et al. (hereafter Milcarek – US 20200313207).
Claim 1 recites “a gas turbine engine.” Steinwandel teaches such a gas turbine engine, as will be shown.
Steinwandel teaches (Figs. 1-5) a gas turbine engine comprising:
a turbomachine 2 having a compressor section 6, a combustor 26, and a turbine section 18 arranged in serial flow order, the turbomachine further comprising an outer casing (see casing of turbomachine 2, Fig. 2); and
a fuel cell assembly 4 positioned within the outer casing of the turbomachine (see Fig. 1, 2), the fuel cell assembly comprising a fuel cell 30.
However, Steinwandel does not teach the fuel cell assembly comprising a fuel cell positioned aft of the combustor of the turbomachine, defining an exhaust in fluid communication with a location forward of the fuel cell to provide output products to the location, or both.
Milcarek teaches a gas turbine engine (Figs. 1-4) comprising a turbomachine 400 having a compressor 402, a combustor 408, a turbine 404 arranged in serial order (Fig. 4), and a fuel assembly 411 comprising a fuel cell 412 positioned aft of the combustor of the turbomachine, defining an exhaust in fluid communication with a location forward of the fuel cell to provide output products to the location, or both (para. 0032 and Fig. 4, exhaust from combustor is provided to a location forward of the fuel cell)
Milcarek further teaches providing such an arrangement with a fuel cell positioned aft of the combustor would result in direct conversion of a part of the incoming jet fuel to electricity while the rest is converted to heat used to run the gas turbine, and operation in the absence of a reformer, thereby allowing a reduction in system weight when compared to the power output of the fuel cell (para. 0008).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Milcarek to the gas turbine engine of Steinwandel to have the fuel cell assembly comprising a fuel cell positioned aft of the combustor of the turbomachine, defining an exhaust in fluid communication with a location forward of the fuel cell to provide output products to the location, or both, as both references and Applicant’s invention are directed to gas turbine engines. Doing so would result in a reduction in system weight, as recognized by Milcarek.
Regarding Claim 2, Steinwandel, as modified with Milcarek in Claim 1 above, teaches (Steinwandel Figs. 1-5) the gas turbine engine of claim 1, wherein the fuel cell is positioned aft of the combustor of the turbomachine (see above).
Regarding Claim 3, Steinwandel, as modified with Milcarek in Claim 1 above, teaches (Steinwandel Figs. 1-5) the gas turbine engine of claim 1, wherein the turbomachine further comprises an exhaust nozzle located downstream of the turbine section defining a primary exhaust gas flowpath, wherein the fuel cell is positioned inward of the primary exhaust gas flowpath along a radial direction of the gas turbine engine (Steinwandel turbomachine comprises a bypass fan 8 which would have an exhaust nozzle defining a primary exhaust gas flowpath in the same way as Applicant).
Regarding Claim 4, Steinwandel, as modified with Milcarek in Claim 1 above, teaches (Steinwandel Figs. 1-5) the gas turbine engine of claim 1, further comprising: an electric machine 42, wherein the fuel cell and the electric machine are positioned inward of at least a portion of a working gas flowpath of the turbomachine along a radial direction of the gas turbine engine (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 5, Steinwandel, as modified with Milcarek in Claim 1 above, teaches (Steinwandel Figs. 1-5) the gas turbine engine of claim 4, wherein the fuel cell is in electric communication with the electric machine (para. 0053).
Regarding Claim 7, Steinwandel, as modified with Milcarek in Claim 1 above, teaches (Milcarek Figs. 1-4) the gas turbine engine of claim 1, wherein the turbomachine comprises an exhaust gas flow from the turbine section during operation of the gas turbine engine, wherein the fuel cell is positioned to receive a portion of the exhaust gas flow (see Fig. 4, exhaust from turbine is recuperated and received by fuel cell).
Regarding Claim 8, Steinwandel, as modified with Milcarek in Claim 1 above, teaches (Steinwandel Figs. 1-5) the gas turbine engine of claim 1, wherein the gas turbine engine defines a bypass airflow passage over the turbomachine (bypass fan 8 would define bypass airflow passage), and wherein the fuel cell is in selective thermal communication with the bypass airflow passage (selective when the gas turbine engine is powered on or off).
Regarding Claim 9, Steinwandel, as modified with Milcarek in Claim 1 above, teaches (Milcarek Figs. 1-4) the gas turbine engine of claim 1, wherein the exhaust is in fluid communication with the location forward of the fuel cell to provide the output products to the location (see location 4a, Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 10, Steinwandel, as modified with Milcarek in Claim 1 above, teaches (Milcarek Figs. 1-4) the gas turbine engine of claim 9, wherein the exhaust is configured to provide output products to the location forward of the fuel cell, wherein the exhaust is an anode exhaust (anode exhaust is recuperated in the loop, see Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 11, Steinwandel, as modified with Milcarek in Claim 1 above, teaches (Milcarek Figs. 1-4) the gas turbine engine of claim 9, wherein the turbomachine defines a working gas flowpath, and wherein the exhaust is in fluid communication with the working gas flowpath at the location (Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 12, Steinwandel, as modified with Milcarek in Claim 1 above, teaches (Milcarek Figs. 1-4) the gas turbine engine of claim 9, wherein the location is the combustor, and wherein the exhaust is in fluid communication with the combustor (Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 13, Steinwandel, as modified with Milcarek in Claim 1 above, teaches (Steinwandel Figs. 1-5) the gas turbine engine of claim 9, further comprising: a fuel delivery line 38, wherein the fuel cell assembly comprises a fuel processing unit 36, wherein the fuel processing unit is in thermal communication with the output products from the fuel cell to convert a fuel flow to a hydrogen rich gas (para. 0049), and wherein the fuel processing unit is in flow communication with the fuel delivery line for providing the hydrogen rich gas to the fuel delivery line (para. 0048-0049).
Regarding Claim 14, Steinwandel, as modified with Milcarek in Claim 1 above, teaches (Steinwandel Figs. 1-5) the gas turbine engine of claim 9, further comprising: a fuel delivery line 38 in fluid communication with the combustor, wherein the turbomachine further comprises a combustion section 26 having the combustor, wherein the combustion section of the turbomachine further comprises a primary fuel nozzle 36 integrated into the combustor, and wherein the fuel delivery line is in fluid communication with the primary fuel nozzle (para. 0048-0049).
Regarding Claim 15, Steinwandel, as modified with Milcarek in Claim 1 above, teaches (Steinwandel Figs. 1-5) the gas turbine engine of claim 9, wherein the output products comprise unspent fuel from the fuel cell (Milcarek Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 16, Steinwandel, as modified with Milcarek in Claim 1 above, teaches (Steinwandel Figs. 1-5) the gas turbine engine of claim 9, wherein the location is the turbine section 16, and wherein the exhaust is in fluid communication with the turbine section (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 17, Steinwandel, as modified with Milcarek in Claim 1 above, teaches (Steinwandel Figs. 1-5) the gas turbine engine of claim 9, wherein the location is the compressor section 6, and wherein the exhaust is in thermal communication with the compressor section (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 18, Steinwandel, as modified with Milcarek in Claim 1 above, teaches (Steinwandel Figs. 1-5) the gas turbine engine of claim 9, wherein the gas turbine engine further comprises a rotor assembly (of compressor or turbine sections), wherein the location is the rotor assembly, and wherein exhaust is in thermal communication with the rotor assembly (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 19, Steinwandel, as modified with Milcarek in Claim 1 above, teaches (Steinwandel Figs. 1-5 and Milcarek Figs. 1-4) the gas turbine engine of claim 1, further comprising: a fuel delivery line (Steinwandel 38) in fluid communication with the combustor; and a thermal bus assembly comprising a heat source exchanger (Milcarek 306), a heat sink exchanger (Milcarek 308) and a thermal bus (Milcarek 312)in fluid communication with the heat source exchanger and the heat sink exchanger, wherein the heat source exchanger is in thermal communication with the output products, and wherein the heat sink exchanger is in thermal communication with the fuel delivery line (Milcarek Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 20, Steinwandel, as modified with Milcarek in Claim 1 above, teaches (Steinwandel Figs. 1-5 and Milcarek Figs. 1-4) the gas turbine engine of claim 19, wherein the heat source exchanger is positioned to receive substantially exclusively a flow from the fuel cell assembly (Milcarek Fig. 3).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinwandel in view of Milcarek, and further in view of Taylor (US 20230159176).
Regarding Claim 6, Steinwandel, as modified with Milcarek in Claim 1 above, teaches (Steinwandel Figs. 1-5) the gas turbine engine of claim 1, wherein the turbomachine further comprises an exhaust nozzle located downstream of the turbine section defining a primary exhaust gas flowpath (gas turbine engine comprising bypass fan 8 would have such an exhaust nozzle).
However, Steinwandel, as modified with Milcarek does not teach wherein the fuel cell is positioned outward of the primary exhaust gas flowpath along a radial direction of the gas turbine engine.
Taylor teaches (Fig. 6) a gas turbine engine wherein a fuel cell 510 is positioned outward of the primary exhaust gas flowpath along a radial direction of the gas turbine engine (see Fig. 6).
Taylor further teaches such a fuel cell arrangement is provides thermal advantages (para. 0051, 0054) and space saving (para. 0057).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Taylor to the gas turbine engine of modified Steinwandel to have wherein the fuel cell is positioned outward of the primary exhaust gas flowpath along a radial direction of the gas turbine engine, as both references and Applicant’s invention are directed to gas turbine engines. Doing so would result in efficient thermals and space savings, as recognized by Taylor.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See cited references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW BUI whose telephone number is (571) 272-0685. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Courtney Heinle can be reached on (571) 270-3508. 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).
/ANDREW THANH BUI/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights