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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/14/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 3, 5-9, and 20-21 are currently being examined.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/482832, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Currently Amended Claim 1 of the instant application recites “the feed conduit surfaces and the nozzle surface have surface roughnesses of 5-10 [Symbol font/0x6D]m Ra.” The limitation of a surface roughness of 5-10 [Symbol font/0x6D]m Ra had previously been recited in claims 4 and 13 of the instant application with claims 4 and 13 now canceled. However, claims 4 and 13 of application 63/482832 each recite “the feed conduit surface and the nozzle surface have surface roughnesses of 6-12 Ra” which includes no units for Ra.
In addition, in the specification of application 63/482832, para. 0023 recites “a surface roughness 58 of 6-12 Ra” but does not recite any units for Ra, and para. 0028 recites “the feed conduit surface and the nozzle surface 52 have surface roughnesses 58 of at least 6-12 Ra” but does not recite any units for Ra. Typical units for Ra are micrometers or micro-inches but these or some other type of unit are not provided in application 63/482832. If units for 6-12 Ra was intended to be [Symbol font/0x6D]m Ra, the claimed 5 [Symbol font/0x6D]m Ra in currently amended claim 1 and its dependents of the instant application is outside the range of 6-12 [Symbol font/0x6D]m Ra in the provisional application.
Accordingly, claims 1, 3, 5-9, and 20-21 of the instant application are not entitled to the benefit of the prior application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the fuel swirler head including “a plurality of feed conduits that are radially and tangentially sloped with respect to the nozzle axis” and “the fuel swirler head includes at least one helical feed conduit” of claim 3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
An amendment to the specification was received on 01/14/2026 and is acceptable.
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.
Claim 3 is 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 3 recites “the fuel swirler head includes at least one helical feed conduit” while base claim 1 recites “the fuel swirler head including a plurality of feed conduits that are radially and tangentially sloped with respect to the nozzle axis.” The specification does not describe an embodiment having both types of feed conduits which are claimed in claim 3, and the drawings do not show a fuel swirler head including both types of feed conduits. Therefore, claim 3 is rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
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.
Claims 8-9 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites “at least one feed conduit” in lines 1-2 which is unclear if this at least one feed conduit is one of the plurality of feed conduits recited in base claim 1 or is a different feed conduit and therefore claim 8 is rejected as being indefinite. For current examination purposes the recitation is interpreted as: at least one feed conduit of the plurality of feed conduits.
Claim 9 is rejected as being indefinite for the same reasons as base claim 8.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monty et al. 5123248 in view of Naik et al. 20230204213 and McMasters et al. 20170051675.
Regarding independent claim 1, Monty teaches an injector (Fig. 6) for a gas turbine engine (col 1 lines 5-8) comprising: a convergent-divergent nozzle head (100 Fig. 6) arranged along a nozzle axis (66 Fig. 6) and having an upstream face (labeled in annotated Fig. 6) defining an inlet mouth (labeled in annotated Fig. 6);
a fuel swirler head (labeled in annotated Fig. 6; plug 42 shown in Fig. 5 is within fuel swirler head and has tangentially inclined slots 44 for swirling fuel 33 per col. 7 lines 6-11) arranged along the nozzle axis (fuel swirler head is arranged along the nozzle axis in annotated Fig. 6), the fuel swirler head having a fuel swirler head outlet (labeled in annotated Fig. 6) located upstream of the inlet mouth (fuel swirler head outlet is upstream of inlet mouth in annotated Fig. 6), the fuel swirler head including a plurality of feed conduits (a plurality of feed conduits 44 are shown in Fig. 5, in light of definition of “conduit” in instant specification para. 0019 which describes a conduit may include an aperture defined through a part of an engine; col 7 lines 8-11 describes slots 44, i.e., feed conduits) that are radially and tangentially sloped with respect to the nozzle axis (as seen in Fig. 5 each feed conduit 44 is sloped radially with respect to axis 66 and as described in col 7 lines 8-11 each 44 is tangentially inclined, i.e., sloped with respect to axis 66), the feed conduits are configured to swirl a flow of fuel into the convergent-divergent nozzle head (this limitation is intentional use but Monty teaches this with fuel flow arrows of fuel 33 flowing towards 100 in Fig. 6 and swirl flow arrows of fuel 33 shown in Fig. 7),
the feed conduits including feed conduit surfaces (each 44 has a feed conduit surface since all components have at least one respective surface) and the convergent-divergent nozzle head including a nozzle surface (convergent-divergent nozzle head 100 includes a nozzle surface since all components have at least one respective surface); and
a gas swirler head (102 Fig. 6) upstream of the inlet mouth (102 is upstream of inlet mouth in annotated Fig. 6) and configured to feed a gas into the convergent-divergent nozzle head (this limitation is intentional use but Monty teaches this as air, i.e., a gas, flows through 102 as shown by flow arrow through 102 and then through inlet mouth and into 100 in annotated Fig. 6 and per col 8 lines 29-33).
PNG
media_image1.png
576
930
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Monty is silent on a flow of fuel is a flow of hydrogen, and the feed conduit surfaces and the nozzle surface have surface roughnesses of 5-10 um Ra.
Naik teaches an injector (Fig. 2) for a gas turbine engine (Fig. 1) and the injector includes a fuel nozzle and a swirler (para. 0016). Naik teaches a flow of fuel which is a flow of hydrogen (para. 0016).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Monty to have a flow of fuel which is a flow of hydrogen as taught by Naik because use of hydrogen fuels can eliminate carbon emissions and allow for heightened combustion engine temperatures (Naik para. 0016).
Monty in view of Naik is silent regarding the feed conduit surfaces and the nozzle surface have surface roughnesses of 5-10 [Symbol font/0x6D]m Ra.
McMasters teaches fuel nozzles for gas turbine engines (paras. 0002-0003) may be fabricated by additive manufacturing AM (para. 0004) and AM processes can integrate computer-aided design (CAD) models to produce objects having complex geometries. AM may be beneficial for the production of fuel nozzles, as they allow novel and complex nozzle designs to be produced and tested relatively quickly, but components produced by AM processes tend to have rough surfaces, which in the case of fuel nozzles, includes internal passages through which fuel will flow (para. 0005). Interior surface roughnesses of fuel passages produced by AM processes can be about 300 to about 1200 micro-inches (about 8 to 30 micrometers, i.e., [Symbol font/0x6D]m) Ra (the roughness parameter defined by the arithmetic average of the absolute values of the vertical deviations on the surface) (para. 0005). Surface roughnesses of 8 to 10 micrometers, i.e., [Symbol font/0x6D]m, Ra fall within the claimed range of 5-10 [Symbol font/0x6D]m Ra.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate at least the fuel swirler head and the convergent-divergent nozzle head of Monty in view of Naik by additive manufacturing as taught by McMasters to produce and test the complex nozzle design relatively quickly and AM processes can integrate computer-aided design (CAD) models to produce objects having complex geometries. By being fabricated via AM, the feed conduit surfaces and the nozzle surface have surface roughnesses of 8-10 [Symbol font/0x6D]m Ra which are within the claimed range of 5-10 [Symbol font/0x6D]m Ra.
Regarding claim 5, Monty in view of Naik and McMasters teaches all that is claimed above and Monty further teaches the gas swirler head is an annulus (gas swirler head 102 is an annulus in Fig. 6 with a plurality of circumferentially spaced vanes per col 7 lines 67-68 to col 8 lines 1-3) that circumscribes an interior region (radially inner edge of vanes of 102 circumscribe an interior region labeled in annotated Fig. 6) and has aft and forward faces (labeled in annotated Fig. 6), the fuel swirler head extends through the forward face (fuel swirler head extends through forward face in annotated Fig. 6) into the interior region (fuel swirler head extends into interior region in annotated Fig. 6), and the aft face has an exit (exit is opening in aft face centered around axis 66 in annotated Fig. 6) for discharge of gas to the inlet mouth of the convergent-divergent nozzle head (air flows through 102 and through exit opening in aft face and into inlet mouth in annotated Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image2.png
576
930
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Monty in view of Naik and McMasters teaches all that is claimed above and Monty further teaches the aft face is flush with the inlet mouth of the convergent-divergent nozzle head (aft face is flush with inlet mouth in annotated Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 7, Monty in view of Naik and McMasters teaches all that is claimed above and Monty further teaches the inlet mouth of the convergent-divergent nozzle head and the interior region of the annulus have equivalent diameters to each other (in annotated Fig. 6, inlet mouth and interior region of annulus of 102 have equivalent diameters to each other).
Regarding claim 20, Monty in view of Naik and McMasters teaches all that is claimed above and Monty further teaches the convergent-divergent nozzle head (100 Fig. 6) has, in fluid communication series (fluid communication series is from upstream to downstream in 100 in annotated Fig. 6), a convergent section (labeled in annotated Fig. 6) that narrows to a throat (labeled in annotated Fig. 6), and the throat then expands into a divergent section (labeled in annotated Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image3.png
564
914
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, Monty in view of Naik and McMasters teaches all that is claimed above and Monty further teaches the gas swirler head is located to feed the gas through the inlet mouth into the convergent-divergent nozzle head (102 is upstream of 100 such that 102 is located to feed air through inlet mouth and into 100 in annotated Fig. 6).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monty et al. 5123248 in view of Naik et al. 20230204213 and McMasters et al. 20170051675 as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Prociw 20070101727.
Regarding claim 3, Monty in view of Naik and McMasters teaches all that is claimed above but is silent regarding the fuel swirler head includes at least one helical feed conduit.
Prociw teaches an injector (Fig. 3) for a gas turbine engine (Fig. 1) with a fuel swirler head 46 (Fig. 4: 46 is part of fuel distributor 36 per para. 0024) including at least one helical feed conduit 56 (Fig. 4 para. 0024).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Monty in view of Naik and McMasters to have the fuel swirler head include at least one helical feed conduit as taught by Prociw to promote swirling of the fuel as the fuel exits the fuel swirler head (Prociw para. 0028).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monty et al. 5123248 in view of Naik et al. 20230204213 and McMasters et al. 20170051675 as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Graichen 20170211807.
Regarding claim 8, Monty in view of Naik and McMasters teaches all that is claimed above and Monty further teaches the fuel swirler head includes at least one feed conduit (see 112(b): interpreted as at least one feed conduit of the plurality of feed conduits: 44 is a feed conduit) but Monty is silent regarding an open-cell metallic foam disposed in the at least one feed conduit.
Graichen teaches an injector 100 for a gas turbine engine comprising feed conduits 103, 105 with open-cell metallic foam disposed in 103, 105 (para. 0024 describes open-cell metallic foam which is shown within 103, 105 in Fig. 1). The metallic foam may be stainless steel per para. 0026.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Monty in view of Naik and McMasters to have an open-cell metallic foam disposed in the at least one feed conduit as taught by Graichen in order to provide a lattice structure having a plurality of smaller fluid conductors formed by the plurality of interconnected pores to prevent flashback of the flame (Graichen para. 0028).
Regarding claim 9, Monty in view of Naik and McMasters and further in view of Graichen teaches all that is claimed above and Graichen further teaches the open-cell metallic foam is formed of stainless steel (para. 0026) or nickel alloy.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the open cell metallic foam in the invention of Monty in view of Naik and McMasters and further in view of Graichen be stainless steel as taught by Graichen as obvious to use a material which is known to be suitable for the intended use in a fuel nozzle. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). See MPEP 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues regarding prior art rejections that McMasters does not teach that the feed conduit surface and the nozzle surface have surface roughnesses of 5-10 [Symbol font/0x6D]m Ra which was previously claimed in claim 4 which is now canceled and that claim 1 has been amended to include a similar limitation.
Applicant argues that McMasters teaches away from retaining such surface roughnesses on the fuel-contacting surfaces of a fuel nozzle without applying an anti-coking coating over them and that modifying Monty in view of Naik by additive manufacturing as taught by McMasters would not result in the claimed surface roughnesses because a person of ordinary skill in the art would either apply the anti-coking coating system taught by McMasters or smooth the surfaces to avoid the coking issues identified by McMasters for hydrocarbon fuels like those in Monty. However, McMasters teaches in [0005] that AM processes may be beneficial for the production of fuel nozzles, as they allow novel and complex nozzle designs to be produced and tested relatively quickly. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art has a motivation to use additive manufacturing to produce the fuel nozzle. McMasters also teaches a variety of coating processes and a variety of surface finishes. One of ordinary skill in the art is not obligated to use all teachings of a prior art reference.
Applicant further argues that McMasters discloses “components produced by AM processes tend to have rough surfaces, which in the case of fuel nozzles, includes passages through which fuel will flow…” ([0005]) and that McMasters identifies this as a problem for hydrocarbon fuels. Applicant further argues McMaster’s teaches anti-coking coatings. However, Monty in view of Naik uses hydrogen fuel such that use of a hydrocarbon fuel and coking are irrelevant.
Applicant further argues one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to apply McMaster’s AM fabrication to the hydrogen fuel system of Monty as modified by Naik because hydrogen eliminates carbon emissions and therefore no carbonaceous deposits or coking issues exist. However, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to apply AM fabrication to a hydrogen fuel system because they allow novel and complex nozzle designs to be produced and tested relatively quickly per McMasters and carbonaceous deposits or coking issues are irrelevant. Applicant argues one of ordinary skill in the art would thus be unlikely to look to McMaster’s anti-coking solution for a hydrogen system where coking is not a concern, which is true. However, Applicant’s argument that McMasters’ AM use is tied to overcoming coking on rough surfaces via coating is not accurate. McMasters identifies AM processes as beneficial for producing fuel nozzles, and McMasters teaches some surface roughnesses produced by AM processes can present challenges when fuel nozzles use hydrocarbon fuels. However, using hydrogen fuel does not present those challenges and using AM to produce a fuel nozzle which uses hydrogen fuel does not require an anti-coking coating.
Therefore, the 103 rejections relying on Monty in view of Naik and McMasters is proper, and Monty in view of Naik and McMasters teaches the claimed surface roughness of amended claim 1. Applicant does not argue the dependent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSON JOAN HARRINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2359. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5 pm EST.
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.
/A.J.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/LORNE E MEADE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741