DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the Amendment filed 8/27/2026 wherein claims 2-3, 5, 13, and 16-22 are canceled, claims 6-8 and 14-15 are withdrawn, and claims 1, 4, 9-12, and 23-28 are presented for examination.
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 (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.
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.
Claims 25-28 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 25 recites the limitation "the air purge device nozzle guide" in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 26-28 are rejected for the same reasons discussed above based on their dependency to claim 25.
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, 9-10, 23, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naik et al. (US 2023/0194092) in view of Sturgess et al. (US 3,703,259) and Locke et al. (US 2021/0172604).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Naik teaches (Figures 1-10) an assembly (130; see Figure 3) for a gas turbine engine (10), comprising:
an air swirler structure (204) including a swirler guide wall (annotated below), an inner bore (annotated below) and an air swirler passage (the passage between vanes 210; see Figure 5), the inner bore (annotated below) extending axially along an axis (128) through the air swirler structure (204), and the air swirler passage (the passage between vanes 210; see Figure 5) extending radially (with respect to axis 128; see Figures 3-8) into the air swirler structure (204) to the inner bore (annotated below), the swirler guide wall (annotated below) extending axially along the axis (128) to a downstream end (the downstream end of the swirler guide wall annotated below);
an injector nozzle (202) projecting axially (along axis 128) into the inner bore (annotated below); and
a nozzle guide (annotated below) coupling the injector nozzle (132) to the air swirler structure (134), the nozzle guide (annotated below) including an air purge device (annotated below) forming an air purge passage (216), the air purge device (annotated below) extending radially between an inner shroud (annotated below) and an outer shroud (annotated below), the air purge passage (216) radially between the inner shroud (annotated below) and the outer shroud (annotated below), the inner shroud (annotated below) configured to radially engage (see Figure 5) the injector nozzle (202), the air purge passage (216) extending axially within the air purge device (annotated below) between an air purge passage inlet (at the upstream end of 216) and an air purge passage outlet (at the downstream end of 216), the air purge passage (216) extending axially to the inner bore (annotated below), the air purge passage inlet (at the upstream end of 216) radially aligned with (see Figure 5) the air purge passage outlet (at the downstream end of 216), the air purge passage (216) configured to purge air from an interior corner between the nozzle guide (annotated below) and the injector nozzle (202), and an outlet from the air swirler passage (the passage between vanes 210) is arranged axially between (see Figure 5) a tip portion of the injector nozzle (the downstream edge of nozzle 202) and the air purge passage outlet (at the downstream end of 216),
the air purge passage (216) extending axially through the nozzle guide (annotated below) to the inner bore (annotated below),
including a guide foot (annotated below) and an air purge passage (154) radially outboard of the guide foot (annotated below), the guide foot (annotated below) configured to radially engage (see Figure 3) the injector nozzle (132), the air purge passage (154) extending across the nozzle guide (annotated below) and axially to the inner bore (the central passage shown at 126, between 134 and 132; see Figure 3), the guide foot (annotated below) extending radially between a guide inner side (the side facing toward 132) and a guide outer side (the side facing away from 132, near 140), the air purge passage (154) located radially within (see Figures 3-5 and 8) the guide foot (annotated below) between the guide inner side (the side facing toward 132) and the guide outer side (the side facing away from 132, near 140), the air purge passage (154) configured to purge air from an interior corner (see Figures 3-4 and 6) between the nozzle guide (annotated below) and the injector nozzle (134), and an outlet (at 152) from the air swirler passage (the passage between vanes 144 and between 146, 142; see Figure 3) is arranged axially (see Figures 3-4 and 6) between a tip portion (156) of the injector nozzle (134) and an outlet (see Figures 3-4) from the air purge passage (154).
Naik does not teach that the nozzle guide includes a plurality of purge passage vanes, the plurality of purge vanes arranged circumferentially about the axis, each of the plurality of purge passage vanes extending radially across the air purge passage, or that the swirler guide wall tapering radially inward towards the axis, a trailing edge of a first of the plurality of purge passage vanes is spaced a first axial distance from the outlet from the air purge passage, or the air swirler structure includes a receptacle, wherein the nozzle guide projects radially within the receptacle, and the inner shroud is configured to radially engage and move axially along the injector nozzle.
Sturgess teaches (Figures 1-13) an air purge device (at 45) forming a plurality of purge passage vanes (44), the plurality of purge passage vanes (44) arranged circumferentially about a central axis (the central longitudinal axis of the air swirler 34), each of the plurality of purge passage vanes (44) extending radially across the air purge passage (39; see Figure 2), a trailing edge (the downstream end of 44) of a first of the plurality of purge passage vanes (44) spaced a first axial distance (see Figure 2) from the air purge passage outlet (the downstream end of 39).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Naik to have the plurality of purge passage vanes, the plurality of purge vanes arranged circumferentially about the axis, each of the plurality of purge passage vanes extending radially across the air purge passage, a trailing edge of a first of the plurality of purge passage vanes is spaced a first axial distance from the outlet from the air purge passage, as taught by Sturgess, in order to impart a circumferential velocity component to the compressor discharge air (Column 5, lines 7-12 of Sturgess) and to include a tangential component, such that the purge airflow provided by the purge openings can reduce shear between the airflows (Paragraph 0039 of Naik).
Naik in view of Sturgess does not teach that the swirler guide wall that extends axially along the axis to a downstream end, the swirler guide wall tapering radially inward towards the axis or that a trailing edge of a first of the plurality of purge passage vanes is spaced a first axial distance from the outlet from the air purge passage, or that the guide foot is configured to radially engage and move axially along the injector nozzle.
Locke teaches (Figures 1-9) a swirler guide wall (120 or 140) that extends axially along an air swirler axis (70) to a downstream end (at 118 or 138), and the swirler guide wall (120 or 140) tapering radially inward towards the axis (70; see Figures 3, 7, and 9). Locke also teaches (Figures 1-9) that the air swirler structure (64) includes a receptacle (formed by 162; see Figure 7), wherein the nozzle guide (164) projects radially within the receptacle (formed by 162; see Figure 7), and the guide foot (164) is configured to radially engage and move axially along the injector nozzle (due to the radial and axial spacing of the nozzle guide 164 shown in Figure 7 and its description of being able to “float” in Paragraph 0065).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Naik in view of Sturgess to have the swirler guide wall extend axially along the axis to a downstream end, and the swirler guide wall tapering radially inward towards the axis, and to have the air swirler structure includes a receptacle, wherein the nozzle guide projects radially within the receptacle, and the guide foot is configured to radially engage and move axially along the injector nozzle, as taught by Locke, in order to have a tubular conical geometry (Paragraph 0051 of Locke) to cause fuel to form a thin film of fuel that travels along the inner wall surface towards the nozzle outlet to atomize the fuel for combustion within the combustion chamber (Paragraph 0066 of Locke), and to loosely couple and locate the fuel injector nozzle to the swirler while enabling for slight shifts due to differential thermal expansion as well as vibrations (Paragraph 0065 of Locke). It is further noted that a simple substitution of one known element (in this case, the flared swirler guide wall of Naik and Sturgess) for another (in this case, the conical swirler guide wall of Locke) to obtain predictable results (in this case, to guide a flow of air to the combustion zone) was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421, 82 USPQ2d at 1396, MPEP 2141 III B.
PNG
media_image1.png
991
1500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, Naik in view of Sturgess and Locke teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Naik further teaches (Figures 1-10) wherein the air swirler structure (134) further includes a radial air swirler (at 210) comprising an air swirler passage (the passage between vanes 210; see Figure 5), and the radial air swirler (at 210) is configured to direct a first quantity of air through the air swirler passage (the passage between vanes 210; see Figure 5) and radially into the inner bore (annotated above); and the nozzle guide (annotated above) further includes an axial air swirler (at 216, which can include a tangential component; see Figures 3-6 and Paragraph 0039) comprising an air purge passage (Paragraphs 0039, 0046, 0048), and the axial air swirler (216; see Figures 3-6) is configured to direct a second quantity of air through the air purge passage (Paragraphs 0039, 0046, 0048) and axially into the inner bore (annotated above) along a tip portion (the downstream end of nozzle 202) of the injector nozzle (202).
Regarding Claim 10, Naik in view of Sturgess and Locke teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Naik in view of Sturgess and Locke does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the radial air swirler is configured to swirl the first quantity of air directed through the air swirler passage in a first direction about the axis; and the axial air swirler is configured to swirl the second quantity of air directed through the air purge passage in a second direction about the axis that is opposite the first direction.
Sturgess teaches (Figures 1-13) a radial air swirler (at 46) that is configured to swirl a first quantity of air through an air swirler passage (between vanes 46; see Figure 2) in a first direction (72; see Figure 2) about an axis (a central axis through 34; see Figure 2) and an axial air swirler (at 44) that is configured to swirl a second quantity of air (between vanes 44; see Figure 2) directed in a second direction (70; see Figure 2) about the axis (a central axis through 34; see Figure 2), wherein the second direction (a clockwise direction) is opposite the first direction (a counter-clockwise direction; see Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Naik in view of Sturgess and Locke to have the radial air swirler configured to direct a first quantity of air through the air swirler passage in a first direction about an axis and the axial air swirler configured to direct a second quantity of air is directed in a second direction about the axis, wherein the second direction is opposite the first direction, as taught by Sturgess, in order to deliver highly atomized fuel by the high aerodynamic shear stresses developed at the confluence of the counter-rotating primary and secondary streams of air (Column 5, lines 41-50 of Sturgess).
Regarding Claim 23, Naik in view of Sturgess and Locke teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Naik in view of Sturgess and Locke does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the nozzle guide further includes a guide base; the guide base extends radially between the air purge device and a nozzle guide outer side and axially between opposing axial sides; and the air purge device extends axially beyond one of the opposing axial sides to a device upstream side.
Locke teaches (Figures 1-9) a nozzle guide (164) including a guide base (annotated below); the guide base (annotated below) extends radially between the air purge device (the guide foot annotated below) and a nozzle guide outer side (the guide outer side annotated below) and axially between opposing axial sides (the downstream axial side and the upstream axial side annotated below); and the air purge device (the guide foot annotated below) extends axially beyond one of the opposing axial sides (see annotation below) to a device upstream side (annotated below).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Naik in view of Sturgess and Locke to have the nozzle guide include a guide base; the guide base extends radially between the air purge device and a nozzle guide outer side and axially between opposing axial sides; and the air purge device extends axially beyond one of the opposing axial sides to a device upstream side, as taught by Locke, in order to allow to nozzle guide plate to float, to a limited degree, relative to the swirler so that the mount can loosely couple and locate the fuel injector nozzle to the swirler while enabling for slight shifts due to differential and thermal expansion as well as vibrations (see Paragraph 0065 of Locke).
PNG
media_image2.png
768
895
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Independent Claim 25, Naik teaches (Figures 1-10) an assembly (130; see Figure 3) for a gas turbine engine (10), comprising:
an air swirler structure (204) including a swirler guide wall (annotated below), an inner bore (annotated below) and a radial air swirler (210; see Figure 5), the radial air swirler (210) including an air swirler passage (the passage between vanes 210; see Figure 5), the inner bore (annotated below) extending axially along an axis (128) through the air swirler structure (204), and the air swirler passage (the passage between vanes 210; see Figure 5) extending radially (with respect to axis 128; see Figures 3-8) into the air swirler structure (204) to the inner bore (annotated below), the radial air swirler (210) configured to direct a first quantity of air (the air flowing through vanes 210) through the air swirler passage (the passage between vanes 210) and radially into the inner bore (annotated below), the swirler guide wall (annotated below) extending axially along the axis (128) to a downstream end (the downstream end of the swirler guide wall annotated below);
an injector nozzle (202) projecting axially (along axis 128) into the inner bore (annotated below), the injector nozzle (202) including a tip portion (the downstream end of 202); and
a nozzle guide (annotated below) coupling the injector nozzle (132) to the air swirler structure (134), the nozzle guide (annotated below) including a guide base (annotated below) and an air purge device (at 216, annotated below), the nozzle guide (annotated below) extending radially between a nozzle guide inner side (annotated below) and a nozzle guide outer side (annotated below), the guide base (annotated below) extending radially between the air purge device (at 216, annotated below) and the nozzle guide outer side (annotated below), the air purge device (at 216, annotated below) extending radially between the nozzle guide inner side (annotated below) and the guide base (annotated below), the air purge device (at 216, annotated below) extending axially between an upstream axial side (annotated below) and a downstream axial side (annotated below), the air purge device (at 216, annotated below) including an inner shroud (annotated below), an outer shroud (annotated below), an air purge passage (216), the air purge passage (216) radially outboard of the inner shroud (annotated below), the air purge passage (216) extending axially between an air purge passage inlet (the upstream end of 216) and an air purge passage outlet (the downstream end of 216), the air purge passage inlet (the upstream end of 216) radially aligned with (see Figure 5) the air purge passage outlet (the downstream end of 216), the inner shroud (annotated below) configured to radially engage (see Figure 5) the injector nozzle (202), the air purge passage (216) extending axially within the air purge device nozzle guide (annotated below) to the inner bore (annotated below), the air purge passage (216) located radially within the air purge device (annotated below) between the inner shroud (annotated below) and the outer shroud (annotated below), the air purge passage (216) configured to purge air from an interior corner between the nozzle guide (annotated below) and the injector nozzle (202), the air purge passage (216) configured to direct a second quantity of air (air through 216) into the inner bore (annotated below) along a tip portion of the injector nozzle (the downstream edge of the nozzle 202), and an outlet from the air purge passage (216) arranged upstream of the tip portion of the injector nozzle (202), the air purge passage (216) extending axially through the air purge device (annotated below) to the inner bore (annotated below).
Naik does not teach that the nozzle guide includes an axial air swirler and a plurality of purge passage vanes, the plurality of purge vanes arranged circumferentially about the axis, each of the plurality of purge passage vanes extending radially across the air purge passage, or that the swirler guide wall tapering radially inward towards the axis, a trailing edge of a first of the plurality of purge passage vanes is spaced a first axial distance from the outlet from the air purge passage, or the air swirler structure includes a receptacle, wherein the nozzle guide projects radially within the receptacle, and the inner shroud is configured to radially engage and move axially along a cylindrical land surface of the injector nozzle.
Sturgess teaches (Figures 1-13) an axial air swirler (at 45) and a plurality of purge passage vanes (44), the plurality of purge passage vanes (44) arranged circumferentially about a central axis (the central longitudinal axis of the air swirler 34), each of the plurality of purge passage vanes (44) extending radially across the air purge passage (39; see Figure 2), a trailing edge (the downstream end of 44) of a first of the plurality of purge passage vanes (44) spaced a first axial distance (see Figure 2) from the air purge passage outlet (the downstream end of 39).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Naik to have the plurality of purge passage vanes, the plurality of purge vanes arranged circumferentially about the axis, each of the plurality of purge passage vanes extending radially across the air purge passage, a trailing edge of a first of the plurality of purge passage vanes is spaced a first axial distance from the outlet from the air purge passage, as taught by Sturgess, in order to impart a circumferential velocity component to the compressor discharge air (Column 5, lines 7-12 of Sturgess) and to include a tangential component, such that the purge airflow provided by the purge openings can reduce shear between the airflows (Paragraph 0039 of Naik).
Naik in view of Sturgess does not teach that the swirler guide wall that extends axially along the axis to a downstream end, the swirler guide wall tapering radially inward towards the axis or that a trailing edge of a first of the plurality of purge passage vanes is spaced a first axial distance from the outlet from the air purge passage, or that the guide foot is configured to radially engage and move axially along the injector nozzle.
Locke teaches (Figures 1-9) a swirler guide wall (120 or 140) that extends axially along an air swirler axis (70) to a downstream end (at 118 or 138), and the swirler guide wall (120 or 140) tapering radially inward towards the axis (70; see Figures 3, 7, and 9). Locke also teaches (Figures 1-9) that the air swirler structure (64) includes a receptacle (formed by 162; see Figure 7), wherein the nozzle guide (164) projects radially within the receptacle (formed by 162; see Figure 7), and the guide foot (164) is configured to radially engage and move axially along the injector nozzle (due to the radial and axial spacing of the nozzle guide 164 shown in Figure 7 and its description of being able to “float” in Paragraph 0065).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Naik in view of Sturgess to have the swirler guide wall extend axially along the axis to a downstream end, and the swirler guide wall tapering radially inward towards the axis, and to have the air swirler structure includes a receptacle, wherein the nozzle guide projects radially within the receptacle, and the guide foot is configured to radially engage and move axially along the injector nozzle, as taught by Locke, in order to have a tubular conical geometry (Paragraph 0051 of Locke) to cause fuel to form a thin film of fuel that travels along the inner wall surface towards the nozzle outlet to atomize the fuel for combustion within the combustion chamber (Paragraph 0066 of Locke), and to loosely couple and locate the fuel injector nozzle to the swirler while enabling for slight shifts due to differential thermal expansion as well as vibrations (Paragraph 0065 of Locke). It is further noted that a simple substitution of one known element (in this case, the flared swirler guide wall of Naik and Sturgess) for another (in this case, the conical swirler guide wall of Locke) to obtain predictable results (in this case, to guide a flow of air to the combustion zone) was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421, 82 USPQ2d at 1396, MPEP 2141 III B.
PNG
media_image3.png
991
1500
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 26, Naik in view of Sturgess and Locke teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Naik in view of Sturgess and Locke does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the radial air swirler is configured to swirl the first quantity of air directed through the air swirler passage in a first direction about the axis; and the axial air swirler is configured to swirl the second quantity of air directed through the air purge passage in a second direction about the axis that is opposite the first direction.
Sturgess teaches (Figures 1-13) a radial air swirler (at 46) that is configured to swirl a first quantity of air through an air swirler passage (between vanes 46; see Figure 2) in a first direction (72; see Figure 2) about an axis (a central axis through 34; see Figure 2) and an axial air swirler (at 44) that is configured to swirl a second quantity of air (between vanes 44; see Figure 2) directed in a second direction (70; see Figure 2) about the axis (a central axis through 34; see Figure 2), wherein the second direction (a clockwise direction) is opposite the first direction (a counter-clockwise direction; see Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Naik in view of Sturgess and Locke to have the radial air swirler configured to direct a first quantity of air through the air swirler passage in a first direction about an axis and the axial air swirler configured to direct a second quantity of air is directed in a second direction about the axis, wherein the second direction is opposite the first direction, as taught by Sturgess, in order to deliver highly atomized fuel by the high aerodynamic shear stresses developed at the confluence of the counter-rotating primary and secondary streams of air (Column 5, lines 41-50 of Sturgess).
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naik et al. (US 2023/0194092) in view of Sturgess et al. (US 3,703,259) and Locke et al. (US 2021/0172604).
Regarding Claim 4, Naik in view of Sturgess and Locke teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Naik in view of Sturgess and Locke does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein a leading edge of a first of the plurality of purge passage vanes is spaced an axial distance from an inlet to the air purge passage.
Weinstein teaches (Figures 1-2) a nozzle guide (36) having a plurality of purge passage vanes (54), the plurality of purge passage vanes (54) are arranged circumferentially about an axis (see Figures 1-2), each of the plurality of purge passage vanes (54) extending radially across (see Figures 1-2) a purge passage (40), wherein a trailing edge (the axially downstream end of 54; see Figures 1-2) of a first (one of 54) of the plurality of purge passage vanes (54) is spaced a first axial distance from (see Figures 1-2) an outlet (the downstream end of 40; see Figures 1-2) from the air purge passage (40), wherein a leading edge (the axially upstream end of 54; see Figures 1-2) of the first (one of 54) of the plurality of purge passage vanes (54) is spaced a second axial distance (see Figures 1-2) from an inlet (the upstream end of 40; see Figures 1-2) to the air purge passage (40).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Naik in view of Sturgess and Locke to have a leading edge of the first of the plurality of purge passage vanes be spaced an axial distance from an inlet to the air purge passage, as taught by Weinstein, to provide swirl means at the inlet to the annular air passage (Column 3, lines 43-47 of Weinstein). It is further noted that a simple substitution of one known element (in this case, the vanes as taught by Sturgess) for another (in this case, the vanes of Weinstein) to obtain predictable results (in this case, provide swirl means at the inlet to the annular air passage) was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421, 82 USPQ2d at 1396, MPEP 2141 III B.
Regarding Claim 11, Naik in view of Sturgess and Locke teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Naik in view of Sturgess and Locke does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the radial air swirler is configured to swirl the first quantity of air directed through the air swirler passage in a first direction about the axis; and the axial air swirler is configured to swirl the second quantity of air directed through the air purge passage in the first direction about the axis.
Weinstein teaches (Figures 1-2) wherein the radial air swirler (60) is configured to swirl the first quantity of air (through 58; see Figures 1-2) directed through the air swirler passage (66) in a first direction (vortical airflows emanating from vanes 54 and vanes 60 are in a same clockwise circumferential direction; see Column 4, lines 50-68) about the axis (a longitudinal axis through passage 57; see Figures 1-2); and the axial air swirler (54) is configured to swirl the second quantity of air (through 51) directed through the air purge passage (40) in the first direction (vortical airflows emanating from vanes 54 and vanes 60 are in a same clockwise circumferential direction; see Column 4, lines 50-68) about the axis (a longitudinal axis through passage 57; see Figures 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Naik in view of Al-Roub, Locke, and Weinstein to have the radial air swirler configured to swirl the first quantity of air directed through the air swirler passage in a first direction about the axis, and the axial air swirler configured to swirl the second quantity of air directed through the air purge passage in the first direction about the axis, as taught by Weinstein, in order to shear and accelerate the fuel within the core air passage by the coaction of the vortical airflows emanating from the primary swirl and secondary swirl means (Column 4, lines 50-68 of Weinstein).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naik et al. (US 2023/0194092) in view of Sturgess et al. (US 3,703,259) and Locke et al. (US 2021/0172604) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Bahr et al. (US 3,853,273).
Regarding Claim 12, Naik in view of Sturgess and Locke teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Naik in view of Sturgess and Locke does not teach wherein the first quantity of air is greater than the second quantity of air.
Bahr teaches (Figures 1-3) wherein a first quantity of air (see flow arrows in Figure 1) passing through radial swirl vanes (86) is greater than (see Figure 1 and Column 6, lines 50-65) a second quantity of air (see flow arrows of Figure 1) passing through axial swirl vanes (70).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Naik in view of Sturgess and Locke to have the first quantity of air is greater than the second quantity of air, as taught by Bahr, in order to allow the portion of air entering through the radial counterswirl vanes to highly atomize the fuel due to the high aerodynamic shear stresses developed at the confluence of the counterrotating vortical air flows (Column 6, lines 37-48 of Bahr).
It is noted that, in cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naik et al. (US 2023/0194092) in view of Weinstein et al. (US 3,946,552 and Locke et al. (US 2021/0172604).
Regarding Independent Claim 24, Naik teaches (Figures 1-10) an assembly (130; see Figure 3) for a gas turbine engine (10), comprising:
an air swirler structure (204) including an inner bore (annotated above) and radial air swirler (at 210), the radial air swirler (at 210) comprising an air swirler passage (the passage between vanes 210; see Figure 5), the radial air swirler (at 210) is configured to direct a first quantity of air (the air flowing between vanes 210) through the air swirler passage (the passage between vanes 210; see Figure 5) in a first direction (a radial direction with respect to axis 128) about an axis (128) and radially (see Figures 3-6) into the inner bore (annotated above), the inner bore (annotated above) extending axially along the axis (128) through the air swirler structure (204), and the air swirler passage (the passage between vanes 210; see Figure 5) extending radially into (see Figure 5) the air swirler structure (204) to the inner bore (annotated above);
an injector nozzle (202) projecting axially (along axis 128) into the inner bore (annotated above); and
a nozzle guide (annotated above) coupling the injector nozzle (132) to the air swirler structure (134), the nozzle guide (annotated above) including a guide foot (annotated below), a guide base (annotated below), an air purge passage (216), the guide foot (annotated below) configured to radially engage the injector nozzle (202), the guide foot (annotated below) extending radially between an inner guide foot side (annotated below) and an outer guide foot side (annotated below), the air purge passage (216) extending across the nozzle guide (annotated above) from an air purge passage inlet (at the upstream end of 216) to an air purge passage outlet (at the downstream end of 216) at the inner bore (annotated above), the air purge passage inlet (at the upstream end of 216) radially aligned with (see Figure 5) the air purge passage outlet (at the downstream end of 216), the air purge passage (216) located within the guide foot (annotated below) between the inner foot guide side (annotated below) and the outer guide foot side (annotated below), the guide base (annotated below) extending radially between the inner guide foot side (annotated below) and a nozzle guide outer side (the radially outer side of the nozzle guide annotated below), the air purge passage (216) configured to purge air from an interior corner between the nozzle guide (annotated below) and the injector nozzle (202), the air purge passage (216) configured to direct a second quantity of air (air flowing through 216) through the air purge passage (216) in a second direction (see Figure 5) about the axis (128) and axially into the inner bore (annotated below) along a tip portion (the downstream end of 202) of the injector nozzle (202), and an outlet from the air purge passage (the downstream end of 216) is arranged axially upstream of the tip portion of the injection nozzle (the downstream end of 202),
wherein the second direction (a direction through 216) is perpendicular to the first direction (a direction through 210; see Figure 5).
Naik does not teach that the nozzle guide includes a plurality of purge passage vanes, the plurality of purge vanes arranged circumferentially about the axis, each of the plurality of purge passage vanes extending radially across the air purge passage, or that the swirler guide wall tapering radially inward towards the axis, a trailing edge of a first of the plurality of purge passage vanes is spaced a first axial distance from the outlet from the air purge passage, or the air swirler structure includes a receptacle, wherein the nozzle guide projects radially within the receptacle, and the inner shroud is configured to radially engage and move axially along the injector nozzle.
Naik does not teach that the nozzle guide includes a plurality of passage vanes and an axial air swirler, the axial air swirler comprising an air purge passage, the guide base extending axially between opposing axial sides, the guide foot extending axially beyond one of the opposing axial sides to a device upstream side, or that a trailing edge of a first of the plurality of purge passage vanes is spaced a first axial distance from the outlet from the air purge passage and wherein a leading edge of the first of the plurality of purge passage vanes is spaced a second axial distance from an inlet to the air purge passage.
Weinstein teaches (Figures 1-2) a nozzle guide (36) having a plurality of purge passage vanes (54) and an axial air swirler (40), the axial air swirler (40) comprising an air purge passage (40; see Figure 2), the plurality of purge passage vanes (54) are arranged circumferentially about an axis (see Figures 1-2), each of the plurality of purge passage vanes (54) extending radially across (see Figures 1-2) a purge passage (40), wherein a trailing edge (the axially downstream end of 54; see Figures 1-2) of a first (one of 54) of the plurality of purge passage vanes (54) is spaced a first axial distance from (see Figures 1-2) an air purge passage outlet (the downstream end of 40; see Figures 1-2), wherein a leading edge (the axially upstream end of 54; see Figures 1-2) of the first (one of 54) of the plurality of purge passage vanes (54) is spaced a second axial distance (see Figures 1-2) from an air purge passage inlet (the upstream end of 40; see Figures 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Naik to have the plurality of purge passage vanes and an axial air swirler, the axial air swirler comprising an air purge passage, a trailing edge of a first of the plurality of purge passage vanes be spaced a first axial distance from the outlet from the air purge passage and a leading edge of the first of the plurality of purge passage vanes be spaced a second axial distance from an inlet to the air purge passage, as taught by Weinstein, in order to provide a swirl means at the inlet to the annular air passage (Column 3, lines 43-47 of Weinstein) and to include a tangential component, such that the purge airflow provided by the purge openings can reduce shear between the airflows (Paragraph 0039 of Naik). It is further noted it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention (in this case, the relative location of the vanes with respect to the passage inlet and outlet) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Naik in view of Weinstein does not teach the guide base extending axially between opposing axial sides, the guide foot extending axially beyond one of the opposing axial sides to a device upstream side, the second quantity of air is directed in a second direction about the axis, wherein the second direction is opposite the first direction or that a trailing edge of a first of the plurality of purge passage vanes is spaced a first axial distance from the outlet from the air purge passage and wherein a leading edge of the first of the plurality of purge passage vanes is spaced a second axial distance from an inlet to the air purge passage.
Locke teaches (Figures 1-9) a nozzle guide (164) including a guide base (annotated above); the guide base (annotated above) extends axially between opposing axial sides (the downstream axial side and the upstream axial side annotated above); and the guide foot (annotated above) extends axially beyond one of the opposing axial sides (see annotation above) to a device upstream side (annotated above).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Naik in view of Weinstein to have the nozzle guide include a guide base; the guide base extends radially between the guide inner side and a nozzle guide outer side and axially between opposing axial sides; and the guide foot extends axially beyond one of the opposing axial sides to a device upstream side, as taught by Locke, in order to allow to nozzle guide plate to float, to a limited degree, relative to the swirler so that the mount can loosely couple and locate the fuel injector nozzle to the swirler while enabling for slight shifts due to differential and thermal expansion as well as vibrations (see Paragraph 0065 of Locke).
PNG
media_image4.png
991
1500
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naik et al. (US 2023/0194092) in view of Sturgess et al. (US 3,703,259) and Locke et al. (US 2021/0172604) as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Weinstein et al. (US 3,946,552).
Regarding Claim 27, Naik in view of Sturgess and Locke teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Naik in view of Sturgess and Locke does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the radial air swirler is configured to swirl the first quantity of air directed through the air swirler passage in a first direction about the axis; and the axial air swirler is configured to swirl the second quantity of air directed through the air purge passage in the first direction about the axis.
Weinstein teaches (Figures 1-2) wherein the radial air swirler (60) is configured to swirl the first quantity of air (through 58; see Figures 1-2) directed through the air swirler passage (66) in a first direction (vortical airflows emanating from vanes 54 and vanes 60 are in a same clockwise circumferential direction; see Column 4, lines 50-68) about the axis (a longitudinal axis through passage 57; see Figures 1-2); and the axial air swirler (54) is configured to swirl the second quantity of air (through 51) directed through the air purge passage (40) in the first direction (vortical airflows emanating from vanes 54 and vanes 60 are in a same clockwise circumferential direction; see Column 4, lines 50-68) about the axis (a longitudinal axis through passage 57; see Figures 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Naik in view of Sturgess and Locke to have the radial air swirler configured to swirl the first quantity of air directed through the air swirler passage in a first direction about the axis, and the axial air swirler configured to swirl the second quantity of air directed through the air purge passage in the first direction about the axis, as taught by Weinstein, in order to shear and accelerate the fuel within the core air passage by the coaction of the vortical airflows emanating from the primary swirl and secondary swirl means (Column 4, lines 50-68 of Weinstein).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naik et al. (US 2023/0194092) in view of Sturgess et al. (US 3,703,259) and Locke et al. (US 2021/0172604) as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Bahr et al. (US 3,853,273).
Regarding Claim 12, Naik in view of Sturgess and Locke teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Naik in view of Sturgess and Locke does not teach wherein the first quantity of air is greater than the second quantity of air.
Bahr teaches (Figures 1-3) wherein a first quantity of air (see flow arrows in Figure 1) passing through radial swirl vanes (86) is greater than (see Figure 1 and Column 6, lines 50-65) a second quantity of air (see flow arrows of Figure 1) passing through axial swirl vanes (70).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Naik in view of Sturgess and Locke to have the first quantity of air is greater than the second quantity of air, as taught by Bahr, in order to allow the portion of air entering through the radial counterswirl vanes to highly atomize the fuel due to the high aerodynamic shear stresses developed at the confluence of the counterrotating vortical air flows (Column 6, lines 37-48 of Bahr).
It is noted that, in cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4, 9-12, 23-28 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the new combination of references being applied in this office action. However, to the extent possible, Applicant’s arguments have been addressed in the body of the rejection above, at the appropriate locations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS P BURKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5407. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 PM.
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.
/THOMAS P BURKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights