DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed 10/17/2025 wherein claims 12-15 are withdrawn and claims 1-11 and 16-20 are presented for examination.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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/17/2025 has been entered.
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 “inner set of flame shaping passages having outlets at an axial position overlapping the air injector outlet plane of the intermediate air injector” and the “outer set of flame shaping passages having outlets at an axial position overlapping the air injector outlet plane of the outermost air injector” (Claim 1, lines 19-21 and 23-25) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Applicant’s drawings appear to show the outlets of the inner set of flame shaping passages being offset to the intermediate air injector outlet plane and the outlets of the outer set of flame shaping passages being offset from the outermost air injector outlet plane due to the sloped face at the exit of the flame shaping passages.
PNG
media_image1.png
1085
1712
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites “the inner set of flame shaping passages having outlets at an axial position overlapping the air injector outlet plane of the intermediate air injector . . . the outer set of flame shaping passages having outlets at an axial position overlapping the air injector outlet plane of the outermost air injector” (Claim 1, lines 19-25). Applicant’s specification does not describe and Applicant’s drawings do not show the outlets of either the inner set of flame shaping passages or the outlets of the outer set of flame shaping passages overlapping any air injector outlet plane. As discussed above, Applicant’s drawings illustrate the outlets of the flame shaping passages being offset from the air injector outlet planes. Applicant’s specification describes “the set of outer outlets 179b exhausting downstream of the outermost air injector 138c” (Paragraph 0070 of Applicant’s specification – emphasis added). Therefore, claim 1 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one having ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
Claims 2-11 and 16-20 are rejected for the same reasons above based on their dependency to Claim 1.
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, 6-8, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oda et al. (US 2008/0302105) in view of Baudoin et al. (US 2008/0236165) and Donovan et al. (US 2016/0230997).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Oda ‘105 teaches (Figures 1-8) a turbine engine (see title and abstract) comprising:
a compressor section, a combustion section, and a turbine section in serial fluid arrangement (see Paragraph 0035 and Figure 2), the combustion section (1) comprising:
a combustor liner (10, 11) and a dome wall (9a) collectively forming at least a portion of a combustion chamber (12), with the dome wall (9a) having an opening (for fuel injection units 2; see Figures 1-2); and
a fuel supply assembly (2) coupled to and extending through (see Figures 1-2) the opening (for fuel injection units 2; see Figures 1-2), the fuel supply assembly (2) comprising:
a fuel nozzle (20) extending along a centerline axis (a longitudinal axis through 20; see Figure 3);
a set of concentric walls (33, 23) arranged about the centerline axis (the central longitudinal axis through 20; see Figures 3 and 6-8) and spaced from each other to define a set of air injectors (27, 38, 39) and a set of fuel injectors (35, from 41), the series of air injectors (27, 38, 39) surrounding the fuel nozzle (20) and comprising an innermost air injector (27), an intermediate air injector (38), and an outermost air injector (39), each of the air injectors (27, 38, 39) defining a respective air injector outlet plane (the outlet planes of 27, 38, and 39; see Figures 3 and 6-8) and the set of fuel injectors (35, from 41) interspersed within (see Figures 3 and 6-8) the series of air injectors (27, 38, 39), the set of concentric walls (33, 23) comprising an inner wall (23) located radially between the set of fuel injectors (35, from 41) and the fuel nozzle (20), and an outer wall (33) located radially between the outer most air injector (38) and the dome wall (see Figure 2); and
an inner flame shaping passage (45) located between the set of fuel injectors (35, from 41) and the fuel nozzle (20) and extending through the inner wall (23), wherein the inner flame shaping passage (45) is located radially between (see Figures 3 and 6-8) the fuel nozzle (20) and the intermediate air injector (38).
Although the Figure 3 embodiment of Oda ‘105 teaches that the inner flame shaping passage outlet (at the exit of 45) is located at an axial position that is upstream of the intermediate air injector outlet plane (at the downstream end of 42), the Figure 7 embodiment of Oda ‘105 teaches that the outlet of the inner flame shaping outlet (at the exit of 63) may be located at an axial position that overlaps the air injector outlet plane of the intermediate air injector (at the downstream end of 42; see Figure 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the outlet of the inner flame shaping passage such that it overlaps the air injector outlet plane of the intermediate outlet plane, as taught by the Figure 7 embodiment of Oda ‘105, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Oda ‘105 does not teach that the inner flame shaping passage is a set of flame shaping passages and does not teach an outer set of flame shaping passages surrounding the outermost air injector of the series of air injectors and extending through the outer wall. Oda ‘105 also does not teach that at least one of the inner set of flame shaping passages or the outer set of flame shaping passages comprises a continuous conduit having a first portion extending axially along the centerline axis and a second portion, downstream of the first portion, that changes direction to extend inward toward the centerline axis, the first and second portions being segments of the same conduit, wherein the outer set of flame shaping passages are located radially between the outermost air injector and the dome wall.
Baudoin teaches (Figures 1-4) a fuel supply assembly (20) coupled to and extending through (see Figures 1-2) the opening (for fuel injection system 20; see Figures 1-2), the fuel supply assembly (20) comprising: an inner set of flame shaping passages (62) located between the set of fuel injectors (29) and the fuel nozzle (22) extending through the inner wall (43); and an outer set of flame shaping passages (72) surrounding the outermost air injector (30) of the series of air injectors (24, 30) and extending through the outer wall (54), wherein the outer set of flame shaping passages (72) are located radially between an outermost air injector (at 57) and the dome wall (16).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oda ‘105 to have the inner flame shaping passage be a set of flame shaping passages and an outer set of flame shaping passages surrounding the outermost air injector of the series of air injectors, wherein the outer set of flame shaping passages are located radially between the outermost air injector and the dome wall, as taught by Baudin, in order to create a separator air film between respective combustion zones of the first and second fuel sprays and to control the radial expansion of the air/fuel mixtures, thus serving to limit interactions with the walls of the combustion chamber, where such interactions are harmful to its stability to withstand high temperatures (see abstract and Paragraph 0066 of Baudin). Oda ‘105 in view of Baudoin does not teach that that at least one of the inner set of flame shaping passages or the outer set of flame shaping passages comprises a continuous conduit having a first portion extending axially along the centerline axis and a second portion, downstream of the first portion, that changes direction to extend inward toward the centerline axis, the first and second portions being segments of the same conduit.
Donovan teaches (Figures 1-4C) an outer set of flame shaping passages (111, 211) comprises a continuous conduit (see Figures 1C and 4C) having a first portion (annotated below) extending axially along the centerline axis (A) and a second portion (annotated below), downstream of the first portion (see annotation below), that changes direction to extend inward (see annotation below) toward the centerline axis (A), the first and second portions being segments of the same conduit (at 111; see annotation below), wherein the outer set of flame shaping passages (111) having outlets (the downstream end of 111, 211; see Figure 4C) at an axial position overlapping an air injector outlet plane of an outermost air injector (at the downstream end of 101; see Figure 4C).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oda ‘105 in view of Baudoin to have the outer set of flame shaping passages comprise a continuous conduit having a first portion extending axially along the centerline axis and a second portion, downstream of the first portion, that changes direction to extend inward toward the centerline axis, the first and second portions being segments of the same conduit, wherein the outer set of flame shaping passages has outlets at an axial position overlapping an air injector outlet plane of an outermost air injector, as taught by Donovan, in order to prevent carbon-formation or alleviate thermal-erosion (Paragraphs 0005 and 0033 of Donovan).
PNG
media_image2.png
768
1250
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, Oda ‘105 in view of Baudin and Donovan teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Oda ‘105 in view of Baudin and Donovan does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the inner set of flame shaping passages are circumferentially arranged about the centerline axis.
Baudin teaches (Figures 1-4) wherein the inner set of flame shaping passages (62) are circumferentially arranged (see Figures 2-3) about a centerline axis (I).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oda ‘105 in view of Baudin and Donovan to have the flame shaping passages circumferentially arranged about the centerline axis, as taught by Baudin, for the same reasons discussed above in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7, Oda ‘105 in view of Baudin and Donovan teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Oda ‘105 in view of Baudin and Donovan does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the outer set of flame shaping passages are circumferentially arranged about the centerline axis.
Baudin teaches (Figures 1-4) wherein the outer set of flame shaping passages (72) are circumferentially arranged (see Figures 2-3) about a centerline axis (I).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oda ‘105 in view of Baudin and Donovan to have the flame shaping passages circumferentially arranged about the centerline axis, as taught by Baudin, for the same reasons discussed above in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 8, Oda ‘105 in view of Baudin and Donovan teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Oda ‘105 in view of Baudin and Donovan does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the inner set of flame shaping passages and outer set of flame shaping passages are discrete flame shaping passages.
Baudin teaches (Figures 1-4) wherein the inner set of flame shaping passages (62) and the outer set of flame shaping passages (72) are discrete flame shaping passages (see Figures 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oda ‘105 in view of Baudin and Donovan to have the flame shaping passages be discrete flame shaping passages, as taught by Baudin, for the same reasons discussed above in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 16, Oda ‘105 in view of Baudoin and Donovan teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Oda ‘105 in view of Baudoin and Donovan does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the inner set of flame shaping passages define an inner passage centerline that forms an inner angle with the centerline axis.
Baudoin teaches (Figures 1-4) wherein the inner set of flame shaping passages (62) define an inner passage centerline (a central longitudinal axis through 62; see Figures 2-4) that forms an inner angle (see annotation below) with the centerline axis (axis I; 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 Oda ‘105 in view of Baudoin and Donovan to have the inner flame shaping passages define an inner passage centerline that forms an inner angle with the centerline axis, as taught by Baudin, for the same reasons discussed above in claim 1.
PNG
media_image3.png
893
904
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 17, Oda ‘105 in view of Baudoin and Donovan teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Oda ‘105 in view of Baudoin and Donovan does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the outer set of flame shaping passages define an outer passage centerline that forms an outer angle with the centerline axis.
Baudoin teaches (Figures 1-4) wherein the outer set of flame shaping passages (72) define an outer passage centerline (a central longitudinal axis through 72; see Figures 2-4) that forms an outer angle (see annotation below) with the centerline axis (axis I; 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 Oda ‘105 in view of Baudoin and Donovan to have the outer flame shaping passages define an outer passage centerline that forms an outer angle with the centerline axis, as taught by Baudin, for the same reasons discussed above in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 18, Oda ‘105 in view of Baudoin and Donovan teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Oda ‘105 in view of Baudoin and Donovan does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the inner angle and the outer angle range from -70 degrees to +70 degrees.
Baudoin teaches (Figures 1-4) wherein the inner angle (annotated above) and the outer angle (annotated above) range from -70 degrees to +70 degrees (schematically shown in Figures 2-4 and annotation 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 Oda ‘105 in view of Baudoin and Donovan to have the inner angle and the outer angle range from -70 degrees to +70 degrees, as taught by Baudin, for the same reasons discussed above in claim 1.
Even if Baudoin’s angles were not interpreted to be within the range of -70 degrees to +70 degrees, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the inner angle and outer angle range from -70 degrees to +70 degrees, since applicant has not disclosed that the specific angle that the inner passage centerline and outer passage centerline form with the centerline axis solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the angles depicted in Baudoin’s Figure 3. It is additionally noted, 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).
Regarding Claim 20, Oda ‘105 in view of Baudoin and Donovan teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Oda ‘105 further teaches (Figures 1-6) wherein the set of fuel injectors (35, from 41) is multiple fuel injectors (eight, for example; see Paragraph 0044).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oda et al. (US 2008/0302105) in view of Baudoin et al. (US 2008/0236165) and Donovan et al. (US 2016/0230997) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oda et al. (US 2007/0289305).
Regarding Claim 2, Oda ‘105 in view of Baudin and Donovan teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Oda ‘105 in view of Baudin and Donovan does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the fuel nozzle comprises a first air supply conduit terminating in a first air outlet, and extending along a centerline axis and a first fuel supply conduit surrounding the first air supply conduit and terminating in a first fuel outlet surrounding the first air outlet to define at least a portion of an inner fuel/air circuit.
Oda ‘305 teaches (Figures 1-12) a fuel supply assembly (U; see Figures 1-6) comprising: a fuel nozzle (13) extending along a centerline axis (a longitudinal axis through 13; see Figures 1-6); a series of air injectors (16, 28) surrounding the fuel nozzle (13) and comprising an outermost air injector (28); a set of fuel injectors (25a, from 24a) interspersed within (see Figure 2) the series of air injectors (16, 28); and an inner flame shaping passage (33b) located between the set of fuel injectors (25a, from 24a) and the primary fuel nozzle (13), wherein the fuel nozzle (13) comprises a first air supply conduit (the passageway through 15; see Figure 2) terminating in a first air outlet (the downstream end of 15; see Figure 2), and extending along a centerline axis (a longitudinal axis through 13; see Figures 1-6) and a first fuel supply conduit (13b) surrounding the first air supply conduit (the passageway through 15; see Figure 2) and terminating in a first fuel outlet (13a) surrounding the first air outlet (the passageway through 15; see Figure 2) to define at least a portion of an inner fuel/air circuit (24; 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 Oda ‘105 in view of Baudin and Donovan to have the fuel nozzle comprise a first air supply conduit terminating in a first air outlet, and extending along a centerline axis and a first fuel supply conduit surrounding the first air supply conduit and terminating in a first fuel outlet surrounding the first air outlet to define at least a portion of an inner fuel/air circuit, as taught by Oda ‘305, in order to have fuel injected in a film shape that is atomized by air from an inner swirler and further reduced into finer particles by a rotating air current from an outer swirler (Paragraph 0048 of Oda ‘305). It is further noted that a simple substitution of one known element (in this case, the fuel nozzle as taught by Oda ‘340) for another (in this case, the fuel nozzle as taught by Oda ‘305) to obtain predictable results (in this case, to provide an atomized fuel to a combustion chamber) 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 3, Oda ‘105 in view of Baudin, Donovan, and Oda ‘305 teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Oda ‘105 further teaches (Figures 1-6) wherein the inner set of flame shaping passages (45) control spread of an inner flame produced in a central region (at 50) of the combustion chamber (see Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 4, Oda ‘105 in view of Baudin, Donovan, and Oda ‘305 teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Oda ‘105 further teaches (Figures 1-6) wherein the set of fuel injectors (35, from 41) comprises a second fuel supply conduit (41) terminating in a second fuel outlet (at 35).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oda et al. (US 2008/0302105) in view of Baudoin et al. (US 2008/0236165), Donovan et al. (US 2016/0230997), and Oda et al. (US 2007/0289305) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Tuthill et al. (US 4,815,664).
Regarding Claim 5, Oda ‘105 in view of Baudin, Donovan, and Oda ‘305 teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Oda ‘105 in view of Baudin, Donovan, and Oda ‘305 does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the outer set of flame shaping passages control an overall flame structure within the combustion chamber.
Tuthill teaches (Figures 1-5) wherein the outer set of flame shaping passages (40) control an overall flame structure (42; see Column 2, line 62 – Column 3, line 13) within the combustion chamber (14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oda ‘105 in view of Baudin, Donovan, and Oda ‘305 to have the outer set of flame shaping passages surrounding the outermost air injector and control an overall flame structure within the combustion chamber, as taught by Tuthill, in order to shape the flame to avoid local hot spots or streaks which would locally burn out the turbine vanes of the combustion liner (Column 2, line 62 – Column 3, line 13 of Tuthill).
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oda et al. (US 2008/0302105) in view of Baudoin et al. (US 2008/0236165) and Donovan et al. (US 2016/0230997) as applied to claims 7 and 8 above, and further in view of Morenko et al. (US 2022/0364509).
Regarding Claim 9, Oda ‘105 in view of Baudin and Donovan teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Oda ‘105 in view of Baudin and Donovan does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the inner set of flame shaping passages and the outer set of flame shaping passages terminate in an outlet that varies in shape.
Morenko teaches (Figures 1-2) that any suitable number of orifices can be used in inner and outer air conduits and the shape of the air condutis can be optimized for the desired air to fuel ratio for ignition and operation (Paragraph 0021). Therefore, the shape of the inner and outer air conduits is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that optimizing the shape of the air conduits leads to desired ignition and operation. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the shape of the air conduits can be optimized, were disclosed in the prior art by Morenko, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the shape of the air conduits as taught by Morenko in order to achieve desired ignition and operation. It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding Claim 11, Oda ‘105 in view of Baudin and Donovan teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Oda ‘105 in view of Baudin and Donovan does not teach wherein the inner set of flame shaping passages and the outer set of flame shaping passages terminate in an outlet that varies in size.
Morenko teaches (Figures 1-2) that any suitable number of orifices can be used in inner and outer air conduits and the size of the air conduits can be optimized for the desired air to fuel ratio for ignition and operation (Paragraph 0021). Therefore, the size of the inner and outer air conduits is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that optimizing the size of the air conduits leads to desired ignition and operation. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the size of the air conduits can be optimized, were disclosed in the prior art by Morenko, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the size of the air conduits as taught by Morenko in order to achieve desired ignition and operation. It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oda et al. (US 2008/0302105) in view of Baudoin et al. (US 2008/0236165), Donovan et al. (US 2016/0230997), and Morenko et al. (US 2022/0364509) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Matsuyama et al. (US 2021/0381436).
Regarding Claim 10, Oda ‘105 in view of Baudin, Donovan, and Morenko teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Oda ‘105 in view of Baudin, Donovan, and Morenko does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the shape is any combination of an ellipse, or a slot, a circle or an annular passage.
Matsuyama teaches (Figures 1-3) flame shaping passages (41, 51) that each have the shape of an annular passage or a slot (Paragraphs 0050 and 0057-0058).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oda ‘105 in view of Baudin, Donovan, and Morenko to have the flame shaping passages be discrete flame shaping passages, as taught by Matsuyama, in order to prevent fuel from spreading to the outer diameter side (Paragraph 0067 of Matsuyama). It is further noted that a simple substitution of one known element (in this case, the annular passages, as taught by Oda ‘105) for another (in this case, the plurality of passages surrounding the axis, as taught by Matsuyama) to obtain predictable results (in this case, providing air to prevent fuel from spreading outwardly) was an obvious extension of prior art teaching, KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421, 82 USPQ2d at 1396, MPEP 2141 III B.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oda et al. (US 2008/0302105) in view of Baudoin et al. (US 2008/0236165) and Donovan et al. (US 2016/0230997) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vise et al. (US 2022/0333782).
Regarding Claim 19, Oda ‘105 in view of Baudin and Donovan teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Oda ‘105 in view of Baudin and Donovan does not teach wherein the fuel supply assembly comprises a monolithic body.
Vise teaches (Figures 1-4) a fuel supply assembly (10) that comprises a monolithic body (see Paragraph 0034).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oda ‘105 in view of Baudin and Donovan to have the fuel supply assembly comprise a monolithic body, as taught by Vise, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to make plural parts unitary as a matter of engineering design choice. In re Larson, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965); In re Lockart 90 USPQ 214 (CCPA 1951).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach that the inner set of flame shaping passages have outlets at an axial position overlapping the air injector outlet plane of the intermediate air injector or that the outer set of flame shaping passages have outlets at an axial position overlapping the air injector outlet plane of the outermost air injector. In response and as discussed in the body of the rejection above, it is noted that the Figure 7 embodiment of Oda ‘105 illustrates the outlet of the inner flame shaping outlet (at the exit of 63) may be located at an axial position that overlaps the air injector outlet plane of the intermediate air injector (at the downstream end of 42; see Figure 7) and Donovan teaches (Figures 1-4C) an outer set of flame shaping passages (111, 211) having outlets (the downstream end of 111, 211; see Figure 4C) at an axial position overlapping an air injector outlet plane of an outermost air injector (at the downstream end of 101; see Figure 4C). Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention (in this case, the axial location of the outlets of the flame shaping passages) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
It is additionally noted that Applicant’s specification and drawings lack support for the claim amendments filed 10/2/2025. As discussed above, Applicant’s drawings illustrate the outlets of the flame shaping passages being offset from the air injector outlet planes and Applicant’s specification describes “the set of outer outlets 179b exhausting downstream of the outermost air injector 138c” (Paragraph 0070 of Applicant’s specification – emphasis added). Therefore, the outer set of flame shaping passages have outlets at an axial position that does not overlap an air injector outlet plane of the outermost air injector.
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