DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in response to the correspondence received on 12/17/2025.
Applicant elected with traverse of Species B, Species 2, and Species M1 in the reply filed on 6/5/2024.
Figs 7C, 7F and 10 have been elected.
Figs 7A, 7D, 7E, 7B, 7G, 7H, 7I, 11 and 12 are non-elected species.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 10-12, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morenko 2019/0234310 in view of Carlisle 2011/0088409 and Goodrich 6094904.
Regarding claim 1, Morenko teaches:
A gas turbine engine, comprising:
a combustion section enshrouded by a casing (24 Fig 2-3 [0014]), the combustion section comprising:
an annular combustion chamber defined by at least a dome wall (an annular combustor shell 19 [0014]) and an annular liner (The combustor shell 19 includes a radially inner and a radially outer liner 19a, 19b [0014]);
plurality of combustor cups (19e, Fig. 2) circumferentially arranged on the dome wall (Fig. 2).
a fuel supply coupled to the casing (inter alia, associated manifold adapter 28a, 28b, 28c); and
a fuel nozzle (40) passing through the casing (Fig 2, 4A) and having a nozzle tube (inter alia, fuel inlet tube 26a, 26b, 26c, 26d) and a distribution manifold (inter alia, manifold ring segments 22a, 22b, 22c, 22d) fluidly coupling the nozzle tube to at least two combustor cups of the plurality of combustor cups (Fig 2),
wherein the fuel nozzle is rigidly fixed to an inner surface of the casing (Fig 2; “associated access port 24a, 24b, 24c in the gas generator case 24 for connection with an associated manifold adapter 28a, 28b, 28c mounted to a cover plate 30a, 30b, 30c” [0020]; it is noted that Morenko’s structure is rigidly fixed to the casing structure, and therefore rigidly fixed to the inner surface of the casing as well) and is rigidly fixed to the at least two combustor cups (Fig 4A; The injection heads 40 can, for instance, take the form of nozzle tips brazed in corresponding seats defined in the front face of the ring segment for projecting into corresponding injection holes 19e (FIG. 2) circumferentially distributed in the combustor dome 19c [0024])
Morenko is silent about the fuel nozzle is directly fixed to the inner surface of the casing the directly fixed to the combustor cups as claimed.
However, Carlisle teaches a fuel injector mounting system (Title), and:
a fuel nozzle (5) is rigidly and directly fixed to an inner surface of the casing (The bolts pass through corresponding holes 19 in the casing 1 to sealingly fasten the flange to an inner side of the casing [0034]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Morenko with Carlisle's structure discussed above in order to have a system where bolts do not have to work against casing internal pressure, as taught by Carlisle [0004].
Morenko in view of Carlisle is silent about the fuel nozzle is directly fixed to the combustor cups as claimed.
However, Goodrich a fuel injector for a gas turbine (Figs. 1-3), and:
a fuel nozzle (inter alia, 10 – 46, 22a, 22b, 50, 52,54) is rigidly and directly fixed (see bolts attaching bolts in images below) to the combustor cup (Image below from Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Morenko in view of Carlisle with Goodrich's teachings discussed above using bolts so the fuel nozzle is rigidly and directly fixed to the at least two combustor cups, in order to secure “a pair of arcuate scrolls 22a, 22b project longitudinally from the forward bulkhead to an aft bulkhead 26 and have a fuel-air discharge port 28 extending therethrough” as taught by Goodrich Col 2 ll. 58-67, creating a fuel air discharge port 28 and securing the fuel nozzle at the desired location in relation to the combustion chamber 62 (Fig. 1), and it would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled worker to secure the fuel nozzle to the cup/forward bulkhead. See Col 3 ll. 10-24.
PNG
media_image1.png
995
1458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
953
1491
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Morenko in view of Carlisle and Goodrich teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Morenko further teaches:
further comprising an additional fuel nozzle (image below) fluidly coupled (image below) to the fuel supply (inter alia, associated manifold adapter 28a, 28b, 28c) and to at least two additional combustor cups (combustor cups 19e as discussed above) of the plurality of combustor cups (as discussed above, see Fig. 2)
PNG
media_image3.png
1078
1432
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Morenko in view of Carlisle and Goodrich teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Morenko further teaches:
further comprising at least two additional fuel nozzles (image below), each fluidly coupled (image below) to the fuel supply (inter alia, associated manifold adapter 28a, 28b, 28c) and to at least two respective additional combustor cups (combustor cups as discussed above; image below indicates the location of a few additional combustor cups and one of ordinary skill would understand that the holes 19e would be provided with similar structures) of the plurality of combustor cups (image below).
PNG
media_image4.png
1078
1432
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Morenko in view of Carlisle and Goodrich teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Morenko further teaches:
wherein:
the casing comprises a plurality of casing holes (access ports 24a, 24b 24c),
the fuel supply (inter alia, associated manifold adapter 28a, 28b, 28c ) is connected to the plurality of casing holes (Fig 2), and a total number of casing holes of the plurality of casing holes (3 in Fig 2) is less than a total number of combustor cups of the plurality of combustor cups (combustor cups as discussed above; the number of combustor cups would be the same as the number of 19e in Fig 2, which is larger than the number of 28a-c as seen in Fig 2).
Regarding claim 22, Morenko in view of Carlisle and Goodrich teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Morenko in view of Carlisle and Goodrich, as already discussed for claim 1, teaches:
the fuel nozzle is bolted to the inner surface of the casing and the at least two combustor cups (as already discussed for claim 1)
Claim(s) 3, 5-6, 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morenko 20190234310 in view of Carlisle 20110088409, Goodrich 6094904 and Prociw 20160376997
Regarding claim 3, Morenko in view of Carlisle and Goodrich teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Morenko further teaches:
wherein the plurality of combustor cups includes a first combustor cup and a second combustor cup (Image below; and as discussed for claim 1, combustor cups located with injection holes 19e);
Morenko in view of Carlisle and Goodrich is silent about:
wherein the first combustor cup includes a first swirler fixed to the dome wall;
wherein the second combustor cup includes a second swirler fixed to the dome wall; and
wherein the fuel nozzle is fixed to the first swirler and the second swirler.
However, Prociw’997 teaches a combustion system for a gas turbine engine with a combustor dome (abstract), and :
wherein the first combustor cup (inter alia, 146) includes a first swirler (148) fixed to the dome wall (a tile 154 is affixed downstream of each nozzle to complete the combustor dome 102 [0027]);
wherein the second combustor cup includes a second swirler fixed to the dome wall (Fig. 3 show the axial outlet end view of the combustor dome, showing element 132 is repeated in multiple instances around the combustor); and
wherein the fuel nozzle (the nozzle components can include a wetted inner nozzle wall 134 in fluid communication with the fuel manifold 118 for each nozzle, through a respective neck passage 136 [0026]) is fixed to the first swirler and the second swirler (by fasteners 150, Fig. 4, [0026]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Morenko in view of Carlisle and Goodrich with Prociw’997 teachings discussed above, such that the first combustor cup includes a first swirler fixed to the dome wall wherein the second combustor cup includes a second swirler fixed to the dome wall and wherein the fuel nozzle is fixed to the first swirler and the second swirler, in order to provide swirlers so the “nozzle components 122 of each nozzle also include a radial swirler 1[…] for swirling air flowing into the inner air passage 142” as taught by Prociw’997
PNG
media_image5.png
725
843
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Morenko in view of Carlisle, Goodrich and Prociw’997 teaches the invention as discussed for claim 3. Morenko further teaches:
wherein the distribution manifold comprises (i) a first manifold tube (image below) fluidly coupled (image below) the nozzle tube (as discussed above, inter alia, fuel inlet tube 26a, 26b, 26c, 26d) and the first swirl3er (swirler as discussed above), and (ii) a second manifold tube (image below) fluidly coupled (image below) with the nozzle tube and the second swirler (swirler as discussed above).
PNG
media_image6.png
1093
1089
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Morenko in view of Carlisle and Goodrich and Prociw’997 teaches the invention as discussed for claim 5. Morenko further teaches:
wherein a diameter of the nozzle tube is larger than a diameter of the first manifold tube (Figs 3 and 5 show 26a-d having a larger diameter then the connected manifold tubes).
Additionally, Carlisle teaches a diameter of a nozzle tube reducing at a downstream portion where it leads to a manifold tube (image below).
PNG
media_image7.png
1207
1395
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Morenko in view of Carlisle, Goodrich teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Morenko further teaches:
wherein the plurality of combustor cups (combustor cups as already discussed; combustor cups 19e) includes a first combustor cup, a second combustor cup, and a third combustor cup (Fig. 2 shows multiple 19e);
Morenko in view of Carlisle, Goodrich is silent about:
wherein the combustion section further comprises a first swirler connected to the first combustor cup, a second swirler connected to the second combustor cup, and a third swirler connected to the third combustor cup; and
wherein the fuel nozzle is fixed to the first swirler, the second swirler, and the third swirler.
However, Prociw’997 teaches a combustion system for a gas turbine engine with a combustor dome (abstract), and :
wherein the combustion section (100, Fig. 1) further comprises a first swirler (148) connected to the first combustor cup (inter alia, 146), a second swirler connected to the second combustor cup, and a third swirler connected to the third combustor cup (Fig. 3 show the axial outlet end view of the combustor dome, showing element 132 is repeated in multiple instances around the combustor, teaching the presence of at least a second and a third combustor cups and swirlers);
wherein the fuel nozzle (the nozzle components can include a wetted inner nozzle wall 134 in fluid communication with the fuel manifold 118 for each nozzle, through a respective neck passage 136 [0026]) is fixed to the first swirler, the second swirler, and the third swirler (by fasteners 150, Fig. 4, [0026]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Morenko in view of Carlisle and Goodrich with Prociw’997 teachings discussed above, such that the combustion section further comprises a first swirler connected to the first combustor cup, a second swirler connected to the second combustor cup, and a third swirler connected to the third combustor cup; and wherein the fuel nozzle is fixed to the first swirler, the second swirler, and the third swirler, in order to provide swirlers so the “nozzle components 122 of each nozzle also include a radial swirler 1[…] for swirling air flowing into the inner air passage 142” as taught by Prociw’997
Regarding claim 9, Morenko in view of Carlisle and Goodrich teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Morenko further teaches:
wherein the plurality of combustor cups (combustor cups as discussed,19e) includes a first set of combustor cups comprising at least four combustor cups (location of 4 cups in image below, as also seen in Fig. 2);
Morenko in view of Carlisle and Goodrich, as discussed so far, is silent about:
wherein the combustion section further comprises a first set of swirlers comprising a swirler for each combustor cup of the first set of combustor cups; and wherein the fuel nozzle is fixed to each swirler of the first set of swirlers.
However, Prociw’997 teaches a combustion system for a gas turbine engine with a combustor dome (abstract), and :
wherein the combustion section (100, Fig. 1) further comprises a first set of swirlers (Fig. 4, inter alia, 148) comprising a swirler (148) for each combustor cup (inter alia, 146) of the first set of combustor cups; and wherein the fuel nozzle (the nozzle components can include a wetted inner nozzle wall 134 in fluid communication with the fuel manifold 118 for each nozzle, through a respective neck passage 136 [0026]) is fixed to each swirler of the first set of swirlers (by fasteners 150, Fig. 4, [0026]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Morenko in view of Carlisle and Goodrich with Prociw’997 teachings discussed above, such that the combustion section further comprises a first set of swirlers comprising a swirler for each combustor cup of the first set of combustor cups; and wherein the fuel nozzle is fixed to each swirler of the first set of swirlers, in order to provide swirlers so the “nozzle components 122 of each nozzle also include a radial swirler 1[…] for swirling air flowing into the inner air passage 142” as taught by Prociw’997
PNG
media_image8.png
901
1198
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morenko 20190234310 in view of Carlisle 20110088409, Goodrich 6094904, Prociw 20160376997 (referred to as Prociw’997) and Prociw 20060054233 (referred to as Prociw ‘233)
Regarding claim 7, Morenko in view of Carlisle, Goodrich and Prociw’977 teaches the invention as discussed for claim 5. Morenko in view of Carlisle, Goodrich and Prociw’977 is silent about:
wherein the first manifold tube comprises a dual wall configuration and an insulator.
However, Prociw ‘233 teaches a heat shield for a gas turbine engine [0002], and:
A heat shield 30 for a fuel supply tube (Fig 3) comprises a dual wall configuration (22 and 34 [0028-0030]) and an insulator (32 [0028]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Morenko in view of Carlisle, Goodrich and Prociw ‘997 with Prociw ‘233's structure discussed above in order to “mitigate the overheating of fuel nozzles in gas turbine engines and similar components subjected to intense heat” [0002]
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morenko 20190234310 in view of Carlisle 20110088409 and Goodrich 6094904 and Fish 20080092545.
Regarding claim 21, Morenko in view of Carlisle and Goodrich teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Morenko further teaches:
The gas turbine engine of claim 1 wherein the distribution manifold comprises
(i) a first manifold tube (image below) fluidly coupled (image below) with the nozzle tube (as discussed above, inter alia, fuel inlet tube 26a, 26b, 26c, 26d) and a first swirler (swirler as discussed above),
(ii) a second manifold tube (image below) fluidly coupled (image below) with the nozzle tube and a second swirler (swirler as discussed above), and
(iii) a third manifold tube (image below) fluidly coupled (image below) with the nozzle tube and a third swirler (swirler as discussed above);
Morenko in view of Carlisle and Goodrich is silent about:
wherein the second manifold tube and the third manifold tube extend from opposite sides of the distribution manifold.
However, Fish teaches:
a second manifold tube (Fish - Image below) and the third manifold tube (Image below) extend from opposite sides (Image below) of the distribution manifold (inter alia, 30).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Morenko in view of Carlisle and Goodrich with Fish's structure discussed above in order to provide fuel to the combustor via a single fuel inlet 30 and fuel nozzle assemblies 26, as taught by Fish Figs. 2, 3,
PNG
media_image9.png
1344
1467
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
1309
1281
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 13-14, 17-19, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morenko 20190234310 in view of Carlisle 20110088409 and Prociw 20160376997.
Regarding claim 13, Morenko teaches:
A fuel nozzle (40) for a combustion section of a gas turbine engine (16), the fuel nozzle comprising:
a nozzle tube (inter alia, fuel inlet tube 26a, 26b, 26c, 26d);
a first manifold tube fluidly coupled to the nozzle tube (image below);
a second manifold tube (manifold ring segments 22a, 22b, 22c, 22d shows multiple manifolds) fluidly coupled to the nozzle tube (Fig. 2);
first manifold tube (manifold ring segments 22a, 22b, 22c, 22d shows multiple manifolds) and connected to a dome wall of the combustion section (Fig 2-4B); and
second manifold tube (manifold ring segments 22a, 22b, 22c, 22d shows multiple manifolds) and connected to the dome wall (Fig 2-4B).
wherein the nozzle tube comprises a nozzle tube mounting flange (9) adapted for direct connection with an inner surface of a casing of the combustion section ([0024]).
Morenko teaches is silent about the mounting flange adapted for direct connection with the inner surface as claimed.
However, Carlisle teaches a fuel injector mounting system (Title), and:
a nozzle tube mounting flange (9) adapted for direct connection with an inner surface of a casing (The bolts pass through corresponding holes 19 in the casing 1 to sealingly fasten the flange to an inner side of the casing [0034]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Morenko with Carlisle's structure discussed above in order to have a system where bolts do not have to work against casing internal pressure, as taught by Carlisle [0004].
Morenko in view of Carlisle is silent about:
a first swirler fixed to the first manifold tube
a second swirler fixed to the second manifold tube
However, Prociw’997 teaches a combustion system for a gas turbine engine with a combustor dome (abstract), and :
a first swirler (148) fixed (via 150) to the first manifold tube (inter alia, 136)
a second swirler fixed to the second manifold tube (Fig. 3 show the axial outlet end view of the combustor dome, showing element 132 is repeated in multiple instances around the combustor, teaching the presence of at least a second and a third combustor cups and swirlers) ;
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Morenko in view of Carlisle and with Prociw’997 teachings discussed above, so the “nozzle components 122 of each nozzle also include a radial swirler 1[…] for swirling air flowing into the inner air passage 142” as taught by Prociw’997
Regarding claim 14, Morenko in view of Carlisle and Prociw’997 teaches the invention as discussed for claim 13. Morenko further teaches.
wherein:
the first manifold tube comprises a first mounting flange (flange indicated in the image below) rigidly mounted ([0024]) to the first swirler (swirler discussed above), and
the second manifold tube comprises a second mounting flange (flange indicated in the image below) rigidly mounted ([0024]) to the second swirler (swirler discussed above).
PNG
media_image11.png
922
1363
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Morenko in view of Carlisle and Prociw’997 teaches the invention as discussed for claim 13. Morenko in view of Carlisle and Prociw’997, as discussed so far, is silent about:
wherein the first swirler and the second swirler are rigidly fixed the dome wall.
Prociw’997 teaches
wherein the first swirler and the second swirler (as discussed above) are rigidly fixed (by 150) the dome wall (image below)
PNG
media_image12.png
1263
1006
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Morenko in view of Carlisle and Prociw'997 teaches the invention as discussed for claim 13. Morenko further teaches:
further comprising a third manifold tube fluidly coupled to the nozzle tube (image below) and a third swirler (swirler as discussed above; one of ordinary skill would understand that there would be multiple swirlers as discussed for claim 13 would).
PNG
media_image13.png
1027
1023
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Morenko in view of Carlisle and Prociw'997 teaches the invention as discussed for claim 13. Morenko further teaches:
further comprising a plurality of additional manifold tubes fluidly coupled, at least indirectly, to the nozzle tube and rigidly fixed to respective additional swirlers (Fig 3, Image below).
PNG
media_image14.png
1081
1077
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 23, Morenko in view of Carlisle and Prociw’997 teaches the invention as discussed for claim 13. Morenko in view of Carlisle and Prociw’997, as discussed so far, is silent about:
the nozzle tube mounting flange includes a first flange aperture and a second flange aperture for fastening the nozzle tube 3
However, Carlisle teaches:
nozzle tube mounting flange includes a first flange aperture and a second flange aperture for fastening the nozzle tube mounting flange to the inner surface of the casing (holes 19, Figs. 1, 5).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morenko 20190234310 in view of Carlisle, Prociw’997 Gandikota 20190249875 and Kamoi 20180031245.
Regarding claim 16, Morenko in view of Carlisle and Prociw’997 teaches the invention as discussed for claim 14. Morenko in view of Carlisle and Prociw’997 as discussed so far, is silent about:
wherein the first swirler includes a first swirler mating surface; and
a shape of the first swirler mating surface corresponds to a shape of the first mounting flange.
However, Gandikota teaches a gas turbine combustor with swirler assemblies 32, and:
wherein the first swirler includes a first swirler mating surface (image below);
a shape of the first swirler mating surface corresponds to a shape of the first mounting flange (circular).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Morenko in view of Carlisle and Prociw’997 with Gandikota's structure discussed above such that “ Each swirler assembly 32 receives compressed air from annular opening 28 and fuel from a corresponding fuel tube 34” [0057] so “The fuel and air are swirled and mixed by swirler assemblies 32, and the resulting fuel/air mixture is discharged into combustion chamber 20” as taught by Gandikota [0057].
Morenko in view of Carlisle, Prociw'997 and Gandikota is silent about:
the first mounting flange includes a first flange aperture and a second flange aperture.
However, Kamoi teaches:
mounting flange (22) includes a first flange aperture (Image Below) and a second flange aperture (22D)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide
Morenko in view of Carlisle, Prociw'997 and Gandikota with Kamoi's structure discussed above in order to support and guide a nozzle, as taught by Kamoi (Abstract).
PNG
media_image15.png
472
656
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
1378
1158
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morenko 20190234310 in view of Carlisle 20110088409 and Prociw 20160376997 (Prociw’977) and Prociw 20060054233 (Prociw ’233).
Regarding claim 20, Morenko in view of Carlisle and Prociw’997 teaches the invention as discussed for claim 13. Morenko in view of Carlisle and Prociw’997 is silent about:
wherein the first manifold tube and the second manifold tube comprise a dual wall configuration and an insulator.
However, Prociw ‘233 teaches a heat shield for a gas turbine engine [0002], and:
A heat shield 30 for a fuel supply tube (Fig 3) comprises a dual wall configuration (22 and 34 [0028-0030]) and an insulator (32 [0028]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Morenko in view of Carlisle and Prociw’997 manifold tubes with Prociw ‘233's teachings discussed above such that the first manifold tube and the second manifold tube comprise a dual wall configuration and an insulator, in order to “mitigate the overheating of fuel nozzles in gas turbine engines and similar components subjected to intense heat” [0002]
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image17.png
284
967
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s response: Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but they are not persuasive. The combination of Morenko with Carlisle’s teachings, as discussed in the rejection, is not motivated by the ease of removal as argued by the applicant. The motivation to apply Carlisle’s teachings is the clear advantage to provide an arrangement where bolts do not have to work against casing internal pressure, as taught by Carlisle [0004] and already stated in the previous office action. Reduction in stress on the parts is a clear advantage and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The strongest rationale for combining references is a recognition, expressly or impliedly in the prior art or drawn from a convincing line of reasoning based on established scientific principles or legal precedent, that some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994-95, 217 USPQ 1, 5-6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See also Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("Indeed, we have repeatedly held that an implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal—and even common-sensical—we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves."). MPEP 2144 (II).
Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”). See MPEP § 716.01(c) for examples of applicant statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Roberto T. Igue whose telephone number is (303)297-4389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 PT.
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.
/ROBERTO TOSHIHARU IGUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/PHUTTHIWAT WONGWIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741