DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 line 3 recites “the pressure of the steam system being above a predetermined value”. It is unclear if the claim 8 predetermined value refers (1) to the claim 1 predetermined value (at end of claim), or (2) is a new predetermined value.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0285175 A1 (Fletcher), as evidenced by US 5,746,048 (Shah), in view of US 2016/0138470 A1 (Davis) and US 5,121,596 (Takehara).
Regarding claim 1, Fletcher discloses (see fig. 2) a turbine engine 10 comprising: a combustor 30 positioned in a core air flow path (the core engine is 20b,30,40a and the combustor 30 received air flow from the high pressure compressor 20b and delivers combustion gasses to high pressure turbine 40a; the air flow and combustion gasses comprising the core flow path) that combusts a compressed air flow (from HPC 20b) and a primary fuel flow (from fuel duct 110) to generate combustion gases (fuel and air are combusted in the primary and secondary combustion zones, see par. 35, to create combustion gasses that are expanded in the turbine section 40 to create exhaust gases, see par. 32); a low pressure turbine 40c positioned downstream of the combustor 30 in the core air flow path, the low pressure turbine 40c configured to extract power from the combustion gases (one of ordinary skill understands that the low pressure turbine 40c expands the combustion gasses in order to drive a shaft connected to an electrical generator, see par. 31; the turbine 40c may also use such energy to drive low pressure compressor via a different shaft, see par. 31); a fuel (fuel is injected into the primary combustion zone from duct 110 and the secondary combustion zone from duct 112; see par. 35, top) and steam (steam is injected into the primary combustion zone from duct 70 and the secondary combustion zone from duct 72; see pars. 32, bottom and 33, top) system fluidly coupled to the combustor 30, the fuel and steam system comprising: a steam system 60,70,72 to provide a steam flow (see par. 33) along a steam supply line (see annotated figure below) to the combustor 30; and a fuel system to provide the primary fuel flow (flow at duct 110 that is provided to the primary combustion zone, see par. 35) and a secondary fuel flow (flow at duct 112 that is provided to the secondary combustion zone, see par. 35) to the combustor 30, the fuel system having a first state in which there is a first flow rate (valve 112’ selectively controls the second fuel flow in duct 112 and thus there is a first flow rate and a second flow rate; see par. 35; the second flow rate for example can be a flow rate that is greater than the first flow rate) of the secondary fuel flow (in duct 112) to the combustor 30 and a second state in which there is a second flow rate (valve 112’ selectively controls the second fuel flow in duct 112 and thus there is a first flow rate and a second flow rate; see par. 35) of the secondary fuel flow (in duct 112) of the secondary fuel flow (in duct 112) to the combustor 30, the first flow rate and the second flow rate being different (valve 112’ selectively controls the second fuel flow in duct 112 and thus the two instant flow rates can be different; see par. 35); changing the fuel system from the first state (i.e., a lower fuel flow rate; for example Takehara cited below is evidence that the fuel flow rate before starting is less than the fuel flow rate after ignition, see Takehara col. 1, ll. 13-17) to the second state (i.e., a higher fuel flow rate) when the pressure of the steam system is lower than at least one of (i) the pressure at the outlet of the low pressure turbine, (ii) an initial operating pressure of the steam system, or (iii) a predetermined value of the pressure of the steam system. Water injection for starting is used when the steam pressure is not sufficient. For example a desired 10 minute start would result in a steam pressure of 20 bar; see par. 8, bottom. One of ordinary skill would understand this pressure of 20 bar to be insufficient to provide the Fletcher steam injection and thus water injection is used because such water is readily available from tank 102. During water injection during starting water can be provided to both combustion zones, see pars. 13 and 37. Fuel flow rates are provided corresponding to the water flow rates, see par. 13. Thus one of ordinary skill would understand that during gas turbine startup that fuel is provided to the secondary combustion zone via duct 112 during startup. This is evidenced by Shah at col. 2, ll. 45-50 pointing out that injecting fuel into secondary injection zones facilitates starting because such injection created fuel rich zones. Thus one of ordinary skill would understand that there is a pressure of the steam system that correlates with an initial operating pressure of the steam system or a predetermined value of the pressure of the steam system, and Fletcher is not able to reach that initial operating pressure that can also be considered the instant predetermined value at start-up. During the time the Fletcher steam system is not able to reach the instant operating pressure or predetermined value, water injection is used for starting and the secondary fuel flow is increased by way of changing the fuel system from the first state to the second state. Fletcher does not disclose a sensor system configured to measure a pressure of the steam system (although Fletcher states that steam pressure information is important regarding the operation of the Fletcher plant, see par. 8) and to measure a pressure at an outlet of the low pressure turbine; and a controller configured to receive the pressure of the steam system and the pressure at the outlet of the low pressure turbine from the sensor system, the controller changing the fuel system (regarding Fletchers “changing the fuel system discussed above).
PNG
media_image1.png
443
570
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (direction of fuel flow)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (axial length of combustor 30)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (steam supply line)][AltContent: arrow]
Davis teaches a gas turbine 10 (see fig. 1) and further teaches a sensor system 26 (see par. 33 and fig. 1) configured to measure a pressure at an outlet (see par. 33: “pressure levels [at] … turbine 16 exhaust”; see fig. 1; also see par. 4 top discussing “turbine exhaust pressure”) of a turbine 16; and a controller 18 configured to receive the pressure at the outlet of the turbine from the sensor system (see fig. 1 showing sensor 26 communicating with controller 18), the controller 18 changing the fuel system (controller 18 portion 28 controls fuel flow and fuel splits regarding primary and secondary fuel nozzles; see par. 35). Davis par. 28 discusses the control scheme of Davis includes water injection into the gas turbine but is silent a sensor to measure a pressure of the water or steam.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Fletcher with a sensor system configured to measure a pressure at an outlet of the low pressure turbine; and a controller configured to receive the pressure at the outlet of the low pressure turbine from the sensor system, the controller changing the fuel system as taught by Davis in order to facilitate improved engine efficiency using firing temperature as an operating temperature (see par. 4, bottom and par. 5, bottom) and
Takehara teaches a gas turbine G,3,4,5 (see fig. 1) with a steam system (steam injection 10,5 into the combustor 5) and teaches a sensor system (steam pressure detector; see col. 3, ll. 65-70 and col. 4, ll. 60-65) configured to measure (i.e., detect) a pressure of steam (steam to be supplied to the gas turbine; see col. 3, ll. 65-70) (a controller 13,14,15 configured to receive (see col. 4, l. 1), see fig. 1, the pressure of the steam system B,9,10 and control 11 fuel flow to the combustor 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Fletcher in view of Davis with a sensor configured to measure a pressure of the steam as taught by Takehara in order to facilitate providing the proper fuel flow rate for starting (see col. 3, l. 63 to col. 4, l. 5) during the starting process (see fig. 4a) thereby reducing thermal stress and prolonging component life cycle (see col. 1, ll. 5-12) in the scenario1 steam is used during the gas turbine startup. Takehara is compatible with water injection (see col. 1, ll. 65-68 and col. 7, l. 15).
The controller changing the fuel system (regarding Fletchers “changing the fuel system discussed above) is met by Fletcher in view of Davis and Takehara because such “changing” would be performed by the controller of Fletcher in view of Davis and Takehara because such controller taught by Davis controls the fuel flow of the combination and the pressure sensor information taught by Takehara is received by the controller of Fletcher in view of Davis and Takehara. In addition, “providing an automatic … means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art” (MPEP 2144.04 III.).
Regarding claim 2, Fletcher in view of Davis and Takehara teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Fletcher discloses (see fig. 2) the steam flow (from duct 72) and the secondary fuel flow (from duct 112) are provided at the same axial location (the steam flow and the secondary fuel flow can be from the same injector; see par. 33, middle and bottom) along a length of the combustor 30.
Regarding claim 3, Fletcher in view of Davis and Takehara teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Fletcher discloses (see fig. 2) the secondary fuel flow (in line 112 at axial location of line 112) is provided upstream of the steam flow steam flow (at line 72 that is from boiler 60; wherein the steam flow is in a steam injector, see par. 33, bottom; the instant fuel injection is upstream from the steam injection with respect to the annotated direction of the fuel flow in annotated figure above, this is consistent with applicant par. 18 because the claim does not specify which fluid the term “upstream” is with respect to; it is noted for clarity that duct 106 is for water injection rather than for steam injection).
Regarding claim 4, Fletcher in view of Davis and Takehara teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Fletcher discloses the secondary fuel flow (at duct 112) is provided downstream (with respect to the flow of working fluid in the engine 10 for example with respect to the direction of the core flow discussed in the claim 1 analysis above) of the primary fuel flow (at duct 110).
Regarding claim 6, The combination of Fletcher in view of Davis and Takehara teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. The combination teaches wherein the second flow rate is greater than the first flow rate. Takehara is evidence that the fuel flow rate before starting is less than the fuel flow rate after ignition, see Takehara col. 1, ll. 13-17). Shah is evidence that during starting secondary fuel flow is provided to the combustor of the combination (see Shah at col. 2, ll. 45-50 pointing out that injecting fuel into secondary injection zones facilitates starting because such injection created fuel rich zones).
Regarding claim 9, Fletcher in view of Davis and Takehara teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Fletcher discloses (see fig. 2) a secondary fuel supply line 112 for providing the secondary fuel flow (fuel flow in line 112 providing fuel to the secondary combustion zone, see par. 35) to the combustor 30; and a fuel flow control device 112’ located along the secondary fuel supply line 112, the fuel flow control device 112’ configured to control the first state and the second state (the fuel flow device 112’ controls the flow rate, see par. 35; this is consistent with applicant par. 56, bottom, wherein the claimed fuel flow control device can be a valve).
Regarding claim 11, Fletcher in view of Davis and Takehara teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. The teachings of Davis in the claim 1 analysis above include a controller 18 is configured to actuate a fuel flow control device (controller 18 portion 28 controls fuel flow with actuator 27 and fuel splits regarding primary and secondary fuel nozzles; see pars. 35-36; one of ordinary skill would understand actuator 27 to be a valve, see par. 33, bottom) to place a fuel system in a first state or a second state controller 18 portion 28 controls fuel flow).
Regarding claim 12, Fletcher in view of Davis and Takehara teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. The teachings of Takehara in the claim 1 analysis above include a controller is configured to actuate a fuel flow control device based on a pressure of the steam system or a power output of the turbine engine. Takehara taught a sensor system (steam pressure detector; see col. 3, ll. 65-70 and col. 4, ll. 60-65) configured to measure (i.e., detect) a pressure of steam (steam to be supplied to the gas turbine; see col. 3, ll. 65-70) (a controller 13,14,15 configured to receive (see col. 4, l. 1), see fig. 1, the pressure of the steam system B,9,10 and control 11 fuel flow to the combustor 5).
Regarding claim 13, Fletcher in view of Davis and Takehara teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Fletcher discloses (see fig. 2) the fuel system comprising: a primary fuel supply line 110 having a primary fuel injector (see par. 33, middle and bottom, and par. 35 pointing out that fuel duct 110 is at the location of the primary combustion zone) at a forward end (at the location of line 110) of the combustor 30; and a secondary fuel supply line 112 having a secondary fuel injector (see par. 33, middle and bottom, and par. 35 pointing out that fuel duct 112 is at the location of the secondary combustion zone) along an axial length (see fig. 2) of the combustor 30.
Regarding claim 14, Fletcher in view of Davis and Takehara teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Fletcher discloses (see fig. 2) the steam system further comprising a steam injector for providing the steam flow from the steam supply line (line 72 is from boiler 60 that provides the steam; wherein the steam flow is in a steam injector, see par. 33, bottom) at a location (see fig. 2) along the axial length (see annotated figure above) of the combustor 30, wherein the steam injector and the secondary fuel injector (injector injecting fuel from line 112) are a combined fuel-steam injector (see par. 33; the two instant injectors can be separate or instead a single injector).
Regarding claim 15, Fletcher in view of Davis and Takehara teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Fletcher discloses (see fig. 2) the steam system 60,70,72 further comprising the steam supply line (see annotated figure above) having a steam injector (see par. 33) for providing the steam flow (flow of steam from boiler 60) along (see annotated figure below) the axial length (see annotated figure below) of the combustor 30, wherein the steam injector and the secondary fuel injector (injector providing fuel from line 112 into the secondary combustion zone discussed at par. 35) are separate (see par. 33, middle and bottom).
Claim(s) 5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fletcher in view of Davis and Takehara as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Pub. No. US 2023/0392557 (Bulat).
Regarding claim 5, Fletcher in view of Davis and Takehara teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Fletcher further discloses (see fig. 2) the first flow rate (valve 112’ selectively controls the second fuel flow in line 112 and thus there is a first flow rate and a second flow rate; see par. 35) of the secondary fuel flow (fuel in duct 112) such that secondary fuel flow is provided to the combustor 30 (from line 112) in the first state. Fletcher does not disclose the secondary fuel flow is zero such that no secondary fuel flow is provided (i.e., Fletcher does not disclose valve 112’ has a closed or shutoff state).
Bulat teaches (see figs. 1 and 3) a gas turbine 10 and further teaches the secondary fuel flow is zero such that no secondary fuel flow is provided (when fuel flow control device 80 is closed (see par. 42, top) no fuel is provided to the combustor 36 (when the gas turbine engine is off before the engine has started; see par. 42, top).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Fletcher in view of Davis and Takehara with the secondary fuel flow is zero such that no secondary fuel flow is provided as taught by Bulat in order to facilitate preventing fuel flow into the engine during shutoff so that the engine may be shut down (see par. 42, top). For example, if the steam system is not on, then the plant operator could choose not to operate the gas turbine with the secondary fuel flow from line 112.
Regarding claim 10, Fletcher in view of Davis and Takehara teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Fletcher discloses (see fig. 2) the fuel flow control device 112’ is open in the second state (valve 112’ selectively controls the second fuel flow in duct 112 and thus there is a there is a state wherein the valve is open; see par. 35). Fletcher does not disclose the fuel flow control device is closed in the first state (i.e., Fletcher does not disclose valve 112’ has a closed or shutoff state).
Bulat teaches (see figs. 1 and 3) a gas turbine 10 and further teaches a fuel flow control device 80 is closed (see par. 42, top) in a state (when the gas turbine engine is off before the engine has started; see par. 42, top).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Fletcher in view of Davis and Takehara with the fuel flow control device is closed in the first state as taught by Bulat in order to facilitate preventing fuel flow into the engine during shutoff so that the engine may be shut down (see par. 42, top). For example, if the steam system is not on, then the plant operator could choose not to operate the gas turbine with the secondary fuel flow from line 112.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fletcher as evidenced by US Patent 2,911,789 (Baker), in view of Davis and Takehara as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pub. No. US 2021/0095599 A1 (Asai).
Regarding claim 7, The combination of Fletcher in view of Davis and Takehara teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. As discussed in the claim 1 analysis above the combination taught the fuel system exhibits the second state, the pressure of the steam system, the initial operating pressure. Fletcher does not disclose the fuel system exhibits the second state based on the pressure of the steam system being at least five percent lower than the initial operating pressure.
The steam pressure of a steam system could be monitored by a plant operator as evidenced by Baker (see Baker col. 4, II. 30-35 providing an example of the plant operator monitoring a steam pressure of a heat system 1 g and taking an action at the time of a threshold of sufficient steam pressure). Asai teaches (see fig. 1) that a gas turbine plant (see par. 13) operator may manually adjust (see pars. 45, middle, and 53, bottom) a fuel flow rate (via shutoff and; or control valves 62,63,64,65) to the gas turbine engine combustor 3 (see par. 45 discussing the general concept of manual operation and par. 53 discussing manual control of fuel flow control devices 62-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Fletcher in view of Davis and Takehara with the second state based on the pressure of the steam as taught by Asai and evidenced by Baker in order to facilitate improved regulation (see Baker col. 1, II. 18-23) of the power plant (as discussed in Fletcher par. 2, top) with flexibility of control (see Asai par. 45) to accommodate maintenance and other operations for example. This results in an operator being able to have the plant disclosed by Fletcher exhibit the second state upon the time the steam pressure reaches the value of at least five percent lower than the initial operating pressure.
Regarding claim 8, The combination of Fletcher in view of Davis and Takehara teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. As discussed in the claim 1 analysis above the combination taught the fuel system exhibits the first state and the fuel system exhibits the second state, the pressure of the steam system, and predetermined values regarding the steam. Fletcher does not disclose the fuel system exhibits the first state based on the pressure of the steam system being above a predetermined value and the fuel system exhibits the second state based on the pressure of the steam system being at least five percent less than the predetermined value.
The steam pressure of a steam system could be monitored by a plant operator as evidenced by Baker (see Baker col. 4, II. 30-35 providing an example of the plant operator monitoring a steam pressure of a heat system 1 g and taking an action at the time of a threshold of sufficient steam pressure). Asai teaches (see fig. 1) that a gas turbine plant (see par. 13) operator may manually adjust (see pars. 45, middle, and 53, bottom) a fuel flow rate (via shutoff and; or control valves 62,63,64,65) to the gas turbine engine combustor 3 (see par. 45 discussing the general concept of manual operation and par. 53 discussing manual control of fuel flow control devices 62-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Fletcher in view of Davis and Takehara with the first state based on the pressure of the steam and the second state based on the pressure of the steam as taught by Asai and evidenced by Baker in order to facilitate improved regulation (see Baker col. 1, II. 18-23) of the power plant (as discussed in Fletcher par. 2, top) with flexibility of control (see Asai par. 45) to accommodate maintenance and other operations for example. This results in an operator being able to have the plant disclosed by Fletcher exhibit the second state upon the time the steam pressure reaches the value of at least five percent lower than the initial operating pressure.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fletcher in view of Davis and Takehara as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of US 5058374 (Bechlher).
Regarding claim 16, Fletcher in view of Davis and Takehara teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Fletcher does not disclose wherein the secondary fuel injector and the steam injector are positioned within a common body (although Fletcher discloses that both fuel and steam may be injected from the same injector; see claim 15).
Bechlher teaches (see fig. 3) a gas turbine (see abstract) and further teaches the general concept a fuel injector (fuel is injected from passage 27) and a steam injector (steam is injected from passage 21) are positioned within a common body 18.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Fletcher in view of Davis and Takehara with t wherein the secondary fuel injector and the steam injector are positioned within a common body for matters of convenience (see Bechlher col. 1, ll. 10-15), improved combustion efficiency (see col. 1, ll. 15-20) and reduced steam energy losses (see col. 1, ll. 40-45). This results in the instant two injectors disclosed by Fletcher being in the same common body.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fletcher in view of Davis and Takehara as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Pub. No. US 20180370651 A1 (Miller).
Regarding claim 17, Fletcher in view of Davis and Takehara teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Fletcher discloses (see fig. 2) introducing the steam flow (at lines 72,74) into the combustor 30; and introducing the secondary fuel flow (via line 112) into the combustor 30. Fletcher does not disclose introducing the secondary fuel flow based on a loss in pressure of the steam flow or a loss in power output of the turbine engine.
Miller teaches (see fig. 3) a gas turbine 200 and further teaches introducing a fuel flow (see pars. 102, middle, 107, middle, or 112, middle; fuel flow is increased to accommodate the loss of power) based on a loss in power output (see pars. 102, middle, 107, middle, or 112, middle) of the turbine engine 200.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Fletcher in view of Davis and Takehara with introducing the secondary fuel flow based on a loss in power output of the turbine engine as taught by Miller in order to facilitate preventing a loss of electricity of provided by the generator of Fletcher (see par. 28, bottom) that would be caused by the slowing down of the gas turbine when the power loss occurs (see Miller par. 81, bottom). It is noted as general information that Fletcher can be an aeroderivative engine 10 (see par. 28, bottom) and this is consistent with Miller’s aviation engine 200 although this is not necessary.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fletcher in view of Davis, Takehara and Miller, as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Pub. No. US 2024/0200491 A1 (Rocco) and Pub. No. US 2018/0328287 A1 (Moniz).
Regarding claim 18, Fletcher in view of Davis, Takehara and Miller teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Fletcher discloses (see fig. 2) injecting (see e.g., par. 33, bottom and par. 35) the secondary fuel flow (via line 112) into the combustor 30. The teachings of Takehara applied in the claim 1 analysis above includes monitoring the pressure of the steam flow (with steam pressure detector) to generate a monitored pressure. Fletcher does not disclose monitoring a power output of the turbine engine to generate a monitored power output; detecting the loss in pressure of the steam flow when the monitored pressure is below a predetermined pressure value; detecting the loss in power output of the turbine engine when the monitored power output is below a predetermined power value; and the injecting the secondary fuel flow into the combustor is based on the detecting of the loss in pressure of the steam flow or based on the detecting of the loss in power output in the turbine engine or both.
Rocco teaches monitoring (see pars. 11 and 16) (a pressure of a steam flow to generate a monitored pressure (pressure of steam downstream of steam generator, i.e. evaporator; see par. 16; steam pressure downstream of evaporator 72 is detected with sensor 125; see fig. 1 and par. 16)) and further teaches detecting the loss in pressure (in some scenarios there is a system leak and thus the steam pressure in line 76 would decrease; see par. 55, top) of the steam flow when the monitored pressure is below a predetermined pressure value expected value of steam pressure regarding an expected range, see par. 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Fletcher in view of Davis, Takehara and Miller with detecting the loss in pressure of the steam flow when the monitored pressure is below a predetermined pressure value as taught by Rocco in order to facilitate alerting plant operator of systems that need maintenance and may be unavailable for instant use to thereby improving plant performance and efficiency (see Rocco pars. 4, 5 and 25). For example, monitoring for a loss of steam pressure would alert the plant operator of the combination power augmentation via steam injection (see Fletcher par. 3) may not be available such that the operator could take corrective action.
Moniz teaches (see fig. 1) a gas turbine 10 and further teaches monitoring a power output (see par. 16, bottom) of the turbine engine 10 to generate a monitored power output (that goes to the engine controller 320; see fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Fletcher in view of Davis, Takehara, Miller and Rocco with monitoring a power output of the turbine engine to generate a monitored power output as taught by Moniz in order to facilitate improved engine operability, efficiency, and responsiveness (see Moniz par. 3, bottom and par. 4). For example a response with a fuel flow command can accommodate a loss of engine power (see Moniz par. 16, middle and bottom).
The teachings of Miller applied in the claim 17 analysis above include
detecting the loss in power output of the turbine engine when the monitored power output is below a predetermined power value. Miller taught in the claim 17 analyses introducing a fuel flow based on a loss in power output (see pars. 102, middle, 107, middle, or 112, middle) of the turbine engine 200 wherein the Miller detected the loss of power when a pulse was given to the electric machine and the loss of power was when the power was below the power level before the instant pulse occurred (see, e.g., Miller par. 102).
injecting the secondary fuel flow into the combustor is based the detecting of the loss in power output in the turbine engine. For example Miller taught in the claim 17 analysis teaches introducing a fuel flow (see pars. 102, middle, 107, middle, or 112, middle; fuel flow is increased to accommodate the loss of power) based on a loss in power output (see pars. 102, middle, 107, middle, or 112, middle) of the turbine engine 200.
Regarding claim 19, The combination of Fletcher in view of Davis, Takehara, Miller, Rocco and Moniz teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Fletcher does not disclose “wherein injecting the secondary fuel flow into the combustor only occurs when the detected loss in pressure of the steam flow exists”. This quoted phrase can also be communicated as:
if the detected loss of pressure of the steam flow exists, then,
injecting the secondary fuel flow into the combustor may occur (but does not have to); and
if the detected loss of pressure of the steam flow does not exist, then,
injecting the secondary fuel flow into the combustor does not occur.
The concept of Fletcher is that when there is not sufficient pressure of steam than water injection is used instead of steam injection during start-up, load changes and steady state (i.e. normal) operation as well (see par. 37) and fuel flow and water flow are increased with increasing load (see par. 37) where in the water and fuel flow are provided to the first and secondary combustion zones as discussed in par. 37. Thus scenario (1) is met by the combination. Scenario (2) above is equivalent to omitting the step of injecting the secondary fuel flow when there is no pressure loss of the steam. It is further noted that omission of a step and its function Is obvious if the function of the step is not required (MPEP 2144.04 II.A.). Here Fletcher points out that the water injection and fuel injection may occur at only the primary combustion zone (see pars. 17 and 37). Further Fletcher points out that the secondary injector of Fletcher may be in duct burner 55 (see par. 34, bottom). Thus injecting the secondary fuel flow into the combustor is not required during the detected pressure loss and thus it would have been obvious to omit the step of injecting the secondary fuel flow when there is no pressure loss of the steam.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites “not injecting the secondary fuel flow into the combustor based on a monitored pressure being at or above the predetermined value”. This can also be communicated as:
if the monitored pressure is at or above the predetermined value (and thus there is not a detection of loss of pressure of the steam flow), then,
injecting the secondary fuel flow into the combustor does not occur.
The combination of Fletcher in view of Davis, Takehara, Miller, Rocco and Moniz teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Fletcher does not disclose - - if the monitored pressure is at or above the predetermined value (and thus there is not a detection of loss of pressure of the steam flow), then, injecting the secondary fuel flow into the combustor does not occur - -. It is further noted that omission of a step and its function Is obvious if the function of the step is not required (MPEP 2144.04 II.A.). Here Fletcher points out in par. 39 that fuel and steam may be injected from only the primary injector and thus secondary fuel flow into the combustor is not required. Thus it would have been obvious to omit the step of injecting the secondary fuel flow into the combustor when the monitored pressure is at or above the predetermined value.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered, but a new combination of references were used to reject the claims and therefor the arguments were moot.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC J AMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-9948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571) 272-7118. 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.
/MARC AMAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3741 /DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
1 For example when (1) the Fletcher “rapid” start-up is not needed (see par. 8) or when (2) Fletcher water injection is inoperative (e.g., see US 20100186366 A1 par. 25, bottom).
Prosecution Insights