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 .
Claims 1, 3-8 and 21-33 are currently being examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the combustor” should read as – a [[the]] combustor --. Appropriate correction is required.
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 27 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 27 recites “each radial slot extends inward from the radially outer edge a distance that is from 10 percent to 100 percent of the width of the annular ring in the radial direction” but claim 3, upon which claim 27 depends, recites “each radial slot extending inward from the radially outer edge a distance that is less than the width of the annular ring in the radial direction” such that the scope of claim 27 is unclear as to whether each radial slot extends a distance less than the width of the annular ring in the radial direction or extends up to 100 percent of the width of the annular ring in the radial direction which renders claim 27 as indefinite.
Since the scope of what is being claimed in claim 27 cannot be determined, a rejection over the prior art cannot be determined.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 27 recites “each radial slot extends inward from the radially outer edge a distance that is from 10 percent to 100 percent of the width of the annular ring in the radial direction” but claim 3, upon which claim 27 depends, recites “each radial slot extending inward from the radially outer edge a distance that is less than the width of the annular ring in the radial direction” such that claim 27 fails to include all the limitations of claim 3.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 28 and 30-32 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Borns et al. 6792757.
Regarding independent claim 1, Borns discloses a fuel nozzle (31) for a gas turbine engine (col 1 lines 6-8), the fuel nozzle comprising:
a fuel nozzle tip (labeled in annotated Fig. 2) including a distal end (labeled in annotated Fig. 2); and
a heat shield (36 Fig. 2) attached to the distal end of the fuel nozzle tip (36 is attached to distal end via one or more intermediate features such as walls of fuel nozzle 31 and of heat shield 36 as shown in annotated Fig. 2; “attached” is interpreted in light of definition in instant specification [0021]), the heat shield comprising:
an annular ring (as shown in Fig. 4a, 36 is an annular ring) having an axial direction (direction into page in center of 36 perpendicular to radial direction in annotated Fig. 4a), a radial direction (labeled in annotated Fig. 4a), and a circumferential direction (labeled in annotated Fig. 4a), the annular ring including a plurality of circumferential segments (labeled in Fig. 5), each circumferential segment of the plurality of circumferential segments being disconnected from an adjacent circumferential segment of the plurality of circumferential segments (each of the circumferential segments in annotated Fig. 5 are disconnected from each other due to slot 47,48 between the adjacent segments) to allow for thermal growth of each circumferential segment during operation of the combustor (the slot between adjacent circumferential segments allow each circumferential segment to thermally expand, i.e., grow, during operation of combustor 30); and
a plurality of radial slots (as seen in Fig. 5, there are a plurality of radial slots 47,48), adjacent circumferential segments of the plurality of circumferential segments being disconnected from each other by one of the radial slots of the plurality of radial slots (adjacent circumferential segments in annotated Fig. 5 are disconnected from each other by one of the radial slots 47,48).
.
PNG
media_image1.png
716
932
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
814
624
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
665
758
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Borns further discloses the annular ring has a width (labeled in annotated Fig. 5) in the radial direction and includes a radially outer edge (labeled in annotated Fig. 5), each radial slot extending inward from the radially outer edge a distance (labeled in annotated Fig. 5) that is less than the width of the annular ring in the radial direction (distance is less than width in radial direction as shown in annotated Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image4.png
665
758
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Borns further discloses the annular ring includes an inner ring portion (labeled in annotated Fig. 5), the inner ring portion being an inner portion of the annular ring (inner ring portion is an inner portion of annular ring of heat shield 36) that is free from the plurality of radial slots (inner portion of annular ring is free of plurality of slots 47,48 in annotated Fig. 5), each circumferential segment of the plurality of circumferential segments extending radially outward from the inner ring portion (each circumferential segment extends radially outward from the inner ring portion in annotated Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image5.png
665
758
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 28, Borns further discloses each radial slot has a width in the circumferential direction (a width in the circumferential direction of radial slot 47, 48), the width in the circumferential direction being fifty mils to two hundred mils (per col 7 lines 37-45, 48 of radial slot 47,48 may have a diameter, i.e., width in the circumferential direction, of 0.045-0.060 inches, i.e., 45-60 mils with 50-60 mils in the claimed range of 50-200 mils).
Regarding claim 30, Borns further discloses the annular ring includes an inner ring portion (labeled in annotated Fig. 5), and wherein each circumferential segment of the plurality of circumferential segments extends radially outward from the inner ring portion (each circumferential segment extends radially outward from the inner ring portion in annotated Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 31, Borns further discloses the inner ring portion is an inner portion of the annular ring (inner ring portion is an inner portion of annular ring of heat shield 36) that is free from the plurality of radial slots (inner portion of annular ring is free of plurality of slots 47,48 in annotated Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 32, Borns further discloses the inner ring portion includes an inner wall (42 in Figs. 2 and 5), the inner wall being attached to the fuel nozzle tip (42 is attached via intermediate wall of fuel nozzle tip as shown in annotated Fig. 2).
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.
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) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borns et al. 6792757.
Regarding claim 29, Borns discloses each radial slot has a width in the circumferential direction (a width in the circumferential direction of radial slot 47, 48), but does not explicitly disclose the width in the circumferential direction being eighty-five mils to one hundred seventy- five mils.
Borns teaches high hoop stresses usually result from steep thermal gradients in both the radial and the "thru-the-wall" directions of the heat shield, particularly during transient thermal cycling occurring during engine power changes per col 1 lines 19-22. The diameter of heat shield 36 may vary depending on engine configuration per col 6 lines 3-13. The radial slot 47,48 is for alleviating hoop stress of the heat shield and the shape and diameter of 48 are for reducing concentrated stresses at the inward end of 47. Therefore, the width in the circumferential direction of radial slot 47,48 is a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result, which in this case is alleviating hoop stress of the heat shield and reducing concentrated stresses at the inward end of the radial slot. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)
Therefore since the general conditions of the claim, i.e., each radial slot of the heat shield has a width in the circumferential direction, were disclosed in the prior art by Borns, it is not inventive to discover the optimum width in the circumferential direction of each radial slot by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the width in the circumferential direction to be eighty-five mils to one hundred seventy- five mils as claimed in order to reduce hoop stress and reduce concentrated stresses at the inward end of the radial slot. 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(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borns et al. 6792757 in view of Stevenson 20200102888.
Regarding claim 33, Borns discloses the fuel nozzle tip includes a housing (labeled in annotated Fig. 2) having a wall section (labeled in annotated Fig. 2) circumscribing a chamber (labeled in annotated Fig. 2; wall section circumscribes chamber in annotated Fig. 2), and wherein the inner wall forms a portion of the wall section (42 forms portion of wall section in annotated Fig. 2).
Borns discloses air is passed into a carburetor and a fuel injector for injecting fuel in the carburetor which mixes the fuel and air to pass through fuel nozzle 31 to combustor 30 in Fig. 2 although the carburetor and fuel injector are not shown in Fig. 2 or other figures, and Borns is silent regarding the housing is a pilot housing and the chamber is a pilot chamber.
PNG
media_image6.png
716
932
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Stevenson teaches gas turbine engines use lean burn fuel spray nozzles to reduce undesirable emissions whilst still maintaining good thermal efficiency per [0003]. Lean burn fuel spray nozzles include a pilot burner and a main burner and the pilot burner burns a rich burn of a fuel and air mixture while the main burner burns a mixture with a higher air to fuel ratio, i.e., lean burn, and the pilot supply is always flowing and never completely off and the engine is started on 100% pilot and remains in this condition until idle is achieved while at other operation conditions, such as at cruise condition, a lower ratio of pilot to main fuel split is typically used per [0004]-[0005].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the carburetor/fuel injector of Borns to include a pilot burner and a main burner so that the pilot burner may be used at all times and especially for operating conditions requiring a rich burn such as for starting. As modified in view of Stevenson, the housing of Borns in annotated Fig. 2 is a pilot housing since fuel nozzle 31 includes a pilot burner in addition to a main burner, and accordingly the chamber is a pilot chamber.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5-8 and 21-26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Borns does not disclose or teach the limitations of claim 5 and it would not be obvious to modify a hot side of the distal end of the fuel nozzle tip of fuel nozzle 31 shown in Figs. 1-2 to have the distal end of the fuel nozzle tip include a plurality of projections with each projection extending into a corresponding one of the radial slots.
Claims 6-8 and 21-26 are dependent directly or indirectly upon claim 5 and therefore inherit the allowable subject matter of claim 5 and would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 9 of Remarks regarding amended claim 1, Applicant argues Borns does not teach or suggest a fuel nozzle for a gas turbine engine and a heat shield attached to the distal end of the fuel nozzle tip because the fuel nozzle 31 in Borns is a separate component from heat shield 36 with no teaching or suggestion that the heat shield 36 is attached to fuel nozzle 31 or to a distal end thereof. However, as shown in the current 102 rejection of amended claim 1 over Borns, Borns does disclose heat shield 36 is attached to distal end of fuel nozzle tip via one or more intermediate features such as walls of fuel nozzle 31 and of heat shield 36 as shown in annotated Fig. 2; “attached” is interpreted in light of definition in instant specification [0021]: “The terms “coupled,” “fixed,” “attached,” “connected,” and the like, refer to both direct coupling, fixing, attaching, or connecting, as well as, indirect coupling, fixing, attaching, or connecting through one or more intermediate components or features, unless otherwise specified herein.”
Applicant does not argue the dependent claims.
PNG
media_image1.png
716
932
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 ALYSON JOAN HARRINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2359. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at (571) 270-5426. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.J.H./ /GERALD L SUNG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741 Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights