DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the Amendment filed 11/21/2025 wherein claim 2, 5, and 15 are canceled, claims 6, 11-12, and 17 are withdrawn, and claims 1, 3-4, 7-10, 13-14, 16, and 18-22 are presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 3, 4, 10, 14, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sturgess (US 3,866,413) in view of Patel et al. (US 2012/0151928) and Varatharajan et al. (US 2008/0083224).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Sturgess teaches (Figures 1-5) a turbine engine (see abstract) comprising:
a compressor section, a combustion section, and a turbine section in serial fluid arrangement (the engine being a gas turbine engine; see abstract. It is noted that a compressor, combustor and turbine being in serial fluid arrangement is a conventional arrangement in gas turbine engines), the combustion section (see Figure 1) comprising:
a combustion liner (5) and a dome wall (37) collectively forming at least a portion of a combustion chamber (6), with the dome wall (37) having an opening (the opening within 38); and
a fuel supply assembly (8, 20, 1; see Figure 1) coupled to and extending through (see Figure 1) the opening (the opening within 38), the fuel supply assembly (8, 20, 1) comprising:
a fuel nozzle (at 15) extending along a centerline axis (annotated below) and defining a first fuel/air circuit (fuel through 12 and air through 14; see Figure 1) opening at a first fuel outlet (the downstream end of 15; see Figure 1);
a series of air injectors (at 14, 25, 31) including a first air supply conduit (through 14), a second air supply conduit (through 25), and a third air supply conduit (through 31), surrounding the fuel nozzle (15); and
a first fuel injector (17) radially spaced from the fuel nozzle (15) and interspersed with the series of air injectors (25, 31) to define a second fuel/air circuit (fuel through 17 and air through 25; see Figure 1) opening at a second fuel outlet (within 35; see Figure 1);
a second fuel injector (23) radially spaced from (see Figure 1) the first fuel injector (17) and interspersed with the series of air injectors (25, 31) to define a third fuel/air circuit (fuel through 23 and air through 31), the second fuel injector (23) opening at a third fuel outlet (within 32; see Figure 1) radially spaced from the second fuel outlet (within 35; see Figure 1),
a set of flame shaping openings (39, 41) extending through the dome wall (37);
wherein the third air supply conduit (through 31) is radially spaced between (see Figure 1) the second fuel injector (23) and the set of flame shaping openings (39, 41).
Sturgess does not teach that a swirler positioned within the fuel nozzle upstream of the first fuel outlet to define a swirled flow of fuel, the swirled flow of fuel exhausted from the first fuel outlet into the combustion chamber, a first equivalence ratio of the first fuel/air circuit is greater than a second equivalence ratio of the second fuel/air circuit, the first equivalence ratio being in a range of 0.5 to 2, and a third equivalence ratio of the third fuel/air circuit is less than the second equivalence ratio, the second equivalence ratio and the third equivalence ratio being in a range of 0.5 to 0.9.
Patel teaches (Figures 1-8) a swirler (136) positioned within a fuel nozzle (61) upstream of a first fuel outlet (at 166) to define a swirled flow of fuel (see Paragraph 0034), the swirled flow of fuel (from 136) exhausted from the first fuel outlet (at 166) into the combustion chamber (18).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sturgess to have a swirler positioned within the fuel nozzle upstream of the first fuel outlet to define a swirled flow of fuel, the swirled flow of fuel exhausted from the first fuel outlet into the combustion chamber, as taught by Patel, in order to pre-film a conical primary exit orifice to improve atomization of the fuel (Paragraph 0034 of Patel).
Sturgess in view of Patel does not teach that a first equivalence ratio of the first fuel/air circuit is greater than a second equivalence ratio of the second fuel/air circuit, the first equivalence ratio being in a range of 0.5 to 2, and a third equivalence ratio of the third fuel/air circuit is less than the second equivalence ratio, the second equivalence ratio and the third equivalence ratio being in a range of 0.5 to 0.9.
Varatharajan teaches (Figures 1-3) a turbine engine (10) comprising: a compressor section (12), a combustion section (14), and a turbine section (16) in serial fluid arrangement (see Figure 1), the combustion section (14) comprising: a fuel supply assembly (28, 18) having a first fuel/air circuit (36, 38), a second fuel/air circuit (42, 44), and a third fuel/air circuit (50, 52), wherein each fuel/air circuit can be operated at a different air-to-fuel ratio (see Paragraph 0024) and by selectively feeding fuel to one or more of the fuel stages allows for desired emissions and turndown capability to be obtained (Paragraph 0025). Therefore, the equivalence ratios (i.e., the ratio of fuel to air) within each fuel/air circuit are recognized as result-effective variables, i.e. variables which achieve 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 modifying the ratio of fuel to air in the fuel/air circuits may lower the propensity of nitrous oxide formation and allow for desired emissions and turndown capability to be achieved.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the ratios of fuel to air can be adjusted to achieve desired emissions, were disclosed in the prior art by Varatharajan, 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 ratios of air to fuel as taught by Varatharajan in order to lower nitrous oxide formation to obtain desired emissions and turndown capability. 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). It is additionally noted that the actions of the fluid are intended use recitations – “inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims” (MPEP 2115 [R-2]). In this case, the fuel and air are considered the material or article worked upon and does not impart patentability to the claims.
PNG
media_image1.png
662
847
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Sturgess in view of Patel and Varatharajan teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Sturgess further teaches (Figures 1-5) wherein the first fuel injector (17) and the second fuel injector (23) are part of a set of fuel injectors (see Figures 1-2) interspersed with the series of air injectors (25, 31) to define a series of fuel/air circuits (fuel from a respective opening at 17 or 23 and air from a respective opening at 25 or 31; see Figures 1-2).
Regarding Claim 4, Sturgess in view of Patel and Varatharajan teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Sturgess in view of Patel and Varatharajan does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the equivalence ratio for each fuel/air circuit in the series of fuel/air circuits sequentially decreases.
Varatharajan teaches (Figures 1-3) a fuel supply assembly (28, 18) having a first fuel/air circuit (36, 38), a second fuel/air circuit (42, 44), and a third fuel/air circuit (50, 52), wherein each fuel/air circuit can be operated at a different air-to-fuel ratio (see Paragraph 0024) and by selectively feeding fuel to one or more of the fuel stages allows for desired emissions and turndown capability to be obtained (Paragraph 0025). Therefore, the equivalence ratios (i.e., the ratio of fuel to air) within each fuel/air circuit are recognized as result-effective variables, i.e. variables which achieve 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 modifying the ratio of fuel to air in the fuel/air circuits may lower the propensity of nitrous oxide formation and allow for desired emissions and turndown capability to be achieved.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the ratios of fuel to air can be adjusted to achieve desired emissions, were disclosed in the prior art by Varatharajan, 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 ratios of air to fuel as taught by Varatharajan in order to lower nitrous oxide formation to obtain desired emissions and turndown capability. 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).
It is additionally noted that the actions of the fluid are intended use recitations – “inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims” (MPEP 2115 [R-2]). In this case, the fuel and air are considered the material or article worked upon and does not impart patentability to the claims.
Regarding Claim 10, Sturgess in view of Patel and Varatharajan teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Sturgess further teaches (Figures 1-5) wherein the fuel nozzle (at 15) comprises a tapered end (at 24; see Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 14, Sturgess in view of Patel and Varatharajan teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Sturgess further teaches (Figures 1-5) wherein the series of air injectors (25, 31) include at least one swirler (see Figure 1 and Column 3, lines 16-51).
Regarding Claim 16, Sturgess in view of Patel and Varatharajan teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Sturgess further teaches (Figures 1-5) wherein an outlet associated with each of the fuel nozzle (the downstream end of 15), the series of air injectors (the downstream end of 25 and the downstream end of 31), and the first fuel injector (the downstream end of 17) are axially unaligned (see Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 20, Sturgess in view of Patel and Varatharajan teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Sturgess further teaches (Figures 1-5) first and second flow structures (the downstream end of 15 and the downstream end of 18 or 32) angled outward away from the centerline axis (annotated above) to define a diffuser fuel staging assembly (see Figure 1).
Claims 1, 14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tentorio et al. (US 2019/0170355) in view of Kobayashi et al. (US 2008/0173019), Varatharajan et al. (US 2008/0083224) and either Vukanti (US 2023/0213191) or Sturgess (US 3,866,413).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Tentorio teaches (Figures 1-7) a turbine engine (10) comprising:
a compressor section (13, 14), a combustion section (15), and a turbine section (17, 18) in serial fluid arrangement (see Figure 1), the combustion section (15) comprising:
a combustion liner (32, 34) and a dome wall (36) collectively forming at least a portion of a combustion chamber (within 32, 34, 36; see Figure 2), with the dome wall (36) having an opening (38); and
a fuel supply assembly (46, 44) coupled to and extending through (see Figure 2) the opening (38), the fuel supply assembly (46, 44) comprising:
a fuel nozzle (76) extending along a centerline axis (Y) and defining a first fuel/air circuit (fuel from 62 to 60B and air from 60 to 60B; see Figures 3-7) opening at a first fuel outlet (downstream of 84; see Figures 3-7);
a series of air injectors (88, 100, 104) including a first air supply conduit (88), a second air supply conduit (100), and a third air supply conduit (104), surrounding the fuel nozzle (76); and
a first fuel injector (62, 62B to duct 64; see Figures 4-7) radially spaced from the fuel nozzle (76) and interspersed with the series of air injectors (88, 100, 104) to define a second fuel/air circuit (fuel through from 62b and air through 88; see Figures 3-7) opening at a second fuel outlet (the outlet of 64A; see Figures 3-7);
a second fuel injector (70) radially spaced from (see Figure 3) the first fuel injector (62, 62b) and interspersed with the series of air injectors (88, 100, 104) to define a third fuel/air circuit (fuel through 70 and air through 100), the second fuel injector (70) opening at a third fuel outlet (at 70A; see Figure 3) radially spaced from the second fuel outlet (the outlet of 64A; see Figure 3); and
wherein the third air supply conduit (104) is radially spaced between (see Figures 2-3) the second fuel injector (70) and the dome wall (36).
Tentorio does not teach a swirler positioned within the fuel nozzle upstream of the first fuel outlet to define a swirled flow of fuel, the swirled flow of fuel exhausted from the first fuel outlet into the combustion chamber, a set of flame shaping openings extending through the dome wall or that a first equivalence ratio of the first fuel/air circuit is greater than a second equivalence ratio of the second fuel/air circuit, the first equivalence ratio being in a range of 0.5 to 2, and a third equivalence ratio of the third fuel/air circuit is less than the second equivalence ratio, the second equivalence ratio and the third equivalence ratio being in a range of 0.5 to 0.9.
Kobayashi teaches (Figures 1-13) a swirler (44) positioned within a fuel nozzle (38A, 38B) upstream of a first fuel outlet (42) to define a swirled flow of fuel (see Figures 12-13 and Paragraph 0100), the swirled flow of fuel (F) exhausted from the first fuel outlet (at the exit of 42; see Figures 12-13) into the combustion chamber (3a).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tentorio to have a swirler positioned within the fuel nozzle upstream of the first fuel outlet to define a swirled flow of fuel, the swirled flow of fuel exhausted from the first fuel outlet into the combustion chamber, as taught by Kobayashi, in order to cause the fuel to swirl and be injected through a fuel injection port into the combustion chamber (Paragraph 0100 of Kobayashi). Tentorio in view of Kobayashi does not teach a set of flame shaping openings extending through the dome wall or that a first equivalence ratio of the first fuel/air circuit is greater than a second equivalence ratio of the second fuel/air circuit, the first equivalence ratio being in a range of 0.5 to 2, and a third equivalence ratio of the third fuel/air circuit is less than the second equivalence ratio, the second equivalence ratio and the third equivalence ratio being in a range of 0.5 to 0.9.
Varatharajan teaches (Figures 1-3) a turbine engine (10) comprising: a compressor section (12), a combustion section (14), and a turbine section (16) in serial fluid arrangement (see Figure 1), the combustion section (14) comprising: a fuel supply assembly (28, 18) having a first fuel/air circuit (36, 38), a second fuel/air circuit (42, 44), and a third fuel/air circuit (50, 52), wherein each fuel/air circuit can be operated at a different air-to-fuel ratio (see Paragraph 0024) and by selectively feeding fuel to one or more of the fuel stages allows for desired emissions and turndown capability to be obtained (Paragraph 0025). Therefore, the equivalence ratios (i.e., the ratio of fuel to air) within each fuel/air circuit are recognized as result-effective variables, i.e. variables which achieve 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 modifying the ratio of fuel to air in the fuel/air circuits may lower the propensity of nitrous oxide formation and allow for desired emissions and turndown capability to be achieved.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the ratios of fuel to air can be adjusted to achieve desired emissions, were disclosed in the prior art by Varatharajan, 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 ratios of air to fuel as taught by Varatharajan in order to lower nitrous oxide formation to obtain desired emissions and turndown capability. 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).
It is additionally noted that the actions of the fluid are intended use recitations – “inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims” (MPEP 2115 [R-2]). In this case, the fuel and air are considered the material or article worked upon and does not impart patentability to the claims.
Tentorio in view of Kobayashi and Varatharajan does not teach a set of flame shaping openings extending through the dome wall.
Vukanti teaches (Figures 1-21) a combustor (80) of a turbine engine (10) having a dome wall (90, 190, 290, 390) including a set of flame shaping openings (92, 192, 292, 392; see Paragraph 0085) extending through the dome wall (37) and Sturgess teaches (Figures 1-5) a set of flame shaping openings (39, 41) extending through the dome wall (37), wherein the third air supply conduit (through 31) is radially spaced between (see Figure 1) the second fuel injector (23) and the set of flame shaping openings (41).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tentorio in view of Kobayashi and Varatharajan to have a set of flame shaping openings extending through the dome wall, as taught by Vukanti or Sturgess, in order to shape the flame and prevent high temperature on the combustor liner (Paragraph 0085 of Vukanti) and to produce a circumferentially uniform discharge temperature to give a long life to the turbine entry guide vanes (Column 5, lines 34-62 of Sturgess).
Regarding Claim 14, Tentorio in view of Kobayashi, Varatharajan and either Vukanti or Sturgess teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Tentorio further teaches (Figures 1-7) wherein the series of air injectors (88, 100, 104) include at least one swirler (see Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 18, Tentorio in view of Kobayashi, Varatharajan and either Vukanti or Sturgess teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Tentorio further teaches (Figures 1-7) further comprising first flow structures (78, 92) angled inward (see Figures 3-7) toward the centerline axis (Y) and second flow structures (102, 94B) angled outward (see Figures 3-7) away from the centerline axis (Y) to define a variable fuel staging assembly (see Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 19, Tentorio in view of Kobayashi, Varatharajan and either Vukanti or Sturgess teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Tentorio further teaches (Figures 1-7) first and second flow structures (78, 92) angled inward (see Figures 3-7) away from the centerline axis (Y) to define a nozzle fuel staging assembly (see Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 20, Tentorio in view of Kobayashi, Varatharajan and either Vukanti or Sturgess teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Tentorio further teaches (Figures 1-7) first and second flow structures (102, 94B) angled outward (see Figure 3) away from the centerline axis (Y) to define a diffuser fuel staging assembly (see Figure 3).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tentorio et al. (US 2019/0170355) in view of Kobayashi et al. (US 2008/0173019), Varatharajan et al. (US 2008/0083224) and either Vukanti (US 2023/0213191) or Sturgess (US 3,866,413) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Matsuyama et al. (US 2012/0305673).
Regarding Claim 7, Tentorio in view of Kobayashi, Varatharajan, and either Vukanti or Sturgess teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Tentorio further teaches (Figures 1-7) wherein the fuel nozzle (76) further comprises a first air supply conduit (81) terminating in a first air outlet (the downstream end of 60B), and extending along the centerline axis (Y) and a first fuel supply conduit (62) circumscribing the first air supply conduit (81) and terminating in a first fuel outlet (downstream of 84; see Figures 4 and 6-7) about the first air outlet (the downstream end of 60B) to define the first fuel/air circuit (fuel from 62 to 60B and air from 60 to 60B; see Figures 3-7). Tentorio in view of Kobayashi, Varatharajan, and either Vukanti or Sturgess does not teach that the first fuel supply conduit circumscribes the first air supply conduit.
Matsuyama teaches (Figures 1-11) that his pilot fuel channel (22) is annular (see Figure 2 and Paragraph 0041), which circumscribes a first air supply conduit (20; 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 Tentorio in view of Kobayashi, Varatharajan, and either Vukanti or Sturgess to have the fuel supply conduits extend annularly about the centerline axis, as taught by Matsuyama, in order to communicate a fuel supply system with a downstream portion of the tubular body of the fuel nozzle (Paragraph 0041 of Matsuyama). It is additionally noted that applicant has not disclosed that having the fuel supply conduits being annular solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with either the fuel supply conduit as taught by Tentorio or the fuel supply conduit as taught by Matsuyama.
Regarding Claim 8, Tentorio in view of Kobayashi, Varatharajan, and either Vukanti or Sturgess and Matsuyama teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Tentorio further teaches (Figures 1-7) wherein the first fuel injector (62, 62B to duct 64; see Figures 4-7) comprises a second fuel supply conduit (62B) terminating in a second fuel outlet (downstream of 90B; see Figure 7).
Regarding Claim 9, Tentorio in view of Kobayashi, Varatharajan, and either Vukanti or Sturgess and Matsuyama teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Tentorio further teaches (Figures 1-7) wherein the series of air injectors (88, 100, 104) are concentrically arranged (see Figures 3 and 5) about the fuel nozzle (76) and include a second air supply conduit (88) terminating in a second air outlet (the downstream end of 64A), the second fuel outlet (downstream of 90B; see Figures 3 and 7) and the second air outlet (the downstream end of 64A) together defining the second fuel/air circuit (fuel through from 62b and air through 88; see Figures 3-7).
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tentorio et al. (US 2019/0170355) in view of Kobayashi et al. (US 2008/0173019), Matsuyama et al. (US 2012/0305673), Varatharajan et al. (US 2008/0083224), and either Vukanti (US 2023/0213191) or Sturgess (US 3,866,413).
Regarding Independent Claim 21, Tentorio teaches (Figures 1-7) a turbine engine (10) comprising:
a compressor section (13, 14), a combustion section (15), and a turbine section (17, 18) in serial fluid arrangement (see Figure 1), the combustion section (15) comprising:
a combustion liner (32, 34) and a dome wall (36) collectively forming at least a portion of a combustion chamber (within 32, 34, 36; see Figure 2), with the dome wall (36) having an opening (38); and
a fuel supply assembly (46, 44) coupled to and extending through (see Figure 2) the opening (38), the fuel supply assembly (46, 44) comprising:
a fuel nozzle (76) extending along a centerline axis (Y) and defining a first fuel/air circuit (fuel from 62 to 60B and air from 60 to 60B; see Figures 3-7), the fuel nozzle (76) including a first fuel supply conduit (62) extends about the centerline axis (Y) and terminating at a first fuel outlet (downstream of 84);
a set of walls (78, 96) defining a set of fuel injectors (62B to 90B and 70 to 70A) and a series of air injectors (88, 100, 104) including a first air supply conduit (88), a second air supply conduit (100), and a third air supply conduit (104), surrounding the fuel nozzle (76) , the set of walls (78, 96) terminating in a first angled flow structure (78) and a second angled flow structure (102);
a first fuel injector (62, 62B to duct 64; see Figures 4-7) radially spaced from the fuel nozzle (76) and extends about the centerline axis (Y), the first fuel injector (62, 62B to duct 64) having a second fuel supply conduit (62B) parallel to the centerline axis (Y) and a second fuel outlet (downstream of 90B; see Figures 4-7 and Paragraphs 0103-0104) located at the first angled flow structure (78), the first fuel injector (62, 62B to duct 64; see Figures 4-7) interspersed with the series of air injectors (88, 100, 104) to define a second fuel/air circuit (fuel through from 62b and air through 88; see Figures 3-7); and
a second fuel injector (70 to 70A) of the set of fuel injectors (62B to 90B and 70 to 70A) radially spaced between (see Figure 3) the first fuel injector (62, 62b) and the dome wall (36; see Figures 2-3), the second fuel injector (70 to 70A) having a third fuel supply conduit (at 70) parallel to (see Figure 3) the centerline axis (Y) and a third fuel outlet (the downstream end of 70) located at the second angled flow structure (102; see Figure 3),
wherein the third air supply conduit (104) is radially spaced between (see Figures 2-3) the second fuel injector (70) and the dome wall (36).
Tentorio does not teach a swirler positioned within the fuel nozzle upstream of the first fuel outlet to define a swirled flow of fuel, the swirled flow of fuel exhausted from the first fuel outlet into the combustion chamber, a set of flame shaping openings extending through the dome wall or that the first fuel supply conduit and second fuel supply conduit are annular or a first equivalence ratio of the first fuel/air circuit is greater than a second equivalence ratio of the second fuel/air circuit.
Kobayashi teaches (Figures 1-13) a swirler (44) positioned within a fuel nozzle (38A, 38B) upstream of a first fuel outlet (42) to define a swirled flow of fuel (see Figures 12-13 and Paragraph 0100), the swirled flow of fuel (F) exhausted from the first fuel outlet (at the exit of 42; see Figures 12-13) into the combustion chamber (3a).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tentorio to have a swirler positioned within the fuel nozzle upstream of the first fuel outlet to define a swirled flow of fuel, the swirled flow of fuel exhausted from the first fuel outlet into the combustion chamber, as taught by Kobayashi, in order to cause the fuel to swirl and be injected through a fuel injection port into the combustion chamber (Paragraph 0100 of Kobayashi). Tentorio in view of Kobayashi does not teach a set of flame shaping openings extending through the dome wall or that the first fuel supply conduit and second fuel supply conduit are annular or a first equivalence ratio of the first fuel/air circuit is greater than a second equivalence ratio of the second fuel/air circuit.
Matsuyama teaches (Figures 1-11) that his pilot fuel channel (22) is annular (see Figure 2 and Paragraph 0041), which circumscribes a first air supply conduit (20; see Figure 2) and his main fuel channel (40) is annular (see Figure 2 and Paragraph 0052) about a centerline axis (C1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tentorio in view of Kobayashi to have the fuel supply conduits extend annularly about the centerline axis, as taught by Matsuyama, in order to communicate a fuel supply system with a downstream portion of the tubular body of the fuel nozzle (Paragraph 0041 of Matsuyama). It is additionally noted that applicant has not disclosed that having the fuel supply conduits being annular solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with either the fuel supply conduit as taught by Tentorio or the fuel supply conduit as taught by Matsuyama. Tentorio in view of Kobayashi and Matsuyama does not teach a set of flame shaping openings extending through the dome wall or that a first equivalence ratio of the first fuel/air circuit is greater than a second equivalence ratio of the second fuel/air circuit.
Varatharajan teaches (Figures 1-3) a turbine engine (10) comprising: a compressor section (12), a combustion section (14), and a turbine section (16) in serial fluid arrangement (see Figure 1), the combustion section (14) comprising: a fuel supply assembly (28, 18) having a first fuel/air circuit (36, 38), a second fuel/air circuit (42, 44), and a third fuel/air circuit (50, 52), wherein each fuel/air circuit can be operated at a different air-to-fuel ratio (see Paragraph 0024) and by selectively feeding fuel to one or more of the fuel stages allows for desired emissions and turndown capability to be obtained (Paragraph 0025). Therefore, the equivalence ratios (i.e., the ratio of fuel to air) within each fuel/air circuit are recognized as result-effective variables, i.e. variables which achieve 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 modifying the ratio of fuel to air in the fuel/air circuits may lower the propensity of nitrous oxide formation and allow for desired emissions and turndown capability to be achieved.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the ratios of fuel to air can be adjusted to achieve desired emissions, were disclosed in the prior art by Varatharajan, 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 ratios of air to fuel as taught by Varatharajan in order to lower nitrous oxide formation to obtain desired emissions and turndown capability. 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). It is additionally noted that the actions of the fluid are intended use recitations – “inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims” (MPEP 2115 [R-2]). In this case, the fuel and air are considered the material or article worked upon and does not impart patentability to the claims. Tentorio in view of Kobayashi, Matsuyama, and Varatharajan does not teach a set of flame shaping openings extending through the dome wall.
Vukanti teaches (Figures 1-21) a combustor (80) of a turbine engine (10) having a dome wall (90, 190, 290, 390) including a set of flame shaping openings (92, 192, 292, 392; see Paragraph 0085) extending through the dome wall (37) and Sturgess teaches (Figures 1-5) a set of flame shaping openings (39, 41) extending through the dome wall (37), wherein the third air supply conduit (through 31) is radially spaced between (see Figure 1) the second fuel injector (23) and the set of flame shaping openings (41).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tentorio in view of Kobayashi, Matsuyama, and Varatharajan to have a set of flame shaping openings extending through the dome wall, as taught by Vukanti or Sturgess, in order to shape the flame and prevent high temperature on the combustor liner (Paragraph 0085 of Vukanti) and to produce a circumferentially uniform discharge temperature to give a long life to the turbine entry guide vanes (Column 5, lines 34-62 of Sturgess).
Regarding Claim 22, Tentorio in view of Kobayashi, Matsuyama, Varatharajan, and either Vukanti or Sturgess teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Tentorio further teaches (Figures 1-7) wherein the first fuel injector (62, 62B to duct 64; see Figures 4-7) and the second fuel injector (70 to 70A) are part of a set of fuel injectors (62B to 90B and 70 to 70A) interspersed with the series of air injectors (88, 100, 104) to define a series of fuel/air circuits (see Figure 3).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tentorio et al. (US 2019/0170355) in view of Kobayashi et al. (US 2008/0173019), Varatharajan et al. (US 2008/0083224) and either Vukanti (US 2023/0213191) or Sturgess (US 3,866,413) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Patel et al. (US 2016/0265778).
Regarding Claim 13, Tentorio in view of Kobayashi, Varatharajan, and either Vukanti or Sturgess teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Tentorio appears to schematically show in Figure 3, but does not discuss that the fuel supply assembly comprises a monolithic body.
Patel teaches (Figures 1-5) a fuel supply assembly (10; see Figure 1) comprises a monolithic body (Paragraph 0057 of Patel).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tentorio in view of Kobayashi, Varatharajan, and either Vukanti or Sturgess to have the fuel supply assembly comprise a monolithic body, as taught by Patel, 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 with respect to claims 1, 3-4, 7-10, 13-14, 16, and 18-22 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references being applied in this office action, necessitated by amendment. However, to the extent possible, Applicant’s arguments have been addressed in the body of the rejection above, at the appropriate locations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS P BURKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5407. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached on (571) 270-5426. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format.
For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THOMAS P BURKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights