DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed 6/9/2026 wherein claims 1-19, 21-25, and 27-28 are canceled, and claims 20, 26, and 29-36 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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “combustion section further comprises one or more centerbodies, with at least one centerbody of the one or more centerbodies including a central fuel channel having a set of fuel jets opening into the open interior (Claims 27 and 28) in combination with either “wherein the curvilinear centerline defines a spiral formation at the outlet such that the outlet defines a spiral-shaped opening that opens to the combustion chamber” (Claim 20) or “wherein the curvilinear centerline defines a tortuous-shaped formation at the outlet” (Claim 26) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). In addition, the “combustion section further comprises a set of vortex generators provided along the fuel nozzle body and extending into the open interior” (Claims 29 and 30) in combination with either “wherein the curvilinear centerline defines a spiral formation at the outlet such that the outlet defines a spiral-shaped opening that opens to the combustion chamber” (Claim 20) or “wherein the curvilinear centerline defines a tortuous-shaped formation at the outlet” (Claim 26) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 20, 26, 33, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US 2023/0003387) in view of Myers et al. (US 2024/0288170).
Regarding Independent Claim 20, Nakamura teaches (Figures 1-10) a turbine engine (10) comprising:
a dome wall (annotated below);
a combustor liner (54), wherein the combustor liner (54) and the dome wall together define a combustion chamber (52), the dome wall (annotated below) having a fuel nozzle opening (annotated below); and
a fuel nozzle (100) extending through the fuel nozzle opening (annotated below) of the dome wall (annotated below).
Nakamura does not teach a fuel nozzle body having a centerline and a continuous curvilinear structure bounding an open interior, the open interior opening to the combustion chamber at an outlet, the continuous curvilinear structure terminating at the outlet and having a curvilinear centerline at the outlet; and a set of fuel injection channels provided within the fuel nozzle body and opening into the open interior at a set of fuel injection orifices; and wherein the curvilinear centerline defines a spiral formation at the outlet such that the outlet defines a spiral-shaped opening that opens to the combustion chamber, the spiral formation extending between a first circumferential end and a second circumferential end, wherein the first circumferential end is greater than 2π radians and less than or equal to 20π radians from the second circumferential end.
Myers teaches (Figures 1-23) a turbine engine (1) comprising:
a compression section (2), a combustion section (4), and a turbine section (6) in serial flow arrangement (see Figures 1-2), the combustion section (4) comprising:
a wall (48) at least partially forming a combustion chamber (within 46; see Figure 2), the wall (48) having a fuel nozzle opening (the opening in 48 for the passage of 370; see Figure 15); and
a fuel nozzle (300) extending through the fuel nozzle opening (80), the fuel nozzle (300) comprising:
a fuel nozzle body (320, 370) having a centerline (a central axis through 320; see Figures 14-18) and a continuous curvilinear structure (320; see Figures 14 and 17) bounding an open interior (at 80), the open interior (80) opening to the combustion chamber (within 48) at an outlet (at the side of 320 facing the combustion chamber; see Figures 14-18), the continuous curvilinear structure (320) terminating at the outlet (at the side of 320 facing the combustion chamber; see Figures 14-18) and having a curvilinear centerline at the outlet (see Figures 14-17); and
a set of fuel injection channels (340) provided within the fuel nozzle body (320) and opening into the open interior (80) at a set of fuel injection orifices (the outlet opening of 340; see Figures 14-17); and
wherein the curvilinear centerline (a central axis through 320; see Figures 14-18) defines a spiral formation (see Figures 14 and 17) at the outlet (at the side of 320 facing the combustion chamber) such that the outlet defines a spiral-shaped opening (see Figure 17), the spiral formation (see Figures 14 and 17) extending between a first circumferential end (at 330) and a second circumferential end (at 310), wherein the first circumferential end (at 330) is greater than 2π radians and less than or equal to 20π radians (see Figure 17) from the second circumferential end (at 310).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakamura to have a fuel nozzle body having a centerline and a continuous curvilinear structure bounding an open interior, the open interior opening to the combustion chamber at an outlet, the continuous curvilinear structure terminating at the outlet and having a curvilinear centerline at the outlet; and a set of fuel injection channels provided within the fuel nozzle body and opening into the open interior at a set of fuel injection orifices; and wherein the curvilinear centerline defines a spiral formation at the outlet such that the outlet defines a spiral-shaped opening that opens to the combustion chamber, the spiral formation extending between a first circumferential end and a second circumferential end, wherein the first circumferential end is greater than 2π radians, as taught by Myers, in order to swirl the compressed air without using a vaned swirler and to enhance the mixture of the compressed air and the fuel supplied to the combustor (Paragraph 0055 of Myers). It is additionally noted that a simple substitution of one known element (in this case, the fuel nozzle as taught by Nakamura) for another (in this case, the fuel nozzle as taught by Myers) to obtain predictable results (in this case, provide a fuel/air mixture to the combustion chamber) was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421, 82 USPQ2d at 1396, MPEP 2141 III B.
PNG
media_image1.png
1662
1439
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Independent Claim 26, Nakamura teaches (Figures 1-10) a turbine engine (10) comprising:
a compression section (36), a combustion section (54, 52), and a turbine section (60) in serial flow arrangement (see Figure 1), the combustion section (54, 52) comprising:
a dome wall (annotated above);
a combustor liner (54), wherein the combustor liner (54) and the dome wall together define a combustion chamber (52), the dome wall (annotated above) having a fuel nozzle opening (annotated above); and
a fuel nozzle (100) extending through the fuel nozzle opening (annotated above) of the dome wall (annotated above).
Nakamura does not teach a fuel nozzle body having a centerline and a continuous curvilinear structure bounding an open interior, the open interior opening to the combustion chamber at an outlet, the continuous curvilinear structure terminating at the outlet and having a curvilinear centerline at the outlet; and a set of fuel injection channels provided within the fuel nozzle body and opening into the open interior at a set of fuel injection orifices; and wherein the curvilinear centerline defines a tortuous-shaped formation at the outlet such that the outlet defines a tortuous-shaped opening that opens to the combustion chamber.
Myers teaches (Figures 1-23) a turbine engine (1) comprising:
a compression section (2), a combustion section (4), and a turbine section (6) in serial flow arrangement (see Figures 1-2), the combustion section (4) comprising:
a wall (48) at least partially forming a combustion chamber (within 46; see Figure 2), the wall (48) having a fuel nozzle opening (the opening in 48 for the passage of 370; see Figure 15); and
a fuel nozzle (300) extending through the fuel nozzle opening (80), the fuel nozzle (300) comprising:
a fuel nozzle body (320, 370) having a centerline (a central axis through 320; see Figures 14-18) and a continuous curvilinear structure (320; see Figures 14 and 17) bounding an open interior (at 80), the open interior (80) opening to the combustion chamber (within 48) at an outlet (at the side of 320 facing the combustion chamber; see Figures 14-18), the continuous curvilinear structure (320) terminating at the outlet (at the side of 320 facing the combustion chamber; see Figures 14-18) and having a curvilinear centerline at the outlet (see Figures 14-17); and
a set of fuel injection channels (340) provided within the fuel nozzle body (320) and opening into the open interior (80) at a set of fuel injection orifices (the outlet opening of 340; see Figures 14-17); and
wherein the curvilinear centerline (a central axis through 320; see Figures 14-18) defines a tortuous-shaped formation (see Figures 14 and 17) at the outlet (at the side of 320 facing the combustion chamber) such that the outlet defines a tortuous-shaped opening (see Figure 17) that opens to the combustion chamber (within 48).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakamura to have a fuel nozzle body having a centerline and a continuous curvilinear structure bounding an open interior, the open interior opening to the combustion chamber at an outlet, the continuous curvilinear structure terminating at the outlet and having a curvilinear centerline at the outlet; and a set of fuel injection channels provided within the fuel nozzle body and opening into the open interior at a set of fuel injection orifices; and wherein the curvilinear centerline defines a tortuous-shaped formation at the outlet such that the outlet defines a tortuous-shaped opening that opens to the combustion chamber, as taught by Myers, in order to swirl the compressed air without using a vaned swirler and to enhance the mixture of the compressed air and the fuel supplied to the combustor (Paragraph 0055 of Myers). It is additionally noted that a simple substitution of one known element (in this case, the fuel nozzle as taught by Nakamura) for another (in this case, the fuel nozzle as taught by Myers) to obtain predictable results (in this case, provide a fuel/air mixture to the combustion chamber) was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421, 82 USPQ2d at 1396, MPEP 2141 III B.
Regarding Claim 33, Nakamura in view of Myers teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Nakamura further teaches (Figures 1-10) wherein the combustor liner (annotated above) includes an inner combustor liner and an outer combustor liner (see Figure 1 and Paragraph 0033) to define an annular configuration of the combustion chamber (52; see Paragraph 0033).
Regarding Claim 36, Nakamura in view of Myers teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Nakamura further teaches (Figures 1-10) wherein the combustor liner (annotated above) includes an inner combustor liner and an outer combustor liner (see Figure 1 and Paragraph 0033) to define an annular configuration of the combustion chamber (52; see Paragraph 0033).
Claims 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US 2023/0003387) in view of Myers et al. (US 2024/0288170) as applied to claims 20 and 26 above, and further in view of Boardman et al. (US 11,454,396).
Regarding Claim 29, Nakamura in view of Myers teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Nakamura in view of Myers does not teach wherein the combustion section further comprises a set of vortex generators provided along the fuel nozzle body and extending into the open interior.
Boardman teaches (Figures 1-7C) vortex generators (480, 600, 900; see abstract and Figures 5-7C) provided along a fuel nozzle body (410, 615) and extending into an open interior (the opening within 410; see Figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakamura in view of Myers to have a set of vortex generators provided along the fuel nozzle body and extending into the open interior, as taught by Boardman, in order to generate a vortex pair that accelerates the mixing of air and fuel being injected (see abstract of Boardman).
Regarding Claim 30, Nakamura in view of Myers teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Nakamura in view of Myers does not teach wherein the combustion section further comprises a set of vortex generators provided along the fuel nozzle body and extending into the open interior.
Boardman teaches (Figures 1-7C) vortex generators (480, 600, 900; see abstract and Figures 5-7C) provided along a fuel nozzle body (410, 615) and extending into an open interior (the opening within 410; see Figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakamura in view of Myers to have a set of vortex generators provided along the fuel nozzle body and extending into the open interior, as taught by Boardman, in order to generate a vortex pair that accelerates the mixing of air and fuel being injected (see abstract of Boardman).
Claims 31 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US 2023/0003387) in view of Myers et al. (US 2024/0288170) as applied to claims 20 and 26 above, and further in view of Naik et al. (US 2023/0266009).
Regarding Claim 31, Nakamura in view of Myers teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Nakamura in view of Myers does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the combustion section defines a combustor centerline and wherein the fuel nozzle body defines a fuel nozzle body centerline that is coincident with the centerline of the combustion section.
Naik ‘009 teaches (Figures 1-17) a combustion section (30) defining a combustor centerline (52; see Figure 3) and wherein the fuel nozzle body (70) defines a fuel nozzle body centerline (C; see Figures 6-7) that is coincident with (see Paragraph 0048) the centerline (52) of the combustion section (30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakamura in view of Myers to have the combustion section defines a combustor centerline and wherein the fuel nozzle body defines a fuel nozzle body centerline that is coincident with the centerline of the combustion section, as taught by Naik ‘009, because it has been held that merely rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art - MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C).
Regarding Claim 34, Nakamura in view of Myers teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Nakamura in view of Myers does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the combustion section defines a combustor centerline and wherein the fuel nozzle body defines a fuel nozzle body centerline that is coincident with the centerline of the combustion section.
Naik ‘009 teaches (Figures 1-17) a combustion section (30) defining a combustor centerline (52; see Figure 3) and wherein the fuel nozzle body (70) defines a fuel nozzle body centerline (C; see Figures 6-7) that is coincident with (see Paragraph 0048) the centerline (52) of the combustion section (30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakamura in view of Myers to have the combustion section defines a combustor centerline and wherein the fuel nozzle body defines a fuel nozzle body centerline that is coincident with the centerline of the combustion section, as taught by Naik ‘009, because it has been held that merely rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art - MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C).
Claims 32 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US 2023/0003387) in view of Myers et al. (US 2024/0288170) as applied to claims 20 and 26 above, and further in view of Naik et al. (US 2023/0204215).
Regarding Claim 32, Nakamura in view of Myers teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Nakamura in view of Myers does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the fuel nozzle is the only fuel nozzle within the combustion section.
Naik ‘215 teaches (Paragraph 0046) that a reduction in the number of fuel nozzle assemblies for the combustor leads to a reduction in engine cost, complexity, and weight. Therefore, the number of the fuel nozzles is recognized as a result-effective variables, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that a reduction in the number of fuel nozzles reduces engine cost, complexity, and weight.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the amount of fuel nozzles can be reduced, were disclosed in the prior art by Naik ‘215, 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 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the reduced number of fuel nozzles as taught by Naik ‘215 in order to decrease the cost, complexity, and weight of the engine. It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding Claim 35, Nakamura in view of Myers teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Nakamura in view of Myers does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the fuel nozzle is the only fuel nozzle within the combustion section.
Naik ‘215 teaches (Paragraph 0046) that a reduction in the number of fuel nozzle assemblies for the combustor leads to a reduction in engine cost, complexity, and weight. Therefore, the number of the fuel nozzles is recognized as a result-effective variables, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that a reduction in the number of fuel nozzles reduces engine cost, complexity, and weight.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the amount of fuel nozzles can be reduced, were disclosed in the prior art by Naik ‘215, 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 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the reduced number of fuel nozzles as taught by Naik ‘215 in order to decrease the cost, complexity, and weight of the engine. 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 20, 26, and 29-36 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 above in the body of the rejection.
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