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 .
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 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 § 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.
Claims 4, 13, and 21-22 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, setting the maximum value of the range for the second axial distance to be greater than 100% contradicts the limitations of claim 1 requiring the fuel injection orifice to be provided along the leading edge, along the trailing edge, or between the leading edge and the trailing edge.
Regarding claim 13, reciting vortex generator options including wheeler, wing, winglet, kuethe, wishbone, hairpin, lobed, and wave-type contradict the requirements of claim 1 regarding the leading edge, trailing edge, foot, and apex.
Regarding claim 21, reciting the centerline as extending between the apex and “a point along the premixer body between the opposing sidewalls” is unclear as to whether the point is contained within the vortex generator (so as to by between the sidewalls) or whether the point may be outside the vortex generator but circumferentially between the opposing sidewalls. In the latter case, it is still further unclear how to interpret the case where the opposing sidewalls merge or come into contact (e.g. at the trailing edge).
Dependent claim 22 is also rejected for depending on at least one rejected claim above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sattelmayer 5626017.
Regarding claim 17, Sattelmayer teaches a fuel nozzle (e.g. section 1 or Zone 7) for a turbine engine (Fig 1 incl. turbine 14) comprising a compressor section (18), combustion section (incl.1, 2), and turbine section (14) in serial flow arrangement (Fig 1), the fuel nozzle comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
422
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a premixer body (defining zone 7) having a premixer centerline (dash-dot line pointed out in Fig 1 above) and defining a primary flow path (through 7);
a vortex generator (200) extending into the primary flow path (Fig 1), the vortex generator comprising a leading edge (along 210), a trailing edge (along 216), a foot (connecting to 6), and an apex (218), wherein the foot is defined where the leading edge meets the premixer body (at 215),
wherein the apex is defined where the trailing edge meets the leading edge (Fig 6), and
wherein the apex is provided radially closest to the premixer centerline (Fig 1), and the foot is provided radially farthest from the premixer centerline (Figs 1 and 6); and
a fuel injection orifice (any of 221, 225, 226, 227) provided along the premixer body and opening into the primary flow path (Figs 10-16),
the fuel injection orifice being provided along the vortex generator (Figs 10-16),
wherein the fuel injection orifice is provided along the leading edge, provided along the trailing edge, or provided between the leading edge and the trailing edge (Figs 10-16).
Regarding claim 20, Sattelmayer teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Sattelmayer further teaches he fuel injection orifice is included within a plurality of fuel injection orifices provided along the leading edge, the trailing edge, between the leading edge and the trailing edge, downstream of the vortex generator, or a combination thereof (Figs 10-16).
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 10-11, 13-14, 16-17, and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang CN113137631A in view of Johnson 11773782.
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches a fuel nozzle (incl. 52, 53, 40, 60; Fig 3) for a turbine engine ([n0001]) comprising an air source (required to supply air to 10; [n0065, 81]), a combustion section (Fig 3), and turbine section (required by turbine engine [n0001]) in serial flow arrangement ([n0069]), the fuel nozzle being provided within the combustion section (Fig 3) and comprising:
PNG
media_image2.png
594
636
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a premixer body (from 52 to 53, and including 53) having a premixer centerline (dash-dot line in Fig 3 above), the premixer body defining a primary flow path (from 51 to 53);
a vortex generator (60) extending into the primary flow path (Fig 3), the vortex generator comprising a leading edge (61), a trailing edge (62), a foot (Fig 6 below), and an apex (Fig 6 below),
PNG
media_image3.png
472
450
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein the foot is defined where the leading edge meets the premixer body (Fig 3),
wherein the apex is defined where the trailing edge meets the leading edge (Fig 6), and
wherein the apex is provided radially closest to the premixer centerline (Fig 3), and the foot is provided radially farthest from the premixer centerline (Fig 3);
an air injection orifice (70) provided in the premixer body and located downstream of the vortex generator (Fig 3); and
a fuel injection orifice (63) provided along the premixer body and opening into the primary flow path (Fig 3), the fuel injection orifice being provided axially forward of the air injection orifice (Fig 3),
wherein the fuel injection orifice is provided along the trailing edge (Figs 3, 6).
Yang further teaches the engine is a hydrogen burning gas turbine engine ([n0001]).
Yang does not clearly teach using a compressor to supply the air to the combustor.
However, Johnson teaches a hydrogen ([0006]) burning gas turbine engine (Fig 1) that uses a compressor to supply the air for combustion (24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nondescript air source of Yang to use a compressor as taught by Johnson because Johnson teaches the combination of compressor and hydrogen gas turbine engine (Johnson, Fig 1). Furthermore, it has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, using the hydrogen burning gas turbine arrangement of Johnson (incl. compressor) for the non-descript gas turbine of Yang; and/or using the hydrogen-burning combustor of Yang for the gas turbine (incl. compressor) of Johnson; would have yielded the predictable results of a functional hydrogen burning gas turbine engine with compressor, combustor, and turbine.
Regarding claim 2, Yang in view of Johnson teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Yang further teaches the air injection orifice emits a flow of compressed air into the primary flow path at a cross angle to the primary flow path (Figs 3-4).
Regarding claim 3, Yang in view of Johnson teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Yang further teaches a fuel injection channel exhausting into the primary flow path at the fuel injection orifice (Fig 9 below),
PNG
media_image4.png
526
650
media_image4.png
Greyscale
the fuel injection channel having a fuel channel centerline intersecting the fuel injection orifice at a center point (Fig 9 above).
Regarding claim 4, Yang in view of Johnson teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Yang further teaches the vortex generator extends between a farthest upstream portion (Fig 3 below) and a farthest downstream portion (Fig 3 below) a first axial distance (dotted double-head arrow in Fig 3 below), with respect to the premixer centerline (Fig 3); and
PNG
media_image5.png
598
727
media_image5.png
Greyscale
the center point is provided a second axial distance from the farthest upstream portion of the vortex generator, with respect to the premixer centerline, the second axial distance being 100% of the first axial distance (i.e. fuel injection orifice at downstream portion, thus first and second axial distances are the same).
Regarding claim 6, Yang in view of Johnson teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Yang further teaches a fuel manifold (inside 60; Fig 9) provided within the premixer body (Fig 3), with the fuel injection channel extending between the fuel manifold and the fuel injection orifice (Fig 9).
Regarding claim 10, Yang in view of Johnson teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Yang further teaches the vortex generator is included within a plurality of vortex generators circumferentially spaced along the premixer body (Fig 3);
the fuel injection orifice is included within a plurality of fuel injection orifices circumferentially spaced along the premixer body (Figs 3, 6); and
each vortex generator of the plurality of vortex generators is circumferentially aligned with at least one fuel injection orifice of the plurality of fuel injection orifices (Figs 3 and 6, showing each vortex generator comprising its own set of fuel injection orifices).
Regarding claim 11, Yang in view of Johnson teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Yang further teaches the fuel injection orifice is circumferentially aligned with the air injection orifice (Fig 3 shows a cross-section including at least two vortex generators, their respective fuel injection orifices, and respectively aligned air injection orifices 70 in the same plane).
Regarding claim 13, Yang in view of Johnson teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Yang further teaches the vortex generator is a double-sided wedge (Figs 3 and 6-10).
Regarding claim 14, Yang in view of Johnson teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Yang further teaches the fuel injection orifice is configured to emit a primary flow of fuel into the primary flow path, the primary flow of fuel including a hydrogen fuel ([n0071]).
Regarding claim 16, Yang in view of Johnson teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Yang further teaches the fuel injection orifice is included within a plurality of fuel injection orifices (Figs 3, 6), and wherein each fuel injection orifice of the plurality of fuel injection orifice orifices is provided along the vortex generator (Figs 3, 6).
Regarding claim 17, Yang teaches a fuel nozzle (incl. 52, 53, 40, 60; Fig 3) for a turbine engine ([n0001]) comprising an air source (required to supply air to 10; [n0065, 81]), a combustion section (Fig 3), and turbine section (required by turbine engine [n0001]) in serial flow arrangement ([n0069]), the fuel nozzle comprising:
PNG
media_image2.png
594
636
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a premixer body (from 52 to 53, and including 53) having a premixer centerline (dash-dot line in Fig 3 above) and defining a primary flow path (from 51 to 53);
a vortex generator (60) extending into the primary flow path (Fig 3), the vortex generator comprising a leading edge (61), a trailing edge (62), a foot (Fig 6 below), and an apex (Fig 6 below),
PNG
media_image3.png
472
450
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein the foot is defined where the leading edge meets the premixer body (Fig 3),
wherein the apex is defined where the trailing edge meets the leading edge (Fig 6), and
wherein the apex is provided radially closest to the premixer centerline (Fig 3), and the foot is provided radially farthest from the premixer centerline (Fig 3); and
a fuel injection orifice (63) provided along the premixer body and opening into the primary flow path (Fig 3), the fuel injection orifice being provided along the vortex generator (Fig 3),
wherein the fuel injection orifice is provided along the trailing edge (Figs 3, 6).
Yang further teaches the engine is a hydrogen burning gas turbine engine ([n0001]).
Yang does not clearly teach using a compressor to supply the air to the combustor.
However, Johnson teaches a hydrogen ([0006]) burning gas turbine engine (Fig 1) that uses a compressor to supply the air for combustion (24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nondescript air source of Yang to use a compressor as taught by Johnson because Johnson teaches the combination of compressor and hydrogen gas turbine engine (Johnson, Fig 1). Furthermore, it has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, using the hydrogen burning gas turbine arrangement of Johnson (incl. compressor) for the non-descript gas turbine of Yang; and/or using the hydrogen-burning combustor of Yang for the gas turbine (incl. compressor) of Johnson; would have yielded the predictable results of a functional hydrogen burning gas turbine engine with compressor, combustor, and turbine.
Regarding claim 20, Yang in view of Johnson teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Yang further teaches the fuel injection orifice is included within a plurality of fuel injection orifices provided along the trailing edge (Figs 3, 6).
Regarding claim 21, Yang in view of Johnson teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above.
PNG
media_image6.png
594
636
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Yang further teaches the vortex generator further includes opposing side walls (64) on circumferentially opposite sides of the vortex generator (Figs 3, 6) and a vortex centerline (L1 in Fig 3 above) extending between the apex and a point along the premixer body between the opposing side walls (interpreted under 112b; Fig 3).
Regarding claim 22, Yang in view of Johnson teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above.
PNG
media_image6.png
594
636
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Yang further teaches the vortex centerline is non-parallel to a radial line (L2) extending from the premixer centerline and intersecting the vortex centerline (Fig 3 above).
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Johnson, and further in view of Sattelmayer 5626017.
Regarding claim 5, Yang in view of Johnson teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Yang in view of Johnson does not teach the premixer body includes a fuel nozzle outlet, the fuel nozzle outlet having a hydraulic diameter; and the center point is provided a first axial distance from the fuel nozzle outlet, the first axial distance being greater than 0 times and less than or equal to 200 times the hydraulic diameter.
However, Sattelmayer teaches fuel injection at or near the vortex generators in a premixing body can take many interchangeable forms (col.7 ll.61-65; Figs 10-16), including embodiments with fuel injection orifices on the vortex generator itself (Figs 13-16; including along the trailing edge, Fig 16) and with fuel injection orifices in the premixer body both along the vortex generator (between leading and trailing edges; Fig 10) and upstream and downstream of the vortex generator by some axial distance (Figs 10-12). Sattelmayer thus teaches both 1) using fuel injection orifices on the vortex generator trailing edge (227; Fig 16), and 2) using fuel injection orifices (221; Fig 10) on the premixer body along the vortex generator and fuel nozzle outlet(s) (220; Fig 10) in the premixer body, as substitutional equivalents (col.7 ll.61-65; col.8 ll.47-52). Sattelmayer further teaches the fuel nozzle outlet(s) having a hydraulic diameter (Fig 10); and the center point of each fuel injection orifice is provided a first axial distance from the fuel nozzle outlet(s), the first axial distance being greater than 0 times and less than or equal to 200 times the hydraulic diameter (Fig 10; all of 221s are axial spaced from all of 220s by a non-zero distance at least greater than the radius of 221 plus the radius of 220, which would be greater than 0% of the hydraulic diameter of any of the 220s).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fuel injection of Yang in view of Johnson to use additional and/or substituted fuel injection orifice(s) and fuel nozzle outlet(s) of Sattelmayer because Sattelmayer teach the substitutional equivalence of using any of various combinations of apertures in different locations and arrangements including both the fuel injection orifices of Yang and the fuel injection orifices and fuel nozzle outlets claimed (Sattelmayer, col.7 ll.61-65; col.8 ll.47-52; Figs 10-16). Furthermore, MPEP 2144.06(II) provides that substitution of equivalents (fuel injection at vortex generator trailing edge vs. along vortex generator body vs. downstream of vortex generator) known for the same purpose (injecting fuel for premixing with air in a gas turbine combustor already comprising vortex generators for such purpose) in the prior art was an obvious extension of prior art teachings.
Claims 7-9, 12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Johnson, and further in view of Chyou 5498155.
Regarding claim 7, Yang in view of Johnson teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Yang in view of Johnson does not teach a centerbody extending through the primary flow path.
However, Chyou teaches adding a centerbody (of 24; Fig 9 below) extending through the primary flow path for dual fuel operation (e.g. gas fuel through fuel injection orifice(s) in the vortex generator and liquid fuel through the centerbody; Figs 4-5, and 8-9; col.7 ll.14-30) as an alternative to using only fuel injection on/around the vortex generators (Figs 4-5, 8).
PNG
media_image7.png
349
585
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plain vortex generator combustor of Yang in view of Johnson to use a centerbody for further fuel injection as taught by Chyou in order to provide dual fuel operation (Chyou, col.7 ll.14-30).
Regarding claim 8, Yang in view of Johnson and Chyou teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Yang in view of Johnson and Chyou as discussed so far, does not teach the centerbody includes a central fuel channel exhausting into the primary flow path at a fuel jet.
However, Chyou further teaches the centerbody includes a central fuel channel exhausting into the primary flow path at a fuel jet (col.7 ll.14-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vortex generator combustor of Yang in view of Johnson and Chyou to use a centerbody for further fuel injection as taught by Chyou in order to provide dual fuel operation (Chyou, col.7 ll.14-30).
Regarding claim 9, Yang in view of Johnson and Chyou teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Yang in view of Johnson and Chyou as discussed so far, does not teach the fuel jet is provided downstream of the vortex generator.
However, Chyou further teaches the fuel jet is provided downstream of the vortex generator (Fig 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vortex generator combustor of Yang in view of Johnson and Chyou to use a centerbody for further fuel injection as taught by Chyou in order to provide dual fuel operation (Chyou, col.7 ll.14-30).
Regarding claim 12, Yang in view of Johnson teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Yang in view of Johnson as discussed so far, does not teach the vortex generator is circumferentially oriented to direct a flow of compressed air flowing over the vortex generator in a circumferential direction such that the flow of compressed air includes a swirl number of greater than 0 and less than or equal to 1.
However, Chyou teaches arranging the vortex generators (9A which may be similar to that of Fig 5; col.7 ll.25-39) of a combustion chamber (Figs 7a-b) circumferentially to direct a flow of compressed air (hollow arrow) flowing over the vortex generator in a circumferential direction such that the flow of compressed air includes a swirl number of greater than 0 and less than or equal to 1 (col.6 ll.52-64; col.7 ll.25-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vortex generator combustor of Yang in view of Johnson to create the single swirl taught by Chyou because Chyou teaches this approach as an alternative to individual swirling (Chyou, Figs 6-8; col.6 l.52 - col.7 l.39).
Regarding claim 15, Yang in view of Johnson teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Yang in view of Johnson as discussed so far, does not teach a centerbody extending through the primary flow path and having a central fuel channel, wherein the central fuel channel is configured to emit a secondary flow of fuel into the primary flow path, the primary secondary flow of fuel including a fuel different from [[the]]a fuel of the primary flow of fuel.
However, Chyou teaches adding a centerbody (of 24; Fig 9 below) extending through the primary flow path for dual fuel operation (e.g. gas fuel through fuel injection orifice(s) in the vortex generator and liquid fuel through the centerbody; Figs 4-5, and 8-9; col.7 ll.14-30) as an alternative to using only fuel injection on/around the vortex generators (Figs 4-5, 8); the centerbody thus having a central fuel channel (col.7 ll.14-30), wherein the central fuel channel is configured to emit a secondary flow of fuel into the primary flow path (col.7 ll.14-30), the primary secondary flow of fuel including a fuel different from a fuel of the primary flow of fuel exiting the fuel orifices of the vortex generators (col.7 ll.14-30).
PNG
media_image7.png
349
585
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plain vortex generator combustor of Yang in view of Johnson to use a centerbody for further fuel injection as taught by Chyou in order to provide dual fuel operation (Chyou, col.7 ll.14-30).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09 April 2026 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE SEBASCO CHENG whose telephone number is (469)295-9153. The examiner can normally be reached on 0600-0900 AM ET M-F and 1-2PM T/R.
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 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEPHANIE SEBASCO CHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights