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 .
Election/Restrictions
No claim is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Annular Combustion Chamber Species I: [Figure 1, top right - configuration with a direct chamber]; Downstream End Species II: [Figure 4B]; and Outer Annular Channel Species III: [Figure 5C], there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on March 2, 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Annular Combustion Chamber Species I; Downstream End Species II; and Outer Annular Channel Species III in the reply filed on March 2, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the technical relationship involving the same special technical features (the swirling dihydrogen/air interaction) is present throughout all embodiments.
With respect to the generic claim, the Examiner agreed with the Applicant that claim 1 is a generic claim. With respect to the Unity of invention, the Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive because as clearly stated in the 37 CFR 1.475(a), in addition to the “requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features,” 37 CFR 1.475(a) also stated that “The expression "special technical features" shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.” Obviously, the various Species listed in the previous Office Action comprising technical features that define a “contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.” In other words, if the various Species has no "special technical features," then the listed prior art below should and would anticipate all of these "special technical features" in the Species elaborated in the previous Office Action.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
Color photographs and color drawings (gray shading in Fig. 1) are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
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 5 and 13 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the discharge velocity" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The limitation “a tangential velocity and the discharge velocity along the longitudinal axis of a flow of dihydrogen” in lines 2-3 of claim 3 rendering the claim indefinite because: First, it is unclear if both of the velocities are created by the flow of dihydrogen or only the “discharge velocity?” Second, it is unclear if the limitation refers to both of the velocities to flow along the longitudinal axis of just the “discharge velocity?” Clarification is respectfully requested.
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.
(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) 1-4, 6, 11, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Keller et al. (US20190078777. Keller hereinafter).
With respect to claim 1, Keller discloses a longitudinal-axis (X) dihydrogen injection device (Figs. 1-5) configured to (capable of) be mounted on an annular bottom of an annular combustion chamber (Fig. 1 and paragraph 30) of a turbomachine (2), the injection device comprising an inner channel (40) configured to circulate dihydrogen and an outer annular channel (32) configured to circulate a mixture comprising at least air, wherein the inner channel and the outer annular channel are coaxial, an inner swirler (42) is housed in the inner channel and an outer swirler (34) is housed in the outer annular channel, and wherein a downstream end of the inner channel is arranged upstream, at a distance r, from a downstream end of the outer annular channel (Fig. 4).
With respect to claim 2, Keller discloses the injection device according to claim 1, wherein the inner channel is a central tubular channel (Fig. 4).
With respect to claim 3, Keller discloses the injection device according to claim 1, wherein the inner swirler has a helical shape (Fig. 4).
With respect to claim 4, Keller discloses the injection device according to claim 1, wherein the inner swirler is arranged along the longitudinal axis downstream from the outer swirler (Fig. 4 and same configuration as the Applicant’s invention).
With respect to claim 6, Keller discloses the injection device according to claim 1, wherein the inner swirler is arranged upstream, at a distance I (one spacing), from a downstream (tip) end of the inner channel (Fig. 4 and same configuration as the Applicant’s invention).
With respect to claim 11, Keller discloses the injection device according to claim 1, wherein the outer swirler is arranged near an upstream end of said outer annular channel at a distance L from the downstream end of the outer annular channel (Fig. 4 and same configuration as the Applicant’s invention).
With respect to claim 14, Keller discloses the injection device according to claim 1, wherein the mixture is air (of the post-flame gases).
With respect to claim 15, Keller discloses an assembly (2. Fig. 1) comprising the injection device (30) according to claim 1, wherein the inner channel is fluidly connected to dihydrogen supply means (via 24), the inner swirler is configured to rotate said dihydrogen, the outer annular channel is fluidly connected to air supply means (via 12), and the outer swirler is configured to rotate said air.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 5, 7-10, 12 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller.
With respect to claim 5, Keller discloses the injection device according to claim 1 except for wherein a rotation rate S generated by the inner swirler is defined as a ratio between a tangential velocity and the discharge velocity along the longitudinal axis of a flow of dihydrogen leaving the inner swirler, and wherein the rotation rate S is greater than or equal to 0.6.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the rotation rate S greater than or equal to 0.6 (by changing the spiraling angle of the swirler), since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 7, Keller discloses the injection device according to claim 1 except for wherein a thickness of the wall e of the inner channel and an inner diameter d of the inner channel are such that a ratio e/d is between 0.05 and 0.7.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the ratio e/d is between 0.05 and 0.7 (by changing the thickness of the wall e of the inner channel and an inner diameter d of the inner channel), since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 8, Keller discloses the injection device according to claim 1 except for wherein the inner channel has an inner diameter d, and the outer annular channel has an inner diameter D such that a ratio D/d is between 3 and 10.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the ratio D/d is between 3 and 10 (by changing the an inner diameter d, and the inner diameter D), since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 9, Keller discloses the injection device according to claim 16 except for wherein a ratio I/d is between 1 and 3.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the ratio I/d is between 1 and 3 (by changing the distance I and the inner diameter d), since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 10, Keller discloses the injection device according to claim 8 except for wherein the distance r is between 0.05D and 0.5D.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the distance r is between 0.05D and 0.5D (by changing the distance r and/or the inner diameter D), since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 12, Keller discloses the injection device according to claim 11 except for wherein the inner channel has an inner diameter d, and the outer annular channel has an inner diameter D such that a ratio D/d is between 3 and 10, and the distance L is between 1D and 5D.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the ratio D/d is between 3 and 10, and the distance L is between 1D and 5D (by changing the inner diameter d, the inner diameter D and the distance L), since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 16, Keller discloses the injection device according to claim 6 except for wherein a thickness of the wall e of the inner channel and an inner diameter d of the inner channel are such that a ratio e/d is between 0.05 and 0.7.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the ratio e/d is between 0.05 and 0.7 (by changing the thickness of the wall e of the inner channel and the inner diameter d of the inner channel), since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to show the art with respect to an injection device: Irwin, Fournier, Joshi, Wang, Bedetti and Adendorff.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHEE-CHONG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -5pm.
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, Arthur O. Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 May 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights