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 .
Response to Amendment
The response filed on August 20, 2026 is acknowledged. Three pages of drawings were received on August 20, 2026. The drawings are acceptable.
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No claim is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Annular Combustion Chamber Species I: [Figure 1, top right -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.
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 of a flow of dihydrogen leaving the inner swirler and a discharge velocity of said flow of dihydrogen along the longitudinal axis, 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on August 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that Keller fails to disclose “a mixture comprising at least air" as recited in line 4 of claim 1. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See: MPEP §2114. In the instant case, the terms “configured to,” in line 4 of claim 1, clearly indicated the capability of the device of Keller to circulate a mixture comprising at least air. A recitation of function may not distinguish over the prior art since an apparatus claim covers what a device is, not what it does. A recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus. The material or article worked upon also does not limit an apparatus claim but is rather an intended use of the apparatus. See: MPEP §§ 2114, 2115; See also: In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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 September 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights