This office action is in response to the amendment and remarks filed on 04/20/2026. Claims 1-5, 14, 16, 18 and 22-27 are currently pending and being examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 25 and 26 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection (Swann US 2016/0146117). Refer to rejection below for details. Since the examiner has applied new grounds of rejection, this office action is being made non-final to afford the applicant the opportunity to respond to the new grounds of rejection.
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.
Claim 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swann (US 2016/0146117) in view of Frey et al. by (US 2023/0212990) .
In regards to Independent Claim 25, and with particular reference to Figure 3, Swann discloses a system, comprising:
a gas turbine (labeled as 10 in figure 1) exhausting an expanded flue-gas flow (flow coming out of the turbine section 18/19 via the exhaust nozzle 20); and
a fuel blending system 24 to provide a gas mixture (gas mixture coming out of the fuel blender 48 via outlet 50) to the gas turbine, the fuel blending system comprising:
a blending unit 48 comprising three inlets (a first inlet for receiving fluid 32; a second inlet for receiving fluid 34, a third inlet for receiving fluid 36) for three different components of the gas mixture (gas mixture coming out of outlet 50); and
a control unit 26 coupled to the blending unit 48 (controller 26 regulates the fluids flow into the blending unit 48 via the valves/regulators 42, 44, 46 that receive control signals 52 from the controller 26), wherein the control unit 26 is configured to regulate flow of fluids for the gas mixture into the three inlets of the blending unit 48 (par. 42).
Swann teaches that engine exhaust emissions can be controlled to comply with emissions requirements by controlling the fluid regulators (42, 44, 46) since the blender 48 is configured to mix the different fuel composition provided to it via the regulators in order to produce a resultant fuel composition (pars. 42, 43).
Swann does not teach an emissions monitoring system coupled to control unit and to the turbine outlet of the turbine section, the emissions monitoring system configured to generate, a measured amount of NOx, CO, or C02 in the expanded flue-gas flow, and a predicted amount of NOx, CO, or C02 in the expanded flue-gas flow, wherein the control unit is configured to regulate flow into the first fuel-gas inlet, the second fuel-gas inlet, and the inert-gas inlet of the blending unit in response to the content of the gas mixture that exits the gas-mixture outlet, the measured amount of NOx, CO, or C02 in the expanded flue-gas flow, and the predicted amount of NOx, CO, or C02 in the expanded flue-gas flow.
Frey teaches (particularly figure 2) a system similar to Swann comprising: a fuel blending system 29 to provide a gas mixture (gas mixture coming out of the fuel blender 34) to the gas turbine, the fuel blending system comprising: a blending unit 34 comprising plural inlets (a first inlet for receiving fluid 30; a second inlet for receiving fluid 32) for plural different components of the gas mixture (gas mixture coming out of the blender 34); and a control unit 42 coupled to the blending unit 34 (controller 42 regulates the fluids flow into the blending unit 34 via the valves/regulators 36, 38 that receive control signals [shown as dotted lines] from the controller 42); and
an emissions monitoring system (52, 80) coupled to control unit 42 and to the turbine outlet of the turbine section, the emissions monitoring system configured to generate,
a measured amount of NOx, CO, or CO2 in the expanded flue-gas flow (via sensor 52; par. 30, 34), and
a predicted amount of NOx, CO, or CO2 in the expanded flue-gas flow (predicted emissions via the emissions model 80; pars. 39, 40),
wherein the control unit 42 is configured to regulate flow of fluids for the gas mixture into the first fuel-gas inlet (regulate via valve 36 or 38; par. 25, 28) , the second fuel-gas inlet (regulate via valve 36 or 38; par. 25, 28) of the blending unit, in response to the content of the gas mixture that exits the gas-mixture outlet (data received by controller from the fuel gas analyzer 40; par. 28), the measured amount of NOx, CO, or CO2 in the expanded flue-gas flow (data received by the controller from sensor 52; par. 34), and the predicted amount of NOx, CO, or CO2 in the expanded flue-gas flow (data predicted by the emissions model 80; par. 39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system of Swann with an emissions monitoring system, as taught by Frey, in order to monitor and control engine exhaust emissions so as to comply with regulatory emissions requirements (pars. 34, 39-41, 56, 57 in Frey).
Regarding dependent Claim 26, Swann in view of Frey teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above and Swann further teaches wherein the fluids include fuel (par. 47-50, 53-59 teach different fuels).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to all the references listed in the PTO-892 form attached to this office action with particular attention to the following references (showing a fuel blender 104 with multiple inlets for different fuels Fa, Fb, Fc, Fd…….including an inert gas {nitrogen, steam}):
US 12,523,179: 12,379,109; US 12,287,095; US 12,281,620
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5, 14, 16, 18, 22-24 are allowed in view of the amendments to the claims filed on 04/20/2026.
Claim 27 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With respect to independent claim 1, the prior art of record neither discloses nor makes obvious the combination set forth in the independent claim, particularly "a blending unit having a first fuel-gas inlet, a second fuel-gas inlet, and an inert-gas inlet that receive a first fuel-gas, a second fuel-gas, and an inert-gas, respectively, wherein the control unit is configured to regulate flow into the first fuel-gas inlet, the second fuel-gas inlet, and the inert-gas inlet of the blending unit in response to the content of the gas mixture that exits the gas-mixture outlet, the measured amount of NOx, CO, or C02 in the expanded flue-gas flow, and the predicted amount of NOx, CO, or C02 in the expanded flue-gas flow", in combination with the other claim limitations.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4831. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-6:30.
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 at 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.
/William H Rodriguez/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights