This office action is in response to the amendment, remarks and request for continued examination filed on 11/10/2025. Claims 1-5, 12-14 and 16-27 are currently pending and being examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/10/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5, 12-14 and 16-27 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection (Frey et al. US 2023/0212990 in view of Wasif (US 2011/0300491) necessitated by the amendment. Refer particularly to underline and bolded sections in the rejections below.
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 first fuel gas regulation valve, the inert gas regulation valve, the second fuel gas regulation valve, the pressure sensor, the temperature sensor, the relative humidity sensor in claims 12, 13 and 19-21 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 § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 1-5, 12-14 and 16-24 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 1 recites the limitation "the second fuel-gas inlet" in line 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Notice that in line 14 the recitation “a second fuel inlet” is not the same as “a second fuel-gas inlet”. Also notice that the recitation “a second fuel-gas inlet” is added again in claims 4, 5. Appropriate correction and consistency is required.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the fuel gas" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Notice that in claim 1 line 14 the recitation “a first fuel-gas inlet” is not the same as “the fuel gas”. Appropriate correction and consistency is required.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the inert gas" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Notice that in the recitation “an inert-gas inlet” is not the same as “the inert gas”. Appropriate correction and consistency is required.
Claims 4 and 5 recites the limitation "a second fuel-gas inlet" in line 2 respectively. However, in claim 1 line 25 this recitation (the second fuel-gas inlet) appears to be already included. Appropriate correction and consistency is required.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the second fuel-gas" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Notice that the recitation “the second fuel-gas” is not the same as “the second fuel-gas inlet”. Appropriate correction and consistency is required.
Claim 14 recites “wherein the comprises an artificial neural network configured to contribute the predicted amount. It appears this amended claim 14 is incomplete, refer to the previous claim 14, shown below. Appropriate correction and consistency is required.
PNG
media_image1.png
152
702
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the inert gas" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Notice that the recitation “the inert gas” is not the same as “the inert-gas inlet”. Appropriate correction and consistency is required.
The subject matter as recited in amended Claim 17 is already included in amended claim 1. Appropriate correction and consistency is required (delete claim 17).
Claims 12 and 18-24 depend from Claim 1 and are rejected accordingly.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The subject matter as recited in amended Claim 17 is already included in amended claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-5, 12, 13 and 16-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frey et al. by (US 2023/0212990) in view of Wasif (US 2011/0300491).
PNG
media_image2.png
680
919
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
579
864
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
579
862
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regards to Independent Claim 1, and with particular reference to Figures 2 and 3, Frey discloses a gas turbine system 100, comprising:
a compressor section 14 having a compressor inlet and a compressor outlet, wherein the compressor section is configured to compress an oxidant flow 24 from the compressor inlet, that results in a compressed oxidant flow 25 at the compressor outlet;
a combustor section 16 having a combustor inlet and a combustor outlet and a fuel supply conduit (conduit for delivering fuel in line 26), the combustor inlet being fluidly coupled to the compressor outlet, the combustor section comprising a combustion chamber fluidly coupled to the combustor inlet, the combustor outlet, and the fuel supply conduit, wherein the combustion chamber and is configured for diffusion-flame combustion (at least the flame generated by the pilot injector(s)) of a fuel (the fuel supplied by the fuel conduit) and an oxidant 25 therein that results in flow of a flue-gas flow 27 at the combustor outlet;
a turbine section 18 having a turbine inlet and a turbine outlet, the turbine inlet being fluidly coupled to the combustor outlet, wherein the turbine section is configured to expand the flue-gas flow 27 that results in an expanded flue-gas flow 28 at the turbine outlet;
a blending unit (as shown in marked-up figure 2 above; notice that the blending unit can be selected arbitrarily since the blending unit as recited does not recite any specific structural characteristics that distinguish it from the applied prior art) having a first fuel-gas inlet (inlet for fuel 32 as shown in marked-up figure 2 above), a second fuel-gas inlet (inlet for fuel 30 as shown in marked-up figure 2 above), and an inert-gas inlet (refer to marked-up figure 2 above, per par. 43), and a gas-mixture outlet (outlet of the labeled blending unit carrying a fuel blend 26 to the combustor), fluidly coupled to the fuel supply conduit 26 of the combustor section;
a fuel gas analyzer 40 coupled downstream of the gas-mixture outlet of the blending unit and upstream of the combustor chamber, the fuel gas analyzer configured to determine a content of the gas mixture that exits the gas-mixture outlet (par. 26, 31);
a control unit 42 coupled to the fuel gas analyzer 40 and to the blending unit; 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 into the first fuel-gas inlet (regulate via valve 38; par. 25, 28) , the second fuel-gas inlet (regulate via valve 36; 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).
Frey does not schematically show a valve or other means to regulate the flow into the inert gas inlet, although one of ordinary skill in the art would know that fluids are not added/introduced/injected at random in a combustor of a gas turbine engine but in a controlled manner. For instance, Wasif teaches this known fact of regulating the flow of an inert gas (diluent 28) via a valve 24 that is controlled by a controller 22.
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 Freay with a valve to regulate the flow of inert gas, as taught by Wasif, in order to accurately regulate the flow of a diluent (par.20, figure 1 in Wasif).
Notice that Freay already teaches using an inert gas into the fuel blend 26 (par. 43) and controlling the fuel flows 30/32 in response to the content of the gas mixture that exits the gas-mixture outlet (via analyzer 40; pars. 28, 34, 39). As was previously shown above in the marked-up figure 2 of Freay, the inert gas line, inert gas inlet and valve (in view of Wasif) are to be located before the sensor 40 in Frey, thus the regulation of the inert gas via the added inert gas valve (in view of Wasif) would also be controlled based on the reading from analyzer 40.
Regarding dependent Claim 2, Frey in view of Wasif teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above and Frey further teaches wherein a first fuel-gas is hydrogen (par. 22, 23) or a gas mixture containing predominantly hydrogen (par. 22).
Regarding dependent Claim 3, Frey in view of Wasif teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above and Frey further teaches wherein the inert gas contains nitrogen, carbon dioxide, argon, helium, H20, or a mixture thereof (par. 43 teaches the inert gas is nitrogen).
Regarding dependent Claim 4, Frey discloses wherein the blending unit further comprises a second fuel-gas inlet (shown in marked-up figure 2 above) to receive an additional fuel gas, and wherein the control unit 42 is configured to regulate flow into the second fuel gas (via valves 36 or 38).
Regarding dependent Claim 5, Frey in view of Wasif teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above and Frey further teaches wherein the blending unit comprises a second fuel-gas inlet (32 or 30) to receive an additional fuel gas, and wherein the second fuel gas contains natural gas, ammonia, LPG, biofuel, electro-fuel, syngas, or CO (pars. 21-23 teaches a variety of fuels).
Regarding dependent Claim 12, Frey in view of Wasif teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above and Frey as modified by Wasif further teaches a first fuel gas regulation valve (36 or 38 in Frey); and an inert gas regulation valve (refer to marked-up figure 2 above of Frey in view of Wasif), wherein the control unit (42 in Frey) is configured to regulate opening and closing of the first fuel gas regulation valve (36 or 38) and the inert gas regulation valve to regulate flow into the first fuel-gas inlet and the inert-gas inlet of the blending unit (refer to rejection of claim 1 and marked-up figure above Frey in view of Wasif).
Regarding dependent Claim 13, Frey in view of Wasif teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above and Frey as modified by Wasif further teaches a second fuel-gas regulation valve (36 or 38 in Frey), wherein the control unit (42 in Frey) is configured to regulate opening and closing of the regulation valve (36 or 38) of the second fuel-gas to regulate flow into the second fuel-gas inlet of the blending unit.
Regarding dependent Claim 16, Frey in view of Wasif teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above and Frey further teaches wherein the inert gas contains a gas mixture containing predominantly nitrogen (par. 43).
Regarding dependent Claim 17, Frey in view of Wasif teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above and Frey further teaches wherein the control unit 42 is configured to regulate flow into the second fuel gas inlet (via valves 36 or 38).
Regarding dependent Claim 18, Frey in view of Wasif teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above and Frey further teaches wherein the emissions system continuously monitors the measured amount of NOx, CO, or C02 (pars. 34, 39).
Regarding dependent Claim 19, Frey in view of Wasif teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above and Frey further teaches wherein the blending unit comprises a pressure sensor (par. 26), and wherein the control unit 42 regulates flow into the fuel-gas inlet and the inert- gas inlet of the blending unit in response to the pressure sensor (par. 26).
Regarding dependent Claim 20, Frey in view of Wasif teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above and Frey further teaches wherein the blending unit comprises a temperature sensor, and wherein the control unit regulates flow into the fuel-gas inlet and the inert- gas inlet of the blending unit in response to the temperature sensor (par. 26).
Regarding dependent Claim 21, Frey in view of Wasif teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above and Frey further teaches wherein the blending unit comprises a relative humidity sensor, and wherein the control unit regulates flow into the fuel-gas inlet and the inert-gas inlet of the blending unit in response to the pressure sensor (par. 32 sensors 46 and 48 can each obtain any other measurement).
Regarding dependent Claim 22, Frey in view of Wasif teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above and Frey further teaches wherein the control unit 42 regulates flow into the fuel-gas inlet and the inert-gas inlet of the blending unit in response to pressure drop (par. 26) between the compressor inlet and ambident pressure.
Regarding dependent Claim 23, Frey in view of Wasif teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above and Frey further teaches wherein the control unit regulates flow into the fuel-gas inlet and the inert-gas inlet of the blending unit in response to flame temperature (par. 33).
Regarding dependent Claim 24, Frey in view of Wasif teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above and Frey further teaches wherein the control unit 42 regulates flow into the fuel-gas inlet and the inert-gas inlet of the blending unit in response to composition of the fuel (via gas analyzer 40 and valves 36, 38).
In regards to Independent Claim 25, and with particular reference to Figures 2 and 3, Frey discloses a system 100, comprising:
a gas turbine exhausting an expanded flue-gas flow 28; and
a fuel blending system to provide a gas mixture 26 to the gas turbine, the fuel blending system comprising:
a blending unit (as shown in marked-up figure 2 above for the rejection of claim 1) comprising three inlets for three different components of the gas mixture (as shown in marked-up figure 2 above; the inlets for the first fuel-gas inlet, the second fuel-gas inlet and the inert-gas inlet)
; and
a control unit 42 coupled to the fuel gas analyzer 40 and to the blending unit; 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).
Frey does not schematically show a valve or other means to regulate the flow into the third inlet/the inert gas inlet, although one of ordinary skill in the art would know that fluids are not added/introduced/injected at random in a combustor of a gas turbine engine but in a controlled manner. For instance, Wasif teaches this known fact of regulating the flow of an inert gas (diluent 28) via a valve 24 that is controlled by a controller 22.
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 Freay with a valve to regulate the flow of inert gas, as taught by Wasif, in order to accurately regulate the flow of a diluent (par.20, figure 1 in Wasif).
Notice that Freay already teaches using an inert gas into the fuel blend 26 (par. 43) and controlling the fuel flows 30/32 in response to the content of the gas mixture that exits the gas-mixture outlet (via analyzer 40; pars. 28, 34, 39). As was previously shown above in the marked-up figure 2 of Freay, the inert gas line, inert gas inlet and valve (in view of Wasif) are to be located before the sensor 40 in Frey, thus the regulation of the inert gas via the added inert gas valve (in view of Wasif) would also be controlled based on the reading from analyzer 40.
Regarding dependent Claim 26, Frey in view of Wasif teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above and Frey further teaches wherein the fluids include fuel (par. 21).
Regarding dependent Claim 27, Frey in view of Wasif teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above and Frey further teaches wherein the fluids include inert gas (nitrogen in par. 43).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frey in view of Wasif and further in view of Gomer et al. (US 2006/0106737).
Frey in view of Wasif teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed except the emissions monitoring system comprises an artificial neural network configure to contribute the predicted amount.
Gomer teaches that using artificial neural network/artificial intelligence to predict emissions is well-known and commonly use in order to obtain more accurate and thus more successful estimates of predicted emissions (par. 30).
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 emissions system of Freay-Wasif with an artificial neural network/artificial intelligence, as taught by Gomer, in order to obtain more accurate and thus more successful estimates of predicted emissions (par. 30 in Gomer).
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